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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

MANNHEIM AVENUE DUMP SITE
ATLANTIC COUNTY, GALLOWAY TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY


ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS

The tables in this section list the contaminants of concern. We evaluate these contaminants in the subsequent sections of the public health assessment and determine whether exposure to them has a public health significance10. ATSDR selects and discusses these contaminants based upon the following factors:

  1. Concentrations of contaminants on and off the site.
  2. Field data quality, laboratory data quality, and sample design.
  3. Comparison of on-site and off-site concentrations with public health assessment comparison values for noncarcinogenic endpoints and carcinogenic endpoints.
  4. Community health concerns.

In the data tables that follow under the On-site Contamination subsection and the Off-site Contamination subsection, the listing of a contaminant does not necessarily mean that it will cause adverse health effects from exposures. Instead, the list indicates which contaminants will be evaluated further in the Public health assessment.

    The data tables include the following acronyms:

* EMEG = ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guideline
* ND or '-' = Not detected
* NA = Not Analyzed
* NJDEPE = New Jersey Department Of Environmental Protection and Energy
* PMCLG = EPA Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
* MCL = EPA Maximum Contaminant Level
* MCLG = EPA Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
* ppb = parts per billion
* ppm = parts per million
* RfD = EPA Reference Dose
* RfC = EPA Reference Concentration

Comparison values for public 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. CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations based on one excess cancer in a million persons exposed over a lifetime. CREGs are calculated from EPA's cancer slope factors. EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) is a drinking water health goal. EPA believes that the MCLG represents a level that no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health of persons should occur which allows a margin of safety. Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (PMCLGs) are MCLGs that are being proposed. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) represent contaminant concentrations that EPA deems protective of public health (considering the availability and economics of water treatment technology) over a lifetime (70 years) at an exposure rate of 2 liters water per day. While MCLs are regulatory concentrations, PMCLGs and MCLGs are not. EPA's Reference Dose (RfD) and Reference Concentration (RfC) are estimates of the daily exposure to a contaminant that is unlikely to cause adverse health effects.

Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) Data:

To identify possible facilities that could contribute to contamination of environmental media near the Mannheim Avenue Dump site, ATSDR and NJDOH searched the 1987, 1988 and 1989 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). The first available TRI database year is 1987 and the latest is 1989. TRI is developed by the USEPA from the chemical release (air, water, and soil) information provided by certain industries. Several manufacturing facilities within the 08215 zipcode area filed TRI data for the years 1987, 1988 and 1989. These facilities are Ray Plastics, Egg Harbor Yacht Co. Inc., Egg Harbor Boat Co. Inc., Ocean Yachts Inc and Ocean Yachts II Inc. Table 1 summarizes reported releases to the environment via fugitive or non-point air emissions and point sources or stack emissions in 1987, 1988, and 1989 from these facilities. It also indicates the maximum amounts of the chemical stored on site. Examination of the regional map did not indicate the location of these facilities in the vicinity of the Mannheim Avenue Dump site. In addition, the releases from these facilities are not similar to site contaminants.

TABLE 1

FACILITY CHEMICAL YEAR TOTAL AIR RELEASE lbs/yr
Ray Plastics Styrene 1987 500
Egg Harbor
Yacht Co Inc.
Acetone
Acetone
Styrene
1987
1989
1989
67,880
14,505
15,997
Egg Harbor
Boat Co Inc.
Acetone
Styrene
1988
1988
54,693
15,733
Ocean Yacht Co. Acetone
Styrene
Styrene
1988
1988
1989
45,720
29,635
22,225
Ocean Yachts II Styrene
Styrene
1988
1989
4,667
3,500

A. ON-SITE CONTAMINATION

Under an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) issued by the EPA in May 1988, Lenox China collected environmental data for the Mannheim Avenue Dump site as part of the RI/FS1. Data from the analysis of the following media were available for review: asphaltic sludge, groundwater, surface water, soil, and residential wells.

Asphaltic Sludge:

Split samples of asphaltic sludge were collected on August 3rd, 1982 by NJDEPE and Lenox China for waste characterization. Table 2 presents the constituents reported in at least one of the samples at a level above 100 mg/kg. The asphaltic sludge has been excavated and incinerated off-site. The removal represented 95% of the total sludge. The remaining wastes were compacted into mounds and subsequently removed. This removal eliminated a source of contamination11.

TABLE 2
Maximum Contaminant Concentration in On-site Asphaltic Sludge

Contaminant Concentration
ppm
Date Comparison
Value-ppm
Source
Methylene Chloride 220.0 1982 93 CREG
Trichloroethene 2,000.0 1982 1 NJDEPE
Lead 4,230.0 1982 NA NA

NJDEP -New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Interim Soil Action Levels
NA - Not applicable

Subsurface Soil:

In July 1989, twenty soil samples were collected from the site. These samples were collected at depths of 0 to 6 inches or 10 to 14 inches below land surface and were analyzed for either lead or lead and VOC's. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane was not detected in any samples. The contaminants of concern in on-site soil samples are presented in Table 3. The data demonstrate that the remaining wastes meet NJDEP interim soil action levels. The data also indicate that wastes were not deposited beneath the grade level of the site. On-site surface soil has not been characterized as on-site soils have been excavated and removed for off-site incineration.

TABLE 3 - Contaminant Concentration in On-site Soil Samples

Contaminant Concentration
range-ppm
Date Depth Comparison
Value-ppm
Source
1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane
ND-4 1989 10-14" 3.5 CREG
Lead 2.6-648 1989 0-14" NA NA
* Source Remedial Investigation, Revision 1, June 1990.
NA - Not applicable

Groundwater:

Analytical results of groundwater sampling indicate that trichloroethene (TCE) is the predominant contaminant of concern. TCE was detected in all sampling events. The highest concentration reported in monitoring wells was 140 parts per billion (ppb) in the shallow system (July, 1986) and 45 ppb in the deep system (April, 1986). The on-going monitoring program indicates that the concentration of trichloroethene in the groundwater has been decreasing with time. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) compounds though not detected in the initial sampling round, were found in concentrations of up to 15 ppb in two deep wells in the second sampling in 1986. Subsequent sampling in 1989 did not show the presence of PCBs or pesticides in groundwater.

Wastes contaminated with lead were present at the Mannheim Avenue site for approximately 25 years prior to the removal operation during 1989 1. The highest concentration of dissolved lead in on-site wells was 5.4 ppb. Unfiltered concentration of the other 12 priority pollutant metals were all below federal and New Jersey drinking water standards. The contaminants of concern in on-site groundwater samples from monitoring wells are presented in Table 4. Trichloroethene levels have decreased in the shallow aquifer since the 1986 sampling.

TABLE 4 - Contaminant Concentration in Groundwater Samples

Contaminant Concentration
range-ppb
Date Depth CV-ppb Source
TCE 1-140
1-45
1986
1986
35
feet
55
feet
0/5 MCLG/MCL
Lead 2-8.9 1989 35 feet 0 MCLG
* Source: Remedial Investigation, Revision 1, June 1990.
CV - Health Comparison Value.

Air:

An air quality investigation was not conducted as part of the RI. Required monitoring by a photoionization detector during the field investigation activities did not reveal the presence of any hazardous concentrations in ambient air. Lack of information on ambient air quality constitutes a data gap in assessing the site's public health implications.

B. OFF-SITE CONTAMINATION

Soil:

No off-site soil sampling was performed. Since no surface soil data exist for residential yards, a data gap exists in assessing the site's public health implications. Surface soil is defined as the soil extending up to a depth of 3 inches from the ground surface.

Groundwater - Monitoring Wells:

Analytical results of off-site groundwater sampling indicate that TCE is the frequently detected contaminant of concern and the only site related contaminant that migrated off-site from the wastes. TCE was detected in all sampling events and concentrations ranged from <1 to 29 ppb in the shallow flow system and from <1 to 47 ppb in the deeper flow system. At the furthest point of measurement in the shallow zone (400 feet) TCE was found at a concentration of 5.9 ppb.

Chloroform in the range of 1 to 3 ppb was found in nearly all the monitoring wells. In the September 1989 sampling, toluene was detected infrequently in the deeper system and was not detected in any of the shallow wells. Although toluene was detected at a maximum concentration of 200 ppb in the deeper system it was not detected during the December 1989 sampling. The presence of toluene might be attributed to a survey marker that has a base composed of toluene and petroleum distillates. Other VOCs were detected in only trace amounts.

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected only once in a concentration of 60 ppb in the deep system. Polychlorinated biphenyls compounds were found in concentrations of up to 7.3 ppb in one well during the second sampling in 1986. No PCBs or pesticides were detected in any groundwater samples collected during 1989.

With one exception, the unfiltered lead concentrations were below drinking water standards. The concentrations of total chromium exceeded federal standards at four sampling points (September, 1989). However, the December 1989 results showed total lead at an estimated concentration of 19.9 ppb and the total chromium value was 84 ppb. Table 5 presents the concentration ranges of contaminants of concern from the September 1989 sampling.

TABLE 5
Contaminant Concentration in Off-site Groundwater Samples


Contaminant Concentration
range-ppb
Depth Comparison
Value- ppb
Source
Trichloroethene 1-29
1-47
35 feet
55 feet
0/5 MCLG/
MCL
Lead 12-85,600 35 feet 0 MCLG
Chromium 5.5-359 35 feet 50 EMEG
Source: Remedial Investigation, Revision 1, June 1990.

Groundwater - Residential Wells:

Eight residential wells surrounding the site and two wells at the Bethel Christian Day School were sampled in 1986 and analyzed for VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds, metals, cyanide, and phenols. One school well contained 12 ppb of 1,2-dichloropropane. A repeat sampling did not indicate the presence of 1,2-dichloropropane or any site-related contaminants1. It is important to note that on-site groundwater results did not report contamination with 1,2-dichloropropane. According to current site data and information, 1,2-dichloropropane is not a site related contaminant (USEPA).

Groundwater - Residential Tap sampling:

Following the September 1990 ROD, tap samples were collected from thirteen residential wells near Mannheim Avenue Dump site in November 1990 and repeated quarterly thereafter12. Table 6 summarizes the contaminant concentrations detected in these wells. The organic compound detected at the highest concentrations and consistently was 1,2- dichloropropane. Although lead was detected in two samples the levels did not exceed the MCL of 50 ppb of lead. Chromium, another inorganic compound of concern, was not detected in any of the residential tap samples.

TABLE 6
Contaminant Concentration in Off-Site Residential Tap Samples


Contaminant Concentration
range-ppb
Date Comparison
Value- ppb
Source
Trichloroethene 0-1.0 Nov.1990 0/5 MCLG
MCL
Lead 22.7-49.2 Nov.1990 0 MCLG
1,2-
dichloropropane
0.4-10 * Nov.1990 5 MCL
      Source: Remedial Investigation, Revision 1, June 1990.

      * = Non-Site Related Contaminant

A repeat sampling of all thirteen residential taps in March 1991 revealed the continued presence of VOCs and inorganic organic compounds at lower concentration levels. Due to the fluctuating levels of lead three residential wells were resampled in June, 1991. Results indicated that all lead levels were below EPA's new level of concern of 15 ppb, except for the laundry room sample from residence 'O'. During the sampling round in August 1991, one result to note was the lead level found in residence 'B'. While lead was not detected at this residence during the previous two sampling events, this time, 24 ppb of lead was detected. Important to note here, however, is that a different method which yields a lower detection limit is now being used to analyze for lead; so, the detection limit in November 1990 and March 1991 was 20 ppb, as opposed to 3 ppb in June 1991 and August 1991. Table 7 summarizes the lead results from all the sampling events. It is unclear if the elevated levels of lead are due to leaching of lead solder frequently used for pipe joining or due to the lower laboratory detection limits. EPA, however, has concluded that the problem in residence 'O' is in the sink piping, and not in the well.12 Sampling locations of residential wells have been included as appendix13.

TABLE 7
Lead Concentration in Off-site Residential Tap Samples (ppb)

Residence Nov. 1990 Mar.1991 June 1991 Aug. 1991
Residence 'O':
Wellhead
Basement
Laundry
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
155
5.3
ND
134/128
5.9
-
-
Residence 'M':
Basement
Kitchen
49.2
ND
ND
ND
11.8
ND
5.1
ND
Residence 'P':
Basement
Kitchen
22.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.0
ND
Residence 'B':
Basement
ND ND - 24

Surface water:

In 1986 a sample was collected from Tar Kiln Branch at a location downgradient from the site and analyzed for VOCs, semi-volatiles, metals and phenols. No site-related contaminants were detected1. The southern tributary of the Tar Kiln Branch is close enough to the site to potentially have been impacted. A repeat sampling of surface water and sediment at the Tar Kiln Branch were performed in May 1990 but the results are currently unavailable for review.

C. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

All analytical work was performed by Enseco East of Somerset, New Jersey. Enseco East is a participant in the USEPA Contract Laboratory Program and is certified by NJDEP. Soil samples were collected according to the procedures detailed in the Project Operations Plan (POP). On July 13, 1989, bottles containing Samples 11 and 15 were broken in transit to the laboratory and could not be analyzed. To supplement the RI database, the results of the USEPA's split sample analyses of Samples 11 and 15 were used.

The VOC analyses of groundwater samples were performed by Gas Chromatograph/Method Series (GC/MS) 524.2. The version used by Enseco does not specify the concentration for the lowest calibration standard. The laboratory chose to use a low standard of 20 ppb. Therefore, results between 1 and 5 ppb are considered "estimated" and have been flagged with a "J". This estimation of low VOC values is the only performance criterion specified in the POP that was not met.

The data that have been collected have passed a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) review (personal communications, NJDEPE and EPA). The validity of the analysis and conclusions drawn for the public health assessment is determined by the completeness and reliability of the referenced information.

D. PHYSICAL AND OTHER HAZARDS

The Mannheim Avenue Dump site does not represent a physical hazard as there are no pits, lagoons or drums present on site. There were municipal wastes as well as sampling equipment present on the site.


PATHWAYS ANALYSES

To determine whether nearby residents are exposed to contaminants migrating from the site, NJDOH evaluated the environmental and human components that lead to human exposure. This pathway analysis consists of five elements: a source of contamination; transport through an environmental medium; a point of exposure; a route of human exposure; and an exposed population. Based on these five elements these pathways are identified as completed, potential or eliminated. Completed pathways should have all five elements present, for potential pathways, at least one of the five elements is missing, but could exist, and eliminated pathways have at least one of the elements missing and may never be present. Completed and potential exposure pathways indicate whether exposure to a contaminant has occurred in the past, is currently occurring, or will occur in the future and can be eliminated when one of the elements is unlikely to exist.

As discussed in the Site Description and Site History subsection, many of the past disposal activities at the site have resulted in the contamination of on-site soils and groundwater. The complete exposure pathways that were identified are discussed in the following subsection.

A. COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

Private Well Pathways

Past and current completed exposure pathways exist from contaminated groundwater in private residential wells. The pathways in which the residents may have been exposed to contaminants are: dermal contact with contaminated groundwater drawn from wells located downgradient of the site; ingestion of groundwater from wells located downgradient of the site; and inhalation of chemicals volatilized from groundwater during home use.

Transport of contaminants in the groundwater to downgradient wells is the only mechanism that could effect the receptor population by the ingestion route. The use of groundwater for domestic purposes is the exposure pathway of concern for lead. As mentioned in the environmental contamination section, of the thirteen downgradient residential wells sampled, only three had levels of lead above the MCL. Repeated sampling has however indicated that the fluctuant levels of lead are due to a lowered laboratory detection limit for lead.

The populations at risk of exposure include residents living in the vicinity of the site. Residents who live downgradient of the deeper aquifer have a higher likelihood of being exposed to site-related contaminants as groundwater from the deeper aquifer is used for potable purposes. Based on November 1989 township tax records, approximately 328 people live in 82 houses within a 1-mile radius of the site. However, only twenty three houses are located downgradient from the site; nine are downgradient with respect to the deeper flow system; and fourteen are downgradient with respect to the shallow flow system. Assuming an average of four people in each house, approximately 36 people with respect to the deeper flow system are at risk of exposure.

B. POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

Surface Soil Pathways

Past and present exposures are possible from contaminated on-site surface soils. As the site is secure and there is no evidence of trespassing, workers on site are the only people who may be or might have been exposed. The pathway through which workers may be exposed are dermal contact with the soil, incidental ingestion of the soil, and inhalation of soil dispersed into the air.

Past exposures to off-site contaminated surface soil may have been possible at residences (backyards), but as no data exist to confirm this, a pathway analysis cannot be performed. The sources of past residential soil contamination include 1) transport of site contaminants by entrainment of contaminated soil particles into air during excavation and construction activities to residential surface soils, and 2) surface runoff. While entrainment of contaminated soil particles into the atmosphere via wind-mediated dispersion and deposition onto surface soils is assessed to be a possible contaminant transport and migration mechanism for the site1, it is unlikely that significant levels of contaminants settled in yards. Removal of wastes from the site has eliminated the source of future contamination (excavated wastes) for surface soils at residences. While exposure can occur at the site itself, residential areas can be eliminated as exposure points.

Sediment/Surface Water Pathways

Surface water and sediment sampling in 1986 at the Tar Kiln Branch did not show evidence of contamination. In addition, surface water is not considered a receiving medium because the Tar Kiln Branch and the Mullica River, are 2,000 feet and two miles away, respectively, and modelling presented in the RI indicate that the plumes are not likely to reach the surface water discharge boundaries1. However, from samples taken in May 1990, lead was detected in one surface water sample at 27.1 ppb and in sediment samples at concentrations of 65.3, 32.8 and 97.0 ppb. It is unknown if the site is the source of this contamination.


PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

Introduction:

In this section we discuss the health effects in persons exposed to specific contaminants, evaluate health outcome data, and address specific community health concerns.

A. TOXICOLOGICAL EVALUATION

Given the environmental and demographic data the major public health impacts from the site can be primarily from exposure to TCE and lead. Although not site related, the presence of 1,2-dichloropropane was evaluated for its toxicological significance. To evaluate health effects, ATSDR has developed Minimal Risk Levels (MRL) for contaminants commonly found at hazardous waste sites. The MRL is an estimate of daily human exposure to a contaminant below which non-cancer, adverse health effects are unlikely to occur. ATSDR presents these MRLs in Toxicological Profiles. In the following discussion, we have used ATSDR Toxicological Profiles for TCE14, lead15 and 1,2-dichloropropane17.

Trichloroethene

TCE exposure through skin contact and ingestion of groundwater from downgradient wells may have occurred and may be occurring in some residents that live near the site. The most likely health effects that may result from chronic exposure to TCE at this site involve the nervous system. Possible neurological effects include (1)painful inflammation of the nerves, particularly the face, (2) tingling sensation in the arms, hands, and legs, (3) loss of the sense of touch, (4) altered electroencephalogram, and (5) slowed responses to stimuli. Non-carcinogenic health effects are unlikely to occur in residents along Mannheim Avenue road as TCE is present only in the range of 0-1 ppb in residential wells. Although TCE is carcinogenic via inhalation, ingestion and by dermal exposure it was detected in concentrations of 1 ppb and does not pose a carcinogenic risk.

Lead

Chronic exposure to low levels of lead produces adverse effects on a number of different tissues15. Lead presents a hazard to reproduction and primarily effects the kidneys, hemopoietic system (liver), the central nervous system and the gastrointestinal system. Toxic effects of lead have been observed at relatively low blood lead concentrations (5-10 ug/dl)15, and the effects are particularly significant in children16. Lead exposure is especially dangerous for unborn children because lead crosses the placenta and causes premature birth, low birth weight, and miscarriages. For infants and young children, lead exposure can cause a decrease in intelligence (IQ) scores, slow growth, and cause hearing problems. These effects can persist as children get older and can interfere with successful performance in school. In adult men lead exposure can increase blood pressure and effect sperm or damage other parts of the male reproductive system. While lead has not been shown to cause cancer in humans, animal studies have shown that lifetime lead exposure in rodents can cause cancer.

Residential tap samples showed a maximum concentration of 155 ppb of lead and exceeded federal MCL. Mild adverse health effects involving the central nervous system, the liver, and the blood might have resulted from drinking lead contaminated water in two of the households. However, we cannot be certain of this conclusion because lead levels fluctuated over time; therefore, the amount of lead exposure fluctuated. Biological tests, such as measuring lead in blood is better at determining whether excessive lead exposure is occurring. The most sensitive groups appear to be unborn and young children. Blood-lead levels of individuals from these households have not been examined.

1,2-Dichloropropane

Analysis of samples from private wells indicated contamination with 1,2-dichloropropane. ATSDR estimated the exposure dose for persons who drank water contaminated with 12 ppb 1,2-dichloropropane, the maximum level found in private well water samples. The dose is two orders of magnitude (an order of magnitude is 10 times) lower than the level ATSDR has determined is of minimal risk (MRL) for chronic (long-term, over a year), intermediate (more than two weeks but less than a year) and acute (less than two weeks) exposure. The dose is also several orders of magnitude lower than levels which have resulted in health effects in experimental animals17.

B. HEALTH OUTCOME DATA EVALUATION

Although a completed exposure pathway for on-site contaminants exists or existed in the past, primarily through ingestion of contaminated water from private wells, health outcome data for the community surrounding the Mannheim Avenue Dump Site was not evaluated. As the facility is inactive and all wastes have been excavated and removed from the site, the risk of exposure to on-site contaminants via groundwater is minimal.

Though cancer is a plausible health outcome from long-term exposure to TCE, although unlikely, pertinent information for the Mannheim Avenue Dump Site has not been requested from the New Jersey State Cancer Registry as the receptor population is too small to draw statistically valid conclusions.

Sampling of two wells at the Bethel Elementary school did not reveal any contamination with lead. There is no indication for further evaluation of learning disabilities at the current time.

C. COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS EVALUATION

We have addressed community health concerns as follows:

Will the consumption of contaminated drinking water by the children of Bethel School affect the health of the children?

    Analysis of samples from two wells at Bethel Elementary school indicated contamination with 1,2-dichloropropane. Children who are enrolled in the Bethel Elementary School may have been exposed to this contaminant in the past. However, a repeat sampling showed no evidence of persistent contamination. ATSDR estimated the exposure dose for children who drink water contaminated with 12 ppb 1,2-dichloropropane, the maximum level found in school water. The dose is two orders of magnitude (an order of magnitude is 10 times) lower than the level ATSDR has determined is of minimal risk (MRL) for chronic (long-term, over a year), intermediate (more than two weeks but less than a year) and acute (less than two weeks) exposure. The dose is also several orders of magnitude lower than levels which have resulted in health effects in experimental animals17. Exposure to site related contaminants is highly unlikely in the future.

    Public Comment Period

The New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) conducted a public comment period for the Public Health Assessment for the Mannheim Avenue Dump site from July 6, 1993 to August 6, 1993. The Public Health Assessment document was placed in local repositories to facilitate commentary and reaction by the public at large. Additionally, the Public Health Assessment was circulated to the Atlantic County Health Department for the purpose of soliciting commentary by local health officials.

A summary of commentary received by the NJDOH and associated responses is contained in Appendix 3.

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. #