Stuies: 197-
4* jA* ' ffl
Recyctedmecyclable
Prtnted on papier that contains,
at (east 5Q%! recycled fiber .
-------
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
ERRATA
VOLUME
Volumes
"PAGE
APPENDIX 1-4
COMMENTS
Regulatory status for chloroform is given as SRP,
it should be C,SRP.
National
Summary
APPENDIX 1-15
NS-125
NS-160
Region 3
3-VA-7
3-VA-19
3-VA-27
add: NR Not Registered for use in the United
States
Glyphosate: VA "RANGE OF CONCENTRATIONS" should
be changed from 0.004-0.009 to <700. TOTAL
DISCREET WELLS "RANGE OF CONCENTRATIONS" should
be changed from 0.004-150.0 to 150.0.
Cvcloate: WA "# OF POSTIVE WELLS < MCL" should
be changed from 7 to 0. "RANGE OF CONCENTRATIONS"
should be changed from 0.2-1.8 to' blank; TOTAL
DISCRETE WELLS "# OF POSTIVE WELLS < MCL" should
be changed from 7 to 0. "RANGE OF CONCENTRATIONS"
• ghoul'd'-be -changed''iS-ram &*3*-'-l v£*--feo •>b^anto..- - <•..«-»•
Bentazon: VA:. "WELLS aMCL" should be changed
from 1 to 0, "WELLS
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
ERRATA
3-VA-13 £ 3-
VA-14 3-VA-27
Pesticide Table - Bentazon information whould be
ammended as shown in following table. Sethoxvdim
information as shown should be added.
Wells Table - The monitoring well information for
Westmoreland County and Total should be
aMCL should be change from 6 to 7,
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
ERRATA
VOLUME
Region 8
PAGE
Region 9 OV-14
Region 10 10-WA-12
Region 7
Various
• •**. --*•*•-* •> -T
COMMENTS
The State of South Dakota has additional data
that is not presented in this report. Contact
Jeanne Goodman, South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Tel: 605-773-
3296.
OV-14 REGIONAL MAP: The TOTAL NUMBER OP WELLS
SAMPLED for Arizona is given as 36, this value
should be 40.
Cvcloate ''Total Discrete Wells/Samples" should
be chanced from 7 to 0 in "# OF POSTIVE WELLS <
MCL", from 16 to 0 in "NUMBER OF POSTIVE SAMPLES
< MCL" . and for 0.2-1.08 to blank in "RANGE OF
CONCENTRATIONS".
The table below reflects changes to the data for
Kansas, based ypon review of additional jiata.
These totals' carry •£ntb'"^e^eqicfnJriT~vol'unie' as
well.
National
Summary
CORRECTIONS TO NATIONAL SUMMARY DOCUMENT RELATED TO KANSAS
B-leidrw*
m
JttTJWJftL
SOW »«HE
SftTS „
SS-62
f®
KS
KS
KS.
1984-87
TO-T-AL
iffiliS
«ct
98
25
TR-22
0.88-6.2
0.1-40
0.22-0.26
0.033-0.062
0.033-0.062
0.023-0.026
3.3-5.6
ERRATA - 3
-------
. <•,
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
ERRATA
pesnctDE
Pfcloram
PAGE
T&TAL
MCI
75
MUSK OF
THfturalin
KS
2.7-5.4
G8AHB TOTAL
214
33
PAGE IN
HAT'L
SUMMARY
DOCU"
NS-175
ROW
MAHf
Kansas
Tfflffti
30
«c
I
40
ttffl
NS-176
Total;
5997
13771
2636
Hew errata as of Dec 23. 1993 are underlined
ERRATA - 4
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
ERRATA
VOLUME PAGE.
Region 9 9-CA-321 to 9-
CA-331
9-CA-327
9-CA-331
Region 4, 4-SC-9
Volume 1
4-SC-10
National NS-129
Summary
NS-130
CQM3VIENTS
The *s following the lindane data, which note that the
pesticide'has no MCL or HA, are erroneous. Lindane has an
MCL of 0.2 ug/L.
For SAN DIEGO COUNTY, 1987: The "1" in, £ OF
POSITIVE WELLS < MCL should be moved to the # OF
POSITIVE WELLS > MCL column. The "1" in NUMBER
OF POSITIVE SAMPLES < MCL should be moved to the
NUMBER OF POSITIVE SAMPLES £ MCL column.
TOTAL DISCRETE WELLS OR SAMPLES: The "1" hi #
OF POSITIVE WELLS < MCL should be moved to the #
OF POSITIVE WELLS > MCL column. -The "1", in
NUMBER OF POSITIVE SAMPLES < MCL should be
moved to the NUMBER OF POSITIVE SAMPLES > MCL
column.
To the Lindane/HAMPTON COUNTY and TOTAL
DISCRETE WELLS/SAMPLES rows, the RANGE OF.
CONCENTRATIONS column place a superscript A after
the 0.01-0.319. ' _ ' :
Add underneath table:
A In this report ithe results of monitoring were given as a
range of concentrations. It was not possible to determine
how many of the detections were above the lindane MCL
of 0.2 ug/L; therefore, all detections were placed in the <
MCL column.
,For lindane in CALIFORNIA: ,The "1" WELL < MCL
should be moved to me WELLS > MCL column..
For Mdane TOTAL DISCRETE WELLS: The WELLS 2s
MCL should be changed from 2 to 3; me WELLS < MCL
should be changed from 76 to 75.
ERRATA - 5
• \ .
-------
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database -1992 Report
Pesticides in Ground Water Database
A Compilation of Monitoring Studies: 1971 -1991
National Summary
Office of Pesticide Programs
Environmental Fate and Effects Division
Environmental Fate and Ground Water Branch
Henry Jacoby, Chief
Pesticide Monitoring Program Section
Constance Hoheisel
Joan Karrie Susan Lees
Leslie Davies-Hilliard Patrick Hannon
Roy Bingham
Ground Water Technology Section
Elizabeth Behl
David Wells Estella Waldman
September 1992
-------
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
Mention of trade names, products, or services does
not convey, and should not be interpreted as
conveying, official EPA approval, endorsement, or
recommendation.
-------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328
ISBN 0-16-036265-2
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report, National Summary
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OV-1
NATIONAL SUMMARY NS-1
MAPS BY REGION NS-9
GRAPH 1: WELL DATA BY STATE NS-21
GRAPH 2: WELL DATA BY PESTICIDE NS-33
Pesticide Detections NS-35
Non-Detected Pesticides NS-49
TABLE 1: WELL DATA BY PESTICIDE NS-59
TABLE 2: WELL DATA BY STATE NS-173
APPENDICES
Pesticide Cross-Reference Table Appendix 1-1
National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells Appendix II-1
-------
-------
HiTSU
I. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Pesticide Programs (EPA/OPP)
is responsible for protecting human and environmental health from unreasonable risk due
to pesticide exposure. Monitoring efforts carried out during the last decade have shown that
the nation's ground water can become contaminated with pesticides, particularly in areas
with high pesticide use and vulnerable aquifers. Therefore, OPP has taken a strong
preventive approach to the protection of this valuable resource. Regulatory activities have
evolved to include, as a condition of registration or re-registration, a more rigorous
evaluation of a pesticide's potential to reach ground water. OPP has also formed strong
partnerships with other federal and state agencies responsible for various aspects of ground-
water protection.
The Pesticides in Ground Water Database (PGWDB) was created to provide a more
complete picture of ground-water monitoring for pesticides in the United States. It is a
collection of ground-water monitoring studies conducted by federal, state and local
governments, the pesticide industry and private institutions. It consists of monitoring data
and auxiliary information in both computerized and hard-copy form. This report, Pesticides
in Ground Water Database — A Compilation of Monitoring Studies: 1971 -1991, was prepared
to summarize and share the results of the studies in the PGWDB. It consists of 11 volumes:
a National Summary and ten EPA regional summaries. Each volume provides a detailed
description of the computerized PGWDB and a guide to reading and interpreting the data.
The data are presented as maps, graphs and tables.
These data are extremely valuable, but must be interpreted carefully. In general, the
PGWDB provides an overview of the ground-water monitoring efforts for pesticides in the
United States, the pesticides that are being found in the nation's ground water, and the
areas of the country that appear to be vulnerable to pesticide contamination.
When viewed as a whole, it might appear the data gathered for this report are
representative of the United States and/or of general drinking water quality. This is not
necessarily the case. For example, many studies included sampling of aquifers that supply
drinking water, however these samples were usually taken at the well, not at the consumer's
tap. Therefore, conclusions concerning finished water can only be drawn by careful
examination of the data on a study by study basis. In addition, ground-water monitoring
programs vary widely in sampling intensity and design from state to state. Not surprisingly,
the states that sampled the greatest number of wells were often those that found the
greatest number of contaminated wells. This should not be misconstrued to mean that the
ground water in these states is more contaminated than that of other states, or that all
ground water in these states is contaminated. On the contrary, an active, supported
sampling program generally indicates a high regard for ground-water quality.
OV-1
-------
The database and this report are the result of the efforts of a great many individuals,
significant among whom are the state officials and principal investigators who gave
generously of their time to provide OPP with information concerning their work. Tn
publishing this report, OPP intends not only to provide data, but also to identify points of
contact, in order to share expertise among those responsible for the protection of the
nation's ground-water resources.
To make this information available to as many decision makers in state and other
federal agencies as possible, the computerized portion of the PGWDB will become a part
of the Pesticide Information Network (PIN).1 The PIN is a computerized collection of files
that contain pesticide monitoring and regulatory information. The PIN functions much like
a PC-PC bulletin board and can be accessed by anyone with a computer and a modem. The
PIN is currently undergoing an expansion that will allow new types of information to be
included and increase the number of simultaneous users. The new PIN will be available in
1993 and will contain the PGWDB, environmental fate chemical/physical parameters for
pesticides, pesticide regulatory information (Restricted Use, Special Review, canceled and
suspended) and a certification and training bibliography.
II. THE ROLE OF PESTICIDE MONITORING
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires EPA to
monitor the environment for pesticide residues [section 20, parts (b) and (c)]. The primary
goal of pesticide monitoring is to improve the soundness of FIFRA risk/benefit regulatory
decisions by providing information on the concentrations of pesticide residues and the
effects that exposure to these residues have on human health and the environment. In
addition, long-term changes in environmental quality can be detected through the analysis
of monitoring data. OPP can use this information to measure the effectiveness of regulatory
decisions and to indicate potential environmental problems.
EPA has directly sponsored some large-scale pesticide monitoring projects, such as the
National Monitoring Programs of the 1970s2 and the recent National Survey of Pesticides
in Drinking Water Wells.3 This type of monitoring is intended to provide information on
a national level involving large numbers of pesticides. It does not provide information
concerning localized problems or long-term trends. This method of data gathering is also
extremely resource-intensive. An alternative approach for OPP is to support and gather
information from monitoring studies performed by others. Since the responsibility for
protecting the nation's ground water is shared by federal and state governments, OPP's data-
handling responsibilities not only include procuring the most current information for its own
needs, but also sharing this information with its partners in state and federal agencies. The
development of the Pesticides in Ground Water Database is a step in this direction.
OV-2
-------
III. BACKGROUND
OPP began collecting ground-water studies for the PGWDB in the early 1980s. In 1988,
an effort was made to review and catalog these data. Summary results of this effort were
computerized and then published in the Pesticides in Ground Water Database: 1988 Interim
Report.4
Since the 1988 Interim Report was issued, many things have changed. State-sponsored
projects, initiated in the late 1980s, have been completed and digitized, monitoring
methodologies and computer technology have improved, and the quality and quantity of data
have increased. Based on extensive use of the 1988 database by OPP's Ground Water
Technology Section and the comments received from other users, both within and outside
of OPP, the computerized database and the hard-copy report were restructured. The new
computerized structure is more appropriate for the quality and quantity of the information
currently available, as well as for that expected in the future. The new structure is both well
and sample specific; that is, it contains description and location information for each well
sampled and the results of each analysis. This structure allows ground-water monitoring
data to be sorted in a variety of ways, such as by well depth, well location, and sampling
date. The new report structure provides national, regional, state and county summaries so
that readers can select the resolution appropriate for their needs.
Most of the data in the PGWDB have been produced directly by state agencies or by
private institutions that are sponsored by federal or state agencies. Some pesticide industry-
sponsored studies have also been included in the PGWDB. These studies were conducted
to support the registration status of a particular pesticide and were generally conducted in
areas that are vulnerable to ground-water contamination by pesticides.
The database is a compilation of data submitted in several different formats, including
computerized and hard-copy sampling results as well as hard-copy reports containing study
descriptions and summary information. Many states are now routinely storing their data in
computerized form and have shared their data with OPP. Some of the hard-copy data are
from older studies that were never computerized. Some are from studies that have been
computerized, but OPP has not yet been able to obtain the data. OPP is also retaining
hard-copy final reports for as many studies as possible. These reports provide vital
information such as study design, well design, analytical methods, quality control and
environmental conditions.
The focus of the PGWDB is quite narrow. It contains only ground-water monitoring
data in which pesticides were included as analytes. Therefore, the PGWDB does not
replicate STORET5 or WATSTORE6. While these large databases contain some pesticide
monitoring data and some ground-water data, their primary focus is general water quality,
As a result, these databases contain a great deal more information about water quality, but
lack many of the pesticide focused studies that are included in the PGWDB. Many states
have used STORET to store water-quality data, including analyses for pesticides. STORET
data were downloaded and added to the PGWDB when the data could be directly
OV-3
-------
VI. DATA INTERPRETATION
Ground-water monitoring data in this report have been assembled from numerous
sources, including state and federal agencies, chemical companies, consulting firms, and
private institutions that are investigating the potential for ground-water contamination by
pesticides. These data are extremely valuable, but must be interpreted carefully. In general,
the PGWDB provides a relatively comprehensive overview of the ground-water monitoring
efforts for pesticides in the United States, the pesticides that are being found in the nation's
ground water, and the areas of the country that appear to be the most vulnerable to
pesticide contamination.
Nationally, part of OPP's regulatory mission is to prevent contamination of ground-
water resources resulting from the normal use of registered pesticides. OPP routinely
reassesses the impact that registered pesticides have on the quality of ground-water
resources. The PGWDB will be used to support ongoing regulatory activities, such as
ground-water label advisories, monitoring studies required for pesticide re-registration and
special review activities. In addition, combining the information in the PGWDB with other
environmental fate data and usage data will assist OPP, at an early stage in the regulatory
process, in refining criteria used to identify pesticides that tend to leach to ground water.
On a state or local level, the PGWDB can be used as a reference so that a state may
access data from neighboring states. Evidence that pesticide residues occur in ground water
can be used to target a state's resources for future monitoring and to re-assess pesticide
management practices to prevent future degradation of ground-water quality. The
information presented in this report will also be useful to state and regional agencies when
implementing two pollution-prevention measures being developed by EPA; the Restricted
Use Rule and the State Management Plans outlined in the Pesticides and Ground Water
Strategy. Additional uses for the data in the PGWDB include identification of areas in need
of further study, identification of the intensity of monitoring for particular pesticides, and
graphic display of ground-water monitoring activities and localization of pesticide
contamination.
VII. DATA LIMITATIONS
Despite their apparent value, these data do have limitations and must be used and
interpreted carefully. Differences in study design, laboratory procedures/equipment,
sampling practices, or well use can affect results. Some of the limitations governing the
interpretation of the data in the PGWDB are discussed below:
1) The PGWDB is not a complete data set of all ground-water monitoring for
pesticides in the United States. While we have attempted to include as many
sources as possible, other data exist of which we are not aware or to which we do
not yet have access.
OV-10
-------
2) Monitoring for pesticides in ground water has not been performed in a uniform
manner throughout the United States. Some states have extensive monitoring
programs for pesticide residues, while others have more limited monitoring
programs. In general, more extensive ground-water monitoring programs tend to
be found in the states where pesticide use is heavy. This creates a picture that does
not necessarily represent the overall impact of pesticides on ground-water quality
nationwide.
3) Differences in ground-water monitoring study design can radically affect the results.
Many monitoring efforts were initiated in response to suspected problems, and
therefore yielded a disproportionately high number of positive samples. These
results cannot be extrapolated to represent a larger region or state. Other efforts
sampled a small number of wells or sampled under conditions in which
contamination was unlikely. Still others were statistically designed studies, intended
to be extrapolated to a specific population of wells. Each of these scenarios
presents a vastly different view of the condition of the ground-water resource
sampled.
4) Analytical methods and limits of detection have changed over time, and also vary
from laboratory to laboratory. Therefore, comparisons between the results of
different studies and across several years must be performed carefully to avoid
errors in interpretation.
5) Differences in construction, depth, location and intended use can greatly affect the
likelihood that a particular well will become contaminated by pesticides. Some of
these issues were addressed in the individual study summaries when such details
were available. However, this information was not always provided and tends to
be obscured when large amounts of data are summarized. The reader is cautioned
to read the study summaries carefully and interpret the resulting data summaries
conservatively.
OV-11
-------
-------
JfATIQNAL '
I. INTRODUCTION
This section provides a summary of ground-water sampling for pesticides in the United
States. The data in this report represent sampling that occurred from 1971 to 1991; most
sampling was performed during the 1980s. A summary of all data collected is presented by
state and pesticide. This information can be found as maps, graphs and tables beginning
on page NS-9. More detailed information for each state and descriptions of the .studies
from which these data were derived are available in the regional volumes.
II. RESULTS
The Pesticides in Ground Water Database currently contains data collected from 68,824
wells in 45 states. The vast majority of these were drinking water wells (65,865). Pesticide
(or pesticide degradate) residues have been detected in 16,606 wells (15,502 drinking water
wells) in 42 states. Nearly 10,000 of these contaminated wells had concentrations of
pesticides or degradates greater than EPA drinking water standards (MCL or Lifetime HA).
Figure 4 lists the states with the most intense sampling and the greatest number of
detections.
During the 20-year period covered in this report, ground water in the United States was
analyzed for the presence of 302 pesticide-related compounds. One hundred thirty- two were
detected and 35 were detected at concentrations >MCL or Lifetime HA. The following
list provides more details: (Note that 4-Nitrophenol is both a registered parent pesticide and
a degradate of methyl parathion. This compound was counted in both categories.)
Total number of analytes
302 pesticide-related compounds
258 parent pesticides
45 degradates
Found in 100 or more wells
23 pesticide-related compounds
21 parent pesticides
2 degradates
Found in at least one well
132 pesticide-related compounds
117 parent pesticides
16 degradates
Found in over 1.000 wells
7 pesticide-related compounds
5 parent pesticides
2 degradates
Regulatory restrictions have been placed on 54 of the pesticides found in ground water:
28 are no longer registered for use in the United States and 27 of those with active
registrations are designated as restricted use. An additional 6 pesticides have not been
supported by the registrant for re-registration. Thirty-four of the pesticides found in ground
water are or have been in the Special Review process.
Figure 5 lists the pesticide-related compounds detected in more than 100 wells in order
of number of wells with detections. The two most-often-detected pesticide compounds were
the degradates aldicarb sulfone and aldicarb sulfoxide. These degradates were found more
frequently than the parent compound, aldicarb. Figure 6 lists the 11 pesticide parents and
-------
their 16 degradates that had at least one degradate detected. DCPA acid metabolites, the
third-most frequently detected degradate group in the PGWDB, were also detected more
frequently than the parent, DCPA, and were the most frequently found of all pesticide
analytes in the National Pesticide Survey of Drinking Water Wells (NPS) (see Appendix II).
In most cases, degradates have only recently been included as analytes in ground-water
monitoring studies and far fewer wells have been sampled for the presence of these
compounds than for the parent. However, when sampling frequency is compared to the
number of detections, it can be seen that, of the 16 degradates in Figure 6, five occur at
frequencies greater than the parent, two occur at a frequency approximately equal to that
of the parent, and five occur about half as frequently as the parent. These data and those
of the NPS indicate that serious consideration should be given to including pesticide
degradates as analytes in studies designed to evaluate the impact of pesticides on ground-
water quality. The true impact on ground-water resources by some pesticides may only be
determined by examining both parent and degradates.
FIGURE 4. States with the Highest Sampling Frequency and Greatest Number of
Detections
ST
m
tL
CA
CT
HE
RI
W!
OH
IA
HH
HI
HA
IL
IN
NO
tx
HE
vr
MC
NO
Welts
Sampled
21,219
18,153
10,325
2,661
2,280
1,826
1,631
1,462
926
754
574
571
554
533
515
511
490
446
446
325
Curautetfv*
%. of Wells
31
57
72
76
79
82
84
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
97
-V.
•,".\'
mi
«>
% «*>,
BT*S
M;;
'$&'*
-'% '
>>"•-
MS,
wT*
IA ,-,
\
H«e
RJ
VA
sc^"
,^;
Ht-\
"HO
<^-
wcS
" ^ " -•.•.•, X
^•5^H.s ftl*h
' *•«• •!" % v /*^H
7,439
2,362
2,047
854
358
343
342
275
247
216
200
192
157
149
134
134
125
117
114
95
ctw^tW ;
% ^>f $fei (s
KJ^ (Jiet;?*?*^
^t^ —
45
59
71
76
78
80
82
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
• W
5 tflK
ff
"%
Tcf.'
ut
\K
fX
Rl
m
m
yft
BE
'"""""
WE
GA
JA
HN
HO
{g
HO
VA
' ^S--.
?(lt*t ^
5,763
1,708
1,136
481
205
138
73
58
28
27
26
24
24
23
23
21
18
17
16
15
QMVK4X&
/M th 0«t-eeitV i
58
75
86
91
93
94
95
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
NS-2
-------
FIGURE 5. Pesticides detected in more than 100 wells
Pesticide^
SffiS! -^
*iffei "
?ar*rfttf*n —
AkKcarb
EPB
WO*
fltrazine '""'
Sxaravt
MAlacbla;t;iiiiir imii^
SHttazine
?42* % -",
Bromacil ^ :
W<s' '
Sampled
37,652
37,593
28,020
43,786
20,221
20,545
26,909
23,305
26,856
22,374
21,399
17,372
Welts with
iteteetHom
5,070
4,991
4,127
3,002
2,918
1,829
1,512
904
543
486
353
313
Statue
R, SR
R, SR
C
C
R
R
R, SR
C
1
Pestic-fcte .. •••.
v. V..... f
ftet&lgcftlsp •• :
rttit*teii*)p*niA
,ftfuroB^
CV$FW2*fle ^
Hfe^SWMJi^t
g,4~B
tfnsp0fj
DOT ,--- v
Arsenic TO
'o.rt«V*'\ ^ ,
5,452
22,255
526
17,865
7,468
23,250
6,142
1,666
3,115
271
25,712
JS&KtJS'
232
213
213
160
155
154
141
111
108
106
106
Reg.,
status. -
R, SR
S
R, SR
R
SR
SR
C
R: Restricted Use SR: Special Review C: Canceled (See Appendix I for complete definitions)
FIGURE 6. A comparison of parent pesticides and their degradates
Parent f>estic*S56
165
297
'*&
183
,, 355
196
HelM.wfth
ftetettions
$9- ^
32
, 32
6
2& -
3
54$
2
1
0
1
•.^4'
1
NS-3
-------
III. DISCUSSION
When viewed as a whole, it might appear the data gathered for this report are quite
representative of the United States, since 45 states contributed data. This is not the case.
Ground-water monitoring programs vary widely in sampling intensity and design from state
to state. When the data are examined on a state-by-state basis (Figure 4), it can be seen
that 90% of all wells sampled can be found in only 12 states and only 8 states sampled 1,000
or more wells. The states that sampled the greatest number of wells are New York, Florida,
and California; each sampled more than 10,000wells. Together, these three states collected
70% of the data in this report. Not surprisingly, 70% of the wells with pesticide detections
and more than 80% of wells with detections greater than the EPA drinking water health
standards are also located in these three states. This should not be misconstrued to mean
that the ground water in these three states is more contaminated than that of other states,
or that all ground water in these states is contaminated. On the contrary,, an active,
supported sampling program generally, indicates a high regard for ground-water quality.
The data in the PGWDB can provide an indication of where ground water has been
sampled, where additional sampling might be necessary and where contamination occurs in
relationship to the intensity of sampling. However, great care must be exercised when
attempting to use these data to characterize the status of ground-water quality resulting from
pesticide use nationally or at the state level. This can be demonstrated by examining the
data from several states more closely.
In California, 20% of the 10,000 wells sampled were contaminated with pesticides;
however, the vast majority of wells sampled and wells with detections in California occurred
in Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. Relatively few wells were
sampled in the more than 50 other counties in California. Because the majority of sampling
occurred where agricultural pesticide use is high, the proportion of wells with detections very
likely exaggerates the extent of contamination statewide. New York sampled a very large
number of wells and a relatively large portion (35%) of these wells were contaminated, but
99% of the wells sampled, and 99% of the wells contaminated with pesticides are in Suffolk
County. A large-scale sampling program was initiated in Suffolk County after aldicarb
residues were found in drinking water wells in agricultural areas. This sampling pattern
drastically skews the impact of pesticides on ground-water quality in New York. Similarly,
approximately 23% of the wells sampled in Iowa contained pesticides. However, much of
Iowa's early ground-water sampling was performed in heavy pesticide-use areas with alluvial
aquifers that are very vulnerable to contamination. In 1988-89, when Iowa conducted a
statistically designed survey of rural wells throughout the entire state, only about 14% of the
wells sampled were contaminated with pesticides. The monitoring scenarios from these
states are not unlike situations in many other states. They are presented here to underscore
the importance of factors such as sampling intensity and spacial distributions on the overall
monitoring results.
NS-4
-------
These same cautions must be exercised when ranking pesticides by frequency of
detection. These data are useful when placing pesticides in general groups; however, the
absolute position of one pesticide in relation to another is strongly affected by factors such
as sampling frequency, spatial distribution and detection limits.
The PGWDB is a collection of isolated studies. Many anomalies occur in these data
that make interpretation difficult. Monitoring for some of the pesticides reported in this
database occurred primarily or exclusively in one state and sometimes only in a small area
of that state. Readers are strongly encouraged to use these data carefully and not to over-
interpret them. This is not because the individual datasets are poor; on the contrary, the
vast majority of the studies were carefully planned and well executed. Rather, it is because
the datasets were not necessarily meant to be combined. To make the best use of these
data, examine the regional volumes of this report. These more detailed volumes will
provide additional insight into sampling areas, sampling dates and study designs.
IV. THE FUTURE
The vulnerability of ground water to contamination by pesticides depends upon a variety
of factors including depth, topography, soil, climate, pesticide use and pesticide application
practices. In some cases, ground water is shallow or closely connected with surface water
and the results of surface activities can be observed within months. More often,
contamination is not observed for many years, allowing cause-and-effect relationships to
become obscured. This report, for the most part, is a retrospective examination of the
agricultural practices of the 1960s and 1970s, the results of which were observed through
monitoring performed 20 years later. The condition of our ground-water resources for the
next 20 years will be greatly affected by how we are handling our chemicals now. Our
challenge today is clearly prospective.
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is planning to publish a summary report of
the data in the PGWDB on approximately a yearly basis. We are interested in presenting
the data in a manner that is the most helpful to as many users as possible. The following
are areas in which we would like to receive comments:
1. Should future reports summarize only "new data" (those received since the last
report) or all of the data? Should we continue to report very old monitoring data
(10 to 20 years), given the fact that some of these studies had very high detection
limits and monitored for pesticides that are no longer of regulatory interest?
2. What changes should be made to the maps, graphs and tables? Are they too
detailed or not detailed enough? Are important pieces of information missing? Is
there a clearer or more useful way to present these data?
3. How are those outside of OPP using the PGWDB?
NS-5
-------
We appreciate all of those who took the time to comment on the draft version of this
report. Many of the suggestions offered were included in this final version. However, some
very good suggestions regarding changes to the tables could not be included in this report
due to time constraints. These suggestions were taken seriously and will be considered for
future reports.
For the PGWDB to retain its value, OPP must continue to gather and share as much
pesticide monitoring information as possible. Any government agency or private institution
that would like to have its work included in the PGWDB should provide a hard copy of a
final or interim report and the sample and well data in electronic format. PGWDB data
elements are listed on page OV-4 of this report. Electronic media should be accompanied
by a description that includes, hardware compatibility (IBM, Apple etc.), operating system
(DOS, UNIX, OS2), format identification (ASCII or software package name) and a data
dictionary. Anyone wishing to provide comments or data may do so by contacting:
Constance A. Hoheisel
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticide Programs
Environmental Fate and Effects Division (H7507C)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Telephone: 703-305-5455
FAX: 703-305-6309
NS-6
-------
REFERENCES
1. Hoheisel, C. and Davies-Hilliard.L. Pesticide Information Network.U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington D.C., 1987. Database:
703-305-5919. User Support: 703-305-7499.
2. Spencer, D.A. The National Pesticide Monitoring Program. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1974. Summary document published by The National Agricultural
Chemicals Association.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking
Water Wells. Washington, B.C., 1990. For Fact Sheets contact: EPA Public
Information Center, 202-260-2080. For copies of reports contact: National Technical
Information Service (NTIS), 703-487-4650.
4. Williams, W.M.,Holden, P.W.,Parsons, D.W. and Lorber, M.N. Pesticides in Ground
Water Data Base-1988 Interim Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Pesticide Programs (H7507C), Washington, D.C.,1988.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Information Resources Management
STORET (Water Quality Database). Washington, D.C. User assistance: 1-800-424-
9067.
6. U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Data Exchange. WATSTORE(Water Quality
Database). Reston, VA. For further information: 703-648-5671.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Drinking Water Regulations and
Health Advisories. Washington, D.C., November 1991. Tel: 202-260-7571.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Definitions for the Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground-Water Quality.
Washington, D.C.,1991.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Status Of Pesticides
In Reregistration And Special Review, (Rainbow Report)., Washington, D.C.,March
1992. For further information: 703-308-8000.
Author and reference information for the studies used to compile this National Summary
can be found in the appropriate PGWDB regional volume.
NS-7
-------
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
MAPS: BY EPA REGION
-------
-------
Well Sampling by State
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
eedon I
Total Wells Sampled
per State
m > 1000
m 501 to 1000
ra 101 to 500
\n si to 100
E3 1 to 50
CD No wells sampled
NS-11
-------
Well Sampling by State
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Region
Total Wells Sampled
per State
m > 1000
8H 501 to 1000
S3 101 to 500
IZ2 51 to 100
m 1 to 50
CD No wells sampled
NS-12
-------
Well Sampling by Stale
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Total Wells Sampled
per State
• > 1000
501 to 1080
101 to 500
IZ3
ED
51
1
to
to
100
50
HH No wells sampled
NS-13
-------
Well Sampling by State
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Region IV
Total Wells Sampled
per State
m > 1000
m 501 to 1000
K3 101 to 500
EZ1 51 to 100
E3 1 to 50
CU No wells sampled
2240/15642
NS-14
-------
Well Sampling by State
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Total Wells Sampled
per State
• > 1000
^ 501 to 1000
El 101 to 500
Z3 51 to 100
E3 1 to 50
n No wells sampled
NS-15
-------
Well Sampling by State
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Total Wells Sampled
per State
m > 1000
m 501 to 1000
E2 101 to 500
El 51 to 100
ED 1 to 50
O No wells sampled
NS-16
-------
Well Sampling by Stete
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Reeion VII
Total Wells Sampled
per State
El
Z3
E3
> 1000
501 to 1000
101 to 500
51 to 100
1 to 50
CD No wells sampled
NS-17
-------
Well Sampling by State
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
epion VIII
UT
Total Wells Sampled
per State
m > 1000
m 501 to 1000
K3 101 to 500
CZI 51 to 100
ESD 1 to 50
CH No wells sampled
NS-18
-------
Well Sampling by State
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
on
Hawaii
125/574
Total Wells Sampled
per State
IZ3
E3
> 1000
501 to 1000
101 to 500
51 to 100
1 to 50
CH No wells sampled
NS-19
-------
Well Sampling by State
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
X
Total Wells Sampled
per State
• > 1000
^ 501 to 1000
El 101 to 500
Z3 51 to 100
E3 1 to 50
CD No wells sampled
NS-20
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
GRAPH 1: WELL DATA BY STATE
-------
-------
WELL MONITORING BY STATE
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
NEW YORK
FLORIDA
CALIFORNIA
CONNECTICUT
OHIO
5,000 10,000 15,000
NUMBER OF WELLS
20,000 25,000
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
NS-23
-------
WELL MONITORING BY STATE
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
NEBRASKA
WISCONSIN
MINNESOTA
MASSACHUSETTS
IOWA
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
NUMBER OF WELLS
3,000
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
NS-24
-------
WELL MONITORING BY STATE
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
MISSISSIPPI
MAINE
RHODE ISLAND
VIRGINIA
SOUTH CAROLINA
500 1,000 1,500 2,000
NUMBER OF WELLS
2,500
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
NS-25
-------
WELL MONITORING BY STATE
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TEXAS
HAWAII
MISSOURI
OREGON
NORTH CAROLINA
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
NUMBER OF WELLS
700
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
NS-26
-------
WELL MONITORING BY STATE
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
GEORGIA
ILLINOIS
SOUTH DAKOTA
PENNSYLVANIA
WASHINGTON
554
I
0 100 200 300 400 500
NUMBER OF WELLS
600 700
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
NS-27
-------
WELL MONITORING BY STATE
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
NEW JERSEY
WYOMING
MARYLAND
INDIANA
KANSAS
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
NUMBER OF WELLS
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
NS-28
-------
WELL MONITORING BY STATE
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
DELAWARE
NORTH DAKOTA
MONTANA
VERMONT
MICHIGAN
100
200 300 400
NUMBER OF WELLS
500 600
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
NS-29
-------
WELL MONITORING BY STATE
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
ALABAMA
WEST VIRGINIA
COLORADO
TENNESSEE
LOUISIANA
10 15 20 25
NUMBER OF WELLS
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
30 35
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
NS-30
-------
WELL MONITORING BY STATE
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
ARKANSAS
ARIZONA
NEW HAMPSHIRE -'
OKLAHOMA -v
IDAHO
20 40 60 80 100
NUMBER OF WELLS
120 140
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
NS-31
-------
WELL MONITORING BY STATE
ALASKA
KENTUCKY
NEW MEXICO
NEVADA
UTAH
NOD>
NOD.
NOD>
NOD;
NOD;
i
0-A AVAILA
0~A AVAIL A
\TA AVAILA
^TAAVAILA
MA AVAILA
i
BLE
3LE
BLE
BLE
BLE
i
i
NUMBER OF WELLS
NS-32
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
GRAPH 2: WELL DATA BY PESTICIDE
-------
-------
PESTICIDE DETECTIONS
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
ALDICARB SULFONE
ALDICARB SULFOX1DE
CARBOFURAN
S.R.SR
ALDICARB
S.R.SR
ETHYLENE DlBROMIDE
c
ATRAZINE
S,R
OXAMYL
S.R
ALACHLOR
S.R.SR
SIMAZINE |4§6
s
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
NUMBER OF WELLS
60,000
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
C=Canceled R=Restricted S=Supported SR=Special Review U=Unsupported
NS-35
-------
PESTICIDE DETECTIONS
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
SL
1,2-DiCHLOROPROPANE
c
BROMACIL
s
METRIBUZIN ||23g,
s
METOLACHLOR
s
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
S.R.SR
LINURON
S.SR
DIURON
122
CYANAZINE |155
S.R.SR
METHOMYL
S.R
2,4-D 1*141
I I | | | | | | l *
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
NUMBER OF WELLS
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
C=Canceled R=Restricted S=Supported SR=Special Review U=Unsupported
NS-36
-------
PESTICIDE DETECTIONS
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
DDT
c
150
ARSENIC glO^
CARBARYL
s
DIELDRIN
c
BENTAZON
s
LINDANE
S.R.SR
ALDICARB.TOTAL
Parent S,R,SR
PICLORAM
S,R
DICAMBA
s
DCPA
&/or ACID METABOLITES
Parent S
2,000 4,000 6,000
NUMBER OF WELLS
8,000
10,000
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
C=Canceled R=Restricted S=Supported SR=Special Review U=Unsupported
NS-37
-------
PESTICIDE DETECTIONS
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
MONURON
FLUOMETURON
ALDRIN
c
TRIFLURALIN
S,SR
HEPTACHLOR ft.SS
c
CHLORDANE
c
PROMETON
s
TRIA2INE SCREENS
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 1.44
c B128
3-HYDROXYCARBOFURAN
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
NUMBER OF WELLS
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
C=Canceled R=Restricted S=Supported SR=Special Review U=Unsupported
NS-38
-------
PESTICIDE DETECTIONS
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
DIAZINON
S.SR
ENDRIN
c
ODD
DDE
PROPACHLOR
s
CHLORPYRIFOS
s
ENDOSULFAN
s
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
2,4,5-T
c
2,4,5-TP ||8
c
3,884
|4,084
J3.876
5,398
I
I
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
NUMBER OF WELLS
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
C=Canceled R=Restricted S=Supported SR=Special Review U=Unsupported
NS-39
-------
PESTICIDE DETECTIONS
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
DINOSEB
DES-ETHYL ATRAZINE
BHC (ccpS)
DES-ISOPROPYL
ATRAZINE
TRICHLOROETHENE
DISULFOTON
S.R
PARATHION.METHYL
S,R
FONOFOS
S.R
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
u
METALAXYL
112
128
127
BHHHP689
126
24
689
22
15
20
1543
20
18
18
1 292
17
1 352
12,030
,848
12,468:
1
13,357
14,446
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
NUMBER OF WELLS
5,000
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
C=Canceled R=Restricted S=Supported SR=Special Review U=Unsupported
NS-40
-------
PESTICIDE DETECTIONS
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
METHOXYCHLOR
s
PROPAZINE
c
PENDIMETHALIN
s
CHLORAMBEN
u,c
DIMETHOATE
S.SR
MALATHION
s
TRICHLORFON
s
2,4-DICHLOROBENZOIC
ACID
PARAQUAT
S.R
TERBUFOS 111
S,R
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
NUMBER OF WELLS
5,000
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
C=Canceled R=Restricted S=Supported SR=Special Review U=Unsupported
NS-41
-------
PESTICIDE DETECTIONS
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
HEXAZINONE
s
TOXAPHENE
c
MIRE* LBSOS
CHLOROTHALONIL
s
CHLOROFORM
CYCLOATE
FLUAZIFOP-BUTYL I?
S
JO
GLYPHOSATE
s
DICHLOROPROPENE
S.R.SR
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE fcS
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
NUMBER OF WELLS
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
C=Canceled R=Restricted S=Supported SR=Special Review U=Unsupported
NS-42
-------
PESTICIDE DETECTIONS
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TERBACIL 36
s
AZINPHOS-METHYL
s,R
BUTYLATE B5
s
FENVALERATE
S,R
MCPA
Some S, Some C
|
PROPOXUR I5
S.SR
TRICLOPYR
ACIFLUORFEN
s
HEXAGHLOROBENZENE
METHAMIDOPHOS
S,R
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
NUMBER OF WELLS
5,000
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
C=Canceled R=Restricted S=Supported SR=Special Review U=Unsupported
NS-43
-------
PESTICIDE DETECTIONS
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
MOLINATE
s
PERMETHRIN
S,R
3-KETOCARBOFURAN
4-NITROPHENOL
CAPTAN
S.SR
CHLOROPICRIN
s.R
CYANIDE
MERCURY
PARATHION.ETHYL
S.R.SR
PCNB
S.SR
1355
839
1344
0
3
14
0
3
26
0
3
11,097
,828
11,708
I
13,529
16,561
I
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
NUMBER OF WELLS
5,000
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
C=Canceled R=Restricted S=Supported SR=Special Review U=Unsupported
NS-44
-------
PESTICIDE DETECTIONS
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TEBUTHIURON
s
AMETRYN
s
CARBON DISULFIDE
u
DICHLORPROP
S.SR
EPTC
s
ISOFENPHOS
S,R
METHYL BROMIDE
S,R
ORYZALIN
s
PROPANIL
s
PYRICLOR
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
NUMBER OF WELLS
5,000
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
C=Canceled R=Restricted S=Supported SR=Special Review U=Unsupported
NS-45
-------
PESTICIDE DETECTIONS
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
THIOBENCARB
TRANS-NONACHLOR ^2
&NONACHLOR ,
' 0
1-NAPHTHOL
2,4-DB
S.SR
ATRATON
c
BENOMYL Hi
S.SR
i
0
ENDOSULFANI
ENDOSULFAN II
HYDROXYALACHLOR O
200 400 600 800
NUMBER OF WELLS
1,000 1,200
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
C=Canceled R=Restricted S=Supported SR=Special Review U=Unsupported
NS-46
-------
PESTICIDE DETECTIONS
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
ISOPROPALIN |1
c
METHIOCARB
S,R
MEXACARBATE
C
MOLINATE SULFOXIDE
MONOCROTOPHOS
PHOSMET
PROFLURALIN
PROMETRYN
s
PROPHAM
c
SULPROFOS
S,R
21,174
0
M
0230
. 1 .
i
i
i
i
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
NUMBER OF WELLS
5,000
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
C=Canceled R=Restricted S=Supported SR=Special Review U=Unsupported
NS-47
-------
PESTICIDE DETECTIONS
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
DICHLOROBENZENE, O
u
I L
1
13,322
_L
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
NUMBER OF WELLS
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
TOTAL WELLS SAM PLED
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
C=Canceled R=Restricted S=Supported SR=Special Review U=Unsupported
NS-48
-------
PESTICIDES WITH NO DETECTIONS
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
2,6-DIETHYLANlLINE
3,5-DICHLOROBENZOIC
5-HYDROXY DICAMBA
ACENAPHTHENE
ACEPHATE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
AMINOCARB
AMITRAZ
AMITROLE
ANILAZINE
ATRAZINE.DEALKYLATED
AZINPHOS-ETHYL
BARBAN
BENDIOCARB
BENEFIN
BENSULIDE
200 400 600 800 1,000
NUMBER OF WELLS SAMPLED
1,200
NS-49
-------
PESTICIDES WITH NO DETECTIONS
BROMIDE
BROMOXYNIL
BUFENCARB
BUTACHLOR
CAPTAFOL
CARBAMATE SCREENS
CARBENDAZIM
CARBOFURAN PHENOL
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CARBOPHENOTHION
CARBOPHENOTHION.METH
CARBOXIN
CDEC
CHLORDECONE
CHLORDIMEFORM
CHLORFENAC
CHLORFENSON
CHLORO-M-CRESOL, P
CHLORO-O-CRESOL, P
CHLOROALLYL ALCOHOL
200 400 600
NUMBER OF WELLS SAMPLED
800
NS-50
-------
PESTICIDES WITH NO DETECTIONS
CHLOROBENZILATE i-8
CHLORONEB »14
CHLOROXURON
CHLORPROPHAM
C H LORP YRl FOS-M ETHYL
CHLORSULFURON
COPPER
COUMAPHOS
CRUFOMATE
CYPERMETHRIN
CYPRAZINE
DALAPON
DEMETON
DEMETON-METHYL
DEMETON-S
DEMETON-S SULFONE
DIALLATE
DlBUTYL PHTHALATE &11
DICHLOBENIL I-1
DICHLOROBENZENE, P
500 1,000 1,500
NUMBER OF WELLS SAMPLED
2,000
NS-51
-------
PESTICIDES WITH NO DETECTIONS
DICHLORVOS
DICOFOL
DICROTOPHOS B14
DIOCTYL PHTHALATE ||11
DIOXACARB
DIOXATHION
DIPHENAMID
DIQUAT
DISULFOTON SULFONE
DISULFOTON SULFOXIDE
DM PA
DNOC
ENDOTHALL
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
EPN
ETHALFLURALIN
ETHION
ETHOPROP
ETHYLAN
ETRIDIAZOLE i-6
500 1,000 1,500 2,000
NUMBER OF WELLS SAMPLED
NS-52
-------
PESTICIDES WITH NO DETECTIONS
FENAMIPHOS
FENAMIPHOS SULFONE
FENAMIPHOS SULFOXIDE
FENARIMOL I-6
ti 1
FENBUTATIN-OXIDE I-1
FENSULFOTHION
FENTHION
FENURON
FLUCHLORALIN
FLUMETRALIN
FLURIDONE
FORMALDEHYDE
IPRODIONE P15
ISOBORYL THIOCYANOAC
MALAOXON
MANCOZEB
; MANEB
MCPB
MECOPROP
MERPHOS
• ' ' ' ' • • • • • ... . .-.—
0 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600
NUMBER OF WELLS SAMPLED
NS-53
-------
PESTICIDES WITH NO DETECTIONS
METHAZOLE
METHIDATHION p262
METHYL ISOTH1OCYANAT
METHYL PARAOXON
METRIBUZINDA I121
METRIBUZIN DADK
METRIBUZIN DK
MEVINPHOS
NALED
NAPHTHALENE
NAPROPAMIDE
NAPTALAM I-40
NEBURON B325
NITROFEN i-118
NORFLURAZON B194
OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE
ORGANOCHLORINE SCREE
ORGANOPHOSPHATE SCRE
•
OXYCHLORDANE |165
A
OXYDEMETON-M ETHYL
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
NUMBER OF WELLS SAMPLED
NS-54
-------
PESTICIDES WITH NO DETECTIONS
OXYDISULFOTON
OXYFLUORFEN
PEBULATE
PHORATE
PHORATE SULFONE
PHORATE SULFOXIDE
PHORATOXON
PHORATOXON SULFONE
PHORATOXON SULFOXIDE
PHOSALONE
PHOSMET OXYGEN ANALO
PHOSPHAMIDON
PIRIMICARB SULFONE
PROFENOFOS
PROMECARB
PRONAMIDE
PRONAMIDE METABOLITE
PROPARGITE
PROTHIOPHOS
PYRETHRINS
271
187
188
432
126
382
164
144
3,341
1,000 2,000 3,000
NUMBER OF WELLS SAMPLED
4,000
NS-55
-------
PESTICIDES WITH NO DETECTIONS
RONNEL
ROTENOLONE
ROTENONE
ROTENONE.METABOLITES
SECBUMETON
SETHOXYDIM
SIDURON
SIMETONE
SIMETRYN
SWEP
TERBUFOS SULFONE
TERBUTHYLAZINE
TERBUTRYN
TETRACHLORVINPHOS
TETRADIFON
THIOBENCARB SULFOXID
THIOPHANATE
THIOPHANATE-METHYL
TRALOMETHRIN
TRIADIMEFON
200 400 600 800
NUMBER OF WELLS SAMPLED
1,000
NS-56
-------
PESTICIDES WITH NO DETECTIONS
TRIBUFOS
TRICHLOROACETIC ACID
TRICHLORONAT(E)
TRICHLOROPHENOL
TRICYCLAZOLE
URACILAJREA
VERNOLATE
XYLENE
ZINEB
ZIRAM
0
3,160
I
I
t
1,000 2,000 3,000
NUMBER OF WELLS SAMPLED
4,000
NS-57
-------
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
TABLE 1: WELL DATA BY PESTICIDE
-------
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-61
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
PESTICIDE
(1,2-Dichloro-
propane)
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
P........ P.PP .....-.— T.T.r
1,2,4-TH-
chtorcbenzena
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
|
2,4-D
x
REGULATORf
STAtUS- , , ,
v:&vV
V
I
I
I
u,c.
-- -•* ss>
^Vv t,*.
\ $,$RPre^
,Hf\4 s
"""" VlV-- v. .«« .,««
-^ ^r.
HttoV"jtA
^\wt^-,,
* tlf^tlma
•• \
^i
" v ^
•• f~> ••
, „,„
STAT6
;s
..
KK
W(
" OK
s ''^,
I
x-\ 2
'-^i%"
s C4
AL
"- AR" •
"
CT
<*t, '
; ••
,m, '
Kl
JA.', '
''/.'*'
tl
IN
KS
^» , ,-
»AT&§^
< 1989
1983-85
1985-87
1988-89
HEU* 'RESULT*
TOTAL
tKU*
SAMPtED
•* v^
73
17
117
81
21,390
1984-87 76
76
1987
1986
1979-89
1987-89
1988
1984-91
1980-86
1984-89
1985-86
1986-90
1986-87
14
8
1510
129
2
179
11
739
466
214
214
# OF *OSmVE'
W?L.L$
a Mdt I < itei'
I ^,..%.x.|
0
1
0
5
123
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
9
7
227
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
4
0
4
24
RANGE OF
£dttC£M»
".textoxfr
<#?/*:? "
0.01
5-10
1.4-4.0
0.3-24
0.01-440
0.500-
46.000
0.01-0.03
0.150-
0.260
0.15-22.0
0.01-1.3
NS-62
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-63
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
2,4-Dicluoro-
bonzofc Acid
(DC8AJ
NS-64
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
tmsuctour,
^STATUS
(2,4,5-T)
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
(Sttvex)
MCt cr
STAT6
BATES .
KS
HE
HT
WA.
1982-86
1988-89
HEU
1987-88
1984-86
1987
1986-87
1985-90
1986-90
1982-90
1984-90
1986-88
1986-87
1983-88
1989-90
1988
1987
161
107
62
649
282
263
84
81
23
198
126
81
27
CA
CT
1987
1979-89
1987-89
3,066
14
1045
124
19
29
RANGE QF
1.1
0.21
0.01-0.52
2.66-2.99
0.011-
0.045
0.01-2.99
1.400
0.02
NS-65
-------
NATIONAL UELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
,,,,,,HEU. RESULTS '- '
NS-66
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-67
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-68
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-69
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-70
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
(Aldicarb)
MS
8T
«H
Oft,
1987
1986-87
1980-89
1985-90
1982-90
1984-90
1982-91
1985
1985-86
1986
1983-88
1980-91
1986
1985-87
1984-89
1985
1987-88
1988
22
445
749
263
80
439
16
15
14
145
20955
117
1724
182
81
30
1723
51
140
14
731
68
1.0-22.0
<3 to >10
0.5-30.6
1.0-28.2
1.0-3.0
3.0-50.0
0.08-
515.0
10.0
1.0-63.0
NS-71
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
43,786 2,010 992
NS-72
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-73
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-74
-------
NATIONAL HELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-75
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-76
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
(Atrazine)
MA
1987-88
73
0.3-1.4
80
1983-86
45
14
ME
1986-87
71
0.1-95.0
HI
1987-88
39
11
MM
1985-90
754
17
258
1-210
0.01-42.4
1986-90
325
HS,-
1989-90
120
1987-89
22
we
1990-91
335
22
76
0.1-150.0
0.1
0.05->1.0
NO
1985-87
106
8E
1975-89
2260
22
281
0.01-
107.2
1986
19
1985-88
187
14
0.1-0.9
1985-87
232
18
ON
1988-89
599
13
111
0.12-1500
0.001-
5.507
OK
1986
OR
1985-87
56
P*
1983-87
91
Rt
1986
24
SD
1984-90
99
53
0.6-2.3
trace-
20.0
0.06-0.11
0.25-5.40
NS-77
-------
NATIONAL UELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-78
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-79
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-80
-------
NATIONAL HELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-81
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-82
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-83
-------
NATIONAL HELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-84
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-85
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-86
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAHPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-87
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-88
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-89
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-90
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
(Chlordane)
WCL or HA
<«?/t>
Uffetfflte
STATS
m
&AT6
1986-90
1989-90
1984-86
HEU, RESULTS
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLES
269
240
22
,
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
Treos-nonachtor
(chtordan«
NS-92
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-93
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-94
-------
NATIONAL UELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
STATUS
MCI or HA
PA
TX
HBU, RESULTS;
V
TOTAL
1986-90
< 1989
1986
1986-87
1986
1985-87
1985-87
1986-88
1989-90
325
1435
18
79
14
24
219
126
UELIS
MCt < MCL-
RANGE OF
£08C£ff-
TRATtOjtS-
0.2
0.654
NS-95
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-96
-------
NATIONAL HELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
PEST twee
REGULATORY
STATES
(Cyanazine)
mi. «r HA
STATE
m
DH
Pfs
VA
WA
DATE
UEU. R£SOLTS
TSTAL
WEUS
SAWtEO
«EU3
1985-90
1986-90
1989-90
< 1989
1985-88
1985-87
1988-89
1985-87
1983-87
1984-90
1987-88
1990
1986-91
1988
754
325
120
1583
188
219
599
93
87
99
188
100
438
81
31
39
RAM6E OF
SWtCEN-
0.10-0.50
0.2-1.2
<3.2 - 3.2
0.002-0.766
trace-1.1
0.11
1.616
7.0
NS-97
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-98
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
VA
1978-89
1909-91
1979-87
1987-89
1979-81
1979-80
1979
1988-89
4635
15013
423
175
50
115
13
81
1053
43
14
11
517
76
51
50
0.0085-
0.019
0.001-
8000.00
0.020-
39.470
0.001-5.744
0.04-0.11
2-76
0.008-83.87
76-114
0.3-0.36
NS-99
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-100
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
(DDT)
SWBS
STATE-
OATE
1985-90
WELL .RESULTS
TOTAL
mis
193
RANCE Of
TRATIWS
ftg/t)
0.18-0.30
KS
1984-86
130
1986
1982-90
263
0.006-0.402
DDB
«T
1984-86
22
1985-88
187
1985-87
122
1974-76
73
fft
1987
1983-88
219
1990
100
1987
1979-89
1987-89
1982-86
1983-86
1985-86
1986-88
1984
3,115
13
1026
122
10
59
466
169
27
73
108
0.001-0.020
0.006-3.3
0.001-3.3
1.040
NS-101
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-102
-------
NATIONAL UELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-103
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-104
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-105
-------
NATIONAL UELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-106
-------
NATIONAL HELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-107
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-108
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-109
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-110
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
RAHfiE OF
€GSC£H>-
TRATH»(S
NS-111
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-112
-------
NATIONAL HELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-113
-------
NATIONAL UELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
EDB (Ethylen*
Dfbrcraide)
NS-114
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-115
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-116
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
tt
Gft
m
1987-89
1984-91
1980-86
1983-86
1985-87
1985-90
1984
1986
1986-87
1986
1982-90
1984-86
1985-88
122
179
14
59
517
190
107
71
263
22
186
28
0.120-
0.210
0.004-
0.67
0.10-0.26
0.001-
0.011
NS-117
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-118
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-119
-------
NATIONAL UELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-120
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-121
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
PESTICIDE
Fenamlphos
Sulfoxide
REGULATORY
STATUS
HCt or HA
STATE
&A.T6
1971-89
M-U. RESULTS
TOTAL
W&L*
SAWPLfiO
60
Of
Kcnapfmal
1989-90
120
180
CA |
i.
1989
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Fenfautstfn-
oxfde
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Fensutfothion
CA
1985
44
1984-91
76
1986
1987-88
161
1986
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
FenthSon
1986-89
290
16
H.I
1986
1987-88
161
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
184
NS-122
-------
NATIONAL HELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-123
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-124
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
••••„••
pEsncroE
.•
(Fonofos)
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Formatdehyde-
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
™w>
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Heptachioi'-
•• ••
RBSIJlATOKt
STATUS
«
I:
"S
^
f "~ "~ *''
lir
• • ^.
„**
*?m
\
.»*&
f
, STATE
fit!.
PA
m
,»
Cft
-«
"*»
nr
VA
AL
'«
' ct
'«
^JA
*
^ %v-% M y-
vj. •.
^ VEAft !
1985-87
1985-87
1984-90
1987-88
1984-87
1984-88
1986
1988
1987
1987
1975-89
1987-89
1982-86
1983-86
1983-86
WEi
TOTftk
"
137
23
99
188
4,446
6
6
116
40
31
60
247
14
1183
122
12
59
«
.1 '.RESULT^
~
,m
0
'0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
, •••>
3
,,,
< MCL
3
0
9
0
18
0
0
0
0
1
6
7
0
0
0
0
0
16
»**<»
"SET
^ "' ^
0.007-0.05
0.007-0.06
0.007-0.90
150.0
0.004-0.009
0.004-150.0
0.02-0.33
NS-125
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
PESTICIDE
(Heptachlor)
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Hcptachlor
epoxfde
-
REGULATORY
stAtys x
, -
•A*"
•" '
MttL or kA
" Lifetime
• 0.2
-
StAT£
JN
KS
HO
MS
HT
fJJ
m
SCr
TS
T5C
VA
AL
CA
CT
»t
«,
IN
K*
% % %
f)ATE
ntt
1
1985-90
1984
1986-90
1982-90
1984-86
1985-88
1985-87
1974-76
1987
1983-88
1990
1987
1975-89
1987-89
1983-86
1983-87
1985-90
1984
1986
WE
TOTAL
I
190
27
205
263
22
185
122
46
1
199
100
| ,,,
12
1126
122
59
542
190
107
Lt RESULT
fcML
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
s
< MCt
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
25
0
0
6
51
1
0
0
0
3
1
1
RANSE DP
•ssr
•V tv?..... ..
0.060-0.80
0.4-0.8
0.001
0.01-0.159
0.004-0.009
0.001-0.8
0.04-0.05
tpace-0.156
0.14-0.22
0.026
NS-126
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-127
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
PESTICIDE
(Hexazinone)
•• iyi-V
V- •:•
R6eUUTdR¥,
SIftTtfc ,
;
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Iprocfione
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
tsobornyl thio-
eyartoacetate
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Isofenphos
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Isopropalin
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
s
°:
S,R
c ""
^ , ' '
*)CL or 3®
,- jm/b
Retime
•? .-.
-,
^ " —
"• •. -^
-.^ -.-. ^
s -.
]f "",
„
'
STATE
.va ,
ME
MS
OR "
**,„
WA
MA
,CA
HA
«r ,
<3A
ff s
dAtE
VEA^"'
1985-86
1986-87
1989-90
1985-87
1987-88
1988
WEU RESULTS
torki "'
-wfiius
SAHPLE&
27
71
120
137
188
a,
684
1986
1984
I
1986-87
1986-87
1984-90
15
15
1
LJ
19
78
97
76
76
I
a (fcL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< net
I
9
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
RAfWe OF
eottf!£fi»-
tMTio«$
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
;
pesncioe
Ufxj&ne ,
Xg&ffito6"#«C> '
1 REmATGRV
\ STATIC
•—— —•••••— ——•i^^^^—
; S,R,8R°-- '
MCL vf RA.
~Hg/U
Ufetlnj*
kS 1
'
STATE
AL
CA
L^
GA
i m
I.A
! ^'
IS
KS
*•"
L w
I KS
•m
m
NJ
NV
: 8*
: SC
SO
TK
DATE
YEAS.'
1987
1975-89
1987-89
1984-91
1980-86
1984-86
1985-86
1985-90
1984-86
1986-87
1986-90
1982-90
1984-86
1986
1985-88
1985-87
1985-87
1974-76
1984-87
1986-87
i WEU. RESULTS '
TOTAL
WELIS
i SAMPLED,
14
1890
122
179
14
59
466
191
107
71
205
263
22
12
185
139
56
73
57
24
, wetts
2
MCI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<
«CL
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
5
0
0
10
0
1
45
2
0
i RANGE OF
cwcm-
TBATIWS
' Ug/4>
" ' '"i
f "~ s<>
180.000
0.001-0.005
0.070-0.10
0.5
0.0006-
0.047
0.001-0.14
0.005
0.01-0.319
0.05
NS-129
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-130
-------
NATIONAL UELLL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-131
-------
NATIONAL UELLL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-132
-------
NATIONAL UELLL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-133
-------
NATIONAL UELLL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-134
-------
NATIONAL UELLL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-135
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-136
-------
NATIONAL UELLL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-137
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-138
-------
NATIONAL UELLL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
""" '
I>EST1C1&6
, v....
(Met ri buz in)
,
;
fiESULATOftY :
"STATUS
KCl or M'
wo
Ufeti«& ;
"
-
STATE
'
ft
GA
I tA
1L
JS
KS
U
HE
W
MO
KS
N£
M
«»
' OK
OR
RI
SD
VA
Wft
I
BATE i
YEAR.
1986-88
1984-91
1983-89
1983-88
1988
1986-87
1987
1986-87
1985-90
1986-90
1989-90
1987
1986-88
1988-89
1986
1985-87
1986
1984-90
1986-90
1988
' WgLC RESULTS
TOTAL
WLL.S
SA8PI.E&
38
76
913
420
97
187
3
71
754
325
120
491
98
599
1
151
60
99
12
81
M6LL$
2
«CL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<
W£
0
0
27
40
0
1
0
3
3
23
0
0
1
76
0
0
0
3
8
0
" RAtfer OF '
ewtcsN-
T. RAT {085
<*sA>
0.020-8.1
0.01-3.9
0.15
trace- 0.49
0.05-0.72
0.2-14.0
0.1
0.001-1.466
0.002-0.025
0.005-2.73
NS-139
-------
NATIONAL UELLL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-140
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-141
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-142
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
RANGE
' OF "
GONCEH-
TRATJQBS
NS-143
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
Organophos-
phate screens
NS-144
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
RANGE
•-- - OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
NS-145
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-146
-------
NATIONAL UELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
(Parathion,
methyl)
if. .v!
m
m
m
VA
1987-88
1984
1986-87
1985-90
1986
1982-90
1985
1987
1985-88
1985-87
1986
1983-88
1987
1987
343
161
27
71
754
68
263
42
491
184
14
73
188
60
13
0.01-0.256
0.04
<5.0
NS-147
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-148
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
phenol CP£P)
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
STATE
MT
1987-88
1988
1986-87
1985-87
1982-90
1989
1985-87
1988
19
105
263
56
81
MO
ftl
1986
1984-89
1984-91
1986
1986
1982-90
1986
1987-88
83
270
175
40
240
84
188
187
22
RAtlCS
OF
0.024
0.42-0.64
0.001-
0.1493
0.001-0.12
NS-149
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
fiA
JA
, IL
KS
«0
OR
1984-91
1986
1984-89
1985-86
1986-88
1984
1985-90
1987
< 1989
1985-87
1984-90
1988
76
788
343
185
27
754
92
38
56
99
31
NS-150
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-151
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
, RANGE
'OF, -
CAS-
TRATIONS
Phosmet oxygen
analog
(metabotite)
NS-152
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
(Picloram)
m
m
Oft
VT
Uft
1986-90
1986
1989-90
1984-90
1985-86
1986
1984-90
1987-88
1989-90
1984-87
1988
1987-90
749
120
100
400
99
218
126
81
105
10
23
24
1.4
0.03-0.63
0.063-28.0
<0.02-12.8
0.15
1.48-3.15
0.029-
20.775
NS-153
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-154
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
3,5-ChcniDpa-
berttoie Aei
(Pf-onatflidfr
metabolite)
NS-155
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
PESTICIDE
Propachtof
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Propanlt
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Propargft*
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
s rfVi
RES&ATQ8Y s
STATUS" "
"^.j£
s
1
$ ->;
s ", ,«
"f
8£M>rM
^/i? -
liitttsm, t
•• ^
X v v \
.^"....±
',••'••
S;-"?P& s-
i
-\^l -,,-*•.
A •*-¥^.<:<. v,
x\ •• ••-•'•\-.^ ^
?••
v •••••.••
STATE
X
- -
CA.
,JA
-JL
m
Ks •
m.r:
' m
m
tt*.
-«&
IK
*
1
*R
&
"m
8SfeV :
> > •• f
V eft ^.
BATE,^
Y£Att "'
1986-89
1985-89
1985-87
1987-88
1986
1985-90
1986-90
< 1989
1985-87
1984-90
1987-88
1985-87
1986-89
1986-87
1989-90
1984-87
WEU RESULTS
TOTAL
mi$
$A«Pt60
'
114
724
51
161
103
754
297
146
81
99
188
2,718
111
33
124
120
388
382
382
# OF pos-mvg
HEiLS
> «GL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< tfcC'
0
3
5
0
0
4
3
18
0
0
0
33
0
0
2
0
2
s s
-R&I6£
OP
aJHCEN'-,
78ATJQNS
0.02-0.280
0.172-2.98
0.20-0.52
0.1-1.94
<1.0-3.5
0.02-3.5
0.06-0.07
0.06-0.07
• II
° III
NS-156
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-157
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-158
-------
RATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-159
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
PEST 1C JOE
Rotenone Cother
metabolite)
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS
Secbomaton
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS
Sethonydiuf
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Siduron
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS
Sfmazine
REGULATORY
sWTVs -
1C' ,
s
$
$ ;
°-v
^ ^ --V s
.>? S4VU
,MCL"or «A,
C(ig/t3
Lif&tirtfe
.A. ••
s $
, - 4 v
x* -
-
'", '
"" s f ''
1
STATE
CS
" CA.""
W
WO
Cft
aslii
CA
CT
£f
fl
5A
HJ
.,
,
bATE
YEAR
1987
1986-88
1987-88
weu Rest/its -,;,,',
TOTAL
W^tL$
SAMPIED
8
8
49
161
210
1986 65
65
1986-89
1986
1982-90
1987-89
1984-86
1909-91
1984-91
1984-85
1987
164
18
182
2931
139
36
15363
76
42
1
# tx pmnvt.
weus
> rtCL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
1
24
20
0
0
0
* m.
0
0
0
0
0
BANGS
OF
CQB&»-
TBATiOXS
Wl>
• I
LJ
0
0
0
192
9
8
2
0
1
1
0.020-
28.000
0.1-10.0
0.1-67.0
0.400-
30.800
0.100
0.980
NS-160
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
"• "•/ f "~v<
PESTtCIfi
% % •. %
•.•.v.
(Simazine)
aEOUlATORt
'SfATSJS
....
8Sk
Uf«*i«&
-
STATE
-
M
KS.
LA
W
m-
'••m~
m
its
*rr
mr-
Ne
H3 •
«t
g«
OK
£« J
PA v
•• >;• %
RI
TX
V* \
Vf'
*" :
CftTE \
,nt& I
1987-89
1984
1987
1983
1986-87
1985-90
1987-90
1989-90
1987-89
1985-87
< 1989
1985-88
1986-87
1988-89
1986
1985-87
1983-87
1986
1983-88
1986-90
1986-91
MELt RESULTS
T-CtffiL
WEUS
' 5ARPUTO
182
27
3
30
71
754
200
120
22
106
173
188
74
599
1
161
81
73
199
198
438
# Of, POSITIVE
•weits
*8CL
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
0
3
0
0
3
1
^ -HCL
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
1
0
13
6
0
101
0
0
21
0
0
36
RAJB3T
-OF ~ s
CONCBt-
TRATIWtS
t*0/L>
5.2
0.1
0.49-2.58
0.2-0.65
0.1
0-0.69
0.1-0.3
1-4
0.001-1.559
trace-3.4
0.06-4.21
0 III 3.4
NS-161
-------
NATIONAL UELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
PESTICIDE
(Siraazine)
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Si mo tone
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Sitt«tpyn
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Sutprofos
.,., ,
REGULATOR.*
, STATUS
,-
** ,*
1
NR;
S,fi *ts-
5 *r 1
.?,•."---- - 1
feel Of fa
^Item
^f|,f,e-tif«^
^v ' ~ "i
,€ '$
•> •*•••• $' v
••••S.:>s^y5»vwvi'vrf>.
. ^.S^
•• S
M--4-
<, - * '^
^ s \
*!r^ %
A^ ^-H "
fv, s s f f
\:- ~
%%,% %
'STATE
c
•.
•• •.-,
~* f "•>
VA;J
•wi s
KS
jto
CA
CT
tti
W
KS
' #>,
,"\i'
...ft\,;\....'f....
CA
m
ss> % ••
•^s-"t*
%* -.*•«
^ X-
•
&8Gff
x VEAft
> v s V.
1988
1987
1984
1983
1984-89
1987-89
1984-85
1987-88
1984
1983
1985-88
1987-88
1986
1985-87
MElt RESULTS ' '
TOTAt
HEiU "
SAHPLSP
81
5
22,374
27
30
57
168
139
42
161
27
30
188
755
2
8
59
# OP POSITIVE ''
mu&
i«CL
0
4
89
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'* 8CU •
0
1
397
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
RAKBE
Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
' <1$/L>
I
0.27-2.20
0-67.0
1.300-1.400
NS-162
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
pE-sTteroE :
(Sulprofos)
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
$wep
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Tebuthiuron
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
TerbacU
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
REGULATORY
; STATUS
C
- s
: S
1
fetCL or KA
«tg/t)
LifetSrae-
--
50D
i ?0
STATE
W
CA
(4S
CA
MS
OK
TX
WA
CA
LA
HS
OR
WA
HV
;
DATE
YEAft
1987-88
1986-89
1989-90
1989
1989-90
1986
1975
1988
1985-89
1987
1989-90
1985-87
1988
1985-87
yat semrs
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPL6B
161
230
58
120
178
29
120
1
2
81
233
8
3
120
56
81
20
288
# OF posmve
WELLS i
> mi
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
«m
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
5
6
RA85E
f)F
CQHCES-
TBATKWS
tesm
1.300-1.400
I
20.700-
22.100
trace-380.0
trace-380
8.9
0.3-1.2
0.3-8.9
NS-163
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
PESTICIDE
T«rbufos
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Terbufos
Sutfone
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
TerbtrthyUzine
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
REGULATORY
; STATUS
; S,R
1
\
S
^ "*
MCL or HA."
IH9 A )
•.
0.9
•• ^
•. ++r :
-~" ,
-
STATE
<3A
IA
'iL '
JN
HN
VWQ
M?
HT
m
PA
RJ
•SB
JA
CA^
JM
JOATE
••®lx.
1984-91
1984-89
1985-86
1986-90
1986-90
1986-90
1989-90
1987-88
< 1989
1985-87
1986
1984-90
:
-- s WELt RESULTS
s.,4 -.s
, TOTAL
wetu
SAMPLES
76
787
466
206
649
325
120
13
1435
24
24
99
4,224
1986
1986-88
1987-88
I
13
13
107
161
268
* of positive
IfELLS
£ 8CL j < «CL
0
6
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
RAtJ&i W
CO«CE«H
tftATlONS
<#g/U -
0.300-12.000
12.0-20.0
0.06
0.02
3 0.02-20.0
0
0
0
0
0
NS-164
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
MSSTtCHfc
••'•'•
V,,
**«*»» 1
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
TetwchloPO- i
ethyl eiw % :
(tetrBchlora- '••
Athene) i
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Tfetrachtor-
vinpha?-.; ;
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS
TttUttf*
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Tfeiohencarb *
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
fcE&flAtOSY
STATUS
'
C
1
1
c
s
^
*•
V
hCL or ttA
Jj(i.g/t)
, '
"
5
T •«
„
-T
SfAT6
CA
IN
GK
1 HI j
VA
Cft
IN
Cft
CA
MO \
;DAT£
YEAR
1984-89
1987-88
1986
1983
1989-90
1984-89
1987-88
1979-87
1985-89
1986
Wll RESULTS
"
TOTAL
UELLS
SAMPLED
242
161
1
404
2
126
128
I «
161
173
147
147
270
65
335
# or fdsitrve
•WEILS
••
tn*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
* MCL
0
0
0
0
2
42
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
RANSE -OF
caNeeu-
TKATIONS
0.007-0.200
0.002-0.196
0.002-0.200
0.2-0.3
0.2-0.3
NS-165
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
NS-166
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
fgSTICHJE
(Toxaphene)
STATUS
or m.
/U ^
STATE
OATE
TOTAL
WEUS
1985-88
185
* OF POSFf tve
•wats
- KA8SE OF
, CSMEEN*
TRftTIONS
1985-87
139
OR
1985-87
44
m-
1983-84
63
1986-87
24
Vft
1986-90
12
1.75
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Tralomethrln
5,*..
4.273
1987-88
1.5-18.000
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
tFfsdliB&fen
1984-89
14
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
14
Scr&esF* ••
5ft
1986
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
THfeufoa ,
Off
1990
863
864
1984-87
381
48
48
0.100-5.000
fK
1987-88
188
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
569
NS-167
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
PESTICIDE
THchloro-
aeeti'c aefd
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
THchoroethene
(frichtoro-
ethyUne>
REGULATORY
STATUS
«CL or 8A.
5 -
StATE
Ct
, HELL, RESULTS
TOTAL
W?Lt»S
$AMPLEt>
1988
1987-88
97
97
75
# OF positive
pus ,
a WCL
RANCSE OP
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
fHchlorfon
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Tf ichloronat
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
HI
1983-87
244
IA
1984
IN
1988
97
VA
1989-90
126
CA
1984-89
HI
1986
W
1987-88
543
280
179
161
172
16
12
12
0.410-26.000
0.016-0.017
0.016-26.000
10.000
10.000
NS-168
-------
NATIONAL UELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
Tritchloro-
phenol
STATUS
HA.
RESULTS
.
wens
SSMPU&
1984-88
162
OF POSIftVE
HCL"
H'CL
RABSE OF
COKfiES-
ftg/i)
Ht
1984-85
16
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
17S
1986-87
62
ix
1987-88
187
0.58
VA
1989-90
126
0.006-0.018
VT
1984-87
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
379
CA
1989
0.006-0.58
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
5"
1981-89
128
ST
1987-89
137
ft
1988
1984-91
76
1981-89
883
0.040-14.890
1983-87
542
26
0.011-1.70
«&
1987-90
1984-87
1983
218
88
30
0.10-0.12
0.1
NS-169
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
PESTICIDE
(Trifluralin)
-
RECULATORV"
STATUS "
SHVV
-.•••.
'x-s
TOTAL DISCRETE
1
UracH
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
Vcrnotate
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS
••••!*
y
LJ
v* * ••-
-rs'
< i^,s
gcj. B(CM
TTl^O",
,y, ,•>
\S
I I
I \
«TAT€
••
s *&
m „
'm ,
MS^
'»D
ne
NJ
,„„„
SVs ^
fijf
SD
rx
-- VA
I
i -:|
^
**• •>
„
Cft
- fiA
I
DATE
~-|
1986-87
1985-90
1987-90
1982-90
1985
< 1989
1986-88
1986-87
1986
1984-90
1986-88
1986-90
1988
I
1984-89
1984-91
«6Lt 8ESOIT$
TOTAL
,,$£U.S
SAMPtBB
1
71
754
324
263
1
1440
89
79
8
99
219
138
5,590
•
'
7
76
III 83
* of positive
WEU£
**&
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
*m
0
0
10
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
9
57
0
•I
0
0
•
RAN06 OF
CSttBEtt"
TRACTIONS
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY PESTICIDE
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE WELLS
ALL
Regulatory Status:
C - Cancel led
NR - Not Registered
R - Restricted Use
S - Supported
SR - Special Review Completed
SRP - Special Review in Progress
SRpre - Presently in Pre-Special Review
U - Unsupported
nd not detected
MS
Positives for alpha-BHC only, beta-BHC was not found.
Note: Some of the dates in the Florida database (i.e. 1909) are obvious errors.
These dates are listed in this document as they were provided, the true
dates could not be determined.
NS-171
-------
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
TABLE2: WELL DATA BY STATE
-------
-------
NATIONAL WELL SAMPLING DATA BY STATE
STATE "
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas .
Aruons
California
Connecticut
Colorado
•Delaware
f lorfda
Georgia •
Hawaii
«ah MCt
0
0
0
0
1096
476
0
0
1630
10
27
0
2
15
23
7
0
0
28
8
127
11
16
1
17
1
8
0
0
4
< MCt
4
0
0
1
859
321
0
0
621
44
98
0
48
19
159
26
0
2
155
16
93
1
219
199
95
22
168
0
0
19
HONlTQJUtUJ
TOTAL
SMPLB
11
0
0
0
18
187
0
36
28
3
0
0
18
38
75
0
0
0
24
15
54
0
82
0
0
5
70
0
0
0
: £
tofiL
0
0
0
0
4
5
0
24
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
10
0
5
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
«
MCt,
1
0
0
0
3
52
0
8
1
0
0
0
18
5
26
0
0
0
9
9
16
0
32
0
0
1
36
0
0
0
OTHER -
TOTAL
I SMCLB
3
0
66
0
273
0
4
0
243
92
0
0
14
2
24
3
0
3
0
9
1
4
5
0
25
16
364
0
12
67
i-
m.
0
0
1
0
36
0
0
0
78
11
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
12
0
0
7
<
WCL
1
0
0
0
49
0
4
0
32
26
0
0
5
0
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
1
115
0
0
25
SOURCE Of
CONTArtlBArKS*
(NUWH Qi* UELtS>'
HFU*
6
0
0
1
0
853
4
32
2362
93
125
0
58
40
216
0
0
0
192
41
247
12
51
200
117
19
112
0
0
55
^
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
0
•uu
«*K
0
0
0
0
2047
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
0
2
0
0
0
0
222
0
0
0
229
0
0
0
NS-175
-------
NATIONAL UELL SAMPLING DATA BY STATE
STATE
ttcw Mexico
Hew York
North
Carolina
Morth Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania :
Rhode Island
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Toxa* ..-.'.-
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
TOTAL
•*I:V *. s i .• , .-,
-•.-.•,-, -- - IKPES SF WgUS
tm«MN
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
APPENDIX I - PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
-------
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CaeCRGW^NAWE *-
1*N«jbtt»C
1 f£,4-THcM
3r5*Cfhfen6i
4(2,4-Dichtorophenoxy)
butyric acid
4(2,4-DB), Butoxyethanol
ester
REPE8E«Ce
' i , 2-0 M?fe i orfjproparte
Of ch I orcqaropene
0 teh t orcqsrapene
CDEC'
Ufchlorprc^
Dfcjiloroprap
a»4-D f - - -
&fchtorpp<^>
Z.4.5-T
tri chlorbphenol
Alachlor
Carbofuran
Carbofuran
Pronamide
Parathion, methyl
2r4-0& % - -f
2,.4-DB
MCL I - iH*
1 C#9/*J
9
5
5
70
70
50
9
60
f>E$Tietoe
CATEGORY
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fumigant
Fumigant
Herbicide
Herbicide
Possible
degradate or
impurity
Acaricide
insecticide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Degradate
Degradate
Degradate
Degradate
Degradate
Fungicide
fteeutjoreftf
STATUS
c
u,c
s
c
S,SRPre
S,SRPre
u,c
C,SRC
C,SRC
s
APPENDIX 1-1
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEM1CAI HAtfg
4(2,4-DB), Dimethylamine
salt
5«Hyfdroxy dfcaitba
Acenaphthene
Aec&hat* " ¥•-
Acf f luofffett " "" s
Aerotefn
Aery t om tr He v^
Alachtcr , ••
Atdlcarb
vs*?
Aldfcarb Sulfone * •>
Atdlearb SttLfoxfde
Aldfcarb, T<>tat / , ; '
Aldrin
Aaetryn t : fii-;iii
Amirwcapb f "
AtsHroz
AmJtrote
Anflaritw
Arsenic
Arsenates, Arsenites
Arsenic acid
Arscnicals
Atraton ," \
•. -.•!
Atrazfne
Atrattne, deatttylfttett . .
"* "* X**"1
Aztnphoa-ethyl -^A-
Azir«>hos-Biethyt "
Banvel
^r ^ ^ ^
-s""^ -,, f'S- , •&$&»•*$
,< - j \8lflfP^ ,-. "
^!'i-";v '" , .
l.>:»lV' 7 1
Dicamba
Aldicarb
Aldicarb
Aldicarb
,,A£S&k& 'f l"% ' .
--^ ""'
~~ ^ „ '' '•> s
'bn$E&te •• - " -"',
.. > <^xj.s -*•••- * Iv&zfJZCi.
experimental
discontinued triazine
Atrazine
0VcamBij) """ -
«CL
2
3
2
4
3
60
50
3
J.HA, -
C09/tJ
1
1
1
60
J4$n-etf>8
eAT66C«Ry ' '
Degradate
Insecticide
Fungicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
Fumigant
Herbicide
Insecticide
Acaricide
Fungicide
Nematicide
Degradate
Degradate
Parent +
degradates
Insecticide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Acaricide
Herbicide
Fungicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Defoliant
Insecticide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Degradate
Insecticide
Insecticide
ftefiUUHKHW"
STATUS
S
S
S
S.R
C,R,SRC
S,R,SRP
S,R,SRP
SRP
C,SRC
S
U.C
S,R,SRC
S,RP
S
^
y
c
S.R
C
S.R
APPENDIX 1-2
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
sCae&teaL.HAHg'^
8&Pbatt
Baygon
fencHoearf?
Beneffo v .. «
Benf luralin
SftHWjiyi ,
Bensutide
Sentazan
Sentaian, sodfijB) salt «.
mt ia,*,^ ,
BHC (D
erowbt L
S«wrt
ear-bacyt "
Carfendszfw
Cafbofyr«rt ;-
ear^fwr«r» phffliol
e?trf?o'ifu*lar)/ total ^
eapbon dts«tffdft
€ar-bor> "t^itcachtwrde
°-i 1 mrTTTTTTTTm,,
Cspbotrftwotft'on.
earbo^^otniofi^. flfetftyl
REre8Ef<^ \
: t " '"' "
iPropoxur
Benfturalin '
eenefm
Bentazon
Uftdanfe
Sodium bromide
Carbofuran
Carbofuran
«CL
tj«.g/lJ
20
40
5
ta*
€»a/l3.
20
90
350
700
40
(*E$T3fCtOe
, SAieBwy "
Herbicide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Degradate
Insecticide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Fungicide
Fungicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Insecticide
Acaracide
Fungicide
Nematicide
Degradate
Parent +
degradates
Fumigant
Fungicide
Fire retardant
in fumigant
formulations
Insecticide
Acaricide
Insecticide
Acaricide
ftedtiUtOfty
STATUS
c
S,R
s
S,SRC
s
s
C,SRC
s
s
c
c
s
c
S,SRC
S
c
S,R,SRC
SRC
U
SRC
C
U
APPENDIX 1-3
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL NAMS >
Carboxin
CDEC -
Chtoraabcn
Chtordacw \o
Chtordecon*
Chtordiweform
s
Chlorfenac
Chlorfensoft
ChloroaUyl alcohbt
Chloroberttitate
p*Chloro»(n*crs8ot K T
•"•fr-
p-Chtoi>o»6'-cre$Q{ ;S
Chloroform
Chtoroncb
Chtoropfcrfn
ChtofothalottU
Chloroxuron
Chtorpropham
Chtpf'pycifo$.... IIIM, i,n,i
thtorpyrifos, methyl
Chlorsulfuron
Chlorthal dimethyl
Copper '
Copper oxides
Coomaphos |||||IM
cyanazine 4- '
, ^^bffteg
*.,,£&%,'','
bo>A
Pntifei^ x ttwaS-Z
topper^ ^^ % \^y,"f
•, '. v ^ ., ~,'fi£"f"
:: •. ^-^
x,--'c.
;Soj>f>er ,-""
Htf !
t10/U
2
100
20
«*A
€lg/t3
700
100
1
pesftefre
tftTefiEwif ' "
Fungicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Termiticide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Acaricide
Ovacide
Herbicide
Acaricide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Acaricide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
Fumigant
Fungicide
Fumigant
Warning agent
Fungicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
Fungicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Herbicide
KgfiblAtORr
stAtus ;
s
c
u.c
C,SRC
C,SRC
C,SRC
U.C
U.C
C
C,SRC
S
C,SRP
S
S.R
s
c
s
s
s
s
some S
some U
S
S
S,R,SRC
APPENDIX 1-4
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
caesicfti. mm ""-<
cyatvltte. .-.'.. ,
Cyanide, calcium or
potassium
Cyanaide, sodium
Cysioatfr , --r-;,
f
SypwwrthHn.----
£y£r«uniis
Dacthal
Dacthal diacid
Dalapon
^m&
DCBA
DCP
WfK --
OCPA. aftfd"tttetabOl;tteS
D-D Mix
&BT
ODD
ODE
DDVP
DEF
Oettfetdfl »
, ••;?
&!einetes-«thyt atrazfne
Des-isoppc^yi atp&if«6 ^ -
oraltate ----
Ofd«1r«rt'
D i bromoch I oropropane
, 's- •• ,,
REFERE«Ce
-Cy^ftQfd^ ----™
Cyanide --"
DCPA
'DCPA acfd (netabol \ tes
2;4»Df*ht6r«*!eftz.f<;htor¥06 - ™
tHfwfos
f S
Demeton-S
Atrazine
Atrazine
BBCP
JMCL
CJ*S/1>
200
200
0.2
"iflA.
fsw/iJ
200
200
4000
0.6
- ' PB$r*et»e -
jCAjesc«y
Rodent icide
Rodent icide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Fumi gant
Herbicide
Degradate
Insecticide
Degradate
Degradate
Insecticide
Acaricide
Insecticide
Acaricide
Insecticide
Acaricide
Degradate
Degradate
Degradate
Herbicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide
s*6fit&iitofcf
STATUS
U
S,R
S
S,R
C
u,c
C,R,SRC
S
C
SRC
C.R
C
C
C.R
C,R,SRC
S,SRC
APPENDIX 1-5
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
T.SX
CHEHlCAt KAHe „ '; ^
Bifoutyl phthalate ^ c
Dtcaffba
Dfehtobettfl
o«Dichtorobenzefia
p-Dichtorobenzene ;
Dfchloroprcpane
D { ch t oropropens
DJchtorprop .>"°/
Dichlorprop, butoxyethanol
ester
Dfchtorvos
Dfcofot
Dlcfotophos
Oieldrfn
Diethylhexyt phthalate
Oirtwthc&te
Dlnoseb - "
Dinitrocresol
Oioctyt phthatate
Ofoxacarb
Dfoxathion
Diphenaaid
diquat
Diquat dibromide and
various salts
Disulfotott "x
OffiuHotori sulfonft '•' -
Olaulfoton sulfoxfde'
Of won
OWA ^
-. ' v •••. \ ^ '
i".-f - ^REFEREHCS -
DfeMorprop
- f- , -'
Dfottyt pitbatat*
ONOC" s ' " '
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
C«it*!Cftll)WfiE
ifiter
DNOC, sodium salt
EDB
EBDC compounds
Endosull^n
Sndosulfan; 1 "TO%
e«d06Ulf3tt O
-x^<-<-
ertddsutf^ft sutf&t& --^ '*
eScKtfciiL . ^
fereWn
-\\ fff ,.•,-, %%^%^
gntfnn $letehyete - ,
, gfjJJ -, - ,,, wvy. ^ s,
•\ " -.+.
' 5PTC- — V-'H'
EthalfturaUf?
I 6th fan
"et^r-ep ' , v ''-
Sth^l Mcohel
6thyl an
Ethylene
bi sd i th i ocarbamate
compounds
JEtbytene dibPffl>vj«|6:
Ethylene di chloride
Ethylene thiourea
Ethyl parathion
6trfdfazol«
£TU ,„ , i
Fenac
Fetia«t)ph«& ' :
- REFERBHCe
DNOC
gt&ylefte dtSrojitidft
Ma»e$-, Wancoz^j,.
Zinek
Endosulfan
Endosulfan
Endosulfan
Endrin
Mafteb, Kaneozeb,
Zfneb
1 , 2 -D i ch toroethane
ETU
Parathion, ethyl
Haneb
CtUoPferv-Kt
HCL
Cj*0/U "
100
2
0.05
tflj* T
, yttf»V
STATUS
U,C
SRC
S
s
U,C,R,SRC
C,R
S
S,SRC
S,R
S.R
S
U,C,SRC
C,R,SRC
S
S.R
APPENDIX 1-7
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
4'
CHEMICAL HAMS
Fenomtphos sulfooe
Fenannphos &ulf««d« \
FenarJmot °.
*r^
Fenbutotin«c#ld$ ;,v
""> ""• !; •!
Fensulfothion ^ V*"
Ferrthlon - -
Fenuroft <"* ""
Fenval*rate s- -
Fluazifopt-butyt
Fluchloralln
FturoetpaHrv
Fluometuroo
^f
Flur{doH0 -.^J
"*5°
Forvofos " ,, .,
Formaldehyde , s x
Glyphosate - . .
Gtyphosate isopropylamine
salt
Guthion
HCH (ar,B,(T)
KCH (D
-•s
Heptachtor > "^s
Hcptachlor qpoxide ?v' ,
Hexachlorenzene
Hexszfnone , s
Hydroxyatac^tpr
Jprodfone --. '*
• . ••"••
IfiObofttyl tttiocyfirwatetatB
Isofenphos ,-";
* , ^
' REFEfiEXt^ ,„,
ss«,^ --- ^"-^zsz'^r
Fenamiphos
Fenamiphos
elyp|»,osate ', , " "
^'^
Ai.^rtphc&*toetJtyl V"'""
•; •"< ?*"$ -<---5-^>*VJ/
8HC"
-*.-.-.<; < ,
it^dane ,
Heptachlor
Alachlor
mi '\
?M9/U
700
0.4
0.2
1
IHft
(V-&1)
90
10
1000
700
200
, 'PE$T,iet0f -
* eftiestwy
Degradate
Degradate
Fungicide
Insecticide
Acaricide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Aquatic
herbicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
Herbicide
Insecticide
Degradate
Seed
protectant
Herbicide
Degradate
Fungicide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Herbicide
fcefiut&iditf
STATUS ,.
S
s
C,R
c
c
S,R
S
S
S
S
S
S.R
u
s
C,SRC
S
S
C
S,R
C
APPENDIX 1-8
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
--••-- , " ",
CHSHICj&K N»WE
Kepone
iJndane
vitfiurr>
Mfethfo6&t*b
«ethomyl ^ , -
,Mst,ho>lychkg,f
Methyl brwde
Methyl carbophenothion
Hfet&yi fsoth.^i«!yan«6
_,_>%% % %
Me*fcyi paraoxoft
""" REFEREKCS^
skioKtetotte '.''.
Ma lath ion
MO*A
MCP&
MfeefepftSp
Meeoprop
garbophefiothiw,
Hifethyl ' -
Parathion, methyl
mi
Cj»S/l>
0.2
2
40
1«A
^J/iJ
0.2
200
10
2
200
40
" pe«nc-i66
£AT613C^y
Insecticide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Degradate
Fungicide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Fungicide
Insecticide
Acaricide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Acaricide
Insecticide
Acaricide
Molluscicide
Rodent icide
. Bird repellant
Insecticide
Insecticide
Acaricide
Insecticide
Antimicrobial
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Degradate
aefit&Ataftr
STATUS
S,R,SRC
S,SRP
S
S
S
some C,
some S
S
S
SRC
u.c
S
S,R
S
S,R
S,R
S,R
S
S,R
S,R
APPENDIX 1-9
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CH6H1CAL KAM£
Methyl parathion
Methyl trithion
Hethylen* chtorJ Carfc>6|*enotf) f on,
methyl , ,
Metribuzin
Met ri buz in
Hetrfbuzfn
Molinate
- ^
OBCP
4-Kft'«voi^>enot
Chlordane
o*-&f ch 1 oi'obenzBrta
CWO(*fert30ft
MCL
'Cj«0/l>
/
/
ta*
3*9/13
100
200
20
' f*B$rietoe
CAieewv
s
Insecticide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Degradate
Degradate
Degradate
Insecticide
Acaricide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Degradate
Insecticide
Acaricide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Acaricide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Impurity in
formulation
Herbicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
Herbicide
fteflDUttfifty
STATUS
U
S
S
S,R
U,C
C,SRC
S
C.R
C,SRC
S
S
S
S
C
c
S
S
S
APPENDIX 1-10
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
$«£Hicfti mm
oxsayi
OxyeMowterte " i
dxydeB)etan"fnethyl , j
gxyefj'sul.fDifW. ,, f i
•, % :
Oxyftusr-fen
Para-chlororaetacresol
para-Dichlorobenzene see
p-Dichlorobenzene, listed
at dichlorobenzene
paraquat - ' "i
Paraquat dichloride
Parathion
psratfiletv <&M
Parsthiori,'' methyl , ;
PCNB "
PCP
J>ebulate ^^ L
Pencil methatfn
f*»itachLor<3phenoi -.-.
?6J-ft«ithH!n!" " '
Perthane
PhorW
pfjdrate su),fcne
Phorate sutf oxide,.
•. Phoratr»e _ ^
* *• ' '
J>hi3Bn»t
RE-FERE^"
Chlordane
p-Ch 1 or o- m- cresol
$3"Cfiloro-o- cr BSG!
j>ars<5ust %
Par&thtoni e-thyl
Pen tach Loraphienol
Et^an
Phorate
Phorate
Phorate
Phorate
Phorate
MCL
twt I >
200
2
1
t«A"
^9/t3
30
pE$netj&6
^gftTgfiiSRV
Insecticide
Acaricide
Fungicide
Nematicide
Animal
metabolite
Insecticide
Acaricide
Insecticide
Acaricide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
Insecticide
Insecticide
Degradate
Degradate
Degradate
Degradate
Degradate
Insecticide
Acaricide
Insecticide
*6fitfLfttf»r
~~ STATUS
S,R
S,R,SRP
C
S,SRC
S,R
S,R,SRC
S,R
S,SRC
S
S
S,R,SRP
S,R
S,R
U,R
S
APPENDIX 1-11
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL «AHE
Phosmet oxygen analog -
Pftosghamtcion ' ' -.^
Piclcrata " *'«
PJrfwicarb *^x"
Plrimfcarb solfwe ' •. \
ProfflOofdS -, •• v-V
Profluralln
Pfomecarb
Prometon \- s-^
" " ' S
Pronetryn ; ^C
"" s\v "•*"
pronamfde >" s
PPopactilop
^ s'-A
Propanf t ^ ^ ,
Propargft© x,? "
Propazine s"* -
Propharo
Propoxup - i$[ / '" ,
Propyzamide
Prothiofos
Prothiophos
Pyrethrlnfr
pyrJctor ^
Ronnel -'-•.'--
'-•••.V1
Rotcnotone
Rotenone
, - -^ -,
•^-.••^
Seebometon *••••'
Sethoxyditfr s" %s
Sfcfuroo s.c ,
Si Ivex
simatine
«•> ^ '
," ^,8EFEREHCg ' ,"%
* % %* 5 f^
Phosmet
Pirimicarb
"" ^ •^'•'"•s-SX ^
fponapiae, .. ^<«ffa""
fppthioptios" .™*s"
Rotenone
a,4»5-TP ' ''"
IMCL
e '
CAJ esoRy ' f
Degradate
Insecticide
Herbicide
Aphidicide
Degradate
Insecticide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Acaricide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
Herbicide
Insecticide
Degradate
Insecticide
Acaricide
Piscicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
aefitJtAtfjfty
STATUS
,ffff ,f.ff ,
C.R
S,R
C
S,R
C
NR (in US)
S
S
S,R,SRC
S
S
S
C
C
S,SRP
NR
U
C
U,C,SRC
S
C
S
S
S
APPENDIX 1-12
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
SHgRJCftl mVK
^ ,, ••••?,
SSfffetone.
ss'> / ''v'fff fff ''
Sunsrts'yn .
Sodium bromide
Sodium cyanide
Sulprofos
Swep
TCA and salts
TCE
'TebUtftfuMrfJ
Tel one
•* •>
Terbael l
I ftrbufos." -„ - -
^ ^
*>*«• ~1v%
Terbufos sulfone
Terbuthyt si f ne
j»" ^ ""^
terfautryn
Terrazole
Tietrach {.oraethy Lene
TetfSehLiSrvrftfSifOfe
JetmHfOft. %
Thanite
,lh1t«ieftfcafb-
Th^eftt^fb- sulfoxltfe
Tfel^^nat^
Th t <^>h anat«-mst;byi
Tordon
Trtl
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL HAMS o
THbufca
Trichlorfon
THchloroacetJC acfd
Trichlorobcnzene
THchlorcethens C- "x
Trfchloroethylene
Trfchloronat(e)
TrichtorophenQt
Trichtorophon
THclopyr
Tricyetazote
THHuroUn ^
Trithion
Tunic
Uraci I/Urea
Vernoiate
Vorlex
Xylene
ZSneb
Zfram
^ \8BFE8EKC6^
1^/4-"V" '
^trichtofotfiftzfeflfe ,
jff '"' J '.'. VW
THchlorwtKftw . .'.,. ,.
•>•,•" ^ ^ %-»-»A,% JViWv1 ^ '
TrlchUffoft
Cirbo^tenothtofi:' ""'
Hftthazole, •• •"•-"""""' \'
•f , 2-b *cM Dr9pr
5
10000
tflA
*PB/t?
5
10000
,PE$TJCtOB '
- CATEBWY
Herbicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
.Fumigant
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
Herbicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
Insecticide
Fungicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
ftefiOLAtf^r
STAW
S
S
U
C
C
u,c
S
NR
S,SR,C
U
S
U
C
U
SR Presently in Pre-Special Review
SRP Special Review in progress
SRC Special Review completed
S Supported: The producer(s) of the pesticide has made commitments to conduct
the studies and pay the fees required for reregistration, and is meeting
those commitments in a timely manner.
APPENDIX 1-14
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
R Restricted Use: The pesticide has been classified as a Restricted Use
Pesticide under 40 CFR Part 1, Subpart 1. It is therefore restricted to
use by a certified applicator, or by or under the direct supervision of a
certified applicator.
U Unsupported: The producer(s) of the pesticide has not made or honored a
commitment to seek reregistration, conduct the necessary studies, or pay
the requisite fees for reregistration of the product.
C Canceled: The active ingredient is no longer contained in any registered
pesticide products.
NR Not Registered for use in the United States
A In Hawaii both dichloropropane and 1,2-dichloropropane appear in the data.
APPENDIX 1-15
-------
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
APPENDIX II - NATIONAL SURVEY OF PESTICIDES IN DRINKING
WATER WELLS
-------
-------
SURVEY OF PESTICIDES i$ DRINKING WATER WELLS
At this time the Pesticides in Ground Water Database does not contain data from
the National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells (NFS). These data have been
recently analyzed and published.3 OPP is currently working on importing the results of
the pesticide analyses, so that they will be available when the PGWDB becomes part of
the Pesticide Information Network. The following is a short description of the NPS and
a summary of findings from the NPS.
The NPS is a joint project of EPA's Office of Drinking Water and Office of
Pesticide Programs. This survey is the first national study of pesticides, pesticide
degradates and nitrate in drinking water wells. The Survey has two principal objectives:
1) to determine the frequency and concentration of pesticides and nitrate in drinking
water wells nationally; and 2) to improve EPA's understanding of how the presence of
pesticides and nitrate in drinking water wells is associated with patterns of pesticide use
and the vulnerability of ground water to contamination. The focus of the Survey was on
the quality of drinking water in wells, rather than on the quality of ground water, surface
water or drinking water at the tap. The Survey was designed to yield valuable
information on both the frequency and levels of pesticides, pesticide degradates and
nitrate in rural domestic (private) and community (public) drinking water wells on a
nationwide basis. The Survey was not designed to provide an assessment of pesticide
contamination in drinking water wells at the local, county or State level.
More than 1300 wells were sampled, some in each State, for 127 analytes. Nitrate
was the most commonly detected analyte in these wells. Based upon the NPS results
EPA estimates that nitrate is present at or above the analytical minimum reporting limit
of 0.15ug/L in about 52.1% or community wells, and 57% of rural wells nationwide.
The survey detected pesticides and pesticide degradates much less frequently than
nitrate. Twelve of the 126 pesticides and degradates were found in the sampled wells.
EPA estimates that 10.4% of community wells and 4.2% of rural domestic wells in the
United States contain pesticides or pesticide degradates at or above the analytical
minimum reporting limit. The two most commonly found pesticides were DCPA acid
metabolites (degradate of dimethyl tetrachloroterphthalate) and atrazine. The following
is a list of the pesticides found in each type of well in alphabetical order.
Community:
Rural Domestic:
atrazine, DCPA acid metabolites, dibromochloropropane,
dinoseb, hexachlorobenzene, prometon, simazine.
alachlor, atrazine, bentazon, DCPA acid metabolites,
dibromochloropropane, ethylene dibromide, ethylene thiourea,
gamma-BHC (lindane), prometon, simazine.
•*U.S. G.P.O.=1993-348-066:80183
Appendix II-1
•U.S. Government Printing Office: 1993 — 717-109/60951
-------
------- |