PETITIONED PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

GSX LANDFILL
PINEWOOD, SUMTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

APPENDIX A - FIGURES

Figure 1. Manchester State Forest Vicinity

Figure 2. GSX Landfill Site Map

APPENDIX B.

SITE HISTORY
SITE HISTORY: GSX LANDFILL, PINEWOOD, SOUTH CAROLINA

DATE	ACTIVITY
Jan 1977	Opaline claystone mined to produce Fullers earth.
Jul 1977	Industrial waste disposal application submitted to South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control(DHEC).
Nov 1977	Industrial waste disposal permit issued by DHEC.
	Liquid wastes disposed of on-site.
Apr 1978	Industrial waste permit reissued to SCA Services, Inc.
Jul 1978	First hydrogeologic study conducted at site.
	Clay and synthetic membrane liners installed in waste disposal cells.
1978-1979	Wastes previously disposed in unlined cells excavated and placed into lined cells.
??? 1979	Sumter County residents oppose expansion of landfill.
Sep 1980	SCA submitted RCRA Part A application; site achieved interim status under RCRA.
Nov 1980	SCA contractor conducted on-site industrial hygiene survey; particulate in air exceeded OSHA PEL.
Apr 1982	EPA Region IV met with FBI and SC Law Enforcement Division to discuss allegations of enviromental regulationviolations.
	One allegation was that the landfill was poorly sited and should not have been permitted.
	EPA inspectors verified some violations but did not verify criminal violations.
Oct 1982	Truckload of sludge arrived with waste "oozing out of tailgate".
Oct 1982	Bulk waste spilled in transit at junction of highways 378 and 261.
Aug 1983	SCA submitted RCRA Part B application.
Nov 1983	EPA Region IV notified SCA that the Part B application was deficient.
Nov 1983	Chromium detected in groundwater on-site above National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard.
May 1984	SCA notified DHEC that statistically significant change in groundwater quality detected at site monitoring wells.
Oct 1984	Landfill purchased by GSX Corporation.
Fall 1984	EPA determines that ground-water monitoring system is inadequate.
Jan 1985	GSX began monthly monitoring of sedimentation ponds.
Feb 1985	Rail car carrying waste rolled off track 2 miles from GSX.
Mar 1985	Consultant rated site as low to moderate potential for environmental impairment.
Apr 1985	EPA issued RCRA Consent Order for ground-water monitoring program.
May 1985	DHEC filed Notice of Violation for reporting, monitoring & closure violations.
May 1985	Use of absorbents to stabilize liquids prohibited under RCRA.
May 1985	Truckload of waste ignites upon entering facility; landfill evacuated.
	Wastes from Caldwell Systems, North Carolina.
Jun 1985	VOCs detected in leachate on-site.
Jun 1985	Waste in truck entering GSX ignited after lime added to absorb moisture.
Jun 1985	On-site industrial hygiene survey: particulate exceeded OSHA PEL.
Jul 1985	DHEC began ambient air sampling on-site.
Aug 1985	DHEC determined that GSX did not have adequate financial assurance for corrective action.
Aug 1985	GSX submitted RCRA Exposure Information Report to EPA;
	7 occupational injuries due to contact with waste reported.
Aug 1985	Truck arrived with leaking wastes, wastes leaked for 3 days into holding pool.
Sep 1985	DHEC terminated air monitoring on-site.
??? 1985	Additional ground water monitoring wells were installed.
Dec 1985	DHEC issued air permit for burning waste oils as fuel for rotary kiln.
	Only required monitoring for Total Suspended Particulate; permitted burning of up to 4,000 ppm halogens at low temperature (350-450 degrees C.)
Dec 1985	AWARE, Inc. released detailed site hydrogeologic report.
Jan 1986	French drain monitored; no contaminants detected.
Jun 1986	EPA conducted aquatic toxicity tests on surface water samples near GSX;
	results indicated no significant acute toxicity.
Jun 1986	DHEC Consent Order issued: conduct corrective action for groundwater contamination.
Jun 1986	VOCs detected in on-site groundwater.
Jul 1986	DHEC sampled Lake Marion near GSX; results negative for pollutants above background.
Jul 1986	DHEC monitored four residential water wells and 1 irrigation well; results negative.
Aug 1986	Medical Univ. of South Carolina agreed to examine Rimini residents.
Aug 1986	Massive fish kill occurred in Lake Marion; attributed to natural causes.
Aug 1986	EPA Ground-Water Task Force report on GSX facility released.
Sep 1986	DHEC responded to citizens that medical exams were not necessary since releases had not occurred.
Sep 1986	Rimini residents were examined at Medical Univ. of South Carolina,
	physicians concluded that health problems were not related to GSX.
Sep 1986	6 residential water wells monitored by DHEC. Bacteria, 4-methyl-3-pentanoic acid detected. DHEC noted poor well construction and location.
Oct 1986	Citizens submitted blood samples to private lab for analysis in Texas.
Nov 1986	VOCs detected in on-site groundwater.
Nov 1986	Dust in air on-site analyzed for organics & heavy metals; no analyses conducted for crystalline silica.
Nov 1986	Consulting geologist retained by citizens criticized site location & monitoring.
Dec 1986	Consulting physician retained by citizens criticized landfill siting, environmental monitoring & medical exams.
Dec 1986	GSX submitted expanded Ground-Water Assessment Report to DHEC.
Dec 1986	Waste leakage detected in 12 of 18 rail cars carrying waste to GSX.
Jun 1987	Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste reviewed blood analyses from residents, stated that VOC levels in blood were high.
Jun 1987	GSX began extraction of contaminated groundwater.
Jul 1987	Consulting physician retained by citizens recommended sub-clinical toxicity testing for residents.
Jul 1987	DHEC conducted Priority Pollutant analyses of fish tissue in Lake Marion;
	no significant exceedances noted.
Aug 1987	DHEC toxicologist conducted "Toxic Review" of site contaminants.
Oct 1987	Citizens petitioned ATSDR to conduct public health assessment.
Oct 1987	DHEC met with citizens to discuss monitoring residential water wells.
Nov 1987	One residential water well tested by DHEC. Results negative.
Dec 1987	ATSDR responded to petition request for public health assessment.
Jun 1988	EPA issued Consent Order: corrective action for ground-water contamination.
Sep 1988	Draft RCRA permit was released for public comment.
Nov 1988	Public hearing conducted on RCRA permit; citizens opposed permit.
Nov 1988	DHEC offered to address health concerns of citizens.
Jun 1989	DHEC stated in letter to citizens that GSX was required to stabilize liquids with absorbents; inconsistent with RCRA.
Feb 1990	Citizens requested community health survey from ATSDR.
Mar 1990	ATSDR Regional representative met with DHEC and GSX to discuss petition request.
May 1990	ATSDR conducted site visit for petitioned public health assessment.
Jun 1990	GSX released Water Table Aquifer Assessment and corrective action proposal report.
Mar 1991	ATSDR met with local medical association and held a public availability meeting
Jan 1992	ATSDR Initial Release draft of petitioned public health assessment released to EPA and DHEC
Aug 1992	ATSDR received comments from DHEC regarding Initial Release draft of public health assessment
Jan 1993	ATSDR conducted site visit and met with DHEC regarding public health assessment comments
Jan 1993	Hearings regarding RCRA operating permit for the landfill begun.
Aug 1993	ATSDR released Petitioned Public Health Assessment for public comment.
Mar 1994	DHEC issued 5-year operating permit
Aug 1997	A Third Judicial Circuit Court judge rejected a challenge to the facility's 1994 permit.

APPENDIX C - MONITORING DATA

Figure 3. Extent of Ground-Water Contamination at GSX Landfill

Figure 4. Surface Water Sampling Near GSX

Figure 5. On-Site Air Monitoring at GSX

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AT THE GSX LANDFILL

Source of Contamination	Medium	Contaminant	Maximum Concentration	Potential Human Exposure Points	Potential Human Exposure Routes	Potential Receptor Population	Comments
Past mining andwaste burningactivities of previousproperty owners	On-site Groundwater	benzene	280 µg/L	None at present	Ingestion	None at present	The groundwater contaminationplume is restricted to the aquiferon-site. Residential wells areupgradient.
		carbon tetrachloride	260 µg/L
		1,2-dichloroethene	4900 µg/L
		1,2-dichloroethane	220 µg/L
		tetrachloroethene	69,000 µg/L
		1,1,1-trichloroethane	3900 µg/L
		trichloroethene	4900 µg/L
		1,1-dichloroethane	440 µg/L
		1,1-dichloroethene	1000 µg/L
		1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane	330 µg/L
		toluene	1800 µg/L
		1,1,2-trichloroethane	75 µg/L
		carbon disulfide	8 µg/L
		mercury	7 µg/L
		vinyl chloride	60 µg/L (estimated)
		chromium	380 µg/L
		lead	110 µg/L
		methylene chloride	2300 µg/L
		bromodichloromethane	39 µg/L
		cadmium	170 µg/L
		barium	1900 µg/L
		Silver	39 µg/L
Past mining andwaste burningactivities of previousproperty owners	On-site surface water	1,2-dichloroethene	250 µg/L	No currentexposure points;potential pastexposure to on-site workers.	Not applicable,use of personalprotectiveequipmentwould mitigatethis pathway.	None	Restricted to on-site streams,contaminants not detected insedimentation ponds on-site, norin Lake Marion off-site
		trichloroethene	42 µg/L
		vinyl chloride	28 µg/L
		tetrachloroethene	52 µg/L
		1,1,1-trichloroethane	73 µg/L
		1,1,2-trichloroethane	5 µg/L
		1,1-dichloroethene	51 µg/L
		1,1-dichloroethane	9 µg/L
Land treatment,storage, &disposalactivities on-site	On-site air	organics as hexane	38,735	Working areason-site. Nonedetected atpropertyboundary	Inhalation,dermalabsorption oforganics.	Employees on-site	RfC: n-Hexane: 200 µg/m3
		respirable dust	14,860 µg/m3				NAAQS (PM-10): 150 µg/m3 (24hr)
		methylene chloride	27,534 µg/m3				CREG: 2 µg/m3
		M&P xylene	2.5 mg/m3				OSHA PEL: 435 mg/m3 (TWA)
		Halogens - boiler discharge	4000 ppm				No monitoring data
Residential Activities	Off-site groundwater	coliform bacteria	15 MF/100 mls	Residential waterwells	Ingestion	Residents withwells in animalfeed areas or wellswithout grout	Poor water well location andconstruction in contamination.
		4-methyl-3-pentanoic acid	not reported
Past mining andwaste burningactivities of previousproperty owners and Land treatment, storage, &disposal activities on-site	Off-site air	Unknown	Unknown	Off-siteresidential areas	Inhalation	Unknown	Current and past off-site air datahas not been collected. Laidlawwill begin collecting air samplesas required by its 1994 operatingpermit once their proposed airsampling plan is approved.

APPENDIX D.

LITERATURE VALUES FOR CHEMICALS IN BLOOD

PCB Levels in Serum and Adipose Tissue of Selected Populations
Group Tested	Number	Blood Serum (ppb)*			Adipose Tissue (fat) (ppm)			Reference
		Mean	Median	Range	Mean	Median	Range
Present Transformer Workers	35	53.7	43.7	4.3 - 253	5.4	3.2	0.03 - 58	Fait (116)
Past Transformer Workers	17	38.6	30.0	1.5 -143	1.2	0.8	0.08 - 3.1
Unexposed Comparison Group	56	20.0	16.1	0.5 - 181	1.5	0.9	0.0008 -20
Currently Exposed	37	12.2	12.0	<1.0 - 300	2.08	2.20	<0.2 - 33	Emmett (117)
Exposed in the Past	17	5.9	7.0	<1.0 - 30	0.83	0.75	0.3 - 5.1
Comparison Group	54	4.6	6.0	<1.0 - 15	0.60	0.60	<0.2 - 3.0
Canton, MA: Volunteers	10	7.1		1 - 18				Kreiss, 1985 (57)
Jefferson, OH: Volunteers	59	5.8		1 - 45
Fairmont, WV: Volunteers	40	6.7		1 - 23
Norwood, MA: Volunteers	990	4.9		2 - 30
Michigan PBB Cohort	1631	7.7		<1 - 57				Kreiss (118)
Michigan 4 year olds       Fish Exposure       Farm Exposure	205 80	4.18 4.82		1 - 19.4 1 - 23.3				Jacobson (119)
Monroe, LA: 1980	8				1.04		0.38 - 2.33	Jensen (120)
Monroe, LA: 1984	10				1.23		0.65 - 1.96

* Note: Serum levels are in parts per billion (ppb) and adipose tissue levels are in parts per million (ppm). One part per million is 1000 parts per billion.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SERUM LEVELS OF PCBs IN AREAS WHERE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT WAS DONE.
Adapted from Stehr-Green, Burse, and Welty, 1988. (60)

	ON-SITE		OFF-SITE			POTENTIALLY EXPOSED POPULATION
LOCATION	SOIL (ppm)	SURFACE WATER (ppb)	SOIL (ppm)	SURFACE WATER (ppb)	FOOD CHAIN	#	RANGE (ppb)	MEAN*	% < 20 ppb	NOTES
Sebastian, AR	Contaminated soils sprayed in residential area		133,000	NA	NA	20	2-11	5.8	100
Wayne, GA	3,436	1.5	149	8.5 (rainwaterrunoff)	NA	16 4	3-348 3-11	20.9 5.1	69 100	Total Group Nonworkers only
Monroe, IN (3 sites)	330,000	18 (water) 520 (sediment)	3,500	12.2	200 (fish)	61 51 55	3-75 3-51 3-47	10.9 9.0 9.0	80 90 84	Total Group Nonworkers only Random Sample
Norfolk, MA	220,000	NA	3	350,000 (sediment)	NA	90 89	1-30 1-13	4.2 4.1	99 100	Total Group Nonworkers only
Ashtabula, OH	NA	8,390,000 (sludge)	0.1	7.0	1.9 (plants)	59 57	1-45 1-15	4.4 4.1	97 100	Total Group Nonworkers
Allegheny, PA	32,000	NA	1,106	300,000 (sediment)	NA	9	ND-5	2.7	100	Includes 5 children
Chester, PA	36,000 (soil) 420,000 (work area)	NA	6,400	86,000 (sediment)	6.6	23 22	1-79 1-31 1-24	5.9 5.3 4.4	91 95 92	Total Group Nonworkers only Random Sample
Pickens, SC	NA	77,200 (sludge) PCBsdischarged into areasurface waters	130	0.9	0.3	27	ND-30	2.6	96	Quantitated as Arochlor1254
Marion, WV	22,226	NA	205	17	1.7 (chicken)	24	1-23	5.0	96

Wilhelm & Ohnesorge (88)

NA = Results not available or samples not collected.
ND = Results below detection levels.
* Means are geometric means. Non-detectable serum concentrations were assumed to be 1/2 the detection limit for calculation geometric means.

LITERATURE VALUES FOR TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION IN HAIR
Mean (Range): mg/kg dry weight

Location		No,	Zinc	Lead	Cadmium	Copper	Manganese	Iron	Aluminum	Author
San Diego		20	178 (110-380)	6.3 (0.1-31)	0.5 (0.2-2.3)	16 (7-33)	0.35 (0.1-0.9)	19 (3-77)	10.6 (0.1-43.0)	Shrestha and Schrauzer
Darjeeling		27	284 (130-634)	8.5 (1-18.4)	0.7 (0.3-2.5)	20 (9-52)	8.1 (0.5-25.0)	31 (10-67)	2.4 (2.0-4.2)
Sweden		30	137 (31-231)					12 (4-27)		Maratsu & Parr
Germany		41	148.8	1.72	0.085	17.7				Wilhelm &Ohnesorge
U.S.	Urban Rural	19 21	169 121	8.63 3.98	0.64 0.70					Stewart- Pinkham
	Smoke Nonsmoke	15 65	171 146	6.07 5.59	0.86 0.55
	Toxic (a) Nontoxic	48 32	148 155	6.9 3.8	0.69 0.48

      (a) Proximity within 2 miles of a major highway, industry and incineration site

LEVELS OF DDT IN THE GENERAL POPULATION:

Group	Percent Seen	Levels Serum	Levels Fat	Source
Mothers Placentas	DDT: 92.5 DDE: 100 DDT: 90.7 DDE:100	DDT: 1.82 ppb DDE: 2.65 ppb DDT:8.97 ppb DDE: 9.31 ppb	2579.5 ppb 2742.5 ppb	Selby, 1961 (121)
US Residents		DDT: 4.18 ppb DDE: 15.72 ppb		Radomski, 1971 (122)
Mother (White) Mother (Black) Infant (White) Infant (Black)	DDT:100 DDT: 100 DDT: 100 DDT: 100	Rural: 12 ppb Urban: 7 ppb Rural: 28 ppb Urban: 16 ppb Rural: 3 ppb Urban: 4 ppb Rural: 9 ppb Urban 7 ppb		D'Ercole, 1976 (123)
NHANES	DDT: 99	DDT: 2-58 ppb	100%	Murphy, 1985 (63)
Aus Adults			3.42 ppm	Ahad, 1988 (124)
Serum (fast) Serum (nonfast)		DDE: 5.37 ppb DDE: 6.74 ppb		Phillips, 1989 (125)

LITERATURE VALUES FOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE

Tissue	Levels	Source
Maternal sera Placenta	0.21 ppb 1.21	Selby et al, 1980 (121)
Black Mothers Sera White Mothers Sera Black Newborns Sera White Newborns Sera	0.11 ppb 0.08 ppb 0.03 ppb 0.02 ppb	D-Ercole, 1976 (123)
NHANES II Serum	1.5 ppb (1-23 ppb)	Murphy, 1985 (63)

LITERATURE VALUES FOR HCB

Tissue	Levels	Source
Adipose Tissue	1 - 9 ppb	Stanley, 1986 (126)
Fat	18 - 35 ppb	Anseri, 1986 (127)
Blood Serum	7.7 ppb	Rytten, 1988 (128)
Blood Serum	1 - 17 ppb	Murphy, 1985 (63)

SELECTED VOLATILE COMPOUNDS IN THE GENERAL POPULATION

Compound	Antoine, 1986		NHANES III
	Mean	Range	Mean	Range
Toluene	1.5 ppb	0.2 - 38 ppb	1.3 ppb	0.4 - 3 ppb
Ethyl Benzene	1.0 ppb	ND - 59 ppb	0.3 ppb	0.1 - 0.7 ppb
Xylenes (Total)	5.2 ppb	0.5 - 160 ppb	2.4 ppb	1.2 - 5.3 ppb
1,1,1-Trichloroethane	1.0 ppb	ND - 26 ppb	1.7 ppb	0.3 - 6.8 ppb
Tetrachloroethylene	2.4 ppb	0.7 - 23 ppb	0.7 ppb	0.1 - 5.4 ppb
Dichlorobenzene	0.6 ppb	ND - 31 ppb	0.9 ppb	0.04 - 14.8 ppb
Styrene	0.4 ppb	ND - 1.9 ppb	0.2 ppb	0.05 - 0.4 ppb

ND - Nondetect

Antoine, 1986: Study in New Orleans of 250 individuals. (16 had potential exposure) (73)
NHANES III: Preliminary data from first 88 samples. (74)

APPENDIX E - ATSDR's Response to Comments on the
Petitioned Public Health Assessment
Public Comment Version
GSX Landfill
July 8, 1993

Response to Comments Received During the Public Comment Period

The following responses address technical comments submitted by the public during the publiccomment period of July 19, 1993 through August 18, 1993. Comments received during thepublic comment period were logged and became part of the administrative record for the publichealth assessment. Comments (without indication of who made them) and responses will beincluded in this appendix to the final public health consultation. Although commenter's names willnot be included in the public health assessment, they are subject to Freedom of Information Actrequests.

1. Concerns were expressed about ATSDR's public health assessment process. Specifically,the public asked ATSDR how it could assess health without conducting biomedical testing.

   ATSDR does not routinely consider biomedical testing to be a necessary element for itspublic health assessments. However, the public health assessment is the first step in thepublic health process. To use a medical analogy, it is the point at which the physicianspeaks with the patient about symptoms, looks for signs of illness, and reviews the medicalrecord. The physician will then determine if additional actions, like lab tests, are needed.

   At this point, there is nothing in the record to verify illness caused by the GSX Landfill. ATSDR's Division of Health Studies agreed to "consider the need for and feasibility of ahealth study of the community around the site" as more offsite exposure data becomesavailable. Please refer to the Conclusions section (page 37).

   • "Available evidence is not sufficient to conclude that people have or have not been exposed to contaminants related to the GSX at levels that could cause illness or disease." (page 37, item 1) [To address the lack of information about possible current or future exposures, ATSDR recommended air monitoring, offsite groundwater monitoring, and continued onsite groundwater and surface water monitoring. See page 39, item 1].
   • "The chemicals detected in the blood and hair analyses in residents cannot be attributed to the GSX facility because many of the detected compounds are widespread in the environment. Levels seen in the area were consistent with those seen in general population studies. Although the results of the public health assessment do not confirm community health concerns about adverse health effects, monitoring data are not available to evaluate all possible exposure pathways." (page 38, item 10).
   • "There are no community-specific health outcome data to indicate that the sitehas had an adverse impact on physical health. The overall poorer health statusin the community is consistent with the fact that it is a rural, agricultural, lowersocioeconomic area." (page 38, item 11).
2. A comment was made concerning the use of the term, " public availability sessions." On page 5 of the public comment version of the petitioned public health assessment, the authors state that, "On March 28, 1991, ATSDR representative Dr. Virginia Lee met with representative of the local medical association to hold a public availability session in the community of Rimini. During the public availability session, residents expressed concerns about the GSX site." A public availability session is an opportunity for community members to express their health concerns one-on-one with an ATSDR representative. The cited paragraph was reworded to reflect that on March 28, 1991, ATSDR representatives held two meetings to gather health concerns: the first was with physicians belonging to the South Carolina Medical Association and the second was with members of the community who lived near the landfill.
3. A comment states that ATSDR did not include several pertinent statements in the July 8,1993 public comment version of the petitioned public health assessment (PPHA) that werein the January 21, 1992 draft version of the petitioned public health assessment. Thestatements in question include:
   • "No environmental samples were collected at the time of the releases; therefore, the impact of the releases on the environment cannot be determined." The context of this statement was included in the public comment version of the PPHA on page 16 (last statement in 4. Releases from Waste Transportation Practices section that begins on page 15). This section is included in the final PPHA and begins on page 17 of this document.
   • "The fact that hazardous wastes were deposited below the natural water table at the site, however, means that human health could be threatened in the future if the wastes become saturated and contaminants migrate with groundwater flow. The context of this statement was extensively addressed and discussed in the public comment version of the PPHA in the Pathways Analysis section beginning on page 17 (page 19 of this document).
   • "Whether or not human exposure could occur as a result of airborne contamination has not yet been established because no monitoring data are available ..." The context of this statement was extensively discussed and addressed in the public comment version of the PPHA beginning in the Summary section (page 1, fourth paragraph), the Pathways Analysis section (E. Receptor Populations, page 20), and the Recommendations section (page 37, recommendation 1). The discussions of the lack of air monitoring data appear in the same sections of this document (pages 1, 22, and 39, respectively).
   • "Lack of data also prevents ATSDR from determining whether exposure hasoccurred, is occurring, or could occur as a result of transportation releases." Thecontext of this statement was discussed and addressed throughout the publiccomment version of the PPHA in the Summary section (page 1, fourth paragraph),the Environmental Contamination and Other Hazards section (B. Off-siteContamination Releases from Waste Transportation Practices, page 15), thePathways Analyses section (A. Sources of Contamination, 1. TransportationSources, page 17; B. Environmental Media, 4. Transportation Releases, page 19;C. Human Exposure Points, page 19; D. Human Exposure Routes, page 20; E.Receptor Population, page 20), the Conclusions section (item number 3, page 35),and the Recommendations section (item 5 page 37 and third paragraph, page 39). The information is contained in this document as it appeared in the public commentversion of the PPHA.
4. A concern was expressed about "the apparent lack of continuous air monitoring data." ATSDR concurs with this comment. As part of the 1994 permit for the facility, Laidlaw is required to perform perimeter air monitoring. ATSDR will evaluate the data from the perimeter air sampling as they become available.
5. A comment expressed "the need for an objective longitudinal study to monitor the health of residents near the facility." In 1993, ATSDR's Division of Health Assessment and Consultation requested that its Division of Health Studies (DHS) consider the feasibility of biomedical testing in residents living adjacent to the landfill.
6. Laidlaw Environmental Services submitted comments related to the historical and operatingaspects of the facility.

FOOTNOTES

1. The site is presently named the Pinewood Secure Landfill. However, ATSDR will refer to thesite as the "GSX Landfill" because that name was used in previous drafts of this document.

2. The site is presently named the Pinewood Secure Landfill. However, ATSDR will refer to the site as the "GSX Landfill" because that name was used in previous drafts of this document.

Table of Contents