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





The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health's (MDPH) Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment (BEHA) received and responded to the following comments for the Atlas Tack Corporation Public Health Assessment. Comments were received from environmental regulatory agencies (i.e., Environmental Protection Agency and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection), the Atlas Tack Corporation, an environmental consulting firm, and the Fairhaven Public School Department.

General Comments

  1. Comment: It may be helpful to the reader if there was an explanation of the differences between the MDPH Public health assessment and EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment.
  2. Response: MDPH agrees and will include the following explanation in the Background section of the Health Assessment.

    "Public health assessments and risk assessments both investigate the impact or potential impact of hazardous substances at a specific site on public health. However, the two types of assessment differ in their goals and focus. Quantitative risk assessments are geared largely toward arriving at numeric estimates of the risk posed to a population by the hazardous substances found on a site. These calculations use statistical and biological models based on dose-response data from animal toxicologic studies and (if available) human epidemiological studies. Risk assessments estimate the public health risk posed by a site, and their conclusions can be used to establish allowable contamination levels, or to establish clean-up levels and select remedial measures to be taken at the site.

    Public health assessments are intended to determine the past, current or future public health implications of a specific site, but focus more than risk assessments do on the health concerns of the specific community. Public health assessments are based on environmental characterization information (including information on environmental contamination and exposure pathways), community health concerns associated with the site, and community-specific health outcome data. They make recommendations for actions needed to protect public health (which might include the development and issuing of health advisories), and they identify populations in need of further health actions or studies."

  3. Comment: During the Feasibility Study, EPA divided the site into two areas, commercial and non-commercial. The commenter states that they expect the future use of the site to be commercial/industrial and not residential, and that EPA will be placing institutional controls on the commercial area of the site to prevent residential use (on part or total property) on areas with residual contamination.
  4. Response: MDPH's concern was referring to industrial areas located close to existing residences. MDPH is available, upon request, to review future plans for the site.

  5. Comment: Rogers Elementary School is located approximately 300 yards from the site. The report does not specifically address any potential soil or airborne contaminants to the school playground area. Should the School Department issue a letter to parents and guardians of the students concerning risk and non-risk factors if children trespass on the site?
  6. Response: In order to determine background concentrations of compounds detected on the site, soil testing was conducted on residential land adjacent to the site and one soil sample was collected from along the playground fence line at Rogers School. One contaminant of concern (i.e., arsenic) was detected in this sample but the detections were within typical background concentrations. With regard to children trespassing on the site, MDPH agrees that additional effort is warranted with regard to security (i.e., fence in disrepair, evidence of people entering the site), particularly considering the proximity of the Rogers Elementary School. However, it is possible that outreach efforts that lead to greater awareness of the site on the part of area children could encourage more trespassing. Thus, MDPH will undertake follow-up outreach activities with local officials and appropriate agencies. Such actions could include fence repair and maintenance as well as enhanced site surveillance for security purposes. This follow-up activity has been included in the Public Health Action Plan for the site.

Environmental Contamination and Other Hazards

  1. Comment: The public health assessment has indicated that exposure, particularly in site soils and within the buildings that presently occupy the site, to cadmium and lead might pose a risk for workers and trespassers on the site. MDPH states that cancers of concern include kidney and lung cancer. Has cadmium been associated with an increased incidence of kidney tumors in scientific literature?
  2. Response: According to the ATSDR Toxicological Profile on Cadmium, exposure to cadmium might result in kidney disease and lung damage in humans. The Department of Health and Human Services/National Toxicology Program has determined that cadmium and cadmium compounds might reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens. EPA has classified cadmium as a "probable human carcinogen" based on limited evidence from occupational epidemiological studies. One study is considered to supply limited evidence of an increase in lung cancer due to exposure to cadmium via inhalation. This additional language has been incorporated into the assessment.

  3. Comment: MDPH notes that lead and cadmium might pose a risk to workers and trespassers on the site, and described some of the cancer health concerns. MDPH also noted that the prevalence of lead poisoning cases is slightly higher in Fairhaven than in the general Massachusetts population. Presenting the data in this manner may inappropriately alarm residents. Slightly elevated rates of cancers and lead poisoning are not unexpected due to the industrialized history of Fairhaven. MDPH should further analyze this issue, possibly by comparing the rates to similar demographic areas or populations, or provide a discussion concerning the relevance of these findings.
  4. Response: Health statistics that are published by MDPH and available on the MDPH Website, are cited in this report with appropriate comparisons (e.g., "expected" cancer rates are based on statewide incidence). This type of information is provided routinely as part of health assessments in order to inform not to alarm residents. The MDPH regularly response to calls and questions from Massachusetts residents with regard to disease rates, particularly cancer. Any person who would like to discuss Fairhaven or other disease concerns further should call (617-624-5757) or write to the MDPH, Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment (250 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02108).

  5. Comment: It would be helpful if background concentrations of detected compounds, particularly polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and pesticides were further discussed. For example, arsenic has a comparison value that is below background arsenic concentrations. The commenter states that the state of Massachusetts and other researchers have accumulated an extensive database on PAH concentrations in urban soils in New England.
  6. Response: The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) has drafted proposed changes to the Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization that includes background levels of PAHs and metals in urban and non-urban soils in Massachusetts. MA DEP states that these background levels should be used when site specific background levels are not available for a c.21E assessment. Because the changes are in draft form, they cannot be quoted or cited. The ATSDR Toxicological Profile on PAHs presents background soil concentrations of some PAHs. These data, as well as available background soil concentrations of the other contaminants of concern, have been included in Tables 2a and 2b.

  7. Comment: As noted in previous comments, the pesticides detected on the property are considered to be related to past spraying by the town of Fairhaven of the adjacent marsh.
  8. Response: Although the Remedial Investigation Report completed by a contractor to Atlas Tack Corporation states that the presence of several of the pesticides might be related to past mosquito eradication programs, documentation is not provided to support any statement on the source of these pesticides. Also, regardless of how these came to be there, it is appropriate to include these for health assessment purposes.

  9. Comment: There should be further discussion regarding chemicals detected in mollusks near the site, including other known nearby sources of these chemicals. Table 6, for example, shows that arsenic levels in site-related clams were lower than background levels. The commenter has collected and previously presented data to evaluate concentrations of metals in mollusks near the site and can provide this information to MDPH and ATSDR. We have also completed studies of the form of arsenic in fish and shellfish. Our work agrees with what is in the literature- that a substantial portion of the arsenic is in the less toxic organic form and therefore we do not believe that arsenic in shellfish poses a public health risk.
  10. Response: Arsenic and mercury concentrations detected in hard shell clams and mercury concentrations detected in soft shell clams were below background levels for this area (i.e., West Island) but the background levels for arsenic and mercury were above their respective comparison values. In addition, arsenic was not the only compound found in mollusks that exceeded comparison values. Levels of metals (i.e., antimony, calcium, iron, lead, magnesium, potassium, and sodium), PCBs, SVOCs (i.e., bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, 2-methylnaphthalene, and 2-nitrophenol), PAHs (i.e., acenaphthylene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene) and pesticides (i.e., heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, and 4,4'-DDT) found in mollusks exceeded comparison values.

  11. Comment: Contrary to the sentence in the Environmental Contamination section that reads: "No samples were collected from outside the building space in the commercial area," samples have been collected from outside the building space in the commercial area.
  12. Response: Additional data identified by commenter have been included in the assessment. This data indicated that some samples have been taken from outside the commercial area. The text has been edited to reflect the change.

  13. Comment: On page 10, Section A, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, "table 2a" should read "Table 2a."
  14. Response: The sentence will read "Table 2a."

  15. Comment: Contrary to the sentence on page 12, Section D, 4th sentence, there is a fire suppression system in the two buildings and the Atlas Tack Corporation is under court order to maintain this system.
  16. Response: MDPH has revised the sentence to reflect this information.

Pathway Analysis

  1. Comment: Why are past exposures to metals (vapor and/or dust), cyanide emissions from manufacturing processes, and general emissions from the power plant not included with VOCs in the Ambient Air Potential Exposure Pathways?
  2. Response: MDPH included VOCs as a "potential ambient air pathway" because VOCs are volatile compounds and were used on the site in areas close to off-site residences. While it is possible for metals, dusts, and cyanide compounds to be considered a "potential ambient air exposure pathway," because these compounds are by and large, not volatile, it is less likely that these would have gotten into the ambient air in residential areas. In addition, most of these types of compounds were found to be concentrated in a few localized areas and not found in off-site soils. However, because these types of substances were used over long periods of time and in significant quantities, the potential exists for exposure opportunities. Hence, this will also be included under potential exposure pathways. Text has been changed to reflect this addition

  3. Comment: It may be useful to reiterate that regular contact with affected environmental media is needed for adverse health effects to be associated with exposure and that the fence limits exposure.
  4. Response: During the site visit, MDPH staff noted that the fence is in disrepair in two specific sections and can be circumvented in these areas. One section of fence in disrepair is located at the gate that separates the commercial area of the site from the fenced area that surrounds the lagoon. The other section of fence in disrepair is located where the fence crosses Boy's Creek adjacent to the hurricane dike. Abutting the facility fences to the north of the site, there is a paved bike path on which MDPH staff observed a fair amount of traffic. Within the fenced portion of the site, there was some evidence of trespassing (e.g., graffiti, broken bottles). On the hurricane dike just outside of the facility there was evidence of moderate recreational use in the form of beer and liquor bottles, and trash on top of the hurricane dike as well as within Boy's Creek. There is also a semi-worn path that leads to the downed section of the fence that encloses the lagoon at Atlas Tack. The pickling trench area is covered only with plywood and the plating pit is covered with a blue tarp. The tack wash area is not covered. It is true that regular contact with environmental media will increase opportunities and hence, the risk of adverse health effects. While the fence likely limits exposure, areas of the fence observed to be in disrepair and observations made during the site visit indicate that opportunities for exposure to some individuals are still occurring. Supplementary language to reflect this emphasis has been added.


  1. Comment: The chemical toxicity profiles are useful but include pesticides (which are not site-related constituents) and fail to mention some key effects (e.g., cadmium as a lung carcinogen).
  2. Response: For pesticides, see the Response to Comment #7. Supplementary text has been added to the chemical toxicity profile for cadmium and other compounds.

  3. Comment: The last sentence in 2nd paragraph on page 15 reads: "However, opportunities for exposure to contaminants in ambient air could have occurred in the past to residents living in adjacent neighborhoods and workers on the site and could occur in the future should remedial or excavation activities take place." The commenter would like MDPH to note that measures (e.g., dust suppression, fencing, and treatment in an enclosed area) will be done during remedial actions to control air releases.
  4. Response: MDPH supports dust suppression measures to limit air releases and additional measures should be considered due to the proximity of the site to residential areas. MDPH, upon request would be willing to participate (e.g., review and comment, upon request, on remedial activities) in the process.

  5. Comment: The comparison of lead levels in soil samples from the commercial area of the site to MA DEP S-1 soil standards is incorrect because the future use of the site is commercial/industrial. Why is the MA DEP S-2 soil standard not being used?
  6. Response: Use of the site could change in the future from commercial/industrial to residential. In order to account for this, MDPH used the most conservative comparison values as screening values when determining public health concerns. MA DEP S-1 is more conservative than MA DEP S-2.

  7. Comment: The first sentence in the first paragraph on page 20 should read: "PAHs are ubiquitous in some soils."
  8. Response: The ATSDR document Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) states that PAHs are ubiquitous in soil.

  9. Comment: Footnotes 4, 6, 8, and 10 at the bottom of pages 21 and 22 should read: "See note on page 20."
  10. Response: MDPH will include these changes.


  1. Comment: As noted previously, for Table 1, some census data on socioeconomic factors and on the state of Massachusetts as a whole might be useful in placing cancer and lead poisoning incidence and prevalence data in perspective.
  2. Response: Socioeconomic data is not included in this report. Information on the state of Massachusetts is included in the Health Outcome Data section. In this section, the rate of lead poisoning over the time period from 1990 to 1998 in Fairhaven is compared to the rate of lead poisoning over the time period from 1990 to 1998 in Massachusetts. In addition, the expected number of specific cancers are listed based on Massachusetts average age-specific incidence rates for those cancers. The complete list can be found in Table 10.

  3. Comment: Table 2a on page 28 and Table 5 on page 34 should read: "Table 2a continued" and "Table 5 continued," respectively.
  4. Response: MDPH will include these changes.

  5. Comment: In Table 3, the mean value for dibenzo(a,h)anthracene is greater than the maximum value.
  6. Response: The following footnote will be inserted into the tables where applicable: "Mean values calculated by using one half the method detection limit for samples in which the compound was below detection."


  1. Comment: MDPH studies on New Bedford Harbor, Cushman Park, and Galary property are included in the appendices but only New Bedford Harbor and Cushman Park are identified on Figure 1.
  2. Response: Figure 1 is only meant to show the location of the Atlas Tack site as indicated in the text.

  3. Comment: The commenter states that Figure 3 needs to be modified and they included a modified version of a figure with their comments (i.e., building configuration on the site).
  4. Response: MDPH will change Figure 3 to incorporate the changes.


  1. Comment: What is the reason for including the Greater New Bedford PCB Health Effects Study 1984-1987, the Galary Property Health Consultation, and the Childhood Leukemia in Fairhaven study? The Greater New Bedford PCB Health Effects Study 1984-1987 and the Galary Property Health Consultation are for PCBs, which are a minor contaminant at this site.
  2. Response: Health assessments describe not only site environmental data, but also acknowledge and incorporate community health concerns. These other studies addressed significant community health concerns. In addition, the three studies included in the appendix concern PCB and other contamination in and around Fairhaven. PCBs are one of the contaminants of concern at the site.

Revised -15Dec99

How a chemical enters a person's blood after the chemical has been swallowed, has come into contact with the skin, or has been breathed in.

Acute Exposure:
Contact with a chemical that happens once or only for a limited period of time. ATSDR defines acute exposures as those that might last up to 14 days.

Additive Effect:
A response to a chemical mixture, or combination of substances, that might be expected if the known effects of individual chemicals, seen at specific doses, were added together.

Adverse Health Effect:
A change in body function or the structures of cells that can lead to disease or health problems.

Antagonistic Effect:
A response to a mixture of chemicals or combination of substances that is less than might be expected if the known effects of individual chemicals, seen at specific doses, were added together.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR is a federal health agency in Atlanta, Georgia that deals with hazardous substance and waste site issues. ATSDR gives people information about harmful chemicals in their environment and tells people how to protect themselves from coming into contact with chemicals.

Background Level:
An average or expected amount of a chemical in a specific environment. Or, amounts of chemicals that occur naturally in a specific environment.

Used in public health, things that humans would eat - including animals, fish and plants.

See Community Assistance Panel.

A group of diseases which occur when cells in the body become abnormal and grow, or multiply, out of control

Any substance shown to cause tumors or cancer in experimental studies.

See Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

Chronic Exposure:
A contact with a substance or chemical that happens over a long period of time. ATSDR considers exposures of more than one year to be chronic.

Completed Exposure Pathway:
See Exposure Pathway.

Community Assistance Panel (CAP):
A group of people from the community and health and environmental agencies who work together on issues and problems at hazardous waste sites.

Comparison Value (CVs):
Concentrations or the amount of substances in air, water, food, and soil that are unlikely, upon exposure, to cause adverse health effects. Comparison values are used by health assessors to select which substances and environmental media (air, water, food and soil) need additional evaluation while health concerns or effects are investigated.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA):
CERCLA was put into place in 1980. It is also known as Superfund. This act concerns releases of hazardous substances into the environment, and the cleanup of these substances and hazardous waste sites. ATSDR was created by this act and is responsible for looking into the health issues related to hazardous waste sites.

A belief or worry that chemicals in the environment might cause harm to people.

How much or the amount of a substance present in a certain amount of soil, water, air, or food.

See Environmental Contaminant.

Delayed Health Effect:
A disease or injury that happens as a result of exposures that may have occurred far in the past.

Dermal Contact:
A chemical getting onto your skin. (see Route of Exposure).

The amount of a substance to which a person may be exposed, usually on a daily basis. Dose is often explained as "amount of substance(s) per body weight per day".

Dose / Response:
The relationship between the amount of exposure (dose) and the change in body function or health that result.

The amount of time (days, months, years) that a person is exposed to a chemical.

Environmental Contaminant:
A substance (chemical) that gets into a system (person, animal, or the environment) in amounts higher than that found in Background Level, or what would be expected.

Environmental Media:
Usually refers to the air, water, and soil in which chemical of interest are found. Sometimes refers to the plants and animals that are eaten by humans. Environmental Media is the second part of an Exposure Pathway.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
The federal agency that develops and enforces environmental laws to protect the environment and the public's health.

The study of the different factors that determine how often, in how many people, and in which people will disease occur.

Coming into contact with a chemical substance.(For the three ways people can come in contact with substances, see Route of Exposure.)

Exposure Assessment:
The process of finding the ways people come in contact with chemicals, how often and how long they come in contact with chemicals, and the amounts of chemicals with which they come in contact.

Exposure Pathway:
A description of the way that a chemical moves from its source (where it began) to where and how people can come into contact with (or get exposed to) the chemical.

ATSDR defines an exposure pathway as having 5 parts:
  1. Source of Contamination,

  2. Environmental Media and Transport Mechanism,

  3. Point of Exposure,

  4. Route of Exposure; and,

  5. Receptor Population.

When all 5 parts of an exposure pathway are present, it is called a Completed Exposure Pathway. Each of these 5 terms is defined in this Glossary.

How often a person is exposed to a chemical over time; for example, every day, once a week, twice a month.

Hazardous Waste:
Substances that have been released or thrown away into the environment and, under certain conditions, could be harmful to people who come into contact with them.

Health Effect:
ATSDR deals only with Adverse Health Effects (see definition in this Glossary).

Indeterminate Public Health Hazard:
The category is used in Public Health Assessment documents for sites where important information is lacking (missing or has not yet been gathered) about site-related chemical exposures.

Swallowing something, as in eating or drinking. It is a way a chemical can enter your body (See Route of Exposure).

Breathing. It is a way a chemical can enter your body (See Route of Exposure).

Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level. The lowest dose of a chemical in a study, or group of studies, that has caused harmful health effects in people or animals.

See Cancer.

Minimal Risk Level. An estimate of daily human exposure - by a specified route and length of time -- to a dose of chemical that is likely to be without a measurable risk of adverse, noncancerous effects. An MRL should not be used as a predictor of adverse health effects.

The National Priorities List. (Which is part of Superfund.) A list kept by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the most serious, uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the country. An NPL site needs to be cleaned up or is being looked at to see if people can be exposed to chemicals from the site.

No Observed Adverse Effect Level. The highest dose of a chemical in a study, or group of studies, that did not cause harmful health effects in people or animals.

No Apparent Public Health Hazard:
The category is used in ATSDR's Public Health Assessment documents for sites where exposure to site-related chemicals may have occurred in the past or is still occurring but the exposures are not at levels expected to cause adverse health effects.

No Public Health Hazard:
The category is used in ATSDR's Public Health Assessment documents for sites where there is evidence of an absence of exposure to site-related chemicals.

Public Health Assessment. A report or document that looks at chemicals at a hazardous waste site and tells if people could be harmed from coming into contact with those chemicals. The PHA also tells if possible further public health actions are needed.

A line or column of air or water containing chemicals moving from the source to areas further away. A plume can be a column or clouds of smoke from a chimney or contaminated underground water sources or contaminated surface water (such as lakes, ponds and streams).

Point of Exposure:
The place where someone can come into contact with a contaminated environmental medium (air, water, food or soil). For examples:
the area of a playground that has contaminated dirt, a contaminated spring used for drinking water, the location where fruits or vegetables are grown in contaminated soil, or the backyard area where someone might breathe contaminated air.

A group of people living in a certain area; or the number of people in a certain area.

Potentially Responsible Party. A company, government or person that is responsible for causing the pollution at a hazardous waste site. PRP's are expected to help pay for the clean up of a site.

Public Health Assessment(s):
See PHA.

Public Health Hazard:
The category is used in PHAs for sites that have certain physical features or evidence of chronic, site-related chemical exposure that could result in adverse health effects.

Public Health Hazard Criteria:
PHA categories given to a site which tell whether people could be harmed by conditions present at the site. Each are defined in the Glossary. The categories are:
  1. Urgent Public Health Hazard

  2. Public Health Hazard

  3. Indeterminate Public Health Hazard

  4. No Apparent Public Health Hazard

  5. No Public Health Hazard

Receptor Population:
People who live or work in the path of one or more chemicals, and who could come into contact with them (See Exposure Pathway).

Reference Dose (RfD):
An estimate, with safety factors (see safety factor) built in, of the daily, life-time exposure of human populations to a possible hazard that is not likely to cause harm to the person.

Route of Exposure:
The way a chemical can get into a person's body. There are three exposure routes:
- breathing (also called inhalation),
- eating or drinking (also called ingestion), and
- or getting something on the skin (also called dermal contact).

Safety Factor:
Also called Uncertainty Factor. When scientists don't have enough information to decide if an exposure will cause harm to people, they use "safety factors" and formulas in place of the information that is not known. These factors and formulas can help determine the amount of a chemical that is not likely to cause harm to people.

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act in 1986 amended CERCLA and expanded the health-related responsibilities of ATSDR. CERCLA and SARA direct ATSDR to look into the health effects from chemical exposures at hazardous waste sites.

Sample Size:
The number of people that are needed for a health study.

A small number of people chosen from a larger population (See Population).

Source of Contamination:
The place where a chemical comes from, such as a landfill, pond, creek, incinerator, tank, or drum. Contaminant source is the first part of an Exposure Pathway.

Special Populations:
People who may be more sensitive to chemical exposures because of certain factors such as age, a disease they already have, occupation, sex, or certain behaviors (like cigarette smoking). Children, pregnant women, and older people are often considered special populations.

A branch of the math process of collecting, looking at, and summarizing data or information.

Superfund Site:
See NPL.

A way to collect information or data from a group of people (population). Surveys can be done by phone, mail, or in person. ATSDR cannot do surveys of more than nine people without approval from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Synergistic Effect:
A health effect from an exposure to more than one chemical, where one of the chemicals worsens the effect of another chemical. The combined effect of the chemicals acting together are greater than the effects of the chemicals acting by themselves.

Harmful. Any substance or chemical can be toxic at a certain dose (amount). The dose is what determines the potential harm of a chemical and whether it would cause someone to get sick.

The study of the harmful effects of chemicals on humans or animals.

Abnormal growth of tissue or cells that have formed a lump or mass.

Uncertainty Factor:
See Safety Factor.

Urgent Public Health Hazard:
This category is used in ATSDR's Public Health Assessment documents for sites that have certain physical features or evidence of short-term (less than 1 year), site-related chemical exposure that could result in adverse health effects and require quick intervention to stop people from being exposed.


Appendix C was not available in electronic format for conversion to HTML at the time of preparation of this document. To obtain a hard copy of the document, please contact:

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Attn: Chief, Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch E-56
1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30333


Appendix D was not available in electronic format for conversion to HTML at the time of preparation of this document. To obtain a hard copy of the document, please contact:

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Attn: Chief, Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch E-56
1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30333


Appendix E was not available in electronic format for conversion to HTML at the time of preparation of this document. To obtain a hard copy of the document, please contact:

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Attn: Chief, Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch E-56
1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30333

Table of Contents 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. #