United States
              Environmental Protection
              Agency
             Office of
             Emergency and
             Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R07-83/001
August 1983
SEPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
              Aidex  Site,IA  (IBM)

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
  EPA/ROD/R07-83/001
                              2.
             3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
  Aidex Site,  IA  (IRM)
             5. REPORT DATE
                08/24/83
             6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR
-------
                                                         INSTRUCTIONS

    1.   REPORT NUMBER
        Insert the I PA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.

    2.   LEAVE BLANK

    3.   RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
        Reserved for use by each report recipient.

    4.   TITLE AND SUBTITLE
        Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and bo displayed prominently. Sol subtitle, if used, in Miialicr
        type or otherwise subordinate it to main title, when a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeal Hie primary title, add volume
        number and include subtitle for the specific title.

    5.   REPORT DATE
        Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year.  Indicate the basis on which ii was selected (f.g.. Jaif i>J issue, dale of
        approval, date of preparation, etc.).
                                                                                                            &
    6.   PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
        Leave blank.

    7.   AUTHOR(S)
        Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doc. J. Robert Doc. etc.).  List author's affiliation il' it differs from the performing v.rpani-
        zation.

    8.   PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
        Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.

    9.   PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS
        Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code.  List no more than two levels of an organizational hircarchy.

    10.  PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
        Use the program element number under which the report was prepared.  Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.

    11.  CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
        Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.

    12.  SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
        Include ZIP code.

    13.  TYPE OF  REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
        Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.

    14.  SPONSORING AGbNCY CODE
        Insert appropriate code.

    15.  SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
        Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared  in cooperation with. Translation of. ('resented jiYonK-u IKC ni.
        To be published in,  Supersedes, Supplements, etc.

    16.  ABSTRACT
        Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in ihe io|>ori.  II ilu- rrptiri nuiianis a
        significant bibliography or literature survey,  mention it here.

    17.  KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
        (a) DESCRIPTORS • Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorised terms that identity the major
        concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries lor catalupni;.

        (b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS • Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use- open-
        ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.

        (c) COSAT1 HI LD GROUP - Held and group assignments are to  be taken  from the 1965 (OS ATI Subject Category List. Since the ma-
        jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Held/Group assignment^) will be specific discipline, urea of human
        endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary I K-KI/(irou|> assignments thai will follow
        the primary posting(s).

    18.  DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
        Denote releasabilily to the public or limitation for reasons other than security.for example "Release IJnlimiicd." Cite any availability to
        the public, with address and price.

    19. & 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
        DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.

    21.  NUMBER OF PAGES
        Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, il any.

    22.  PRICE
        Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, il known.
EPA Form 2220-1  (R«v. 4.77) (R.v.n.)

-------
                         RECORD OF DECISION

                 Remedial Alternative Selection for
                     Initial Remedial Measures


SITE

Aidex Corporation, Council Bluffs, Iowa


DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

     I have reviewed the following documents describing the cost
effectiveness analysis of remedial alternatives at the Aidex Site:

          Feasibility Study for Initial RemediaJ Measure Revision I,
          Aidex Corporation, Council Bluffs, Iowa, April 1983.

          Remedial Action Master P]an and Project Work Statements,
          Aidex Corporation, Council Bluffs, Iowa, September 1, 1982,

          Description of Current Situation, Aidex Corporation,
          Council Bluffs, Iowa, November 30, 1982.

     -    Staff Summaries and Recommendations


DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED OPTIONS

Phase I   - On-site collection, bulking, and temporary staging of
            pesticide contaminated soJids, liquids and sludges.

          - Analysis of collected waste materials.

          - Construction of an interceptor drainage ditch around a
            portion of the site.

          - Off-site transport and disposal of bulk liquid wastes
            by deep well injection at a permitted facility.

Phase II  - Off-site transport and disposal at a permitted facility
            of remaining materials staged during Phase I.

-------
                                -2-


DECLARATIONS

     Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the National
Contingency Plan, I have determined that the proposed Initial
Remedial Measure for on-site collection bulking and staging of
waste materials, off-site transportation and disposal of waste
liquid and solid materials, and on-site drainage control is
technically feasible, cost effective, consistent with final
remedial alternatives, and necessary to limit exposure to a
significant health and environmental hazard.  Also, I have
determined that the action being taken is appropriate when
balanced against the need to use Trust Fund money at other
sites.  Finally, I have determined that the off-site transport
of hazardous substances is more cost-effective than other
remedial actions and, therefore, consistent with section
101(24) of CERCLA.
                                    Lee M. Thomas
                                    Assistant Administrator
                                    Office of Solid Waste and
                                      Emergency Response
                                      *fi 24 $63

-------
                                -3-


                           BRIEFING SHEET


     The purpose of this briefing sheet is to obtain AA approval
for the initial remedial measures recommended by Region 7 and the
State of Iowa for the Aidex site.  A "Record of Decision" has been
prepared to document the approval.

     The Aidex site is an abandoned pesticide formulation facility
located approximately seven miles south-southeast of Council
Bluffs, Mills County, Iowa, and covers an area of approximately
twenty acres.

     Environmental sampling and analyses from field investigations
of the Aidex site indicate significant concentrations of organophos-
phate, organochlorine, and s-triazine pesticides in the soil and
atrazine pesticides in the soil and atrazine contamination in
ground water.on-site.  Contamination resulted from the handling,
storing, and disposing of pesticide formulation process wastes.

     Black & Veatcn Consulting Engineers completed a Feasibility
Study for Initial Remedial Measure in April 1983.  Eight initial
remedial measure alternatives were identified and evaluated.  Black
& Veatch determined that three of these alternatives were technically
feasible and would solve current problems.  Black & Veatch recommended
that an initial remedial measure be implemented in two phases.
Phase I:  Collect, analyze, and stage the pesticide-contaminated
solids, liquids, sludges, and soil on the Aidex site; and
Phase II:  Transport these materials to a permitted facility for off-
site disposal.  On-site drainage control measures also were identified
for Phase I.

     Each technically feasible alternative was determined to prevent
or minimize the release of hazardous substances and thereby mitigate
substantial danger to public health and the environment.  Viable
alternatives and their estimated costs are presented as follows:

                                         Preliminary Opinion of
Alternatives                                 Probable Costs
Off-site incineration of liquids and     $1,108,000 - $1,293,000
off-site land disposal of solids and
residue

Off-site land disposal of solids and     $1,008,000 - $1,263,000
solidified liquids

Off-site incineration of all wastes
and off-site land disposal of            $1,783,000 - $2,193,000
residue

     The probable cost of the Phase I project was estimated to
be $673,000 to $680,000 regardless of the alternative chosen for
Phase II.

-------
                                 -4-


     Two alternatives were  considered  which  involved on-site
 incineration of either liquids or both  liquids and solids and  the
 on-site land disposal of  the  incinerator  residues and/or solids.
 A  third alternative  involved  on-site land disposal of solidified
 liquids and solids.  These  alternatives were  found not  to be
 feasible because:   (1) mobile incinerators are not available;
 (2) the site lacks adequate acceptable  space  for a landfill;
 (3) the site lies within  the  flood plain of the Missouri River;
 and (4) the hydrogeology  of the  area,  and the close proximity  of
 the site to 42 domestic water wells screened  in shallow aquifers,
 make the site unsuitable  for  a landfill.  In-situ treatment was
 also considered, but it was determined  that biodegradation of  the
 pesticide wastes is  not likely to be successful.  Finally, the "no
 action" alternative  was considered, but would not solve the problem
 of rapidly deteriorating  site conditions.

     Black & Veatch  developed the bid package for Phase I of the
 IRM, and the Corps of Engineers  selected D'Appolonia Waste Management
 Services of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to perform the work.  A Notice
 to Proceed was issued by  the  Corps on  June 13, 1983.  Work on
 Phase I is currently underway.

     After the Phase I contract  was awarded,  D'Appolonia submitted
 a proposal to the Corps to  transport off-site and dispose of
 approximately 46,000 gallons  of  bulk liquid and semi-solid wastes
 by deep well injection at Empak, Inc.,  in Deer Park, Texas.
 (Contaminated solids will remain on site pending disposal under
 Phase II).  The price quoted  was 83 cents per gallon which included
 all testing, handling and rail transportation necessary for disposal.
 It also eliminated two bid  items associated with temporary storage
of the liquids.  Installation of a railroad switch is also required
 to accommodate this option.

          $.83/gallon x 46,500 gallons  =   $38,595.00
          Minus 2 bid items eliminated  =   $39,300.00
          Add railroad switch           =   $  3,640.00

          Net change (plus)             =   $  2,935.00

     The EPA, the State, and  the Corps  reviewed this proposal  and
 found it to be cost effective to the overall  IRM project.  The cost
of storage tank decontamination, handling and salvaging during
Phase II will be saved.  Additionally,  the materials will only to
be handled once.  Even though deep well injection was not considered
during the IRM Feasibility  Study, this  method is less expensive
 than the liquid incineration  option considered.

     Deep well injection    -  $.83/gallon
     (including transportation and analytical costs)

     Liquid incineration    -  $3.76 - $5.38/gallon
     (incineration only;  transportation estimated to cost $10,000.00)

-------
                                -5-


     The Region has determined that Empak has met the inspection
and permitting requirements for facilities selected for disposal
of wastes from Superfund sites.  The Corps has reached an agreement
with D'Appolonia to make the proposed modification for $2,935.

     The bid package for Phase II of this IRM is being developed by
Black & Veatch.  As soon as analytical results are received from
the analysis of waste put into storage during Phase I, the bid
package will be transferred to the Corps.  The Corps will again
select a contractor and provide oversight during the implementation
of the IRM.  The RI/FS for final site remedial action is presently
nearing completion.

-------
                                 -6-


                          NARRATIVE SUMMARY


 Site  History

      The Aidex property  is presently owned by  the City of Glenwood
 to whom title reverted following a declaration of bankruptcy  by  the
 Aidex Corporation which  operated as a pesticide  formulator.   The
 property, covering approximately 20 acres in a rural area,  is
 located about 7 miles south-southest of Council  Bluffs,  Iowa, and
 lies  on the Missouri River floodplain and immediately abuts the
 eastern valley bluff.  The distance to the Missouri River channel
 is about three miles.  The property is bounded on the west  by the
 St. Mary's drainage ditch, on the north and east by a county  road,
 and on the south by a cultivated field.  Fourty-two (42) shallow
 domestic water wells have been  identified within a two-mile radius
 of the site.  Two residences are located within  1/4 mile of the site.

      The Iowa Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) and  the
 Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) Region VII became  involved
 with  the Aidex site in November  1976, when a fire destroyed the
 Atrazine formulation building at the facility.   Of an estimated
 100,000 gallons of water used to extinguist the  fire, most  infiltrated
 into  the ground or flowed into drainage ways surrounding the  plant
 and leading to St. Mary's ditch.  At that time,  chemical contaminat
 of the the local plant drainage ways and property was documented
 by EPA investigators.  Following the fire, plant production was
 greatly reduced and the  company  filed for bankruptcy in  1980.  The
 EPA began investigation  of this  facility as a  hazardous waste
 disposal site in 1980.

      During the August 1961, bankruptcy sale held at the site to
 liquidate the assets of  the Corporation, ethoprop (Mocap) dust was
 spilled during removal of the baghouse dust collector which resulted
 in two workmen being hospitalized with organophosphate poisoning.
 EPA responded by coordinating cleanup activities.  It was also
 noted that two large metal tanks were drained  into a concrete-lined
pit at the site of the former atrazine formulation building.  The
occurrence of these two  incidents is believed  to be a contributing
 factor to the contaminated conditions at the site.

     The Aidex site was placed on the proposed National Priorities
 List  in October 1981.  During December 1981, immediate remedial
 funds were used to fence the site to control access.

      In all, Six sampling efforts have been conducted at the  Aidex
site by EPA.  Recently analyzed soil samples show on-site
organochlorine,  organophosphate and triaz-ine pesticide contamination
ranging from several hundred parts per billion (ppb) to several
thousand parts per million (ppm).  Magnetometer and conductivity
surveys have identified two burial trenches on the site.

-------
                                -7-


     Samples of ground water under the site indicate that the
alluvial aquifer is contaminated.  While there is no present
indication that this ground water contamination has migrated any
significant distance off-site/ the potential for contamination of
nearby drinking water wells is present.  An organic vapor survey
did not indicate a significant level of volatile organic compounds
in the ambient air despite the strong chemical odor present.

     In September 1982, Black & Veatch Consulting Engineers completed
a Remedial Action Master Plan which included recommendations for
initial remedial measures to abate the deteriorating site conditions.
The State and EPA agreed that measures to limit public exposure and
prevent wastes from migrating off site were needed even while further
remedial investigation and feasibility studies were underway.  The
State of Iowa signed a State Superfund Contract on October 19, 1982,
to pledge a 10 percent match of remedial costs.  Subsequently
Black & Veatch was tasked to develop a bid package for Phase I of
the IRM.  The EPA also entered into a Interagency Agreement with
the Corps of Engineers to procure a cleanup contractor and to
provide oversight during implementation of the IRM.

     The Corps selected D'Appolonia Waste Management Services of
Pittsburg, Pennsylvania to perform the Phase I work.  D'Appolonia
was given a Notice to Proceed June 13, 1983.  Phase I work is
currently underway.

Current Status

     Procedures used by Aidex Corporation for handling, storing,
and disposing of pesticide formulation process wastes, together
with the effects of runoff from past firefighting operations, have
resulted in at least 16 pesticide compounds being available for
transport from the site by runoff or infiltration into the ground
water.   The hazards presented by runoff are worsened by the fact
that the site is subjected to uncontrolled runoff by rainwater from
the bluffs to the east.

     Following removal operations by others and a bankruptcy court
auction of plant equipment and fixtures, the site now contains five
above-grade tank shells, one buried tank, one below-grade open pit
and trench, approximately 3,400 drums, miscellaneous scattered
debris and extensively contaminated soil.  The estimated inventory
of the buried tank, the concrete pit and trench is 34,500 gallons of
liquid and 12,000 gallons of semi-solid sludge.  At the time of the
feasibility study for the IRM, it was estimated that of the 3,400
drums,  1,000 were filled with solids, 1,000 partially full of
liquids and sludges and 1,400 were empty.  Since that study was
completed, some 1,200 drums of solids were removed by a responsible
party.

-------
                                -8-
 Remedial Options

     The feasibility study for Initial Remedial Measure evaluated
 remedial options which could be utilized for cleanup of the Aidex
 site using the following criteria:

     a)   Effectiveness
     b)   Technical feasibility
     c)   Cost effectiveness
     d)   Environmental considerations; and
     e)   Implementation time frame.

     IRM alternatives were identified for the three most significantly
 contaminated segments of the hazardous waste problems at the Aidex
 site:
  0  Contaminated liquids
  0  Contaminated sludges
  0  Highly contaminated soil beneath drum stacks.

Subsequently eight IRM alternatives were identified.  They are
summarized and compared below.
     Activity

1.   No action

2.   Treatment in-situ

3.   On-site incineration and on-site
     land disposal of residue

4.   On-site incineration of liquids
     and on-site land disposal of
     solids and residue

5.   On-site land disposal of solids
     and solidified liquids

6.   Off-site incineration of solids
     and liquids and off-site land
     disposal of residue

7.   Off-site incineration of liquids
     and off-site land disposal of
     solids and residue

8.   Off-site land disposal of solid
     and solidified liquid wastes.
Estimated Cost ($1000)

          $0.

Not technically feasible

Not technically feasible
Not technically feasible



Not technically feasible


$1,783,000 - 2,193.000



$1,108,000 - 1,293,0,00



$1,008,000 - 1,263,000

-------
                                -9-


     These alternatives are also summarized and compared in Table 1
 (see attachment).  Alternative 7 (Off-site incineration of liquids
 and land disposal of solids residue) and Alternative 8 (off-site
 land disposal of solidified liquids and solids) were both considered
 to be technically feasible, cost effective, expedient and would
 protect public health and the environment.  When the Feasibility
 Study for the IRM was completed, disposal actions would only have
 occurred as part of Phase II.  However, with the proposal submitted
 by D'Appolonia, and described in the Briefing Sheet, disposal of
 bulk liquids could occur during Phase I.

     The No-Action Alternative would not solve the problem of
 continued deteriorating site conditions.  Wastes would remain
 uncontrolled on the surface of the site and be subject to leaching
 into ground water and migration off-site via surface runoff.
 On-site options were found not to be technically feasible because
mobile incinerators are not yet available for production use and
 suitable space is not available for landfilling.  Also, site
 hydrogeology is not suitable for landfill options.

 Recommended Alternataives

     Section 300.68(j) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR
 Part 300) July 16, 1982, states that the appropriate extent of
 remedy shall be determined by the lead agency's selection of the
 remedial alternative which the agency determines is cost-effective
 (i.e., the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible
and reliable and which effectively mitigates and minimizes damage
to and provides adequate protection of public health, welfare, or
 the environment).  Based on our evaluation of the cost effectiveness
of each alternative, on information from the State, and comments
by the public, we have determined that off-site disposal of waste
from the Aidex site and on-site drainage control meet NCP criteria.

State Input

     The State of Iowa has reviewed all feasibility study and
remedial plans regarding the Aidex site which EPA prepared.  The
State fully concurred on the plans for initial remedial measures by
signing Amendment No. 1 to the Aidex Superfund State Contract which
provided $50,000 in matching funds for Phase I.  The State also
concurs that off-site disposal of bulk liquid wastes should occur
during Phase I, and has submitted, in draft, Amendment No. 2 to
show such concurrence.  In addition, the attached letter from the
State supports the proposed actions.

Public Input

     A community relations program was initiated for the Aidex site
 in October 1981 when the site was placed on the Interim National
Priority List and the FIT investigation was begun.  In November
 1981, EPA Region VII staff spoke at a county supervisors meeting in
Glenwood, Iowa, concerning the problems at the Aidex site.  This
meeting was open to the public.

-------
                                 -10-


      On May  12,  1983,  an informational public meeting on the
 Aidex site as a Superfund Project was  held at the Courthouse in
 Glenwood,  Iowa.  This public meeting was arranged for the purpose
 of familiarizing  citizens with  governmental agencies providing
 oversight  of the  work,  to discuss with them the work to be performed
 during each phase,  and  to give  citizens the opportunity to ask
 questions  and voice concerns.   Off-site disposal of waste was
 specifically discussed.   Citizens and  members of the media alike
 expressed  their agreement with  the plan to move the materials to a
 secure permitted  disposal facility.

      Copies of  technical  reports  and the IRM Feasibility Study have
 been  made  available to  the public in the, office of the County
 Auditor for Mills County.   Bi-weekly progress reports are being
 sent  to the County  Auditor.for  dissemination to the public.   The
 citizens living in  the  area  around the site have shown most  concern
 for a prompt implementation  of  remedial measures and that they are
 kept  informed on  site activities.

 Enforcement Status

      A civil  action filed  pursuant to  Section 7003 of RCRA against
 Aidex Corporation for injunctive  relief is pending.   A responsible
 party search  is being completed by the National Enforcement
 Investigation Center  (NEIC).  Upon completion,  we will amend the
 complaint  to  add  additional  parties  and a  count for  cost recovery
 under §107  of CERCLA, or  file a completely new  complaint for cost
 recovery.

      In proceedings before the U.S.  Bankruptcy  Court,  District of
 Nebraska, we  have filed an order  for transfer to EPA of funds
 remaining  in  the  estate and  which  have been put aside pursuant to a
 stipulation  between EPA and  secured  creditors of the bankrupt
 corporation.  Additionally,  we are seeking  an order  of the court
 declaring agency  expenditures for  cleanup  of the site as administrative
 expenses of the estate entitled to first priority payment.

 Proposed Action

     We request your approval for  off-site  disposal  of bulk  liquids
 and semi-solids by  deep well injection during Phase  I  of the  IRM
 for the Aidex site.   Additionally, we  request approval  for off-site
 disposal of solids,  soils, and debris  from  the  site  during Phase  II
of the  IRM for  this site.

      If you have any questions, please  contact  Kerry  Herndon  at
 FTS 758-6864.


Attachments

-------
                                                                          IAIII.K  I

                                                                cotipAiusoM U^BEHNANVKS
                        Solves
                        Current
Allciii.il jve

I.   No Action

2.   Treatment
                          NO

                          NO



3.  On-sile  inciner-   Doubtful
    a I inn  and 011-
    sile  land

    i ettidue

l>.  On-tiite  inciner-   Doubtful
    ill ion  of I i<|iiids
    and on-sile land
    diKpoNal of solids
    and reuidue

S.  On-uili:  liiiul         Yes
    diiipoiiiil of
    sol ills and
    Kolidlfied Ilipiids

6.  Olf-iiile ini inftr-    Yes
    aI ion  and of f-
    sile  land disposal
    of residue

7.  Off-Kile Inciner-    Yes
    al ion  of I i«|iiids
    and off-vile land
    ditipoKal of solids
    and residue

H.  OH-nile hind        Yes
    di ii|ii>iiiil of
    IKI I iilti and
    snl idi I  ir.d
     I i
                                            -ihy iHi !?•»» J kllil y
                                                   N/A
                                          Moal of tlu; petit iride  com-
                                          pounds  not uiuenahlc to
                                          llnliile lm:in<:ra!ore  not
                                          uv.iiluhle for |uodiu'lloii
                                          Mobile incinorat01u  nut
                                          uvailahle.  No suitable
                                                 uii-uilc for landfill
                                          No  Biiitiiblc «|»ace oil-site
                                          for landfill.  Kludy  needc<|
                                          to  teat sol itli f i cut I on
                                          methods

                                                   Yes
                                                   Yes
                                          iilmly needed to  test
                                          t»ol idi f (cat ion methods
I'rel iminary Opinion
ol ||rj>babl^	

           N/A

           N/A
   N/A
   N/A
   N/A
1,100-1,293
                             KiivlroiMcntat
                             |:i>its|derat i oils

                                   N/A

                                   N/A
                                                                                                                     N/A
TiMjIjonlliiO

     N/A

     N/A



     N/A
                                                                                                                I'oor Betting  for
                                                                                                                liazardoim waste
                                                                                                                landfill
                                                                                                                I'oor netting  for
                                                                                                                hazardous waste landfill
                           '  None apparent
                                                                                                                None B|i|iir<: Yiihle 2 for details  of roul .-111.11 yy is.                          «
2.  lMiplnuriil.il ion linn:  ib the tiaii: iri|iiiii-d lo develop  I In.-  «onl i arf diiiwiiiKU .tnd dm imiriil a,  neli-ct a Cunl rartor nml fompli-le the work.
'I.  II.i.-.ill on  lime lo develop .111.11 yl i ( ,i I  i iilniin.il ion .lin inj;  I'li.i.-.i- I ar

-------