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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

OAK GROVE SANITARY LANDFILL
OAK GROVE TOWNSHIP, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA


CONCLUSIONS

Based on available information, the Minnesota Department ofHealth has concluded that the Oak Grove SLF site poses noapparent public health hazard under current conditions sincethere are no indications that people either have been or arebeing exposed to levels of site-related contaminants that wouldbe of concern to human health.

Landfill contaminants may be adversely impacting the adjacentwetland as evidenced by an area of stressed wetland vegetationsoutheast of the landfill mound. Human contact with anycontaminants present in the wetland is not expected to besignificant.

The surficial outwash sand aquifer is contaminated with organicand inorganic contaminants. This aquifer is not used by local residents as a source of potable water, so there is no potentialfor adverse health effects from contact with these chemicals.Furthermore, under provisions of the Record of Decision, theinstallation of new drinking water wells will not be allowed inthe shallow aquifer.

There have been eight landfill contaminants detected at very lowconcentrations in the deeper aquifer. The source of some ofthese chemicals is still in doubt. This aquifer supplies localresidents with potable water. However, local residents are notexposed to these contaminants (sampling has shown thatresidential wells screened in this aquifer are free ofcontamination).

Although relatively high concentrations of numerous VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds, and inorganic compounds were detectedin leachate seep samples, human exposure to these seeps isconsidered to be unlikely since there is no evidence oftresspassing at the site.

There is the possibility that methane vapors can migrate fromunder the soil cover and into the ambient air. However, theconcentration of methane would be significantly reduced bydilution with ambient air. Thus, the concentration of methane towhich residents would be potentially exposed to would be wellbelow that which would be of concern to human health. Theowner/operator of the landfill and other family members live inhomes on the far northern portion of the site. The distance tothese residences and the low concentrations of methane detected,preclude the possibility of explosive levels of methane in thehomes.


RECOMMENDATIONS

Access to the site should be restricted. This would eliminatepotential human contact with physical hazards on the landfill.

The movement of contaminants from the landfill mound (that is,into the groundwater, adjacent wetland, etc.) should becontrolled. The contaminant source operable unit (landfillmound) was addressed in a Record of Decision for a permanentlandfill cover which was signed in 1988. Design of the cover isunder way and construction is expected to begin in 1992. Thecover is designed to restrict the movement of contaminants awayfrom the landfill mound.

The contamination of groundwater resources in the area around theOak Grove SLF should be addressed. This will be accomplishedusing the remedy selected by the MPCA and EPA and outlined in theRecord of Decision signed by these two agencies in 1990. Theremedy consists of long-term monitoring of the shallow and deepaquifers, surface waters, and sediments (15).

The present and long-term effects of chemical contaminants on theadjacent wetland should be assessed as new surface watermonitoring data become available.

Remedial workers disrupting the temporary cover on the landfillmound should take appropriate precautions because of thepotential for exposure to methane and other organic gases.

Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP) Recommendations

In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental ResponseCompensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended, theOak Grove Sanitary Landfill site has been evaluated for follow-uphealth activities. Based on the information and data reviewedduring the preparation of the Health Assessment, no humanexposure to contaminants at concentrations of public healthconcern is occurring or is believed to have occurred in the past. Therefore, this site is not being considered for follow-up healthactivities at this time. However, if data become availablesuggesting that human exposure to hazardous substances at levelsof public health concern is occurring, ATSDR and the MinnesotaDepartment of Health will re-evaluate this site for any indicatedfollow-up activities. In addition, a community education effortrelated to this site was undertaken. Site-specific fact sheetshave been prepared and distributed and public meetings were heldto facilitate the exchange of information with members of thecommunity.


PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION

The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and the Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) will monitor the progressof the recommendations outlined above.

When requested by MPCA, MDH will review sampling data for privatewells immediately surrounding the Oak Grove SLF to determine ifthere is a potential for adverse human health effects from long-term use of the drinking water.

The U.S. EPA, as the lead agency for the enforcement portion ofthe clean-up of the Oak Grove SLF site, issued a UnilateralAdministrative Order (UAO) on December 24, 1991. The UAOrequires that the parties found to have contributed to thecontamination of the site (also called responsible parties; RPs) conduct and pay for the clean-up activities specified in the twoRecords of Decision. The UAO requires that the clean-up workbegin as soon as possible (expected in the spring of 1992). However, if the RPs refuse to conduct and pay for the specifiedclean-up activities, the U.S. EPA will fund the clean-up and thentake court action against the RPs to recover the costs.


PREPARERS OF THE REPORT

Health Effects and Environmental Review:

Robert Roy, Ph.D.
Research Scientist (Toxicologist)
Minnesota Department of Health

Hydrogeological Review:

Forest D. Arnold, M.S.
Research Scientist (Hydrogeologist)
Minnesota Department of Health (no longer with MDH)

ATSDR Regional Representative:

Denise Jordan-Izaguirre
Regional Services
Office of the Assistant Administrator

ATSDR Technical Project Officer:

Burt J. Cooper, M.S.
Environmental Health Scientist
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Remedial Programs Branch


CERTIFICATION

This health assessment was prepared by the Minnesota Departmentof Health under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordancewith approved methodology and procedures existing at the time thehealth assessment was initiated.

Burt J. Cooper
Technical Project Officer, SPS, RPB, DHAC


The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, hasreviewed this health assessment and concurs with its findings.

Director, DHAC, ATSDR


REFERENCES

  1. Malcolm Pirnie Inc. Oak Grove Draft Remedial Investigation Report. Minneapolis, MN: Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. April, 1990.

  2. Malcolm Pirnie Inc. Oak Grove Final Remedial Investigation Report. Minneapolis, MN: Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. October, 1990.

  3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste Land Treatment. Washington, D.C.: USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1983.

  4. Shacklette H and Boerngen J. Element concentration in soils and other surficial materials of the conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984.

  5. Pierce FJ, Dowdy RH, Grigal DF. Concentrations of six trace metals in some major Minnesota soil series. J Environ Quality 1982;11:416-422.

  6. Howard PH. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data For Organic Chemicals. Volume I. Ann Arbor, MI: Lewis Publishers, 1989.

  7. Howard PH. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data For Organic Chemicals. Volume II. Ann Arbor, MI: Lewis Publishers, 1990.

  8. Harry G. Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory. The Installation Restoration Program Toxicology Guide. Volumes 1-4. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1989.

  9. Woodward K, Smith A, Mariscotti S, Tomlinson N. Review of the Toxicity of the Esters of o-Phthalic Acid (Phthalate Esters). London, England: HMSO Books, 1986.

  10. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Di(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1989.

  11. Owen BA. Literature-derived absorption coefficients for 39 chemicals via oral and inhalation routes of exposure. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 1990;11:237-252.

  12. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Arsenic. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1989.

  13. Hindmarsh D. Clinical and environmental aspects of arsenic toxicity. CRC Crit Rev Clin Lab Sciences 1986;23:315- 347.

  14. Mazumder D, Chakraborty A, Ghose A, Gupta J, Chakraborty D, Dey S, Chattopadhyay N. Chronic arsenic toxicity from drinking tubewell water in rural West Bengal. Bull WHO 1988; 66:499-506.

  15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill Declaration for the Record of Decision. U.S. EPA, Region V, December, 1990.

APPENDIX 1: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FACT SHEET FOR THE OAK GROVE SANITARY LANDFILL

SUPERFUND HEALTH FACTS

Information for Citizens about the Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill

This fact sheet was prepared for citizens concerned about health and cleanup issues at the Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill. It briefly summarized the information contained in the Draft Health Assessment prepared for this site by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH).

Site Description and History

The Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill (Oak Grove SLF) is included on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund List. From 1967 to 1971, the present-day Oak Grove SLF operated as an open dump receiving mixed municipal and industrial solid wastes. In 1971, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) issued the owner/operator a sanitary landfill permit. The Oak Grove SLF was operated as a sanitary landfill under this permit. The Oak Grove SLF was operated as sanitary landfill under this permit until 1976, when operations were assumed by Northwest Disposal, Inc. The Oak Grove SLF closed in 1984 when its operating permit was suspended by the MPCA.

From 1971 through 1983, periodic inspections of the Oak Grove SLF were carried out by both the Anoka County Health Department and MPCA. Records indicate that while most of the waste in the landfill is commercial and municipal solid waste, unknown quantities of industrial solid and liquid wastes (some of which may be regarded as hazardous waste) are also present. These wastes included: acidic oil sludge, paint and solvent wastes, foundry sand and sludges, inorganic acids, metal sludges, chlorinated and non-chlorinated organic compounds from pesticide manufacturing, cutting oils, lubricants, cleaning solvents, and inks.

What contaminants were found at the site?

Ground water, surface waters, sediments, soil, and leachate seeps on the landfill mound have been sampled for contamination as part of the investigation of the Oak Grove SLF. The types of contaminants most frequently found were volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals. VOCs are present in oils and other petroleum products, household and industrial solvents (for example, cleaning products, degreasers, and paint thinners), paints, and in many other items commonly disposed by households and businesses as municipal waste. VOCs are also produced as landfilled refuse breaks down. Metals are also present in a number of industrial and household wastes.

In general, low levels of VOCs and metals have been detected in wetland surface water, sediments, and soils. Higher levels of these contaminants were detected in ground water and in leachate seeps. Methane gas, which is naturally produced as bacteria break down organic waste in garbage, was detected underneath the lime sludge cover on the eastern portion of the landfill. Cedar Creek was not found to be contaminated.

What about the groundwater contamination?

Ground water beneath the Oak Grove SLF has been sampled on a semi-regular basis since 1971. In 1982, the ground water sampling program was expanded to include a broad range of VOCs, semi volatile organic compounds, and metals. Sampling of monitoring wells between 1982 and 1990 have shown that the shallow ground water beneath the Oak Grove SLF is contaminated with chemicals from each of these three classes of contaminants. However, none of the shallow ground water monitoring wells located within the wetland south of Oak Grove SLF were found to be contaminated.

The deep sand and gravel aquifer (also called the valley train aquifer) is used as the source of drinking water for local residents. Results from sampling of monitoring wells in this aquifer have shown very low levels of three VOCs and four metals to be present.

Nearby residential wells located west, southwest, and south of the Oak Grove SLF have been sampled on several occasions since 1984. None of the wells have been shown to be contaminated.

How did MDH evaluate health concerns?

The Health Assessment for the Oak Grove SLF was prepared to evaluate any current or future impacts the site may pose to the public's health. Briefly, MDH's evaluation was based on information obtained during a visit to the site, health concerns expressed by the local community, the types of contaminants found both on-site and off-site, the potential toxicity of the contaminants, and potential pathways by which local residents may be exposed to the contaminants.

Are there health concerns associated with the site?

It is important to keep in mind that exposure to a chemical means that people must come into contact with the chemical by ingesting it (for example, for a contaminant present in drinking water), touching it, or breathing it.

Based on available information, the Minnesota Department of Health has concluded that this site does not pose an apparent public health hazard under the current conditions since there are no indications that nearby residents either have been or are being exposed to contaminants from the Oak Grove SLF.

The likelihood for nearby residential wells to become contaminated with landfill-derived chemicals is/will be significantly diminished or entirely eliminated because of the following:

  1. The ground water in the deep aquifer that supplies local residences with drinking water flows to the south toward the wetland. Therefore, contaminants in this aquifer are expected to move away from local residential wells.

  2. The ground water in the contaminated, shallow aquifer does not flow downward towards the deep aquifer, but instead discharges into the surface water of the wetland south of the landfill.

  3. There is a geologic barrier (a "till later") between the contaminated shallow aquifer and the deep aquifer which further prevents the movement of contaminants into the deep aquifer.

What is being done to clean up the Oak Grove SLF?

The MPCA and EPA signed a Record of Decision in 1988 which outlined the plan to place a final cover over the Oak Grove SLF. This cover will keep rain from leaking through the buried wastes and creating more contaminated water which may, over time, move down into the shallow aquifer. Work is continuing on the design of the cover.

The MCPA and EPA signed another Record of Decision in 1990 which outlined the plan for long-term monitoring of the shallow and deep aquifers, surface waters, and sediments. These measures will ensure that local residents will not be exposed to harmful levels of landfill contaminants. However, if sampling results from the deep aquifer indicate that contaminants are increasing to levels that may adversely affect human health, MPCA and EPA will take further actions to provide adequate protection of human health.

What does the MDH recommend?

Access to the Oak Grove SLF site should be restricted. This would eliminate the potential for human contact with the physical hazards on the landfill.

The plans for the clean up of the Oak Grove SLF outlined in the Records of Decision should be implemented in a timely fashion. Once in place, the combination of these remedies should significantly reduce or eliminate the movement of contaminants from the landfill into the area ground water. They will also provide for regular testing to assure that any contaminants that are present are below a level that would be of public health concern.

For more information about the Draft Health Assessment for the Oak Grove SLF, please contact Dr. Robert Roy at the MDH (627-5056). If you would like more information about the clean up activities at the Oak Grove SLF, please contact Wayne Sarappo at the MPCA (297-2715).


September 1991


APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED BY THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGARDING THE OAK GROVE SANITARY LANDFILL SITE

The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) obtained a mailing listof concerned citizens and government officials from the MinnesotaPollution Control Agency Office of Public Information. A copy ofthe draft Health Assessment for the Oak Grove Sanitary Landfillsite was mailed to each of approximately 230 persons along with arequest for written comments on any aspect of the document. TheMDH also issued a press release to local newspapers thatsummarized the major findings of the assessment and asked forwritten comments.

One written comment was received during the 30-day public commentperiod. This comment, and the MDH response follows:

  1. Comment - The commenter stated that he and an official of Anoka County asked for assistance (referring to problems atthe Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill) from the MDH in 1971-1972,but were not satisfied (or given an adequate response).
  2. MDH Response - In 1971-1972, the MDH was not adequately staffed (or funded) to investigate the potential impact thatexposure to contaminants from dumps/waste sites would have onhuman health. However, in 1987, the MDH began to receivefunding from the federal Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry (ATSDR) to assess any current or futureimpact on the public's health posed by the release ofhazardous substances into the environment from Superfundsites. This assessment is carried-out after MDH evaluatesall of the available environmental data, health data, andcommunity health concerns for the site. The conclusions ofthis assessment are released to all interested parties in theform of the Health Assessment document.


APPENDIX 3:

RECOMMENDED ALLOWABLE LIMITS (RALs) FOR DRINKING WATER CONTAMINANTS
Compound Ral (µg/L) Endpoint

Acenapthene

4,000.0

S

Acetone

700.0

S

Acifluorfen (Acid)

9.00

S

Acrylamide

0.08

C

Acrylonitrile

0.6

C

Alachlor***

4.0

C

Aldicarb***

9.0

S

Aldrin

0.02

C

Allyl Chloride (3 chloropropene)

1.0

S

Ametryn

60.00

S

Ammonium Sulfamate

1,000.0

S

Anthracene

2,000.0

S

Antimony

1.0

S

Arsenic

0.2

C

Asbestos

70,000,000*

C

Atrazine

3.0

S

Barium, Barium Sulfate and Chloride

2,000.0

S

Baygon (Propoxur)***

3.0

C

Bentazon (Basagran)

20.0

S

Benzene

10.0

C

Benzidine

0.002

C

Benzoic acid

30,000.0

S

Beryllium

0.08

C

1,1-biphenyl (diphenyl)

300.0

S

Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether

0.3

C

Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether

300.0

S

Bis (chloromethyl) ether

0.002

C

Boron

300.0

S

Bromacil

80.0

S

Bromodichloromethane

3.0

C

Bromoform

40.0

C

Bromomethane

0.10

S

n-Butanol

700.0

S

Butylate

400.0

S

Butylbenzyl phthalate

100.0

S

Butylphthalyl butylglycolate

7,000.0

S

Cadmium

4.0

S

Carbaryl

700.0

S

Carbofuran

40.0

S

Carbon disulfide

700.0

S

Carbon Tetrachloride

3.0

C

Carboxin

700.0

S

Chloramben

100.0

S

Chlordane

0.3

C

Chlorobenzene (Monochlorobenzene)

100.0

S

Chlorodibromomethane (Dibromochloromethane

10.0

S

Chloroform

60.0

C

2-Chlorophenol

30.0

S

Chlorothalonil***

100.0

C

Chlorpyrifos

20.0

S

Chromium (Total), Chromium VI

100.0

S

Chromium III

20,000.0

S

Cobalt

1.0

S

Copper

1,000.0

S

m, o, p-Cresol

30.0

S

Cyanazine

10.0

S

Cranide, free

100.0

S

Dacthal

3,000.0

S

Dalapon

200.0

S

DDT

1.0

C

Diazinon

0.6

S

1,4-Dibromobenzene

70.0

S

Dibromochloromethane

10.0

S

1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide, EDB)

0.004

C

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)

0.3

C

Dibutyl phthalate

700.0

S

Dicamba

200.0

S

1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ortho-)

600.0

S

1,3-Dichlorobenzene (meta-

600.0

S

1,4-Dichlorobenzene (para-)

10.0

C

3,3-Dichlorobenzidine

0.8

C

Dichlorodifluormethane

1,000.0

S

1, 1-Dichloroethane

70.0

S

1, 2-Dichloroethane

4.0

C

1, 1-Dichloroethene

6.0

S

1,2-Dichloroethene (cis)

70.0

S

1, 2-Dichloroethene (trans)

100.0

S

Dichloromethane

50.0

C

2,4-Dichlorophenol

20.0

S

2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)

70.0

S

1,2-Dichloropropane

5.0

C

1,3-Dichloropropene (cis-, trans-, mixture)***

2.0

C

Dieldrin

0.02

C

Diethylphtalate

6,000.0

S

Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (bis--)(DEHP)

20.0

C

Dimethrin

2,000.0

S

2,4-Dimethylphenol

600.0

S

Dimethylphthalate

7,000.0

S

Di-N-butylphthalate

700.0

S

2,4-Dinitrophenol

10.0

S

2,4-Dinitrotoluene

1.0

C

Dinoseb

10.0

S

p-Dioxane (1,4-Dioxane

30.0

C

Diphenamid

200.0

S

1,2-Diphenylhydrazine

0.5

C

Disulfoton

0.3

S

Diuron

10.0

S

Endothall

100.0

S

Endrin

2.0

S

Epichlorohydrin

30.0

C

Ethylbenzene

700.0

S

s-Ethyldipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC)

200.0

S

Ethyl ether

1,000.0

S

Ethylene Glycol

10,000.0

S

Ethylene Thiourea (ETU)

2.0

C

Ethylphthlylethyglycolate

20,000.0

S

Fenamiphos

2.0

S

Fluometuron

90.0

S

Fluoranthene

300.0

S

Fluorene (9H-Fluorene)

300.0

S

Fonofos

10.0

S

Glyphosate

700.0

S

Heptachlor

0.08

C

Heptachlor Epoxide

0.04

C

Hexachlorobenzene***

0.2

C

Hexachlorobutadiene (1,3-butadiene)

1.0

S

Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH, alpha-)

0.06

C

HCH (beta-)

0.2

C

HCH (gamma-) (Lindane)***

0.3

C

Hexachlorocyclopentadine

50.0

S

Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HXCDD)

0.0001

C

Hexachloroethane

1.0

S

Hexane (n-hexane)

4,000.0

S

Hexazinone

200.0

S

Isophorone

100.0

S

Isopropylbenzene (cumene)

300.0

S

Lead

20.0

S

Linuron

1.0

S

Maleic Hydrazide

3,000.0

S

Manganese

300.0

S

Mercury, Mercury Chloride or Sulfate***

1.0

S

Methomyl

200.0

S

Methoxychlor

30.0

S

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK, 2-butanone)

300.0

S

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (MIBK)

300.0

S

Methyl Parathion

2.0

S

Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)

50.0

C

(MCPA) (4-Chloro-2-Methylphenoxyl)-Acetic Acid

4.0

S

Metoachlor

100.0

S

Metribuzin

200.0

S

Molybdenum

20.0

S

Naphthalene

30.0

S

Nickel

70.0

S

Nitrate

10,000.0

S

Nitrite

1,000.0

S

Nitrobenzene

3.0

S

N-Nitrosodiethylamine

0.002

C

N-Nitrosodimethylamine

0.007

C

N-Nitrosodi-N-butylamine

0.06

C

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine

70.0

C

Oxamyl

200.0

S

PAHS (total carcinogenic)

0.03

C

PAHS (total noncarcinogenic)

0.3

S

Paraquat (dichloride salt)

3.0

S

Pentachlorobenzene

6.0

S

Pentachlorophenol (PCP)

200.0

S

Phenol

4,000.0

S

Picloram

500.0

S

Prometon

100.0

S

Pronomide

50.0

S

Propachlor

90.0

S

Propazine

10.0

S

Propham

100.0

S

Pyrene

200.0

S

Selenium

10.0

S

Silver

10.0

S

Simazine

10.0

S

Styrene

10.0

C

Tebuthiuron

500.0

S

Terbacil

100.0

S

Terbufos

1.0

S

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene

2.0

S

1,1,1,2-Tetrochloroethane

20.0

C

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

2.0

C

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethene***

7.0

C

2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol

200.0

S

Tetrahydrofuran

100.0

S

Thallium

0.3

S

Tin

2,000.0

S

Toluene

1,000.0

S

Toxaphene

0.3

C

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

600.0

S

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

3.0

S

1,1,2-Trichloroethene (TCE)***

30.0

C

Trichlorofluoromethane

2,000.0

S

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

30.0

C

2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4,5-T)

70.0

S

2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic Acid (Silvex)

60.0

S

1,2,3-Trichloropropane

40.0

S

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluorethane

200,000.0

S

Trifluralin

6.0

S

1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene

0.3

S

Vanadium

20.0

S

Vinyl Chloride

0.10

C

Xylene (total m, p and o)

10,000.0

S

Zinc

700.0

S

* long fibers/liter
** S=systemic; C=carcinogenic
*** indicates Rfd or potency slope used as basis for RAL has been withdrawn from IRIS by EPA.


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. #