Review of Dust Sampling Data for 45th Street Artists' Cooperative
EMERYVILLE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
|Age Category||Weight (kg)||Dust Intake (mg/day)||Soil Intake (mg/day)||Water Intake (L/day)||Inhalation Rate (m3/day)||Dust Exposure Parameters*|
|Young Child |
|Older Child |
* This column represents the fraction of the daily dust intake that comes from the floor, window sills, and "Other"locations. For example, 95% of a toddler's daily intake of dust comes from the floor (95 mg), and 5% of a toddler's dailyintake of dust comes from window sills. It is assumed that children this young would not come into contact with dustfrom "Other" locations.
kg = kilogram
mg/day = milligrams per day
L/day = liter per day
m3/day = cubic meters per day
Dust Wipe Samples
Microvac Samples (mg/kg)
|Unit A||3/9 |
|Offices/ Community Room||1/5 |
<5 - 53
µg/ft2 = micrograms per square feet
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
Paint Chip Data parts per million (ppm) *
XRF Data #
|Unit A||56||1,100||54 location, 2 LBP/2 det; 4 LCP/3 det|
|B||<20||130||129 location, 12 LBP/4 det; 20 LCP/8 det|
|C||65||19,000||59 location, 12 LBP/2 det; 3 LCP/3 det|
|D||63||46||44 location, 7 LBP/4 det; 6 LCP/3 det|
|E||45||<100||129 location, 2 LBP/2 det; 10 LCP/0 det|
|F||32||1,700||73 location, 3 LBP/3det; 6 LCP/0 det|
|G||No sample||No sample||67 location, 3 LBP/3 det ; 20 LCP/10 det|
|H||40||520||30 location, 6 LBP/6 det; 4 LCP/4 det|
|I||140||19,000||49 location, 1 LBP/1 det ; 13 LCP/13 det|
|J||24||310||63 location, 10 LBP/7 det; 13 LCP/5 det|
|K||54||3,600||83 location, 3 LBP/0 det; 10 LCP/1 det|
|L||32||1,200||43 location, 1 LBP/0 det; 3 LCP/3 det|
|Hallways||56||1,100||148 location, 9 LBP/5 det; 4 LCP/3 det|
|Offices/ Community Room||26||2,900||28 locations, 4 LBP/4 det; 4 LCP/1 det|
|Bathrooms||45||<100||22 locations, 2 LBP/2 det; 5 LCP/1 det|
* For most units, one paint chip was tested. In a few units more than one samples was tested and each sample result is presented and is listed. In one unit, no paint chip sample was collected. There is no comparison value for the amount of arsenic in the paint chip. If the paint chip sample contains lead at a concentration of 5,000 mg/kg or greater it is considered to have come from lead-based paint.
# For each unit, the number of locations that were tested is listed first. Outof the total locations tested, the number of locations where lead based paint(LBP) is listed followed by the number of the LBP where the paint is deteriorated(det). Out of the total locations tested, the number of locations where leadcontaining paint (LCP) is listed followed by the number of LCP locations wherethe paint is deteriorated (det).
|Infant/Toddler||Young Child||Older Child||Adult|
|Offices/ Community Room||4.5||4.4||4.3||1.8|
- Blood lead levels were estimated using a computer model. The model is available from Department of Toxic Substances Control, Human and Ecological Risk Division, World Wide Web Site.
- Actual blood lead levels in children of greater than 10 µg/dL are considered to be elevated, as indicated by the U.S. Public Health Service's Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
- Values in Bold Face represent the estimated blood lead levels for that age category that exceed 10 µg/dL. The actual blood lead level of an exposed individual of this age category may be different.
|Infant||Toddler||Young Child||Older Child||Adult||Increased Lifetime Cancer Risk|
|Screening Value||30||45||120||300||420||3.5 in 100,000#|
|33||32||29||30||30||3 in 100,000|
|B||94||194||201||212||212||2 in 10,000|
|C||79||82||98||97||97||1 in 10,000|
|D||39||38||34||38||32||4 in 100,000|
|E||58||56||45||43||43||5 in 100,000|
|F||95||91||74||70||70||7 in 100,000|
|G||26||26||23||22||22||2 in 100,000|
|H||90||86||69||66||66||7 in 100,000|
|I||36||37||44||44||44||5 in 100,000|
|J||27||36||77||82||82||9 in 100,000|
|K||11||12||15||15||15||2 in 100,000|
|L||14||16||26||29||29||3 in 100,000|
|Hallways||14||13||12||14||14||2 in 1,000,000|
|Office/ Community Room||10||10||12||14||14||2 in 1,000,000|
|Bathrooms||16||16||12||14||14||2 in 1,000,000|
* Numbers in bold face represent exposure concentrations that exceed the respective screening value for that agecategory for arsenic.
# Increased lifetime cancer risk from levels of arsenic typically found in San Francisco Bay Area soils.
To evaluate potential adverse health effects due to exposure to lead and arsenic in dust, we need to know the concentration (milligrams of contaminant per kilogram of dust) of those contaminants in dust on various locations in your unit. We have data from dust wipe samples (milligrams of contaminant per square foot of surface) which tell us the distribution of dust in your unit, and we have a composite microvac sample, which tells us the overall concentration (milligrams of contaminant per kilogram of dust) in the unit. To arrive at an estimate of the concentration of contaminant on the three major components of your unit (floor, sill, other), we made the following calculations for both lead and arsenic. We used the data from Unit J as an example.
Sum the dust wipe samples for each component (floor, sill, other)
Sum the total from each component
Floor (ug/ft2) Sill (ug/ft2) Other (ug/ft2) 28 120,000 42 41 200 3,500 140 390 <10* Total per component 604 120,200 3,542 Total of all components 124,346
* <10 means chemical not detected at a limit of detection of 10 ug. By convention, a valueof ½ of the limit of detection is used when a number is required
Floor (ug/ft2) Sill (ug/ft2) Other (ug/ft2) <10 700 <10 11 24 120 12 38 <10 Total per component 71 724 125
Total of all components 920
The locations sampled by microvac were adjacent to the areas sampled by wipe sampling, and the same size as the area sampled by wipe sampling. Therefore, assume the fraction of the total surface loading for each component to the total surface loading for all components is the same for the microvac sample
For Lead For Arsenic Floor: 604/124,346 = 0.005 71/920 = 0.077 Sill: 120,200/124,346 = 0.967 724/920 = 0.787 Other: 3542/124,346 = 0.028 125/920 = 0.136
The concentration of lead in the microvac sample (remember that this is a composite sample representing the overall concentration of lead in your unit) is 3,600 mg/kg. Therefore, the estimated concentration of lead in the dust on each component is:
Floor: 0.005 x 3,600mgPb/kgdust = 18mgPb/kgdust
Sill: 0.967 x 3,600mgPb/kgdust = 3480mgPb/kgdust
Other: 0.028 x 3,600mgPb/kgdust = 101mgPb/kgdust
The concentration of arsenic in the microvac sample (remember that this is a compositesample representing the overall concentration of arsenic in your unit) is 320 mg/kg.Therefore, the estimated concentration of lead in the dust on each component is:
Floor: 0.077 x 320mgPb/kgdust = 25mgPb/kgdust
Sill: 0.787 x 320mgPb/kgdust = 252mgPb/kgdust
Other: 0.136 x 320mgPb/kgdust = 44mgPb/kgdust
We now have an approximate concentration of lead and arsenic on the floor, window sills, and other components (other components such as tops of I-beams and ceiling rafters, the back of storage closets, the tops of high shelves, and other similar remote locations).
2. Residents in a studio are not exposed to dust from just one component, but from several.In addition, the age of the person being exposed to dust will influence where they are mostexposed. We evaluated these factors as follows:
Evaluate five different age categories. These categories are (1) infants, 0-1 year old; (2)toddlers, 1-6 years old; (3) young children, 6-12 years old, (4) older children, 12-18 yearsold; and (5) adults, 18+ years old.
Evaluate where a person from each age category would be exposed to dust in a studio. We assumed that a person of a particular age category incidentally ingests a certain amount of house dust per day, and that this person would ingest a certain percentage from each component, depending upon their age. We made the following assumptions:
Infant Toddler YoungChild Older Child Adult Daily Dust IngestionRate (mg). 100 100 75 50 50 Floor 99% 95% 80% 70% 70% Sill 1% 5% 17% 25% 25% Other 0 0 1% 5% 5%
The rationale for these assumptions are as follows: most of an infant's exposure to dust would be on the floor. They might be exposed to some dust from a window sill if a parent puts a toy or book there. Basically the same applies to toddlers, but because they are a little bigger and somewhat more mobile, they can reach window sills themselves. Neither infants nor toddlers would be expected to come into contact with "other" components (such things as ceiling beams and rafters, or hard to reach areas such as the back of closets or high shelves). As we get older, we incidentally ingest less dust, and our behaviors change such that we now come into more frequent contact with window sills and other components than we did when we were younger.
3. To estimate an exposure concentration, we use the concentration of lead and arsenic oneach component (estimated in section 1 above), and the amount of dust that a person of a particular age ingests from each component (estimated in section 2 above) as follows.
4. For lead, the exposure concentrations calculated above are used as the input for house dustin the computer model, which calculates the estimated blood lead level. This estimated blood leadlevel is based on exposure to lead from multiple sources, including drinking water, air, food,and soil, as well as house dust.
5. For arsenic, this calculated exposure concentration is compared to a screening value forarsenic for each age category. A screening value is the maximum concentration of arsenicin a medium (house, dust, in this example) to which a person could be exposed withoutadverse health effects being expected to occur. If the exposure concentration is less than orequal to the screening value, then we would not expect adverse health effects to occur. If theexposure concentration is greater than the screening value, adverse health effects do notautomatically occur. Such a situation would be examined more thoroughly to determine thelikelihood of adverse health effects.
Screening values are calculated as follows:
In which sv is the screening value, MRL is the ATSDR Minimal Risk Level (mgAs/kg/day),BW is body weight (kg), and IR is the ingestion rate (mgdust/day). Plugging in actual values, the screening values for the five age categories are
6. Arsenic is a known human carcinogen. The risk of developing cancer is measured by theincreased lifetime cancer risk. This is the number of excess cases of cancer, over and abovethe number of background number of cancers. In the United States, the background cancerrate is between 25% and 33%. This means that at a minimum, in a population of 1,000,000people, one would expect to see 250,000 cases of cancer. If exposure to a chemical at a levelthat would cause a 1 in 1,000,000 increase in the lifetime cancer risk, then in that samepopulation of 1,000,000, we would expect to see 250,001 cases of cancer.
The measure of the potency of a carcinogen is the cancer slope factor (units of (mg/kg/day)-1). For arsenic, the cancer slope factor is 1.5 (mg/kg/day)-1. The increased lifetime cancer risk is calculated as
risk = dose x slope_factor,
in which dose is the milligrams of arsenic ingested per kilogram of body weight per day. The dose is calculated as
For an adult over an average 70 year lifetime to the exposure concentration for an adult inyour unit, the increased lifetime cancer risk is
= (5.8 x 10-5mg/kg/day) x 1.5(mg/kg/day)-1
= 9 x 10-5
or, 9 in 100,000 people, or, 90 in 1,000,000 people. Qualitatively, this is considered to be avery low increased lifetime cancer risk.
The concentration of arsenic in the soils of the San Francisco Bay Area are relatively highin comparison to the rest of the country, in the range of 13 - 22 mg/kg. At 13 mg/kg, theincreased lifetime cancer risk is
= 3 x 10-5
or, 3 in 100,000.
At 22 mg/kg of arsenic, the increased lifetime cancer risk is
= 5 x 10-5
or, 5 in 100,000
Click here to view Appendix D in PDF format. [PDF, 1283kb]
- How a chemical enters a person's blood after the chemical has been swallowed, has come into contact with the skin, or has been breathed in.
- Adverse Health Effect:
- A change in body function or the structure of cells that can lead to disease or health problems.
- The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR is a federal health agency in Atlanta, Georgia that deals with hazardous substances and waste site issues. ATSDR gives people information about harmful chemicals in their environment and tells people how to protect themselves from coming into contact with chemicals.
- Background Level:
- An average or expected amount of a chemical in a specific environment. Or, amounts of chemicals that occur naturally in a specific environment.
- Cancer Risk:
- The potential for exposure to a contaminant to cause cancer in an individual or population is evaluated by estimating the probability of an individual's developing cancer over a lifetime as the result of exposure. This approach is based on the assumption that there are no absolutely "safe" toxicity values for carcinogens. USEPA has developed cancer slope factors for many carcinogens. A slope factor is an estimate of a chemical's carcinogenic potency, or potential, for causing cancer.
If adequate information about the level of exposure, frequency of exposure, and length of exposure to a particular carcinogen is available, an estimate of excess cancer risk associated with the exposure can be calculated by use of the slope factor for that carcinogen. Specifically, to obtain risk estimates, the estimated, chronic exposure dose (which is averaged over a lifetime or 70 years) is multiplied by the slope factor for that carcinogen.
Cancer risk is the likelihood or chance, of getting cancer. We say "excess cancer risk" because we have a "background risk" of about one-in-four chances of getting cancer. In other words, in a million people, it is expected that 250,000 individuals would get cancer from a variety of causes. If we say that there is a "one-in-a-million" excess cancer risk from a given exposure to a contaminant, we mean that if one million people are exposed to a carcinogen at a certain level over their lifetimes, then one cancer above the background chance, or the 250,001st cancer, may appear in those million persons from that particular exposure. In order to take into account the uncertainties in the science, the risk numbers used are plausible upper limits of the actual risk based on conservative assumptions. In actuality, the risk is probably somewhat lower than calculated, and, in fact, may be zero.
- Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG):
- Carcinogenic chemicals are selected for follow-up by comparing the levels to the CREG (9). CREGs are derived from USEPA cancer slope factors. Cancer slope factors give an indication of the relative carcinogenic potency of a particular chemical. CREG values represent media concentrations which are thought to be associated with an extra lifetime cancer risk of one-in-a-million.
- See Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
- Chronic Exposure:
- A contact with a substance or chemical that happens over a long period of time. ATSDR considers exposures of more than one year to be chronic.
- Completed Exposure Pathway:
- See Exposure Pathway.
- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA):
- CERCLA was put into place in 1980. It is also known as Superfund. This act concerns releases of hazardous substances into the environment, and the cleanup of these substances and hazardous waste sites. ATSDR was created by this act and is responsible for looking into the health issues related to hazardous waste sites.
- A belief or worry that chemicals in the environment might cause harm to people.
- How much or the amount of a substance present in a certain amount of soil, water, air, or food.
- See Environmental Containment.
- Dermal Contact:
- A chemical getting onto your skin (see Route of Exposure).
- The amount of a substance to which a person may be exposed, usually on a daily basis. Dose is often explained as "amount of substance(s) per body weight per day".
- The amount of time (days, months, years) that a person is exposed to a chemical.
- Environmental Contaminant:
- A substance (chemical) that gets into a system (person, animal, or the environment) in amounts higher than that found in Background Level, or what would be expected.
- Environmental Media:
- Usually refers to the air, water, and soil in which chemicals of interest are found. Sometimes refers to the plants and animals that are eaten by humans. Environmental Media is the second part of an Exposure Pathway.
- Environmental Media Evaluation Guide (EMEG):
- EMEGs are media-specific values developed by ATSDR to serve as an aid in selecting environmental contaminants that need to be further evaluated for potential health impacts (9). EMEGs are based on non-carcinogenic end-points and do not consider carcinogenic effects. EMEGs are based on the MRLs.
- Coming into contact with a chemical substance. (For the three ways people can come into contact with substances, see Route of Exposure.)
- Exposure Assessment:
- The process of finding the ways people come in contact with chemicals, how often and how long they come into contact with chemicals, and the amounts of chemicals with which they come in contact.
- Exposure Pathway:
- A description of the way that a chemical moves from its source (where it began) to where and how people can come into contact with (or get exposed to) the chemical.
ATSDR defines an exposure pathway as having 5 parts:
Source of contamination,
Environmental Media and Transport Mechanism,
Point of Exposure,
Route of Exposure, and
When all 5 parts of an exposure pathway are present, it is called a Completed Exposure Pathway.
- How often a person is exposed to a chemical over time-for example, every day, once a week, twice a month.
- Hazardous Waste:
- Substances that have been released or thrown away into the environment and, under certain conditions, could be harmful to people who come into contact with them.
- Health Effect:
- ATSDR deals only with Adverse Health Effects (see definition in this Glossary).
- Intermediate Public Health Hazard:
- This category is used in ATSDR's PHA documents for sites that have certain physical features or evidence of short-term (less than 1 year), site-related chemical exposure that could result in adverse health effects and require quick intervention to stop people from being exposed.
- Swallowing something, as in eating or drinking. It is a way a chemical can enter your body (See Route of Exposure).
- Breathing. It is a way a chemical can enter your body (See Route of Exposure).
- Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level. The lowest dose of a chemical in a study, or group of studies, that has caused harmful health effects in people or animals.
- Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL):
- The USEPA and the CDHS have issued drinking water standards, or MCLs, for contaminants in drinking water (24). The MCLs are set according to known or anticipated adverse human health effects (which also account for sensitive subgroups, such as children, pregnant women, the elderly, etc.), the ability of various technologies to remove the contaminant, their effectiveness, and cost of treatment (24). The MCLs can change as new technologies are developed and as new scientific knowledge are attained. For cancer risk, the MCLs are set at levels that will limit an individual risk of cancer from a contaminant to between 1 in 10,000 (low increased excess risk) to 1 in 1,000,000 (no apparent increased excess risk) over a lifetime (24). As for non-cancer effects, the MCLs are set at levels below which no adverse health effects are expected to occur.
- For total chromium, the USEPA has adopted an MCL of 100 pbb in 1991 for chromium as a total of two species: trivalent chromium and hexavalent chromium (34). The CDHS adopted the MCL of 50 ppb, based on OEHHA's risk assessment of 1994 (34). The MCL was intended to protect primarily from the hexavalent chromium species (34).
- Non-Cancer Evaluation = ATSDR's MRL and EPA's RfD and Reference Concentration (RfC):
- The MRL, RfD and RfC are estimates of daily exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups), below which non-cancer adverse health effects are unlikely to occur. The MRL, RfD and RfC consider only non-cancer effects. Because they are based only on information currently available, some uncertainty is always associated with the MRL, RfD, and RfC. "Safety" factors are used to account for the uncertainty in our knowledge about their danger. The greater the uncertainty, the greater the "safety" factor and the lower the MRL, RfD, or RfC.
- When there is adequate information from animal or human studies, MRLs and RfDs are developed for the ingestion exposure pathway, whereas RfCs are developed for the inhalation exposure pathway. An MRL, RfD or RfC is an estimate of daily human exposure to a substance that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse (non-carcinogenic) health effects over a specified duration of exposure. No toxicity values exist for exposure by skin contact. Separate non-cancer toxicity values are also developed for different durations of exposure. ATSDR develops MRLs for acute exposures (less than 14 days), intermediate exposures (from 15 to 364 days), and for chronic exposures (greater than one year). USEPA develops RfDs and RfCs for acute exposures (less then 14 days), subchronic exposures (from two weeks to seven years), and chronic exposures (greater than seven years). Both the MRL and RfD for ingestion are expressed in units of milligrams of contaminant per kilograms body weight per day (mg/kg/day). The RfC for inhalation is expressed in units of mg/m3.
- Non-Cancer and Cancer Evaluations = EPA's Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs):
- PRGs are developed by the USEPA to estimate contaminant concentrations in the environmental media (soil, air, and water), both in residential and industrial settings, that are protective of humans, including sensitive groups, over a lifetime (6). PRGs were developed for both industrial and residential settings because of the different exposure parameters, such as, different exposure time frames (e.g., industrial setting: workers are exposed for 8 hours/day and 5 days/week vs. residential settings: families are exposed 24 hours/day and 7 days/week); and different "human" exposure points (e.g., industrial setting: healthy adult males vs. residential setting: males, females, young children, and infants), etc. Media concentrations less than the PRGs are unlikely to pose a health threat, whereas levels exceeding a PRG do not automatically determine that a health threat exists, but suggest that further evaluation is necessary.
- The National Priorities List. (Part of Superfund.) A list kept by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the most serious, uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the country. An NPL site needs to be cleaned up or is being looked at to see if people can be exposed to chemicals from the site.
- No Observed Adverse Effect Level. The highest dose of a chemical in a study, or group of studies, that did not cause harmful health effects in people or animals.
- No Apparent Public Health Hazard:
- The category is used in ATSDR's PHA documents for sites where exposure to site-related chemicals may have occurred in the past or is still occurring, but the exposures are not at levels expected to cause adverse health effects.
- No Public Health Hazard:
- The category is used in ATSDR's PHA documents for sites where there is evidence of an absence of exposure to site-related chemicals.
- Public Health Assessment. A report or document that looks at chemicals at a hazardous waste site and tells if people could be harmed from coming into contact with those chemicals. The PHA also tells if possible further public health actions are needed.
- Public Health Goal. PHGs are developed for chemical contaminants based on the best available toxicological data in the scientific literature (29). PHGs are set such that levels of contaminants in drinking water would pose no significant health risk to individuals consuming the water on a daily basis over a lifetime (29). The California Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 (amended Health and Safety Code, Section 116365) requires the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to perform risk assessments and adopt PHS for contaminants in drinking water based exclusively on public health considerations (29). PHGs adopted by OEHHA are for use by the CDHS in establishing primary drinking water standards (State MCLs) . Whereas PHGs are to be based solely on scientific and public health considerations without regard to economic cost considerations, drinking water standards adopted by CDHS are to consider economic factors and technical feasibility (29). PHGs established by OEHHA are not regulatory in nature and represent only non-mandatory goals (29).
- Point of Exposure:
- The place where someone can come into contact with a contaminated environmental medium (air, water, food, soil). Examples: the area of a playground that has contaminated dirt, a contaminated spring used for drinking water, the location where fruits or vegetables are grown in contaminated soil, or the backyard area where someone might breathe contaminated air.
- A group of people living in a certain area; or the number of people in a certain area.
- Preliminary Remediation Goal
- Public Health Assessment(s):
- See PHA.
- Public Health Hazard:
- The category is used in PHAs for sites that have certain physical features or evidence of chronic, site-related chemical exposure that could result in adverse health effects.
- Receptor Population:
- People who live or work in the path of one or more chemicals and could come into contact with them (See Exposure Pathway).
- Reference Dose Based Media Guide (RMEG):
- RMEGs are equivalent to EMEGs, but are derived from USEPA RfDs instead of ATSDR's MRLs (9).
- Route of Exposure:
- The way a chemical can get into a person's body. There are three exposure routes:
- breathing (also called inhalation)
- eating or drinking (also called ingestion), and
- getting something on the skin (also called dermal contact).
- Safety Factor:
- Also called Uncertainty Factor. When scientists don't have enough information to decide if an exposure will cause harm to people, they use "safety factors" and formulas in place of the information that is known. These factors and formulas can help determine the amount of a chemical that is not likely to cause harm to people.
- Sources (of Contamination):
- The place where a chemical comes from, such as a landfill, a pond, a creek, an incinerator, a tank, or a drum. Contaminant source is the first part of an Exposure Pathway.
- Special Populations:
- People who may be more sensitive to chemical exposures because of certain factors such as age, a disease they already have, occupation, sex, or certain behaviors (like cigarette smoking). Children, pregnant women, and older people are often considered special populations.
- Superfund Site:
- See NPL.
- Harmful. Any substance or chemical can be toxic at a certain dose (amount). The dose is what determines the potential harm of a chemical and whether it would cause someone to get sick.
- The study of the harmful effects of chemicals on humans or animals.
- Uncertainty Factor:
- See Safety Factor.
This Health Consultation, Review of Dust Sampling Date for 45th Street Artists' Cooperative, Emeryville, California, was prepared by the California Department of Health Services under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approved methodology and procedures existing at the time the public health assessment was begun.
Tammie McRae, MS
Technical Project Officer, SPS, SSAB, DHAC
The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this health consultation and concurs with the findings
for Bobbie Erlwein
Chief, State Program Section, DHAC, ATSDR