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

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
DATEACTIVITY
Jan 1977Opaline claystone mined to produce Fullers earth.
Jul 1977Industrial waste disposal application submitted to South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control(DHEC).
Nov 1977Industrial waste disposal permit issued by DHEC.

Liquid wastes disposed of on-site.
Apr 1978Industrial waste permit reissued to SCA Services, Inc.
Jul 1978First hydrogeologic study conducted at site.

Clay and synthetic membrane liners installed in waste disposal cells.
1978-1979Wastes previously disposed in unlined cells excavated and placed into lined cells.
??? 1979Sumter County residents oppose expansion of landfill.
Sep 1980SCA submitted RCRA Part A application; site achieved interim status under RCRA.
Nov 1980SCA contractor conducted on-site industrial hygiene survey; particulate in air exceeded OSHA PEL.
Apr 1982EPA 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 1982Truckload of sludge arrived with waste "oozing out of tailgate".
Oct 1982Bulk waste spilled in transit at junction of highways 378 and 261.
Aug 1983SCA submitted RCRA Part B application.
Nov 1983EPA Region IV notified SCA that the Part B application was deficient.
Nov 1983Chromium detected in groundwater on-site above National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard.
May 1984SCA notified DHEC that statistically significant change in groundwater quality detected at site monitoring wells.
Oct 1984Landfill purchased by GSX Corporation.
Fall 1984EPA determines that ground-water monitoring system is inadequate.
Jan 1985GSX began monthly monitoring of sedimentation ponds.
Feb 1985Rail car carrying waste rolled off track 2 miles from GSX.
Mar 1985Consultant rated site as low to moderate potential for environmental impairment.
Apr 1985EPA issued RCRA Consent Order for ground-water monitoring program.
May 1985DHEC filed Notice of Violation for reporting, monitoring & closure violations.
May 1985Use of absorbents to stabilize liquids prohibited under RCRA.
May 1985Truckload of waste ignites upon entering facility; landfill evacuated.

Wastes from Caldwell Systems, North Carolina.
Jun 1985VOCs detected in leachate on-site.
Jun 1985Waste in truck entering GSX ignited after lime added to absorb moisture.
Jun 1985On-site industrial hygiene survey: particulate exceeded OSHA PEL.
Jul 1985DHEC began ambient air sampling on-site.
Aug 1985DHEC determined that GSX did not have adequate financial assurance for corrective action.
Aug 1985GSX submitted RCRA Exposure Information Report to EPA;

7 occupational injuries due to contact with waste reported.
Aug 1985Truck arrived with leaking wastes, wastes leaked for 3 days into holding pool.
Sep 1985DHEC terminated air monitoring on-site.
??? 1985Additional ground water monitoring wells were installed.
Dec 1985DHEC 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 1985AWARE, Inc. released detailed site hydrogeologic report.
Jan 1986French drain monitored; no contaminants detected.
Jun 1986EPA conducted aquatic toxicity tests on surface water samples near GSX;

results indicated no significant acute toxicity.
Jun 1986DHEC Consent Order issued: conduct corrective action for groundwater contamination.
Jun 1986VOCs detected in on-site groundwater.
Jul 1986DHEC sampled Lake Marion near GSX; results negative for pollutants above background.
Jul 1986DHEC monitored four residential water wells and 1 irrigation well; results negative.
Aug 1986Medical Univ. of South Carolina agreed to examine Rimini residents.
Aug 1986Massive fish kill occurred in Lake Marion; attributed to natural causes.
Aug 1986EPA Ground-Water Task Force report on GSX facility released.
Sep 1986DHEC responded to citizens that medical exams were not necessary since releases had not occurred.
Sep 1986Rimini residents were examined at Medical Univ. of South Carolina,

physicians concluded that health problems were not related to GSX.
Sep 19866 residential water wells monitored by DHEC. Bacteria, 4-methyl-3-pentanoic acid detected. DHEC noted poor well construction and location.
Oct 1986Citizens submitted blood samples to private lab for analysis in Texas.
Nov 1986VOCs detected in on-site groundwater.
Nov 1986Dust in air on-site analyzed for organics & heavy metals; no analyses conducted for crystalline silica.
Nov 1986Consulting geologist retained by citizens criticized site location & monitoring.
Dec 1986Consulting physician retained by citizens criticized landfill siting, environmental monitoring & medical exams.
Dec 1986GSX submitted expanded Ground-Water Assessment Report to DHEC.
Dec 1986Waste leakage detected in 12 of 18 rail cars carrying waste to GSX.
Jun 1987Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste reviewed blood analyses from residents, stated that VOC levels in blood were high.
Jun 1987GSX began extraction of contaminated groundwater.
Jul 1987Consulting physician retained by citizens recommended sub-clinical toxicity testing for residents.
Jul 1987DHEC conducted Priority Pollutant analyses of fish tissue in Lake Marion;

no significant exceedances noted.
Aug 1987DHEC toxicologist conducted "Toxic Review" of site contaminants.
Oct 1987Citizens petitioned ATSDR to conduct public health assessment.
Oct 1987DHEC met with citizens to discuss monitoring residential water wells.
Nov 1987One residential water well tested by DHEC. Results negative.
Dec 1987ATSDR responded to petition request for public health assessment.
Jun 1988EPA issued Consent Order: corrective action for ground-water contamination.
Sep 1988Draft RCRA permit was released for public comment.
Nov 1988Public hearing conducted on RCRA permit; citizens opposed permit.
Nov 1988DHEC offered to address health concerns of citizens.
Jun 1989DHEC stated in letter to citizens that GSX was required to stabilize liquids with absorbents; inconsistent with RCRA.
Feb 1990Citizens requested community health survey from ATSDR.
Mar 1990ATSDR Regional representative met with DHEC and GSX to discuss petition request.
May 1990ATSDR conducted site visit for petitioned public health assessment.
Jun 1990GSX released Water Table Aquifer Assessment and corrective action proposal report.
Mar 1991ATSDR met with local medical association and held a public availability meeting
Jan 1992ATSDR Initial Release draft of petitioned public health assessment released to EPA and DHEC
Aug 1992ATSDR received comments from DHEC regarding Initial Release draft of public health assessment
Jan 1993ATSDR conducted site visit and met with DHEC regarding public health assessment comments
Jan 1993Hearings regarding RCRA operating permit for the landfill begun.
Aug 1993ATSDR released Petitioned Public Health Assessment for public comment.
Mar 1994DHEC issued 5-year operating permit
Aug 1997A 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 ownersOn-site
Groundwater
benzene
280 µg/L
None at presentIngestionNone at presentThe 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 ownersOn-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-siteOn-site
air
organics as hexane
38,735
Working areason-site. Nonedetected atpropertyboundaryInhalation,dermalabsorption oforganics.Employees on-siteRfC: 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 ActivitiesOff-site
groundwater
coliform bacteria15 MF/100 mlsResidential waterwellsIngestionResidents withwells in animalfeed areas or wellswithout groutPoor water well location andconstruction in contamination.
4-methyl-3-pentanoic acidnot reported
Past mining andwaste burningactivities of previousproperty owners

and

Land treatment, storage, &disposal activities on-site

Off-site
air
Unknown
Unknown
Off-siteresidential areasInhalation
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 MedianRange
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-SITEOFF-SITEPOTENTIALLY EXPOSED POPULATION
LOCATIONSOIL (ppm)SURFACE WATER
(ppb)
SOIL
(ppm)
SURFACE
WATER (ppb)
FOOD
CHAIN
#RANGE
(ppb)
MEAN*% < 20
ppb
NOTES
Sebastian, ARContaminated soils sprayed in residential area133,000NANA202-115.8100
Wayne, GA3,4361.51498.5 (rainwaterrunoff)NA16
4
3-348
3-11
20.9
5.1
69
100
Total Group
Nonworkers only
Monroe, IN
(3 sites)
330,00018 (water)
520 (sediment)
3,50012.2200 (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, MA220,000NA3350,000
(sediment)
NA90
89
1-30
1-13
4.2
4.1
99
100
Total Group
Nonworkers only
Ashtabula, OHNA8,390,000 (sludge)0.17.01.9 (plants)59
57
1-45
1-15
4.4
4.1
97
100
Total Group
Nonworkers
Allegheny, PA32,000NA1,106300,000 (sediment)NA9ND-52.7100Includes 5 children
Chester, PA36,000 (soil)
420,000 (work area)
NA6,40086,000

(sediment)

6.623

22

1-79

1-31
1-24

5.9

5.3
4.4

91

95
92

Total Group

Nonworkers only
Random Sample

Pickens, SCNA77,200 (sludge) PCBsdischarged into areasurface waters1300.90.327ND-302.696Quantitated as Arochlor1254
Marion, WV22,226NA205171.7
(chicken)
241-235.096
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
LocationNo,ZincLeadCadmiumCopperManganeseIronAluminumAuthor
San Diego20178 (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
Darjeeling27284 (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)
Sweden30137 (31-231)



12 (4-27)
Maratsu &
Parr
Germany41148.81.720.08517.7


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:
GroupPercent SeenLevels SerumLevels FatSource
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)
NHANESDDT: 99DDT: 2-58 ppb100%Murphy, 1985 (63)
Aus Adults

3.42 ppmAhad, 1988 (124)
Serum (fast)
Serum (nonfast)

DDE: 5.37 ppb
DDE: 6.74 ppb

Phillips, 1989 (125)



LITERATURE VALUES FOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
TissueLevelsSource
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 Serum1.5 ppb (1-23 ppb)Murphy, 1985 (63)



LITERATURE VALUES FOR HCB
TissueLevelsSource
Adipose Tissue1 - 9 ppbStanley, 1986 (126)
Fat18 - 35 ppbAnseri, 1986 (127)
Blood Serum7.7 ppbRytten, 1988 (128)
Blood Serum1 - 17 ppbMurphy, 1985 (63)



SELECTED VOLATILE COMPOUNDS IN THE GENERAL POPULATION
Compound Antoine, 1986 NHANES III
Mean Range Mean Range
Toluene1.5 ppb0.2 - 38 ppb1.3 ppb0.4 - 3 ppb
Ethyl Benzene1.0 ppbND - 59 ppb0.3 ppb0.1 - 0.7 ppb
Xylenes (Total)5.2 ppb0.5 - 160 ppb2.4 ppb1.2 - 5.3 ppb
1,1,1-Trichloroethane1.0 ppbND - 26 ppb1.7 ppb0.3 - 6.8 ppb
Tetrachloroethylene2.4 ppb0.7 - 23 ppb0.7 ppb0.1 - 5.4 ppb
Dichlorobenzene0.6 ppbND - 31 ppb0.9 ppb0.04 - 14.8 ppb
Styrene0.4 ppbND - 1.9 ppb0.2 ppb0.05 - 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

  
 
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. #