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

PETITIONED PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

NEWTOWN COMMUNITY
GAINESVILLE, HALL COUNTY, GEORGIA


APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: AREA MAPS

TRI Facility Locations Around the Newtown Community (Area Map)
Figure 1. TRI Facility Locations Around the Newtown Community (Area Map)

TRI Facility Locations Around the Newtown Community (Wide Area Map)
Figure 2. TRI Facility Locations Around the Newtown Community (Wide Area Map)


APPENDIX B: DEMOGRAPHICS

Demographic Statistics
Demographic Statistics

Age Distribution in Newtown
Figure 1. Age Distribution in Newtown

Table 1. Block Group and County Age Group Data, 1998 Projection*

Age Group Block Group 2 Population % of total Block Group 2 Pop. County Population % of total County Pop.
Less than 6 years 60 7.3% 10,186 8.6%
6-17 years 115 14% 20,088 17%
18-24 years 44 5.4% 11,305 9.5%
25-34 years 125 15.3% 17,577 14.8%
35-44 years 108 13.2% 18,918 16%
45-54 years 108 13.2% 15,944 13.5%
55-64 years 80 9.8% 10,139 8.6%
65+ years 179 21.8% 14,222 12%
*Data for this table were generated by the Compass program, with PRIZM applications


APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND EXPOSURE PATHWAYS METHODOLOGY
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TABLE

Quality Assurance

In preparing this report, ATSDR relied on the information provided in the referenced documents andby contact with community members, the City of Gainesville Public Utilities Department, GeorgiaDepartment of Natural Resources, Georgia Department of Human Resources, and theEnvironmental Protection Agency. ATSDR assumes that adequate quality assurance measures weretaken during chain-of-custody, laboratory procedures, and data reporting. The validity of theanalyses and conclusions drawn in this document are determined by the availability and reliabilityof the data.

Methods of Evaluating Potential Public Health Outcomes

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has determined levels ofchemical contamination that can reasonably (and conservatively) be regarded as harmless, based onthe scientific data the agency has collected in its toxicological profiles. The resulting comparisonvalues and health guidelines, which include ample safety factors to ensure protection of sensitivepopulations, are used to screen contaminant concentrations at a site and select substances thatwarrant closer scrutiny by agency health assessors and toxicologists. These contaminants of concern(COC'S) may slightly or greatly exceed comparison values, or they may be a health concern to thecommunity. It is important to note that ATSDR's comparison values and health guidelines do NOTrepresent thresholds of toxicity. Thus, although concentrations are at or below ATSDR'scomparison values may be reasonably considered safe, it does NOT automatically follow that anyconcentration above a comparison values will produce toxic effects. To the contrary, ATSDR'scomparison values are intentionally designed to be lower, usually in orders of magnitude lower, thanthe corresponding no-effect levels (or lowest-effect levels) determined in laboratory studies.

In the first step of the COC selection process, the maximum contaminant concentrations arecompared directly to health comparison values. ATSDR considers site-specific exposure factors toensure selection of appropriate health comparison. If the maximum concentration reported for achemical was less than the health comparison value, ATSDR concluded that exposure to thatchemical was not of public health concern; therefore, no further data review required for thatchemical. However, if the maximum concentration was greater than the health comparison value,the chemical was selected for additional data review. In addition, any chemicals detected that did nothave relevant health comparison values were also selected for additional data review.

Comparison values have not been developed for some contaminants, and based on new scientificinformation, other comparison values may be determined to be inappropriate for the specific type ofexposure. In those cases, the contaminants are included as contaminants of concern if currentscientific information indicates exposure to those contaminants may be of public health concern.

The next step of the process requires a more in-depth review of data for each of the contaminantsselected. Factors used in the selection of the COCs included the number of samples with detectionsabove the minimum detection limit, the number of samples with detections above an acute orchronic health comparison value, and the potential for exposure at the monitoring location.

When screening individual contaminants, ATSDR typically compares the lowest comparison valuesavailable, usually the cancer risk evaluation guide (CREG) or chronic environmental mediaevaluation guide (EMEG) for the most sensitive, potentially exposed individuals (usually theelderly, children, and children who exhibit pica behavior) with the highest single concentration of acontaminant detected at the site. The conservative nature of ATSDR comparison values result in theselection of many contaminants as chemicals of concern that will not, upon closer scrutiny, be judgeto pose any hazard to human health. However, ATSDR judges it prudent to use a screen that letsthrough many harmless contaminants rather that one that overlooks potential hazards to publichealth. The reader should keep in mind how conservative these values are when consideringpotential health implications of ATSDR's toxicological evaluations.

The comparison values used in this evaluation are defined as follows: The CREG (Cancer RiskEvaluation Guide) is a concentration at which excess cancer risk is not likely to exceed one case ofcancer in a million persons exposed over a lifetime. The CREG is a very conservative CV that isused to estimate cancer risk. Exposure to a concentration equal to or less than the CREG is definedas an insignificant risk and is an acceptable level of exposure over a lifetime. The risk fromexposure is not considered as a significant risk unless the exposure concentration is approximately10 times the CREG and exposure occurs over several years. The EMEG is a concentration at whichdaily exposure for a lifetime is unlikely to result in noncancerous adverse health effects.

To determine whether nearby residents are exposed to contamination migrating from the site, theAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluates the environmental andhuman components that lead to human exposure. An exposure pathway contains the following fiveelements: a source of contamination, transport through some kind of environmental medium (suchas air, soil, or water), a point of exposure (such as a water well, or emissions stack), a route ofexposure (eating, drinking), and an exposed population. In this assessment, ATSDR evaluateschemicals in the soil, air, and groundwater that people living in the nearby residences may consume or come in contact with.

Table 1. Exposure Pathways

Pathway Name Contaminants Source Environmental Media Point of Exposure Route of Exposure Exposed Population Time Comments
Completed Pathways                
Past Air Emissions VOCs
Metals
SVOCs
Industry
Traffic
Air Community ambient air Inhalation Child
Adult
Past Past levels are uncertain. Air Modeling is recommended.
Current Air Emissions VOCs Industry Air Community ambient air Inhalation Child
Adult
Present Completed exposure pathway. Current levels (after 1997) are below health concern. However, data may not represent air conditions in the community.
Surface Soil Contamination Metals
Pesticides
Industry Soil Community soils Inhalation
Ingestion
Child
Adult
Past The only past sampling data available is incomplete and limited. More soil sampling is recommended.
Potential Pathways                
Soil Gas VOCs Landfill Air Residential Inhalation Child
Adult
Present All methane levels detected below 1% LEL. Although not likely, the potential exists for future exposure.
Tap Water Lead Municipal Water Supply Drinking Water Residential Ingestion
Inhalation
Child
Adult
Present Lead is below Clean Water Act drinking standards. Lead was detected, but not at levels of health concern.
Stormwater Runoff Bacteria
Metals
Industry
Warm-blooded animals
Stormwater Runoff Residential Dermal
Inhalation
Potential Ingestion (by children)
Child
Adult
Present Fecal coliform sampled at very high levels. Other metals are below health concern. Incidental ingestion may occur through dermal contact.
Eliminated Pathways                
Groundwater VOCs
Metals
Industry Groundwater NA NA NA Present Groundwater is not used for drinking water. Exposure to groundwater contamination is highly unlikely.


APPENDIX D: AIR ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING RESULTS AND ATSDR COMPARISON VALUES

Explanation of Comparison Values

Comparison Values (CVs)
The conclusion that a contaminant exceeds the comparison value does not mean that it will cause adverse health effects. Comparison values represent media-specific contaminant concentrations that are used to select contaminants for further evaluation to determine the possibility of adverse public health effects.

Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs)
CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one excess cancer in a million (10-6) persons exposed over lifetime. ATSDR's CREGs are calculated from EPA's cancer potency factors.

Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
EMEGs are based on ATSDR minimal risk levels (MRLs) and factors in body weight and ingestion rates. An EMEG is an estimate of daily human exposure to a chemical that is likely to be without noncarcinogenic health effects over a specified duration of exposure.

Reference Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs)
ATSDR derives RMEGs from EPA's oral reference doses. The RMEG represents the concentration in water or soil at which daily human exposure is unlikely to result in adverse noncarcinogenic effects.

Risk Based Concentrations
Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs) are the estimated contaminant concentrations in which no chance exists for carcinogenic or non carcinogenic health effects. The RBCs used in this public health assessment were derived using provisional reference doses or cancer slope factors calculated by toxicologists of EPA's Region III.

Table 1. Contaminants exceeding ATSDR comparison values from Georgia DNR air monitoring*

1997 Air Monitoring Data from the Fair Street School Monitor

Contaminant Range of Detection Levels (µg/m3)* Detection Frequency Total number of samples Comparison value*
Benzene 2.6-0.1 5 21 .25 µg/m3 EPA RBC
Methylene Chloride 46.9-3.8 2 21 4.1 µg/m3 EPA RBC
Hexachlorobutadiene 7.5-7.5 1 22 .09 µg/m3 EPA RBC
Arsenic .018-.002 12 22 .0045 µg/m3 EPA RBC
Cadmium .0042-.00071 2 22 .0001 µg/m3 EPA RBC
* Comparison value used is in micrograms per cubic meter, EPA RBC are Environmental Protection Agency Risk Based Concentrations.


Table 2. Contaminants of Concern for ATSDR Exposure Investigation of Air in and around the Newtown Community

Contaminants Exceeding ATSDR Comparison Values in Analysis of SUMMA Canisters

Contaminant Range of detection levels (ppb)1 Detection frequency Total number of samples Comparison value
Methylene Chloride2 .34-5.5 10 10 300 ppb ATSDR Chronic EMEG
3 ppb ATSDR CREG
Benzene .65-23 6 10 .1 ppb ATSDR CREG
4 ppb ATSDR Intermediate EMEG
2-Butanone 1.2-1200 5 10 1000 ppb ATSDR chronic inhalation RMEG/RFC
Toluene 1.1-1300 9 10 400 ppb ATSDR chronic EMEG
Freon 11 .28-.38 10 10 No Cvs are available
Freon 113 .60-.89 8 10 No Cvs are available
4-Ethyl toluene2 .78-.79 2 10 No Cvs are available
1 ppb=parts per billion
2 The highest concentration of this contaminant was in a sample blank. This suggests other levels of this contaminant that were measured may be inaccurate.


APPENDIX E: SOIL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING RESULTS AND ATSDR COMPARISON VALUES

Georgia Department of Natural Resources Soil Boring Locations in the Newtown Area
Figure 1. Georgia Department of Natural Resources Soil Boring Locations in the Newtown Area

University of Georgia Soil Boring and Monitoring Well Location Map
Figure 2. University of Georgia Soil Boring and Monitoring Well Location Map

Explanation of Comparison Values

Comparison Values (CVs)
The conclusion that a contaminant exceeds the comparison value does not mean that it will cause adverse health effects. Comparison values represent media-specific contaminant concentrations that are used to select contaminants for further evaluation to determine the possibility of adverse public health effects.

Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs)
CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one excess cancer in a million (10-6) persons exposed over lifetime. ATSDR's CREGs are calculated from EPA's cancer potency factors.

Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
EMEGs are based on ATSDR minimal risk levels (MRLs) and factors in body weight and ingestion rates. An EMEG is an estimate of daily human exposure to a chemical that is likely to be without noncarcinogenic health effects over a specified duration of exposure.

Reference Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs)
ATSDR derives RMEGs from EPA's oral reference doses. The RMEG represents the concentration in water or soil at which daily human exposure is unlikely to result in adverse noncarcinogenic effects.

Risk Based Concentrations
Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs) are the estimated contaminant concentrations in which no chance exists for carcinogenic or non carcinogenic health effects. The RBCs used in this public health assessment were derived using provisional reference doses or cancer slope factors calculated by toxicologists of EPA's Region III.

Table 1. 1994 Georgia Department of Natural Resources Soil Analysis

Contaminants in soil above ATSDR comparison values (CVs)

Contaminant Range of detection levels (ppm)* Frequency of detection Total number of samples Comparison value
Aluminum 7900-27,000 8 8 4000 ppm ATSDR interim oral EMEG pica child
100,000 ppm ATSDR interim oral EMEG child
1,000,000 ppm ATSDR interim oral EMEG adult
Arsenic 6.9-6.9 1 8 .43 ppm EPA RBC
0.5 ppm ATSDR chronic oral CREG
0.6 ATSDR chronic oral EMEG/RMEG pica child
20 ATSDR chronic oral EMEG/RMEG child
200 ATSDR chronic oral EMEG/RMEG adult
Vanadium 6.6-39 8 8 6 ppm ATSDR interim oral EMEG pica child
200 ATSDR interim oral EMEG child
2000 ATSDR interim oral EMEG adult
* ppm= parts per million


Table 2. 1994 Soil Analysis conducted by University of Georgia

Contaminants in soil above ATSDR comparison values (CVs)

Contaminant Range of detection levels (ppm)* Frequency of detection Total number of samples Comparison value
Aluminum 4350-42,600 24 24 4000 ppm ATSDR interim oral EMEG pica child
100,000 ppm ATSDR interim oral EMEG child
1,000,000 ppm ATSDR interim oral EMEG adult
Iron 23,600-50,700 24 24 23,000 ppm EPA RBC
Lead 468-468 22 24 400 ppm EPA RBC
Manganese 117-217 24 24 1600 ppm EPA RBC
100 ppm ATSDR chronic oral RMEG pica child
3000 ppm ATSDR chronic oral RMEG child
40,000 ppm ATSDR chronic oral RMEG adult
*ppm= parts per million


Table 3. ATSDR Exposure Investigation Soil Analysis

Contaminants above ATSDR comparison values, collected during ATSDR's exposure investigation

Contaminant Range of detection levels (ppm)* Frequency of detection Total number of samples Comparison value
Aluminum 7400-15,000 5 5 4,000 ppm ATSDR interim oral EMEG for pica children
100,000 ppm ATSDR interim oral EMEG child
Cadmium 2.6-2.6 1 5 78 ppm EPA RBC
.4 ppm ATSDR chronic oral EMEG pica child
10 ppm ATSDR chronic oral EMEG child
100 ppm ATSDR chronic oral EMEG adult
Iron 9200-26,000 5 5 23,000 ppm EPA RBC
Lead 28-99 5 5 400 ppm EPA RBC
Magnesium 330-4200 5 5 No comparison values are available
Manganese 63-610 5 5 1600 ppm EPA RBC
100 ppm ATSDR chronic oral RMEG pica child
3000 ppm ATSDR chronic oral RMEG child
40,000 ppm ATSDR chronic oral RMEG adult
Platinum 69-87 3 5 No comparison values are available
Selenium 150-620 5 5 390 ppm EPA RBC
10 ppm ATSDR chronic oral EMEG/RMEG pica child
300 ppm ATSDR chronic oral EMEG/RMEG child
4000 ppm ATSDR chronic oral EMEG/RMEG adult
Sodium 27-33 ppm 2 5 No comparison values are available
Thallium 69-79 ppm 2 5 5.5 EPA RBC
Vanadium 14-64 ppm 5 5 550 EPA RBC
6 ppm ATSDR interim oral EMEG pica child
200 ppm ATSDR interim oral EMEG child
2000 ppm ATSDR interim oral EMEG adult
Zirconium .85-2.9 ppm 5 5 No comparison values are available
*ppm=parts per million


APPENDIX F: WATER ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING RESULTS AND ATSDR COMPARISON VALUES

Georgia Department of Natural Resources Monitoring Well Locations in the Newtown Area
Figure 1. Georgia Department of Natural Resources Monitoring Well Locations in the Newtown Area

University of Georgia Soil Boring and Monitoring Well Location Map
Figure 2. University of Georgia Soil Boring and Monitoring Well Location Map

Stormwater Runoff Sample Locations Collected by the City of Gainsville
Figure 3. Stormwater Runoff Sample Locations Collected by the City of Gainsville

Explanation of Comparison Values

Comparison Values (CVs)
The conclusion that a contaminant exceeds the comparison value does not mean that it will cause adverse health effects. Comparison values represent media-specific contaminant concentrations that are used to select contaminants for further evaluation to determine the possibility of adverse public health effects.

Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs)
CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one excess cancer in a million (10-6) persons exposed over lifetime. ATSDR's CREGs are calculated from EPA's cancer potency factors.

Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
EMEGs are based on ATSDR minimal risk levels (MRLs) and factors in body weight and ingestion rates. An EMEG is an estimate of daily human exposure to a chemical that is likely to be without noncarcinogenic health effects over a specified duration of exposure.

Reference Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs)
ATSDR derives RMEGs from EPA's oral reference doses. The RMEG represents the concentration in water or soil at which daily human exposure is unlikely to result in adverse noncarcinogenic effects.

Risk Based Concentrations
Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs) are the estimated contaminant concentrations in which no chance exists for carcinogenic or non carcinogenic health effects. The RBCs used in this public health assessment were derived using provisional reference doses or cancer slope factors calculated by toxicologists of EPA's Region III.

Table 1. Monitoring Well Sampling Conducted by Georgia Department of Natural Resources (1993)

Contaminants of Concern, 1993 Groundwater Monitoring

Contaminant Range of detection levels (ppb)* Frequency of detection Total number of samples Comparison value
Iron 2300-34,000 2 2 11,000 ppb (drinking water level) EPA RBC
*ppb=parts per billion


Table 2. Monitoring Well Sampling Conducted by University of Georgia (1994)

Contaminants of Concern, 1994 UGA Groundwater Monitoring

Contaminant Range of detection levels (ppb)* Frequency of detection Total number of samples Comparison value
Chlorine 8800-22,800 2 4 1000 ppb ATSDR chronic RMEG child
4000 ppb ATSDR chronic RMEG adult
Iron <50-94 4 4 11,000 ppb EPA RBC
Magnesium 7400-9200 4 4 No comparison value available
Silicon 1400-1800 2 4 No comparison value available
Sodium (salt) 11,700-19,400 4 4 No comparison value available
*ppb=parts per billion


Table 3. Stormwater Runoff Analysis Conducted by the City of Gainesville Public Utilities Department 1994.

Newtown Stormwater Runoff Analysis 1994 (measured in mg/L and µg/L)*

Constituent Newtown
Sample
Georgia In-State Criteria NURP Study Atlanta Regional Stormwater Study Means
Median Concentration Residential Commercial Industrial
BOD (mg/l) 22 -- 9 15 <12 <16
T. Suspended Solids (mg/l) 117 -- 100 574 103 97
TKN (mg/l as N) 2.7 -- 1.50 <1.35 <2.57 <1.63
NH3 (mg/l as in N) 0.02 --   <0.22 <0.51 <0.41
Fecal Coliform (per 100/ml) 178,000 200 geo. mean
4000 single sample
21,000 7653 2460 3436
T. Phosphorous (mg/l P) 0.63 -- 0.33 <0.44 <0.18 <0.36
Oil & Grease (mg/l) 10 -- -- <4.9 <16.4 <6.3
T. Copper (Cu) ug/l (EPA 220.2) 12 6.5 34 <53.4 <20.3 <22.6
T. Chromium (Cr) ug/L (EPA 218.2) 3 11 -- -- -- --
T. Lead (Pb) ug/L (EPA 239.2) 21 1.3 144 <35.7 <24.3 <24.3
T. Zinc (Zn) ug/l (EPA 200.7) 180 60 160 115.6 132.3 194.9
Reproduced from City of Gainesville Public Utility Department Stormwater Analysis
*mg/L=milligrams per liter, µg/L=micrograms per liter


Table 4. Tap Water Analysis of Seven Newtown Homes, 2000

Newtown Tap Water Lead Analysis- City of Gainesville 2000 (µg/L)*

Newtown Levels EPA Risk Based Concentration Level Does Newtown level exceed the EPA comparison value?
2.0 15 no
5.6 15 no
3.9 15 no
8.1 15 no
7.2 15 no
<.002 15 no
3.8 15 no
*µg/L=micrograms per liter


APPENDIX G: CANCER RISK EVALUATION FOR BENZENE

Air emissions concentrations were collected by the Georgia Air Protection Branch and the exposureinvestigation conducted by ATSDR. Benzene was chosen for evaluation because a spike was detected in asingle air cannister sample, and benzene was the only contaminant detected that exceeded ATSDR CVs inresidential air within the boundaries of the Newtown community. Other contaminants were detected at theFair Street School monitor above comparison values, however, whether those levels are indicative ofresidential air conditions is unknown. The location of that monitor is under investigation. The spike ofbenzene was also elevated much higher than any other contaminant that exceeded comparison values.Benzene ranges from 2.8 to 20 ppb in background levels of air, and is a common contaminant inindustrialized areas. The spike of benzene was detected on the perimeter of a Gainesville facility,approximately .55 miles from the Newtown Community. The levels of benzene detected in residential airwere usually at or slightly above ATSDR's CV for the Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG). This is a veryconservative level at which ATSDR believes is safe for exposure. Initial screening with CREGs are based oncontinuous air exposure for a lifetime (estimated at 70 years). Cancer risk evaluation involves a more realisticexposure scenario using site-specific conditions, if known. Assumptions used in the risk assessment of benzene air emissions are as follows:

  • Exposure duration was assumed to be 70 years total. This number is very conservative given thatcensus data indicate that people in Newtown generally stay at their residences for an average of 18years. This analysis estimates risk for adults living 70 years with constant exposure by combiningcontact rate, body weight, and duration of exposure for adults. Adults were assumed to weigh 70 kg and breathe 20 cubic meters of air per day for 70 years.

  • The frequency of exposure was assumed to be 365 days per year to compare with predicted concentrations which were based on a continuous exposure of 365 days per year.

  • The benzene Cancer Slope Factor for inhalation were obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency in July 2000.

The following table presents the results of the risk analysis. The level of benzene measured in each area ofNewtown is presented in parts per billion (ppb), compared to a cancer comparison value (ATSDR CREG),the number of samples represented in each area are identified, and the results of the cancer risk evaluation arepresented as a potential increase in cancer of 1 case per 100,000 people. These results indicate that all levelsdetected within residential areas indicate no apparent increase in cancer risk. The highest level, a spikedetected at the perimeter of an area facility, over a half a mile from the community, indicated a low increasedrisk for cancer. This would be true only if benzene was consistently present at this elevated concentration,which is highly unlikely given that it was the only sample detected above 2.6 ppb. In conclusion, exposure tobenzene air emissions is unlikely to result in increased cancer risk in the Newtown Community.

Benzene Cancer Risk Evaluation for Lowest to Highest Level Detected

Area

Range of Levels Detected (ppb) ATSDR CREG
(ppb)
Estimated Increase in Excess Cancer Risk

Newtown and Surrounding Area
(Adults)

.65-23

.1 1.6E-05 to 5.8E-04
(1.6/100,000-5.8/10,000)

 

Risk Category Definitions Used by ATSDR

Category Fraction Decimal Exponential
No Increased Risk<1/100,000<0.00001<1E-05
No ApparentIncreased Risk1/100,0000.000011E-05
Low Increased Risk1/10,0000.00011E-04
Moderate IncreasedRisk1/1,0000.0011E-03
High Increased Risk1/1000.011E-02
Very High IncreasedRisk>1/100>0.01>1E-02


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. #