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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

WASTE INC. LANDFILL
MICHIGAN CITY, LA PORTE COUNTY, INDIANA


APPENDICES

APPENDIX A


Figure 1. Site Location Map


Figure 2. Soil Sample Locations


Figure 3. Round One Monitoring Well Locations


Figure 4. Round Two Monitoring Well Locations


Figure 5. Rain Water and Storm Runoff/Leachate Sample Locations


Figure 6. Stream Sampling Cross Sections



APPENDIX B

On-Site Subsurface Soil Sample Results, August/October 1989
ChemicalSample
No.
Sample
Depth
(Feet)
Concentration
Range - ppb
Comparison Value
ppbSource
acenaphtheneWIE041S
WI0031S
2-470-250100,000RMEG
acenaphthyleneWI0031S2-463-*
acetoneWIN071S30.5-3332-140400,000RMEG
anthraceneWIF011S
WI0031S
0-449-410600,000RMEG
aroclor-1242WI0031S2-44,400100RMEG
aroclor-1260WI0031S2-42,200100RMEG
benzeneWIH131S30.5-33720,000CREG
benzo(a)anthraceneWII011S
WII0031S
2-560-1,400-*
benzo(b)fluorantheneWII011S
WII0031S
2-1098-2,000-*
benzo(k)fluorantheneWII011S
WII0031S
2-1098-2,000-*
benzo(g,h,i)peryleneWII011S
WI0031S
2-1053-470-*
benzoic acidWIF011SR
WIL111S
0-744-4908,000,000RMEG
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
WIH131S
WI0031S
2-33550-6,20050,000CREG
chloroformWIF101S2-5320,000EMEG
chryseneWIF101S
WII0031S
2-465-1,100-*
dibenzofuranWIE041S
WI0031S
2-479-190-*
1,2-dichloroethene (total)WIH131S30.5-333746,000RMEG
2,4-dimethylphenolWI0031S2-45240,000RMEG
di-n-butylphthalateWIE041S2-42,7001,000,000EMEG
ChemicalSample
No.
Sample
Depth
(Feet)
Concentration
Range - ppb
Comparison Value
ppbSource
ethylbenzeneWIH131S
WIH131SDL
30.5-331,400-230,000200,000RMEG
fluorantheneWII011S
WI0031S
2-10100-2,10080,000RMEG
fluoreneWIE041S
WI0031S
2-4100-24080,000RMEG
2-methylnaphthaleneWIM011S
WIH131S
8-3343-670-*
2-methylphenolWIE041S2-481-*
4-methylphenolWIE041S
WIH131S
2-3389-3005,000OSHA
naphthaleneWIM011S
WIH131S
8-3343-2,50010,000OSHA
3-nitroanilineWI0031S2-42,000-*
4-nitrophenolWIN071S2-4240-*
n-nitrosodiphenylamineWIF011SR0-286100,000CREG
phenanthreneWIM011S
WI0031S
2-1051-1,900-*
phenolWI0031S
WIE041S
2-4190-3601,000,000RMEG
pyreneWIF101S
WI0031S
2-594-2,40060,000RMEG
tolueneWIH131SDL30.5-3382,000400,000RMEG
total xylenesWIE041S
WIH131SDL
2-333-890,000400,000EMEG
trichloroetheneWIH131S30.5-3331100,000OSHA

(ppm)
aluminumWIL111S
WI0031S
2-71,100-15,000-*
antimonyWIL111S
WI0031S
2-4160.8RMEG
ChemicalSample
No.
Sample
Depth
(Feet)
Concentration
Range - ppm
Comparison Value
ppmSource
arsenicWIF011S
WI0031S
0-43-120.6EMEG
bariumWIN071S
WIH131S
2-3354-206100RMEG
berylliumWIF011SR0-210.2CREG
cadmiumWIF011SP
WI0031S
0-42-281EMEG
calciumWII011S
WI0031S
2-10 2,050-325,000-*
chromiumWIL111S
WI0031S
2-73-11510RMEG
cobaltWI0031S2-422-*
copperWIH131S
WI0031S
2-339-1,670-*
cyanideWI0031S2-4240RMEG
ironWIL111S
WI0031S
2-73,740-94,000-*
leadWIM011S
WI0031S
2-79-624-*
magnesiumWIE041S
WIN071S
2-44,350-18,200-*
manganeseWIL111S
WI0031S
2-769-1,28010RMEG
mercuryWIM011S
WI0031S
2-10<1-8-*
nickelWIN071S
WI0031S
2-417-15640RMEG
potassiumWIN071S2-42,200-*
vanadiumWIF011S
WIF101S
0-511-366EMEG
zincWIL111S
WI0031S
2-723-1,960600RMEG
* No comparison value available


On-Site Groundwater Sample Results, Rounds I & II, May 1990/January 1991.
ChemicalSample
No.
Concentration
Range - ppb
Comparison Value
ppbSource
(Round I)
benzeneWIMW5D111CREG
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
WIMW5D23CREG
chloroethaneWIMW5D47-*
diethylphthalateWIMW10D38,000RMEG
methylene chlorideWIMW1D
WIMW2S
2-29600EMEG
tolueneWIMW8S22,000RMEG
(Round II)
acenaphtheneWIMW4I9600RMEG
acetoneWIMW82D62,000EMEG
anthraceneWIMW4I33,000RMEG
aroclor-1254WIMW8S20.7RMEG
benzo(a)anthraceneWIMW4I60.1MCL
benzo(b)fluorantheneWIMW4I70.2MCL
benzoic acidWIMW3S
WIMW5S
2-1740,000RMEG
chryseneWIMW4I90.2MCL
dibenzofuranWIMW4I7-*
1,2-dichloroethene (total)WIMW10S2200RMEG
ethylbenzeneWIMW3D41,000RMEG
fluorantheneWIMW4I11400RMEG
fluoreneWIMW4I7400RMEG
2-methylnaphthaleneWIMW4I16-*
4-methylphenolWIMW4I
WIMW5S
2-4-*
naphthaleneWIMW4I920LTHA
n-nitrosodiphenylamineWIMW4I167CREG
phenanthreneWIMW4I222-*
pyreneWIMW4I11300RMEG
1,1,1-trichloroethaneWIMW10S9200LTHA
total xylenesWIMW4I192,000EMEG
* No comparison value available


On-Site Groundwater Sample Results for Dissolved Inorganic Chemicals (Rounds I & II), May 1990/January 1991
ChemicalSample
No.
Concentration
Range - ppb
Comparison Value
ppbSource
(Round I)
aluminumWIMW1S
WIMW1S
338-*
bariumWIMW5D
WIMW8S
472700RMEG
calciumWIMW1S
WIMW2S
25,600-110,000-*
ironWIMW8D
WIMW5D
190-*
magnesiumWIMW1S
WIMW6D
WIMW5D
5,010-68,100-*
manganeseWIMW1S
WIMW10S
29-98050RMEG
nickelWIMW5D45200RMEG
potassiumWIMW10S
WIMW5D
6,640-66,400-*
sodiumWIMW1D
WIMW5D
9,520-178,00020,000MEMO
(Round II)
aluminumWIMW8D
WIMW1S
39-1,890-*
arsenicWIMW5I
WIMW4I
3-2193EMEG
bariumWIMW8D
WIMW6D
WIMW6I
WIMW8S
2-594700RMEG
calciumWIMW3D
WIMW6D
WIMW6I
WIMW2S
65-179,000-*
cobaltWIMW5S10-*
copperWIMW1S
WIMW3D
3-91,300MCL
ironWIMW5I
WIMW2I
43-31,100-*
magnesiumWIMW8D
WIMW6D
WIMW6I
WIMW4I
59-86,000-*
manganeseWIMW8D
WIMW6I
WIMW2S
1-1,90050RMEG
nickelWIMW3I
WIMW4I
11-86200RMEG
sodiumWIMW3D
WIMW6D
WIMW6I
WIMW4I
731-306,00020,000MEMO
vanadiumWIMW10S730EMEG
* No comparison value available


On-Site Groundwater Sample Results for Total Inorganic Chemicals (Rounds I & II), May 1990/January 1991
ChemicalSample
No.
Concentration
Range - ppb
Comparison Value
ppbSource
(Round I)
aluminumWIMW5D
WIMW1S
1,040-230,000-*
arsenicWIMW8S
WIMW1S
21-4453EMEG
bariumWIMW10S
WIMW8S
364-1,370700RMEG
berylliumWIMW1S13-150.008CREG
chromiumWIMW1D
WIMW1S
10-409100LTHA
cobaltWIMW10S
WIMW1S
53-247-*
copperWIMW10D
WIMW8S
31-1,7401,300MCL
ironWIMW8D
MIMW1S
7,420-515,000-*
leadWIMW5D
WIMW6D
WIMW8S
6-1,90015MCL
magnesiumWIMW8D
WIMW5S
23,900-107,000-*
mercuryWIMW10D<1-*
nickelWIMW5S
WIMW1S
44-505200RMEG
potassiumWIMW1D
WIMW5D
5,340-83,900-*
silverWIMW8S1150RMEG
sodiumWIMW1D
WIMW6D
WIMW5D
12,600-231,00020,000MEMO
vanadiumWIMW10S
WIMW1S
98-59230EMEG
zincWIMW8D
WIMW8S
60-3,6003,000RMEG
(Round II)
antimonyWIMW4I654RMEG
cyanideWIMW4I15200RMEG
potassiumWIMW3D
WIMW6I
WIMW4I
2,840-96,200-*
sodiumWIMW3D
WIMW6I
WIMW4I
466-292,00020,000MEMO
zincWIMW3D
WIMW6I
WIMW4I
20-7,0703,000RMEG
* No comparison value available


Off-Site Storm Water Runoff and Leachate Sample Results, May 1990.
Chemical Sample
No.
Concentration
Range - ppb
Comparison Value
ppbSource
DISSOLVED INORGANIC CHEMICALS
arsenicWISW51L113EMEG
bariumWISW31L
WISW51L
273-427700RMEG
calciumWISW21L
WISW31L
61,500-81,600-*
ironWISW21L
WISW51L
299-5,300-*
magnesiumWISW21L
WISW41L
29,900-134,000-*
manganeseWISW21L
WISW31L
182-65950RMEG
nickelWISW31L
WISW41L
87-120200RMEG
potassiumWISW21L
WISW51L
9,790-139,000-*
sodiumWISW21L
WISW51L
85,100-750,00020,000MEMO
TOTAL INORGANIC CHEMICALS
aluminumWISW21L
WISW51L
232-281-*
arsenicWISW51L253EMEG
bariumWISW31L
WISW51L
382-821700RMEG
calciumWISW21L
WISW31L
61,900-77,500-*
copperWISW31L821,300MCL
cyanideWISW31L
WISW41L
23-162200RMEG
ironWISW41L
WISW51L
5,720-32,000-*
leadWISW41L
WISW31L
4-815MCL
magnesiumWISW21L
WISW41L
28,600-125,000-*
manganeseWISW21L
WISW31L
211-68750RMEG
nickelWISW41L
WISW51L
101-114200RMEG
potassiumWISW21L
WISW51L
9,670-134,000-*
sodiumWISW21L
WISW51L
81,300-706,00020,000MEMO
zincWISW41L
WISW31L
106-4823,000RMEG
* No comparison value available


Off-Site Surface Water Sample Results, June 1987
ChemicalCross
Section
Concentration
Range - ppb
Comparison Value
ppbSource
aluminum2 & 155-434-*
arsenic243EMEG
barium2 & 856-72700RMEG
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate8-74-73CREG
calcium1 & 864,300-74,000-*
chromium144100LTHA
copper2 & 19-151,300MCL
cyanide1 & 221200RMEG
iron11,390-*
lead2 & 33-6315MCL
magnesium1 & 819,700-23,400-*
manganese8 & 149-14150RMEG
mercury7 & 1<1-1-*
nickel1 & 232200RMEG
sodium8 & 214,550-26,30020,000MEMO
zinc7 & 115-683,000RMEG
* No comparison value available


Off-Site Stream Sediment Organic Chemicals Sample Results, June 1987
Chemical Cross
Section
Concentration
Range - ppb
Comparison Value
ppbSource
acenaphthene3 & 177-92100,000RMEG
anthracene271600,000RMEG
benzo(a)anthracene1210-*
benzo(a)pyrene3 & 1110-400-*
benzo(k)fluoranthene11,000-*
benzoic acid33,5008,000RMEG
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate3 & 11,400-11,00050,000CREG
2-butanone1 & 210-17-*
butylbenzylphthalate1180400,000RMEG
chloroform6220,000EMEG
chrysene3 & 1160-540-*
4,4'-DDD16520,000EMEG
fluoranthene194080,000RMEG
fluorene2 & 164-22080,000RMEG
2-methylnaphthalene3 & 1100-540-*
2-methylphenol1100-*
4-methylphenol21,8005,000OSHA
naphthalene3 & 1150-400-*
phenanthrene1740-*
phenol2 & 3160-1,2001,000,000RMEG
pyrene190060,000RMEG
toluene1250400,000RMEG
* No comparison value available


Off-Site Stream Sediment Inorganic Chemical Sample Results, June 1987
ChemicalCross SectionConcentration
Range - ppm
Comparison Value
ppmSource
aluminum2 & 12,430-6,260-*
arsenic2 & 53 - 100.6EMEG
barium6 & 131 - 257100RMEG
beryllium110.2CREG
cadmium3 & 17-471EMEG
calcium62,700-*
chromium7 & 115-13710RMEG
copper6 & 120-201-*
cyanide2 & 14-1940RMEG
iron2 & 79,870-29,300-*
lead5 & 128-72-*
magnesium2 & 15,030-11,700-*
manganese2 & 7337-1,50010RMEG
mercury1 & 2<1-*
nickel6 & 114-3740RMEG
vanadium256EMEG
zinc6 & 195-974600RMEG
* No comparison value available


Off-Site Groundwater Sample Results, January 1991 (Rounds I & II)
ChemicalSample
No.
Concentration
Range - ppb
Comparison Value
ppbSource
benzoic acidWIMW6I1140,000RMEG
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateWIMW13S53CREG
butylbenzyl phthalateWIMW13S52,000RMEG



Off-Site Groundwater Sample Results for Dissolved Inorganic Chemicals (Rounds I & II) May 1990/January 1991.
ChemicalSample
No.
Concentration
Range - ppb
Comparison Value
ppbSource
arsenicMW13D
MW14D
3-43EMEG
bariumMW13S
MW14I
17-88700RMEG
calciumMW13D
MW14I
33,400-71,300-*
ironMW13D
MW13S
23-100-*
magnesiumMW13D
MW14D
9,200-25,700-*
manganeseMW13D
MW14I
11-28550RMEG
potassiumWIMW13D
WIMW4I
933-3,470-*
sodiumMW13S
MW6D
12,400-37,96020,000MEMO
zincWIMW13S43,000RMEG
* No comparison value available


Off-Site Groundwater Sample Results for Total Inorganic Chemicals (Rounds I & II) May 1990/January 1991
ChemicalSample
No.
Concentration
Range - ppb
Comparison Value
ppbSource
aluminumMW6D
MW13S
3,320-277,000-*
arsenicMW14D
MW13S
25-4663EMEG
bariumMW13D
MW13S
102-1,570700RMEG
berylliumMW13S160.008CREG
cadmiumMW6D
MW13S
7-97EMEG
calciumMW13S
MW14D
68,900-402,000-*
chromiumMW13D
MW13S
13-507100LTHA
cobaltMW6I
MW13S
15-295-*
copperMW14I
MW13S
92-5391,300MCL
ironMW6D
MW13S
7,980-900,000-*
leadMW13S6-56915MCL
magnesiumMW6I
MW14D
27,500-162,000-*
manganeseMW6D
MW13S
WIMW1SGW
290-25,00050RMEG
mercuryMW13S1-*
nickelMW13D
MW13S
13-553200RMEG
potassiumMW6I
MW13S
570-34,400-*
sodiumMW13S
MW14I
6,220-32,30020,000MEMO
vanadiumMW13D
MW13S
23-86830EMEG
zincMW6D
MW13S
113-2,2203,000RMEG

* No comparison value available


APPENDIX C

COMMENTS & RESPONSES
1. COMMENT If you know that this site is not the cause of cancer increase, please identify what the cause for our increased cancer rate.

  RESPONSE The data that we reviewed did not indicate that individuals exposed at the estimated exposure doses would experience any significant increase in cancer. However, please recall that we identified data gaps (page 37). Although we are concerned about the health of the community, it is important to note that the focus and purpose of this document is to determine the adverse health effects caused by this site on the community.

2.

COMMENT We urge you to find resources to continue the monitoring of fish tissues.

  RESPONSE We agree that there is the continued need for fish tissue sampling in all Indiana rivers and streams; however, this request is beyond the scope and purpose of this document.

3.

COMMENT The residence within 100 yards of the site should be included in the background section on page 2.

RESPONSE Wherever appropriate, this residence has been added to the document.

4.

COMMENT We request a copy of the Court Order (Injunction) in 1993 which closed the site.

  RESPONSE We do not have a copy of the Court Order. As this order was probably initiated by IDEM, I would suggest contacting the IDEM to obtain a copy.

5.

COMMENT Why were no new samples required by ATSDR to confirm the allegations of illegal dumping occurring in 1988?

  RESPONSE The recommendations made by ATSDR included collecting further sampling information which would pass acceptable quality control/quality assurance procedures, and obtaining additional information on site-related chemicals and any chemicals released off-site. Please see page 4 paragraph 1.

6.

COMMENT Why were no samples taken of the drums seen on-site?

  RESPONSE The drums that were seen throughout the site were all empty. The drums seen in the old office building contained decontamination water from drilling/sampling. In the event that we would like to know the contents of a drum or barrel, we would request either IDEM or EPA to sample for us. We do not perform any environmental sampling.

7.

COMMENT Samples of the oil-type sheen observed on Trail Creek should be taken, and the storm sewer must be replaced.

  RESPONSE The sampling of this media would not change the conclusions and recommendations of this Public Health Assessment. There is a fish advisory on Trail Creek, and we recommend that necessary actions be taken to prevent local population exposure to site-related contaminants (see page 38).

8.

COMMENT The results of the door-to-door survey by the Minority Health Coalition of LaPorte County should be included. Also, the well at International Friendship Gardens should be tested.

  RESPONSE We will request this information from the organization. However, it will not be a part of this document as the public comment period for this document is over. Please see page 7 regarding the well at International Friendship Gardens.

9.

COMMENT The odd childhood cancers reported during the last public meeting should be investigated.

  RESPONSE A health study is planned for this community to investigate adverse health effects, including odd childhood cancers.

10. COMMENT What about the Indiana Cancer Registry?

  RESPONSE Data from the Indiana Cancer Registry was reviewed. The results of this review are contained on page 31.

11.

COMMENT Where did you get the off-site comparisons?

  RESPONSE The location of the off-site sample data is noted in the document. (Please see page 15, OFF-SITE CONTAMINATION.)

12. COMMENT Please identify the companies described on page 9, especially the one that showed emissions of either chromium in groundwater or nickel compounds in the air.

  RESPONSE Please contact your local EPA office and request the latest publication of their Toxic Release Inventory. The specific companies are listed in this publication.

13.

COMMENT Please identify the scientific basis for identifying "chemicals of concern".

  RESPONSE This is discussed on page 8 of the document.

14.

COMMENT Please identify the suspected source of dibenzofuran.

  RESPONSE That is beyond the scope of this document. We have identified that the chemical was found in the on-site well; its source is unknown at this time.

16.

COMMENT Why were only two rounds of sampling taken?

  RESPONSE The ISDH does not determine the number of rounds of sampling that other agencies performs at a site. This document only reports the information that was available to us at the time of the writing of this document. We suggest referring this comment to the EPA.

17.

COMMENT If intermediate wells were installed after Round I, how were 21 SVOCs detected during Rounds I and II?

  RESPONSE The information was reviewed and appropriate changes were made to the document.

18.

COMMENT Are all organic chemicals of concern on page 14?

  RESPONSE Please see the first paragraph under Deep Wells.

19.

COMMENT Your description of detection of no chemicals at levels of concern in storm water and leachate contradicts all previous site descriptions, why? Please provide us with your analysis of these values with Indiana Water Quality Standards.

  RESPONSE The data was reviewed and appropriate changes were made to the document. Comparison values are provided to us by the ATSDR. These values are not compared to the Indiana Water Quality Standards. We select contaminants of concern based on comparative analyses with health guidelines, multi-media exposures, interactive effects, and community health concerns.

21.

COMMENT We understand that there were problems with the original sediment samples as part of the RI/FS test of the Confined Disposal Facility. Please explain why some of the samples were unacceptable.

  RESPONSE It is our understanding that there were some sediment samples taken by IDEM prior to the Remedial Investigation (RI); therefore, it would not have been included in the RI. This information will be requested and evaluated. Please note, however, that the results from this data would more than likely not change the conclusions and recommendations of this document as sediment is already considered a completed exposure pathway for individuals who eat fish taken from Trail Creek and those who participate in recreational activities at Trail Creek.

22.

COMMENT

Since deep groundwater flow is to Lake Michigan, the lead found in the deep well may be from the site.

 

RESPONSE

This comment was reviewed and appropriate changes were made to the document.

23.

COMMENT Please include the test results for lead. This information should be included along with the other chemicals identified in fish tissue samples from Trail Creek.

  RESPONSE This information has been reviewed and appropriate changes made.

24.

COMMENT There should be a discussion of bioaccumulation as an exposure route.

  RESPONSE In determining exposures, bioaccumulation was taken into consideration.

25.

COMMENT All fish tissue was sampled for chlordane, dieldrin, lead, DDT, DDE and other compounds; this information should be included.

  RESPONSE This information was reviewed and the relevant section in the document was re-written.

26.

COMMENT Air sampling should be done.

  RESPONSE We agree with this comment. (Please see the Conclusions section of the Public Health Assessment.)

27.

COMMENT How can your calculations include a child drinking 1 liter per day for 43 years? That sure would be an old child.

  RESPONSE The narrative was reviewed, and appropriate changes were made to the document.

28.

COMMENT Please identify the areas where background soil has 10,000 - 300,000 ppb lead.

  RESPONSE These numbers were obtained from the United States Geological Survey Table. This table gives mean concentrations, deviations, and ranges of elements in samples of soil in the conterminous United States.

29.

COMMENT Please review Dr. Rotkin's Cancer study on LaPorte County, especially the soft tissue, rare cancers he identified.

  RESPONSE This study was reviewed as stated under the Community Health Concerns Evaluation section of the document.

30.

COMMENT The information from the public relating to childhood cancer should be included.

  RESPONSE This most valuable information will be added to the document and will be used in the Planned Community Health Study.

31.

COMMENT It should be documented that heptachlor was detected by the FIT in both the on-site well and the raw water intake for Michigan City.

  RESPONSE The FIT report of December 14, 1983, indicates that the results of 2 weeks of samples showed the presence of heptachlor above EPA drinking water standards. It also indicates that this chemical is not attributed to the industrial work of this site because it is an insecticide widely used by midwest farmers.

32.

COMMENT Please provide us with the review of Dr. Rotkin's report by experts in the cancer field.

  RESPONSE A copy of the review will be provided.

33.

COMMENT Please include an estimate for exposure to people eating produce from gardens.

  RESPONSE One of the data gaps mentioned in the Public Health Assessment is the lack of off-site surface soil samples. Estimated ingestion exposure doses cannot be determined without this information.

34.

COMMENT

Please put signs along the waterway warning people of the fish consumption advisory.

  RESPONSE Although this may appear to be the solution to warning the community about the fish in Trail Creek, there are some practical and economical reasons why this is not done. We have found that signs along waterways prove more to be targets for vandalism than anything else. We do not have the funds to purchase warning signs, nor do we have the staff to install and maintain any warning signs. Individuals are warned, however, through the fish advisory which is given to each person getting their license to fish.

35.

COMMENT Please let drinking water well users know about this issue.

  RESPONSE It is our understanding that there are no private wells within a 1-mile radius that are being used for drinking water. We will, however, contact all owners of private wells and inform them of the potential dangers of using their wells for drinking purposes.

36.

COMMENT The Indiana State Department of Health must support the cleanup alternative most protective of public health and the environment.

  RESPONSE Our role is not one of risk management, but of protecting human health. It would be inappropriate for this agency to support one cleanup alternative over another. The role of the Environmental Epidemiology Section of the Indiana State Department of Health is to make recommendations to the appropriate agencies to ensure that the health of a community is not adversely affected by toxic chemicals emitted, spilled, or naturally occurring in the environment.



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. #