Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

CROSS BROTHERS PAIL RECYCLING (PEMBROKE)
PEMBROKE TOWNSHIP, KANKAKEE COUNTY, ILLINOIS


ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS

This section of the public health assessment describes environmental sampling previouslyconducted at the site and identifies contaminants of concern found in specific environmentalmedia. The selected contaminants are evaluated in subsequent sections of the health assessmentto determine whether exposure to them has public health significance.

IDPH selects contaminants for further evaluation based upon the following factors:

  1. concentrations of contaminants on and off the site;
  2. sampling locations and frequency, field data quality, and laboratory data quality;
  3. comparison of on-site and off-site concentrations with health assessment comparison values for noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic endpoints; and
  4. community health concerns.

It is emphasized that identification of a contaminant of concern in this section does not mean thatexposure to it will cause adverse health effects. As mentioned above, the potential for adversehealth effects resulting from exposure to contaminants of concern will be evaluated insubsequent sections of the health assessment.



The data tables include the following acronyms:

  • CREG
  • = Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
  • EMEG
  • = Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
  • LTHA
  • = Lifetime Health Advisory
  • MCL
  • = Maximum Contaminant Level
  • RfD
  • = Reference Dose
  • RfC
  • = Reference Concentration
  • ND
  • = not detected
  • ppb
  • = parts per billion
  • ppm
  • = parts per million


    Comparison values for health assessment are contaminant concentrations in specific media that are used to select contaminants for further evaluation. These values include Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs), and other relevant guidelines.

    EMEGs are media-specific screening values developed by ATSDR for use in selectingenvironmental contaminants of potential health concern. EMEGs are based on noncarcinogenichealth endpoints and do not consider potential carcinogenic effects. CREGs are estimatedcomparison concentrations for specific chemicals based on one excess cancer in a millionpersons exposed over a lifetime. CREGs are calculated from EPA's cancer slope factors. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) represent contaminant concentrations that EPA deemsprotective of public health (considering the availability and economics of water treatmenttechnology) over a lifetime (70 years) at an exposure rate of 2 liters water per day. EPA'sLifetime Health Advisories (LTHAs) represent the level of a contaminant in drinking water(with a margin of safety) at which adverse noncarcinogenic health effects would not beanticipated during a lifetime (70 years) exposure.

    While MCLs are regulatory concentrations, LTHAs are not.

    EPA's Reference Dose (RfD) is an estimate of the daily exposure to a contaminant that isunlikely to cause adverse health effects.

    A. On-site Contamination

    The data presented in this subsection was collected during the March of 1987 and February of1988 HS. On-site contamination refers to samples collected in the IRM construction limits(Figures 3 and 4). No new data has been collected since the 1988 sampling.

    Groundwater

    The data generated during the HS indicated that the groundwater in the Kankakee Aquiferbeneath and downgradient of the site was contaminated with volatile and semi-volatile organiccompounds (Table l). Contamination was found primarily at the water table (Appendix A,Figure 3). Inorganic compounds (metals) were not detected above background levels or healthcomparison values, except for lead concentrations of 35 to 48 ppb which are above the USEPAAction Level of 15 ppb.



    Table 1.

    Range of Contaminant Concentration in On-site Groundwater Monitoring Wells
    ContaminantConcentration
    Range-ppb
    DateReferenceComparison Value
    ppbSource
    Benzene
    ND-24
    3-87
    2-88
    2
    1.2
    CREG
    Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
    ND-10
    3-87
    2-88
    2
    2.5
    CREG
    1,2-Dichloroethene
    ND-1200
    3-87
    2-88
    2
    200
    RfD
    (child)
    Ethylbenzene
    ND-2300
    3-87
    2-88
    2
    1000
    RfD
    (child)
    Naphthalene
    ND-110
    3-87
    2-88
    2
    20
    LTHA
    Toluene
    ND-14000
    3-87
    2-88
    2
    2000
    RfD
    Vinyl Chloride
    ND-1200
    3-87
    2-88
    2
    0.2
    EMEG
    LeadND-483-87
    2-88
    215AMCL
    A - USEPA Action Level for drinking water (12-31-92 water comparison value)

    Soil

    The l985 IRM focused on the removal of surficial and buried waste materials as well as visiblycontaminated soil. Subsequent to the IRM, sampling and analyses of soil (March - April, l987and February l988) at the site indicated that soil contamination by volatile and semi-volatileorganics exists throughout the unsaturated zone (approximately 0 to 6 feet in depth - Tables 2and 3). The major areas of soil contamination were near the building used for drum and pailreclamation and in the waste disposal area near the center of the site (Appendix A, Figure 4). The majority of compounds present were solvents and PCBs from the past drum refurbishingoperation. Inorganic compounds were not detected above background levels or healthcomparison values.

    Air

    Sampling and analyses of air was not performed because contamination is mostly confined tosoil at depths and therefore would not be expected at significant levels in the air. However,during remedial activities, this medium will have to be evaluated.

    -

    Table 2.

    Range of Contaminant Concentrations in On-site Soil Samples 1
    ContaminantConcentration
    Range-ppm
    DateReferenceComparison Value
    ppmSource
    Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalateND-6.703,4-87
    2-88
    2NoneNone
    Polychlorinated biphenylsND-1.123,4-87
    2-88
    20.01EMEG
    1 - Composite samples of soil 0 to 30 inches.




    Table 3.

    Range of Contaminant Concentrations in On-site Subsurface Soil Samples
    ContaminantConcentration
    Range-ppm
    DateReferenceComparison Value
    ppmSource
    Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalateND-25D3,4-87
    2-88
    250CREG
    CresolsND-1.0D3,4-87
    2-88
    2NoneNone
    EthylbenzeneND-580.0D3,4-87
    2-88
    25,000RFD
    (child)
    NaphthaleneND-27.03,4-87
    2-88
    2NoneNone
    Polychlorinated biphenylsND-0.253,4-87
    2-88
    20.09CREG
    Vinyl chlorideND-18.03,4-87
    2-88
    21.0EMEG
    (child)
    D - Field duplicate of the previous subsurface sample - 3 to 7.5 feet.

    Surface Water

    No surface water samples were collected since the drainage ditch located on site did not containwater during the sampling period. The main body of water is the Kankakee River which islocated approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the site.

    Sediment

    Sediment sampling in the ditch was not conducted.

    B. Off-site Contamination

    The data generated in this subsection was collected during a July of 1980 field investigation byIEPA and the March of 1987 and February of 1988 HS.

    Groundwater

    Available documentation mentioned that site contamination had migrated off-site to the northand contaminated two residential potable water wells (which were replaced with deeper waterwells). The l980 sampling results in Table 4 indicate that organic compounds (i.e.methylcyclohexanone, toluene, 3,3,5-trimethylcyclohexanol, 3,3,5-trimethylcyclohexanone)were identified as contaminants of concern in these wells which prompted their replacement.Xylene was also detected at 88 ppb which is less than the comparison value. Sampling of 22residential wells located near the site was conducted during March of l987. No contaminantswere detected except bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). The cause and origin of this chemicalof concern was probably the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plumbing fixtures used within the houses. This compound is used as a plasticizer for resins and elastomers.



    Table 4.

    Range of Contaminant Concentrations in Off-site Groundwater Private Wells
    ContaminantConcentration
    Range-ppb
    DateReferenceComparison Value
    ppbSource
    Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalateND-2108-8722.5CREG
    MethylcyclohexanoneND-110008-802NoneNone
    TolueneND-79008-8022,000RfD (child)
    3,3,5-TrimethylcyclohexanolND-32008-802NoneNone
    3,3,5-TrimethylcyclohexanoneND-64008-802NoneNone
    LeadND-142-88215AMCL
    A - USEPA action Level for drinking water (12-31-92 water comparison value)

    Soil

    The migration of chemicals to off-site soil was limited. Contamination was detected in areaslocated just south of the site as illustrated in Figure 4. Contaminants of concern are shown inTables 5 and 6.

    Air

    Sampling and analyses of air was not performed because contamination is mostly confined toon-site soil at depths and therefore would not be expected at significant levels in the air. However, during remedial activities air quality will have to be evaluated.




    Table 5.

    Range of Contaminant Concentrations in Off-site Soil Samples 1
    ContaminantConcentration
    Range-ppm
    DateReferenceComparison Value
    ppmSource
    Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalateND-1.773,4-87
    2-88
    250CREG
    NaphthaleneND-126.03,4-87
    2-88
    2NoneNone
    Polychlorinated BiphenylsND-0.433,4-87
    2-88
    20.09CREG
    1 - Composite samples of soil 0 to 30 inches.




    Table 6.

    Range of Contaminant Concentrations in Off-site Subsurface Soil Samples1
    ContaminantConcentration
    Range-ppm
    DateReferenceComparison Value
    ppmSource
    Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalateND-2.503,4-87
    2-88
    250CREG
    Polychlorinated BiphenylsND-110.03,4-87
    2-88
    20.09CREG
    1 - Composite samples of soil 3 to 7.5 feet.

    Surface water

    No surface water locations were identified within close proximity to the site. The nearest mainbody of water is the Kankakee River which is located approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the site.

    Biota

    No sampling of cropland plants, fish, or other living organisms was collected. At this time theredoes not appear to be contamination identified off-site that is at levels high enough to causebioaccumulation in plants or animal species at levels of concern.

    Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI)

    IDPH conducted a search of the EPA TRI for the site and local area but TRI did not list anyfacilities having chemical releases in the area.

    C. Quality Assurance and Quality Control

    In preparing this Health Assessment, IDPH relies on the information provided in the referenceddocuments and assumes that adequate quality assurance and quality control measures werefollowed with regard to chain-of-custody, laboratory procedures, and data reporting. Thevalidity of the analysis and conclusions drawn for this Health Assessment is determined by theavailability and reliability of the referenced information.

    D. Physical and Other Hazards

    The two truck trailers and fork lifts represent a potential physical hazard to any children whomight play on the site. Access to the site after operation hours might be discouraged since theowner, James Cross, currently resides on the site. However, access to the site is not limited by afence or other barrier. Unauthorized site entrance has not been reported to be a problem by IEPA personnel or the local population.


    PATHWAYS ANALYSES

    To determine whether nearby residents are exposed to contamination migrating from the site,IDPH evaluates the environmental and human components that lead to human exposure. Thispathways analysis consists of five elements: A source of contamination, transport through anenvironmental medium, a point of exposure, a route of human exposure, and an exposedpopulation.

    IDPH categorizes an exposure pathway as a completed or potential exposure pathway if theexposure pathway cannot be eliminated. Completed pathways require that the five elementsexist and indicate that exposure to a contaminant has occurred in the past, is currently occurring,or will occur in the future. Potential pathways, however, require that at least one of the fiveelements is missing but could exist. Potential pathways indicate that exposure to a contaminantcould have occurred in the past, could be occurring now or could occur in the future. Anexposure pathway can be eliminated if at least one of the five elements is missing and will neverbe present. Tables 7 and 8 identify the completed and potential exposure pathways. Thediscussion that follows incorporates only those pathways that are important and relevant to thesite. There is also some discussion of those exposure pathways that have been eliminated.




    Table 7.

    Completed Exposure Pathway
    Pathway NameExposure Pathway ElementsTime
    SourceEnvironmental
    Media
    Point of
    Exposure
    Route of
    Exposure
    Exposure
    Population
    Private WellCross Bros.Groundwater
    (Private Well)
    Residences
    (Tap)
    Ingestion
    Inhalation
    Skin
    Contact
    Users of
    Water
    Past





    Table 8.

    Potential Exposure Pathways
    Pathway NameExposure Pathway ElementsTime
    SourceEnvironmental
    Media
    Point of
    Exposure
    Route of
    Exposure
    Exposure
    Population
    Private WellCrossBros.Groundwater
    (Private Well)
    Residences
    (Tap)
    Ingestion
    Inhalation
    Skin
    Contact
    Users of
    Water
    Future
    Worker-WasteMaterialCross
    Bros.
    Waste Material(buried waste anddrums containingsolvents)On-sitetrenches andwaste storageareasIngestionInhalationSkin
    Contact
    EmployeesSite
    Remedial
    Workers
    Past
    SoilCrossBros.Surface SoilSite AreaIngestion(Dust)EmployeesSite
    Remedial
    Workers
    Residents
    Past

    A. Completed Exposure Pathways

    Private Water Supply Pathway

    The only completed exposure pathway resulted from past contamination of groundwater inresidential wells located near the site. In particular, two residential wells that were locatedimmediately to the north (in the pathway of the groundwater contamination plume) exhibitedcontamination similar to contaminants detected in on-site groundwater monitoring wells. Twenty-two residential wells located to the west of the site were sampled; however,contaminants (DEHP and lead) detected were the result of indoor plumbing materials rather thanfrom migrating site contaminants.

    As of April 1990, most of the residents living to the northwest of the site have been connected tothe Pembroke Township's Municipal Water Supply. Therefore, current and future concerns ofthe availability of uncontaminated drinking water for this population have been eliminated.

    B. Potential Exposure Pathways

    Private Water Supply Pathway

    Analyses of groundwater samples from the on-site monitoring wells indicated that groundwaterin the Pembroke Aquifer was contaminated with volatile, semi-volatile organic, and inorganic(lead) compounds. In 1980, there were two contaminated residential wells identifiedimmediately to the north of the site, but they have since been replaced by deeper wells. Morerecently, there was another private well located further downgradient of the site which wasreplaced with a new well because of poor construction and coliform bacteria contamination. Apotential pathway exists for other wells further downgradient, however, groundwaterremediation (Pump and Treat System) is planned which should prevent the migration of sitecontaminants this far north. Therefore, residents will not be exposed to contaminants viaingestion of drinking water, dermal contact and absorption, and inhalation of contaminants inaerosols and vapors from waters during showering or other household activities.

    Worker-Waste Material Pathway

    Site workers and the facility's employees could have been exposed to site contaminants throughinhalation of contaminated air, ingestion of contaminated soil and dust, and skin contact withcontaminated soil. Site workers should have worn appropriate personal protective equipmentand complied with applicable health and safety guidelines during the cleanup. It is doubtful thatthe employees of the operation wore such safety equipment. Employees' exposure most likelyoccurred when waste materials were drained from pails and drums on to the ground and thencleaned out with waste solvents. However, there is insufficient data available to determine theextent of their exposure to the site's contaminants during its operation.

    Soil Pathway

    The 1985 IRM focused on the removal of surficial and buried waste materials as well as visiblycontaminated soil. Soil sampling conducted subsequent to this remedial activity indicated thatsome remaining soils are contaminated with VOCs and PCBs. However, this contamination ispredominately located on-site in subsurface soils.

    Direct ingestion of soil is primarily a concern for children 9 months to 5 years of age. With theexception of contaminated surface soil detected immediately south of the site, it is very unlikelythat children of this age group would spend a significant amount of their time unsupervised bytheir parents or older siblings at the site. Furthermore, the off-site soil contamination is not in anarea that children of this age group would likely play.

    While ingestion of contaminated soil was possible by employees of the site's operation, no datafor soil dust in ambient air was conducted during the facility's pail and drum recycling operation. Since this information is not available, IDPH cannot asses the importance of this potentialexposure pathway. Hence, this potential exposure pathway will not be assessed further in thePublic Health Assessment.


    PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

    In this section we will evaluate the potential health effects in persons exposed to thecontaminants of concern for which a completed pathway existed, discuss health outcome data,and address the specific community health concerns.

    A. Toxicological Evaluation

    In this subsection we will discuss the possible health effects resulting from past exposure tocontaminants in the completed pathway (two residential wells in the Kankakee Aquifer). Toevaluate health effects, we have estimated human exposure doses of the groundwatercontaminants and compared these with health effects information in the ATSDR ToxicologicalProfiles. This discussion is limited to potential health effects that can occur at exposure levelssimilar to those found at this site or a discussion of effects at the lowest doses that can producean effect. ATSDR has developed Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) to evaluate non-cancer healtheffects. A MRL is an estimate of daily human exposure, in milligrams per kilogram of bodyweight per day (mg/kg/day), to a contaminant below which non-cancer, adverse health effectsare unlikely to occur. MRLs are developed for the oral and inhalation routes of exposure, andfor the length of exposure, such as acute (14 days or less), intermediate (15 to 365 days), andchronic (greater than 365 days). An EPA Reference Dose (RfD) is an estimate of a dailyexposure (mg/kg/day) to the general public that is likely to be without an appreciable risk ofdeleterious effects during a lifetime.

    The exposure dose assessment assumes that adults drink 2 liters of tap water per day andchildren drink 1 liter of tap water per day. For noncarcinogens, ingestion assumptions forchildren were evaluated because children receive a larger dose due to their larger ingestion-to-body weight ratio than adults.

    Toluene

    Toluene exposure occurred to some residences through the completed exposure pathway ofingestion. The two contaminated water supplies were located immediately north (downgradient)of the site. This represents a past condition which may have occurred from 1961-1980 whenthese two wells were replaced with deeper uncontaminated wells.

    A chronic oral MRL has not been developed however; an EPA RfD of 0.2 mg/kg/day isavailable. Using the highest toluene concentration detected in a private well (7,900 g/L), theingestion exposure for adults and children exceeds the EPA RfD.

    Toluene is a clear, colorless liquid with a sweet odor. It readily decomposes in the soil andevaporates rapidly. The primary health concern in humans is toluene's narcotic and toxic effectson the nervous system. Inhalation of this compound can produce fatigue, confusion, generalweakness, drunken actions, memory loss, nausea, and loss of appetite. At higher concentrations,impaired speech, vision and hearing loss, and loss of muscle control have been reported (6). However, it is not expected that any of these health effects would be associated with pastexposure to the completed pathway of ingesting contaminated water.

    There is little information as to the mutagenic, immunological, or other systemic hazards posedby this compound following oral exposure. Limited animal studies have not shown anyreproductive or developmental effects. One study indicated some neurological effects, but thespecific mechanisms have not been identified.

    Methylcyclohexanone

    Since there are no ATSDR Toxicological Profiles for methylcyclohexanone, 3,3,5-trimethylcyclohexanone, and 3,3,5-trimethylcyclohexanol, information was gathered from a variety of other sources (7-17).

    This ketone is a colorless liquid of low volatility with a acetone-like odor. This compound andits isomers are considered only moderately toxic in animal tests (8,10-12,15). Highconcentrations typically produce central nervous system (CNS) depression and narcosischaracteristic of solvents (8,10-12,15). Low concentrations are characterized by the strong odorand irritation of eyes and mucous membranes (8,10-12,15). The methylcyclohexanones areconsidered to have good warning properties (8).

    Currently, no health guidelines exist for this compound and the data set is not complete enoughto derive values in which a high degree of confidence may be placed. To evaluate possiblehealth effects of low level exposure, the following assessment was done. An inhalation no-observed-effect-level (NOEL) of 182 ppm (733 mg/m3) was reported for rabbits repeatedlyexposed to this compound (8). Using this information together with the approach postulated byLayton, et al. (1987) to derive NOELs from acute toxicity data (9), and extrapolation of theworkplace threshold limit value (TLV) of 50 ppm (8) provides a reference dose range for use inscreening. This range is between 2.1 and 0.15 mg/kg/day which is above the estimated dose forthis compound from oral ingestion. This, combined with the low toxicity as well as the warningproperties of the compound which would give a degree of unpalatability to the water, wouldsuggest that exposure would not result in doses expected to cause observable and significanthealth effects. More information is necessary on the toxicokinetics and chronic toxicity ofmethylcyclohexanone to confirm this initial evaluation of its hazard potential.

    There is little data on chronic effects associated with exposure to this compound in humans oranimals. No specific information exists as to potential carcinogenicity, mutagenicity,reproductive effects or other systemic hazards (8,10-12,15); however, by analogy with similarcompounds (8), the liver, kidney, CNS, lung and skin would be suggested as likely target organs.

    3,3,5-Trimethylcyclohexanone

    Little data exists for this methyl substituted ketone, aside from a report that it causes severe eyeirritation in rabbits. It is identified as a skin and eye irritant in Registry of Toxic Effects ofChemical Substances (RTECS) (16). It is assumed that its toxicity and biologic behavior wouldbe similar to the mono-methylcyclohexanone discussed above (8,10-12,15), but supporting dataneeds to be developed.

    Assuming a similarity in hazard potential with mono-methylcyclohexanone would indicate thatthe anticipated exposure to trimethylcyclohexanone in drinking water would probably not resultin significant health effects to consumers for the same reasons as cited above and below.

    3,3,5-Trimethylcyclohexanol

    No comparison values exist for this compound; however, an approximation of the reference doserange can be made utilizing the results of some inhalation experiments and various uncertaintyfactors (1000-10000). These include a short-term LOEL for histopathologic changes in rabbits,a short-term NOEL in rabbits, and a LOEL for increase in urinary glucuronic acid excretion inrabbits (13,14,17). This information combined with extrapolation of workplace limit of 50 ppm(17), and extrapolation of acute toxicity data in the manner of Layton, et al. (1987) (17) gives areference dose range between 0.3 and 0.02 mg/kg/day. The anticipated dose resulting from theingestion of the water falls within this range. Given the anticipated low toxicity, the degree ofconservatism inherent in establishing the reference range, and the disagreeable taste and odorassociated with this water contamination makes it unlikely that such exposure would result insignificant and observable health effects in consumers. Additional toxicity and kinetic data isnecessary to confirm this preliminary hazard evaluation.

    There is no information as to the carcinogenic, mutagenic, reproductive, or other systemichazards posed by this compound (13,14,17), but the liver, kidney, CNS, and blood system arelikely targets based on the above information and analogy to similar compounds.

    B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation

    There was no site specific health outcome data identified that was appropriate to this site. According to the local county health department, there are no records or studies that may havebeen performed in the community.

    At this time, there are no plans to perform an evaluation of health outcome data becauseexposure was limited to only two residences which are presently vacated. This small exposedpopulation size would not provide any statistically significant data. Furthermore, there are norecords to indicate how much these two residences used their water supply for drinking asopposed to some other source. Documentation only stated that the water exhibited a slightlycloudy appearance and solvent-like odor.

    C. Community Health Concerns

    Each of the community concerns about health are addressed as follows:

    1. Is the township's public drinking water supply at risk of being contaminated by the site'scontaminants?

      According to the HS, groundwater moves toward a northerly direction at the site. Groundwater sampled up to a 0.25 mile north of the site is contaminated;however, groundwater sampled to the south, east, and west of the site has notshown site contamination. Township public supply wells are located southwest ofthe site. Moreover, water is drawn from the deeper, uncontaminated aquifer. Assuch, it would be unlikely for the site's contamination to reach the township'swells. The public water supply is tested regularly as part of a State regulatoryprogram under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

    2. Are the site's environmental contaminants causing alleged illnesses among people livingnear the site?

      The primary way in which residents could become exposed to site contamination isthrough contaminated drinking water. As mentioned in the Public Health Assessment, this is presently not the case. For the two families which were exposed to contaminateddrinking water before they got replacement deeper wells, health examinations wereconducted. These evaluations occurred in November of 1983 by the Cook CountyHospital, Division of Occupational Medicine. Their findings concluded that no evidence of any significant health problems were found as a result of possible exposure to site related groundwater contaminants.

    3. The fire department expressed concerns about possible fire hazards at the site and nearbycommunity.

      The Emergency Plans section of the proposed remedial action will include input andinvolvement from the local fire department.

    4. A question was asked about whether the proposed incinerator would operate on-site.

      The proposed incinerator will not be on-site, it will be at an off-site location.


    Next Section      Table of Contents

      
     
    USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
    Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

    A-Z Index

    1. A
    2. B
    3. C
    4. D
    5. E
    6. F
    7. G
    8. H
    9. I
    10. J
    11. K
    12. L
    13. M
    14. N
    15. O
    16. P
    17. Q
    18. R
    19. S
    20. T
    21. U
    22. V
    23. W
    24. X
    25. Y
    26. Z
    27. #