United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Prevention
Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
(H7507C)
EPA 734-12*92-001/q /
August 1992
&EPA Pesticides In Ground Water Database
A Compilation Of Monitoring Studies: 1971-1991
Region 1
NY BVRI
PA //NJ
CONNECTICUT MAINE MASSACHUSETTS
NEW HAMPSHIRE RHODE ISLAND
VERMONT
RicydidfflK^drtii
PrtflUd on (xptfftn com***
toast 80% rvojcted Iter
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database -1992 Report
ERRATA
VOLUME PAGE
COMMENTS
All
Volumes
APPENDIX Regulatory status for chloroform is given as SRp, it should
1-4 be C,SRP
Region 3 3-VA-7
The location of the study Watershed/Water Quality
Monitoring for Evaluating BMP Effectiveness was
erroneously referred to as the "Westmoreland Water Shed".
The correct location is the Nomini Creek Watershed.
3-VA-27 The TOTAL value for NFU is given as 155, this value
should be 147.
Region 4 Florida Some of the dates in the Florida database (i.e. 1909) are
Sampling obvious errors. These dates are listed in this document as
dates they were provided, the true dates could not be
determined.
Region 9
OV-14
OV-14 REGIONAL MAP: The TOTAL NUMBER OF
WELLS SAMPLED for Arizona is given as 36, this value
should be 40.
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database -1992
Mention of trade names, products, or services does
not convey, and should not be interpreted as
conveying, official EPA approval, endorsement, or
recommedation.
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database -1992 Report
Pesticides in Ground Water Database
A Compilation of Monitoring Studies: 1971 -1991
Region 1
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
August 1992
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report, Region 1
CONTENTS
OVERVIEW OV-1
REGIONAL MAP OV-14
GRAPH: WELLS BY STATE OV-15
STATE SUMMARIES:
CONNECTICUT
State Map 1-CT-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-CT-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-CT-4
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Connecticut 1-CT-l 1
Table: State of Connecticut - Wells by County .... l-CT-39
MAINE
State Map 1-ME-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-ME-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-ME-3
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Maine l-ME-7
Table: State of Maine - Wells by County l-ME-21
MASSACHUSETTS
State Map 1-MA-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-MA-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-MA-4
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Massachusetts 1-MA-l 1
Table: State of Massachusetts - Wells by County l-MA-19
NEW HAMPSHIRE
State Map 1-NH-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-NH-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-NH-4
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of New Hampshire l-NH-9
Table: State of New Hampshire - Wells by County 1-NH-l3
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report, Region 1
CONTENTS
RHODE ISLAND
State Map 1-RI-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-RI-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-RI-4
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Rhode Island 1-RI-ll
Table: State of Rhode Island - Wells by County l-RI-17
VERMONT
State Map 1-VT-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-VT-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-VT-4
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Vermont 1-VT-l 1
Table: State of Vermont - Wells by County l-VT-21
APPENDICES
Pesticide Cross-Reference Table Appendix 1-1
National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells Appendix II-1
-------
L 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. In
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.
n. THE ROLE OF PESTICIDE MONITORING
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FTFRA) 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 FTFRA 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
-------
01. 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
Report4
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 OPFs 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
-------
associated with specific study summaries or reports sent to OPP by state agencies. These
state agencies provided their agency code, station codes, parameter codes, sampling dates
and other pertinent information so that the correct data could be extracted from STORET.
Data from the National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells (NPS)3 have not
been included in PGWDB, since these data have been recently and extensively presented
elsewhere. We are currently working on electronically transferring the results of the NPS
pesticide analyses so they will be available when the PGWDB becomes part of the PIN.
IV. THE COMPUTERIZED DATABASE
The computerized database consists of three files related to each other by study
identification and unique well number. The first file contains information describing the
study, the second contains information describing each well and the third contains sample
information. Data elements stored in these files are presented in Figure 1. These data
elements are based on EPA's recommended minimum set of data elements for ground-water
monitoring published in Definitions for the Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground-Water
Quality, July 22, 1990.8
FIGURE 1. Data Elements for the Pesticides in Ground Water Database
STUDY nu
|- mn«« "' ^ !
nu
Study Nirfcer
Study Nuifcer(s)
Study Nurber
Study Title
Unique well Nurber1
Unique Uell N inter1
Sponsoring Agency(ies)
State and County FIPS Codes*
Pesticide7
Project Officer(s) (PO)
Latitude end Longitude*
Concentration (ug/L)
PO Address(es)
Depth to Water Table (tn)
Limit of Detection (ug/L)
PO Telephone(s)
Well Depth (m)
Sample date
USEPA Region
Depth to Top and 8ottom of Screen
Interval (m)
Analytical Method®
Starting and Ending Dates
Uell Type*
o
Origin of Contamination
Publication Date
Well Log & Other Information^
Abstract
Altitude6
1. This is a unique identifier assigned to each well in the well file. Many states have assigned a unique
identifier to wells sampled. In these cases, the number was retained, and used in the PGWDB as that well's
unique well number.
2. The Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) alphabetic or numeric codes for states (example MI
is the alphabetic code for Michigan, 26 in the numeric code for Michigan). County codes are three Higfr
numeric codes.
OV-4
-------
3.
Coordinate representations that indicate a location on the surface of the earth using the equator (latitude)
and the Prime Meridian (longitude) as origin. Coordinates are measured in degrees, minutes, and seconds
with an indicator of north or south, and east or west.
4. Wells have been classified as follows:
Drinking water public community - a system of piped drinking water that either has at least 15 service
connections or serves at least 25 permanent residents.
Drinking water public non-community - wells serving public facilities such as fire stations, schools, or
libraries.
Drinking water private - privately owned wells serving a residence or farm.
Non-drinking water monitoring - wells installed specifically for monitoring ground water
Ndn-drinking water other - wells used for irrigation, industrial application, etc
5. This field will allow storage of limited well log or other information about the well, such as construction
details.
6. The vertical distance from the National Reference Datum to the land surface or other measuring point in
meters.
7. Pesticides are tracked by their Chemical Abstracts System (CAS) number. There is also a cross-reference
file that contains all pesticide synonyms and other OPP reference numbers. Any chemical that is currently
or has ever been registered as a pesticide by the USEPA, Office of Pesticide Programs is eligible to be
included in the PGWDB. Some chemicals might be more commonly associated with industrial processes;
however, if these chemicals are now or were previously registered and used as pesticides, monitoring results
will be included in the database.
8. A short name, reference or description of the analytical method which was used. This field is not intended
to hold the entire method.
9. An origin of contamination is listed for each analysis performed as follows:
NFU - Known or suspected normal field use
PS - Known or suspected point source
UNK - Unknown source of contamination
These files will be available through the PIN in 1993. The data management software
for this system is ORACLE running under UNIX. However, OPP will accept and translate
data created in nearly any format, operating system or medium. To access the PIN, contact
User Support at 703-305-7499.
V. THE 1992 PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER DATABASE REPORT
The 1992 PGWDB report is a summary and presentation of all the data OPP currently
has available, both in computerized and in hard-copy form, concerning pesticides in ground
water. The report is organized as a National Summary and ten EPA regional summaries.
Each volume provides background information on pesticide monitoring, a description of the
computerized portion of the database and a guide to reading and interpreting the data
presented in the report.
OV-5
-------
The National Summary contains summary results of the data collection effort for all
states and a discussion of the data. The regional volumes contain data from the individual
states in each EPA Region. Each regional volume contains state summaries, which consist
of: 1) a short overview of the state's philosophy and pertinent regulations concerning
ground-water quality and pesticides, 2) a summary of each study or monitoring effort sent
to OPP, and 3) summary data for each state presented in tables, graphs and maps. In
essence, the study summaries were written by the principal investigators of each study.
Whenever possible, the author's abstracts, summaries and conclusions were reproduced
verbatim, so that the tone and intent of their work would not be misinterpreted.
There are two appendices in each volume of the report Appendix I contains a
Pesticide Cross Reference Table, which provides pesticide names, synonyms and the
regulatory status and lifetime Health Advisory (HA) Level or Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL)7 for each pesticide. Appendix II provides a brief overview and reference information
for the NPS.
Summary and Presentation of Ground-Water Monitoring Data
The data in this report are presented in three different formats: maps, graphs and
tables. Their format and content are explained below. Each format is displayed at four
different resolution levels: national, regional, state and county. The charts and maps were
intended to provide an "at-a-glance" visual summary of the information collected for the area
in question. The tables provide detailed information concerning sampling dates, numbers
of wells sampled, samples analyzed, concentration ranges, and the relationship between
pesticide concentrations and current EPA drinking water standards.
1. Maps
The maps presented in this report display the number of wells sampled and the number
of wells with pesticide detections. Map legends are consistent throughout the report to
assist in any visual comparison of the maps. A regional-scale map illustrating the
frequency of pesticide detections as a function of the total number of wells sampled is
presented at the beginning of each EPA regional volume. The regional maps display
information for each state in that EPA region. All of the regional maps are included
in the National Summary. In addition, a state- scale map, in which the data are
presented at the county level, is included with each state summary. State maps ire also
annotated with a list of pesticides detected in that state.
2. Graphs
Bar graphs, for each state within a region, illustrate the number of wells sampled, the
number of wells with pesticide detections, and the number of wells with pesticide
detections exceeding the MCL or lifetime HA The graphs present this information
ranked in descending order by the number of wells with pesticide detections. The
version of this graph in the National Summary displays this information for each state.
A similar graph in each EPA regional volume presents data only for the states in that
region. The National Summary contains an additional graph, illustrating the above
information by pesticide. Pesticides for which analyses were performed but were not
detected in any wells are listed alphabetically at the end.
OV-6
-------
3. Tables
Two basic data tables are used throughout this report to summarize ground-water
monitoring information: the "Pesticides" table and the "Wells" table. Figures 2 and 3
provide a detailed explanation of the information contained in each column for the two
standard tables. The numbers that occur m the field descriptors correspond to the
definitions listed below the example table.
The "Pesticides" table is illustrated in Figure 2. In this table, information is organized
by pesticide. The monitoring locations, sampling frequencies, number of wells
monitored, sampling results and concentration ranges are provided. In the National
Summary, this table details the monitoring location to the state level and also includes
the regulatory status for each pesticide. In the regional volumes, monitoring location
is provided to the county level for each state and the table is expanded to include
monitoring data for samples taken from each well.
FIGURE 2. Pesticides Table
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF
-
WEU ,
* OEsutTS >v
wnce or
WHO!*-
0«8/O
s N- A- 'S4' ¦¦
*
v$» s s 5 \
••••'¦Vs'. •. „
. : •
\ s
:
PEsnttee
1 ^
COUVTT
z
'•» kw A,
DATE
3
\ ,
TOTAL -
VEILS
SAmes
-4 ?!
f Of
miTw"
,
' $ j
tOTAl,#
SAHPfcES;
: V
Of
POSITIVE
\""
U || 15
16
16
1 The tables are arranged in alphabetical order by the parent pesticide common name. Degradates of parent
pesticides are listed directly following the parent. Any chemical that is currently or has ever been registered as
a pesticide by the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs is eligible to be included in these tables. Some chemicals
included in these tables are more commonly associated with industrial processes; however, these chemicals were
at some time also registered as pesticides.
OV-7
-------
1 County names are listed in alphabetical order for each pesticide that was monitored.
jJ Well sampling dates are given by year and month(s). Months separated by a comma (1,3) means that samples
were taken in these months only. Months separated by a dash (1-5) is the range of months in which sampling
occurred, samples were taken in all months within the range.
4 The total number of wells that were sampled at least once during the time period stated in the previous
column.
£ Wells with pesticide detections within the time period given in the date column (3). Wells with positive
analytical results were classified based upon whether the results were above or below the MCL. If a pesticide
did not have an established MCL, the lifetime HA level was used and noted at the end of the table. If neither
of these values were established, the well was classified as less than the MCL. Wells were classified based upon
their highest analytical result Therefore, any well with at least one positive analysis equal to or greater than the
MCL or HA during the time period listed in the date column (3) was classified as > MCL. Any well with at least
one positive analysis but all analyses less than the MCL or HA was classified as < MCL.
& The total number of samples analyzed for that pesticide within the time period recorded in the date column.
2 Samples with pesticide detections were counted based upon whether the results were above or. below the MCL
or lifetime HA as stated in 5 above.
1 The range of positive results in ug/L (ppb) for the time period specified in the date column.
2 The total number of discrete wells that were sampled at least once and analyzed for the pesticide listed in
column 1. *See Note
10 The total number of discrete wells in which the pesticide was detected based upon whether the results were
above or below the MCL. Wells were classified as explained in 5 above, based upon the highest analytical result.
11 Total number of samples analyzed for a particular pesticide.
12 The total number of samples in which the pesticide was detected that are > MCL or < MCL as explained
in 5 above.
13 The grand total of discrete wells sampled in the state for any pesticide. * See Note
14 The grand total of discrete wells with at least one detection of any pesticide. Wells are classified above or
below MCL or HA as explained in 5 above. *See Note
15 Grand total of samples taken in the state. *See Note
16 The grand total of samples with any pesticide detection for the state. Samples were classified as > or < the
MCL based upon their highest analytical result as explained in 5 above. *See Note
•Note: Some wells were sampled more than once, (i.e., during several successive years) and some wells were
sampled for more than one pesticide. Therefore, the total number of discrete wells is not necessarily the
arithmetic sum of the wells listed. Similarly some samples were analyzed for more than one pesticide, therefore,
the total number of discrete samples for the state will not be, in all cases, the arithmetic sum for the column.
OV-8
-------
Figure 3 illustrates the "Wells" table. In this table, ground-water monitoring information
is organized by well type, or use, and source of contamination. In the National
Summary, the information is summarized by state. In the regional volumes, the
information is summarized by county for each state in the region.
FIGURE 3. Wells Table
STATE OF
UELLS BY COUNTY
¦ .
!
.
:
rWy.x-x.v^ %
WWtCfcOF
t»mm wit*
'
*»imw
toum
:
¦
'•V
10TAL I e
3MPL& 1 Ma
4 f *
t»
4
- '¦
m
$
<
«ct
: X'
Iffli
a
V -s,
<
II
^7C\ *
j$\S
mi
Couity A
1
Canty S
1
TOTAL 9
1
J. Drinking Water wells include community (municipal), public non-community, and private wells. Public non-
community wells are those that exclusively serve public buildings such as fire stations, schools, or libraries.
2 Monitoring wells, installed solely to monitor ground water for contaminants.
3 Other wells include: irrigation wells, stock watering wells, springs, and tile drains.
4 Total number of each type of well sampled in each county.
1 The number of wells per county in which a pesticide was detected. Wells were classified based upon whether
the results were above or below an MCL for any of the pesticides detected. If a pesticide did not have an
established MCL, the lifetime HA level was used. If neither of these values were applicable, the well was
classified as less than the MCL and it was so noted at the end of the table. Wells were classified based upon
their highest analytical result. Therefore, any well with at least one positive analysis greater than or equal to the
MCL or HA was classified as > MCL. Any well with at least one positive analysis but all analyses less than the
MCL or HA was classified as < MCL.
Contaminated wells were placed in one of the following categories based on the opinion of the study director:
jj NFU = Known or Suspected Normal Field Use.
2 PS = Known or Suspected Point Source.
.8 UNK= Unknown source of contamination. Wells were categorized as "unknown" if the study director did not
know the source of contamination, or if there was no information available concerning the source of
contamination.
2 Total number of wells in each category.
OV-9
-------
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 ot 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-IO
-------
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 radicaUy 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.
VIII. 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.
OV-11
-------
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?
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
OV-12
-------
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. Hie National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking
Water Wells. Washington, D.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.
OV-13
-------
Well Sampling by State
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Region
ME
192/490
VT
Ifffi
247/571
Total Wells Sampled
per State
> 1000
501 to 1000
101 to 500
51 to 100
1 to 50
No wells sampled.
OV-14
-------
REGION 1
WELL STATUS BY STATE
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
1
CT
MA
ME
Rl
571
";••• '::fy...'.;M ' y--p'v;;£4?;:*;pp
• y:'y '
VT
8
13
291
NH
0
0
J 25
1
200 400 600
WELL COUNTS
800
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
0
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
OV-15
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database -1992 Report
STATE SUMMARIES
-------
Weil Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Totai Number of Wells Sampled)
Connecticut
Total Wells Sampled
per County
U > 100B
S3 501 to 1000
E3 101 to 500
\22 51 to 100
G3 1 t o 50
~ No wells sampled
Pesticides Detected
1,2-Dichloropropane
2, 4-D
2, 4, 5—T
2, 4, 5-TP
A]achlor
Atrazine
Chlordane
Cyanazine
DDE
Dichlorprop
EDB
Diazinon
Dicamba
Dieldrin
Lindane
Meiolachlor
Metribuzin
Prometon
Prometryn
Propazine
Simazine
Trichloroethylene
1-CT-l
-------
l-CT-2
-------
CONNECTICUT
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUNDWATER
In 1986, the Connecticut General Assembly passed Special Act 86-44, spurred by the
discovery of numerous cases of ground water contamination, in the north-central part of the
state, with ethylene dibromide (EDB), a soil fumigant used by Connecticut's tobacco
growers. An ongoing testing program conducted by the State Department of Health
Services (DOHS) has found that 54 public-supply and 276 private wells have been
contaminated in excess of the maximum allowable drinking water level of 0.1 ppb. EDB is
no longer applied and contaminated wells have either been supplied with treatment, or
alternated water supplies have been provided to affected individuals. The widespread
contamination by EDB raised concerns about other pesticides still in use in Connecticut
Thus, Special Act 86-44 required the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in
cooperation with the US Geological Survey and the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment
Station (CAES) to investigate the occurrence of pesticides in ground water. The key
objectives of the Act were to:
1. inventory the usage of pesticides with the potential to contaminate ground
water,
2. identify soil and subsurface conditions that affect the susceptibility of ground
water to pesticide contamination, and
3. collect and analyze ground water samples in areas thought to be susceptible
to contamination.
The goal of the State of Connecticut is , wherever feasible, to restore of maintain all ground
waters to a quality consistent with its use for drinking without treatment. (Connecticut's
Water Quality Standards, September 1986).
l-CT-3
-------
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUNDWATER
Bradford R. Robinson, Report on Findings of 1,2 Dichloropropane in Ground Water,
Pesticide Control Section, Department of Environmental Protection, State of Connecticut,
Tel.: 203-566-5148. Study conducted in 1984. (Reported 1986, 2 pp.)
Primary Objective
This sampling was initiated to survey wells for contamination by Vorlex*, 1,2-
dichloropropane (1,2-D) and 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) in the counties of New Haven
(towns of Branford, Cheshire, and Guilford), Middlesex (towns of Cromwell and
Middlefield), Hartford (towns of East Windsor, Farmington, Manchester, Simsbury, Bristol,
Rocky Hill, West Suffield, and South Windsor), and Tolland (towns of Ellington and
Bolton).
Design
Eighty-four (84) samples were collected from 78 private drinking water wells, and 11
samples were collected from 4 public drinking water wells. The samples were analyzed for
1,2-dichloropropane by gas chromatography and confirmed by gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry (GC/MS). The detection level for 1,2-D is 0.015 ppb.
Results and Conclusions
Eleven of the private wells (15 samples) were positive, with ranges from 0.05 to 290 ppb.
Two of the public wells were positive (4.7-14.8 ppb). Eight of these wells were
contaminated at levels above the Maximum Contaminant Level of 5 ug/L (ppb). In the
town of Bristol, Hartford County, two wells were positive at 290 ppb and 14 ppb. The well
with 290 ppb was retested and yielded 220 ppb. A source for public water is located near
this site. The 14-ppb well was not retested. In the town of Bolton, Tolland County, four
wells were contaminated. Resampling was performed with the following results: the well
with 51 ppb yielded 9.5 ppb, the well with 12.4 ppb yielded 8.9 ppb, and the well with 0.96
ppb yielded 0.66 ppb. A sample taken from a well in Cromwell (Middlesex County)
contained 14.8 ppb. However, this appears to indicate either very transient contamination
or is a false positive finding, since four subsequent samples were all negative.
Since the original sampling and testing were reported (1984), subsequent sampling showed
approximately 25 to 30 additional wells contaminated with 1,2-D. Investigations have shown
that this contamination is most likely due to the use of Vorlex soil fumigant on strawberries
and tobacco. No evidence of misuse and no dump sites that might have led to the
contamination were found. In 1984 four (4) wells showed 1,3-D at levels below 1 ppb,
subsequent sampling in 1985 detected no contamination. Whether the positive results were
a laboratory error or transitory contamination is not known.
l-CT-4
-------
Paul Ritsick, Principal Sanitary Engineer, Water Supplies Section, DHS, State of
Connecticut Tel. Number: 203-566-1256. Study conducted 1984-1987. (Reported 12/31/87,
126 pp.)
Primary Objective
In February, 1984, EDB was found as residues in cereal grains. Concern for the possible
contamination of ground water by EDB a monitoring program of locations known to be
EDB application sites.
Design
The Pesticides Compliance Section of the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection provided a list of EDB application sites, primarily for tobacco crops. The records
were incomplete, so sites were selected not only based on those records, but also by locating
existing wells near tobacco and corn fields, with abandoned tobacco barns on the property,
indicating that EDB was once applied to tobacco fields there. Initial sampling showed a
modestly high incidence of low-level contamination. Therefore, the monitoring program was
expanded in late 1984 and 1985 to take up to 125 samples/month. All positive wells were
resampled. The analysis methodology was gas chromatography, using electron capture
detection. The detection level for EDB in these analyses was 0.05 ppb.
Over a three year period 3477 samples were taken from 2080 private drinking water wells.
Multipe samples were often taken at various well depths. Seven hundred twenty-two
samples were also taken from 278 public drinking water wells. Samples were taken from
16 towns in Hartford County, two towns in Middlesex County, and three towns in Tolland
County. Towns were choosen which had a history of current practice of tobacco fanning.
Results
Seven-hyndred eighty-four of the wells sampled had measurable residues of EDB. Four-
hundred sixty-eight had concentrations which exceeded the MCL of 0.05ug/L.
M.A. Cervione, Jr., LA. Weiss, J.R Bohr, and J.W. Bingham, Water Resources Data,
Connecticut Water Year 1987, US Geological Survey (USGS);
MA. Cervione, Jr., B.S. Davies III, J.R. Bohr, and J.W. Bingham, Water Resources Data,
Connecticut Water Year 1988, US Geological Survey;
MA. Cervione, Jr., B.S. Davies III, J.R. Bohr, and B.W. Hunter, Water Resources Data,
Connecticut Water Year 1989, US Geological Survey;
Primary Objective
These volumes of the annual hydrologic data report for Connecticut are a part of a series
of annual reports that document hydrologic data gathered from the US Geological Survey's
surface and ground-water data-collection networks in each State. These records of
streamflow, ground-water levels, and quality of water provide the hydrologic information
needed by State, local and federal agencies and the private sector for developing and
managing our Nation's land and water resources.
l-CT-5
-------
Design
Ground water samples from 187 monitoring wells were analyzed for the presence of 45
pesticides over a three year period. Wells were located in 8 counties and are part of the
national and state network of observation wells. Each well monitored is described in detail
including location by latitude and longitude, aquifer identification, well characteristics, water
levels, etc. Samples for water quality analysis were generally collected once per year.
Occasionally more that one sample was collected if conditions warranted additional
investigation. Some of the wells reported in these studies are also included in the Study of
Pesticide Contamination in Connecticut's Ground Water, interim Report 1988 described
below.
Results
Fifty-seven (57) of the 187 wells sampled contained measurable amounts of pesticides. Five
(5) of these wells contained pesticides above the federal MCL or lifetime health advisory
(HA) level. Pesticides found above these levels were atrazine, alachlor, simazine, and
trichloroethylene. These were also the most frequently found pesticides.
Thomas R.E. Keeney, Commissioner of Environmental Protection, Study of Pesticide
Contamination in Connecticut's Ground Water, Interim Report 1988, Connecticut
Denartment of Environmental Protection (DEP)
rnmarv Objective
This study was performed in response to Special Act 86-84 by DEP in cooperation with US
Geological Survey and Connecticut Agricultural Experimental Station (CAES).
Design
Agricultural and nonagricultural uses of pesticides in Connecticut were inventoried, and a
list of pesticides having the potential to contaminate ground water due to their physical and
chemical properties was prepared at the beginning of the study. The selection of field sites
for monitoring reported in the 1988 Interim Report focused on stratified drift aquifers.
These aquifers, found in most of the State's river valleys and generally composed of sand
and gravel, are important sources of public water supply. Because they are composed of
permeable sand and gravel and have relatively shallow depth (5-15 ft.) to the water table,
stratified drift aquifers are very productive. However, they are also highly susceptible to
contamination from land application or disposal of chemicals.
The University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension Service sent over 3000 letters
requesting cooperation from farmers, nurseries and golf courses. Only 130 responses were
received, of which 30 agreed to participate. However, only one site was located on stratified
drift. The principal concern of potential participants was the issue of liability should
contaminants be found. Additional sites were located on state and municipally-owned land,
with 19 selected for drilling and sampling. Sixteen sites were agricultural fields and one
each was located on residential, nursery, and golf course property. Soil cores were analyzed
from all sites. Thirty-one (31) monitoring wells were installed on 17 of the sites. Two of
the sites were dry and no wells were installed.
l-CT-6
-------
Results and Conclusions
Wells sampled for this study were also a part of the USGS report: Water Resources Data,
Connecticut Water Year 1988. Water quality sampling was conducted during the late
summer. Results of analyses were reported for 15 pesticides. Detectable concentrations of
pesticides were found at seven sites (9 wells). The pesticides detected, range of
concentration and current EPA Health Advisory Levels are presented in the table below.
All compounds detected in water were herbicides, except for EDB and 1,2-D which are soil
fumigants. All sites where monitoring occurred, except one were associated with corn fields.
SUMMARY OP PESTICIDE DETECTIONS
Pesticide
Detections
we Us/samples
Concentration
Range(ug/L)
MCL
(ug/L)
Lifetime
HA (ug/L)
Alaehlor
1/2
0.10-13.08
2.0
Atrazine
5/6
0.40-9.7
3.0
Dicamba
1/1
0.01
200.0
EDB
3/5
0.14-0 JO
0.05
Metolachlor
3/5
0.20-3232
100.0
1,2-Dicbloro-
propane
1/1
n
5.0
5X3
Simazine
1/1
9.1
1.0
4.0
2,4-D
2/2
0.01
70.0
70.0
Thomas R.E. Keeney, Commissioner of Environmental Protection, Report to the Legislature
on Pesticides in Ground Water, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Primary Objective
This study was performed in response to Special Act 86-84 by DEP in cooperation with US
Geological Survey and Connecticut Agricultural Experimental Station (CAES). This study
is a continuation of the interim report cited above.
Design
The study tested 188 ground water samples taken from 89 wells at 59 sites over a three year
period. Samples were taken from monitoring wells located beneath or next to areas of
pesticide use, thus pesticides found in the samples are presumably due to normal
application, not spills during tank filling or leaks during pesticide storage. Sampling sites
included agricultural use land, golf courses, residential, commercial and recreations use.
Most sites were located on State and municipally-owned land. Sites were located on
stratified drift or till/bedrock.
l-CT-7
-------
Results and Conclusions
Pesticides were detected in ground water at 39 sites (66%) and the concentrations of
pesticides exceeded the April 1990 federal health advisories at 7 sites (12%). The results
indicate that pesticides can and do migrate to ground water after normal application. One
pesticide in common use, atrazine, was detected in ground water at 76% of the sites where
it had been applied. Other pesticides screened in the study were detected less frequently,
and some were not found at all. Twenty-four (24) pesticides were detected in the study,
most at low concentrations.
SUMMARY OF PESTICIDES DETECTED IN GROUND WATER
Pesticide
Detections
No. of Wells
Concentration
Range (ug/L)
MCL
(ug/L)
Lifetime HA
(ug/L)
Alachlor
2
0.M1.0
2.0
Atrazine
25
0.1-9.7
3.0
Chlordane
2
0-1.
2.0
Chlorpyrifos
1
0.01
20.0
Cyanazine
2
0.01
1.0
1,2-Dichloro-
propane
2
0.4-13
5.0
2,4-D
3
0.01
70.0
70.0
DCPA &
metabolites
15
0.01-124
4000
DDE
2
0.001
DDT
1
0.002
Dicamba
1
0.01
200
Dicldrin
3
0.001-0.10
Diuron
3
0.02-0.07
10
EDB
2
0.2-0.5
0.05
Lindane
1
0.001-0.004
0.2
0.2
Metolachlor
8
0.1-26
100
Mctribuzin
2
0.1-1.3
200
Oxamyt
4
0.42-2.5
200.0
60
Pidoram
1
0.1
500
500
Promcton
1
0.01
100
Prometryne
I
0.9-1.1
Propazine
1
0.1
10
Simazine
9
0.1-10
1
4
Terbacil
5
0.1-2.1
96
l-CT-8
-------
This study confirms that certain pesticides can and do move down through the soil and into
ground water. Concentrations in ground water detected in this study are generally low, but
about 12 percent of the sites studied had pesticides in ground water above federal health
advisories. Management strategies for these chemicals should balance the dependence of
contemporary agricultural practices on pesticides against the threats they pose to human
health. Although most agriculture currently depends heavily on the use of herbicides, there
are techniques for reducing or eliminating pesticide use while maintaining adequate
production. At the same time, more information is needed on the effect of current and
projected levels , of pesticides in ground water will , have on human health and the
environment It is recommended that the State undertake activities that will help farmers
and homeowners voluntarily reduce the use of pesticides at minimal cost, and collect needed
information on pesticides and ground water, particularly information on whether pesticides
are reaching drinking water supplies.
Note: Data from this report are not included in the summary tables for Connecticut. The
information presented in this report was not detailed enough and the analytical data, which
will be published by USGS, was not yet available.
l-CT-9
-------
l-CT-10
-------
PESTICIDE SAWLIKG IN THE STATE OF CGKXECTIOfT
1,2-Dfchloropropane to Heptachlor epoxide
¦
VEtX RES JITS
wm OF
COKED'
;-.TltATIQKS;!
.
:
fESTICIW
; ;
COUNTY
:
we
:s% s :
vss ^ -%¦.&
TOTAL
, VillS
"SAMPLES
wsjt m
UEtttfSv
TOTAL *
SAMPLES;
WHWSf
s.''POSITIVE;':.?'
:
:
-
m
TEAR/
MONTK
lie!
Hi
?SHC£"
"¦ ^ :
«Ci'
1,2-&ichtaro*
propane '
1984
41
4
2
44
4
3
0.05-
290.0
HitotfsEx
1984
7
1
1
11
1
1
4.3-14.8
NEW HAVEN
1984
22
0
1
25
0
1
4.7
TatAWO
1984
12
2
2
15
2
5
0.36-51.0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
82
7
6
95
6
6
0.05-
290.0
2.4-0
FAIRFIELD
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
HARTFORO
1987/9
3
0
2
3
0
2
0.01
1988/6-8
74
0
3
80
0
3
0.01-0.03
1989/6-8
22
0
0
22
0
0
UTCHFIEIO
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6,8
3
0
0
3
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1989/6,7
7
0
0
7
0
0
NEW HAVEN
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
NEW LONDON :
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/7,8
3
0
0
3
0
0 .
TOLLAND
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/5-8
15
0
0
17
0
0
1989/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WINDHAM
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
129
0
4
169
0
5
0.01-0.03
2.4.S-T
FAIRFIELD
1988/8
2
0
0 2
0
0
1989/8
3
0
0 III 3
0
0
1-CT-ll
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
1,2-Oichloropropane to Heptachlor epoxide
'
;
SAMPLE JESUITS
ftAJJCf Of
WT WHS
>:\i V
nmcw
COUNTT
f .vf ¦»
OAtE
'
10TAL
mis
SAMPICD
#OF
POSlTfW
tieu*
TOfAl f
SAHPtfS
.v.v.vAvS'W.'.v.ViV
^ A ^
¦ m*m&
*srrm
:
YEAR/
tort#
> vv
A- s\
s ^
*
>«WL'
; *
v'\ k
"• ^
w.'avSV .v
: ^ -s^ n. "
*
•. •» :
\ s
. .
(2.4,5-T)
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
<
1988/6-8
74
0
1
80
0
1
0.06
, *
1989/6-8
22
0
0
22
0
0
-UTCHFIRfc
1988/6-8
5
0
1
5
0
1
0.40
N
1989/6,8
3
0
0
3
0
0
miwttsex
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1989/6.7
7
0
0
7
0
0
NEU HAVE* ¦'
1988/6.8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
NEW LONDON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/7.8
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOLLAND
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/5-8
15
0
0
17
0
0
1989/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
tflHDHAM
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
124
0
2
169
0
2
0.06-0.40
2.4,5-TP
(Sflvex)
FAIRFIELD
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
HARTFORD
1987/8,9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3-8
74
0
1
80
0
1
0.02
1989/6-8
22
0
0
22
0
0
LITCHFIELD
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6.7
3
0
0
3
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1989/6,7
7
0
0
7
0
0
NEW HAVEN
1988
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
NEW LONDON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988
1
0
0
1
0
0
v
1989/7,8
3
0
0
3
0
0
l-CT-12
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING III THE STATE OF CONUECTICUT
1,2-Dichloropropane to HeptachLor epoxide
.
:
:
• ¦ ss
wm
met
iot&:v
¦smpLW?
&MN*9l
&:%iw&8§l§
.
Sfe*
IIS
MPSS
iiii
m®
(2.4.5-TP)
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
¦
1988/5-8
15
0
0
17
0
0
1989/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
W1HDHAM
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
124
0
1
169
0
1
0.02
Alachlcr
ttlRFtELD
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
HARTFORD
1987/6-9
53
1
1
53
1
1
0.10-11.0
1989/6-8
26
0
1
26
0
1
0.10
UTCHFIEIO
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1989/6-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/8,9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1989/6.7
9
0
0
9
0
0
iiEW HAVEN
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6.8
2
0
0
2
0
0
NEW LOUDOrf
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1989/7.8
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOLLAND
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1989/6-8
7
0
0
7
0
0
UIMOHAM
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/7,
8J1
8
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
136
1
1
140
1
2
0.10-11.0
Aldrin
HARTFORD
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
-
1989/6,7
14
0
0
14
0
0
UTCHF1EID
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
HtDOLESEX
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6,7
2
0
0
0
0
l-CT-13
-------
PESTICIDE SAWLIBC IV THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
1,2-Dichloropropane to Heptschlor epoxide
\ - \ '"5 s
;
t£Li aEatfrs^^
:-SX<$m>tB ;*£s«LTSi^ ~
.1' .< '¦
¦
hswci*
s <*>' S
WXTT
WIS
10TAI
SAMPLED
jm. ^ v
posnm
¦" tieti.S"' -f
wam
1.
^SAMPLES
V MUST Of
H-SOKOaK.
<>,iwu*s .
::
YEAR/
*>s NfiNTH
%
&
lite
<
s\s^\V \
(Aldrin)
NEW HAVEH
1988/6.8
2
0
0
2
0
0
*¦
, ^ ,,
1989/6.7
4
0
0
4
0
0
MEW ttSHDM
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
rouAtt
1988/6,7
11
0
0
11
0
0
, " -
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
uxtmut
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
129
0
0
Ametrvn
FAIRflELD
1987/6-
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
HARtFORO :
1987/6-9
53
0
0
53
0
0
1988/6-8
25
0
0
39
0
0
1989/6-8
26
0
0
26
0
0
LITCHFIELD
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
19B8/6-8
4
0
0
7
0 .
0
1989/6-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/8,9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1988/5-8
6
0
0
12
0
0
1989/6,7
9
0
0
9
0
0
WEU HAVEN
1987/6.8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
HEW LONDON
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/5-8
7
0
0
8
0
0
1989/7,8
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOLLAND
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1988/5,7
6
0
0
9
0
0
1989/6.8
7
0
0
7
0
0
WINDHAM
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/6-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
l-CT-14
-------
PESTICIDE SAW LI KG IN THE STATE OF CGMKECTIOJT
1,2-Dichloropropane to Heptachlor epoxide
V ¦¦ w a . YN.:
¦
'¦*¦>.• f . ¦. ' \ w .*
\ ¦ •«» s
;?/" ' .
«Ll KSUUS
turns of
iSiiiiff
liilitth
'
Ptsficu*
fSss < ' / /•
CWJTT
MTE
'
10TAL
SAMPLED
iSKiSSi.
sSi.KJjP
RS
m
*?y>
irot
s> fcy* «¦ ^
;«WWS
S^^SS^SM^SSSSSS::
jwwrv.
"
1M/
"s %'S;,S "\
•* •» .*¦
> '' ''Mm
*
id$
$&»
ilpill
|||*
v-
V N*"*:
¦¦, ¦¦¦>¦*¦ ,y
wlufcuw
iv*/*** <•
1989/7,
8.11
8
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRITE
UELLS/SAHPLES
140
0
0
198
0
0
|
:
At miffs}
wuuweib
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
ft- .
1988/6.8
2
0
2
2
0
2
0.20
, v
1989/8
2
0
2
2
0
2
0.20
1987/6-9
53
2
3
53
2
3
0.10-9.7
1988/6-8
25
1
4
39
1
8
0.10-3.2
1989/6-8
26
0
5
26
0
5
0.10-1.5
UTCHflftC
1987/6-9
19
0
3
19
0
3
0.10-0.50
1988/6-8
4
0
1
7
0
2
0.20-0.30
1989/6-8
4
0
2
4
0
2
0.10
HI0tt£*EX
1987/6-9
6
0
0
6
0
0
f
1988/5-8
6
0
0
12
0
0
'
1989/6,7
9
0
0
9
0
0
«Etf HAVE*
1987/6,
8.9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6-8
2
0
0
2
0
0
NEW tOMDOtt
1987/8
3
0
1
3
0
1
0.40
1988/5,
7.8
7
1
4
8
1
5
0.20-4.1
1989/7.8
9
0
5
9
0
5
0.10-1.3
TCUAND
1987/6-9
17
0
4
17
0
4
0.10-2.0
1988/5,7
6
0
4
9
0
5
0.10-0.30
1989/6-8
7
1
3
7
1
3
0.10-3.4
UIMDHAH
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/6-8
6
0
3
8
0
4
0.10-0.30
1989/7,
8.11
8
0
5
9
0
5
0.10-0.80
TOTA. DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
139
4
HI
264
5
59
0.10-9.7
Carbarvl
fAIRFIELD
1987/6-9
5
0
0 III 5
0
° 1
1989/8
2
0
0 111 2
0
.1
l-CT-15
-------
PESTICIDE SMVLINS IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
1,2-Dichloropropane to Heptachlor epoxide
'^NV's. ^ *• s
*
«Etl KSJtfSW*1
^ ,v v
giwwrw ¦'
-V
ntticm
¦
zamrt
wte
10TAI
mux
SAMPLED
#«r
POSITIVE
-.-v
TOTtt. #
SAHPtf*
C
KJK&E* OF
/.^wswvsfi
i-." jymrt "x-
.
¦¦¦¦¦..Wte.::- ¦
mv
(Carbaryl)
XARTfOftO
1987/6-9
51
0
0
51
0
0
¦^v A "» ^ ¦»
'%'y, J * 5
1989/6-8
17
0
0
17
0
0
UTCHFIEtft
1987/6-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MID0i€SEX
1987/6-9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1989/6.7
6
0
0
6
0
0
NEW HAVEN
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5.
0
0
1989/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
NEW LOWOti
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOLtAHD
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1989/6.7
5
0
0
5
0
0
U1UDMAM
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
68
0
0
147
0
0
Carbopherxj-
thlon
MSTfOKD
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
tlTCNFIEU*
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
NEU HAVEN
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6.7
4
0
0
4
0
0
NEW LONDON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLLAND
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
U1HDHAM
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
101
0
0
126
0
0
l-CT-16
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLIKG IN THE S7ATE OF COMECTICUT
1,2-Dlchloropropene to Heptachlor epoxide
ss
: /\\ ~ ,.
•>...•.••¦ s
WELL 8Eaa.T«.W^
-MSUITS^"-
N
mt£ x*
s "*\.v
.
PWfftW
•XO ..
-"""V *S v
* . V> ^ A "•
CpOJjTT
'
mt
¦
'
.
lOTAt
«EUS
BANPIED
r*-
¦' : «EttS *s\-
\ sm.®
"• ss \ s\ %si ^
psss
'
/H-^S ¦
tew
XOHTH
i ;.:*>•
«C£:-
*!• 5 ¦¦ ;>
<
wfr
Carbopheno-
tMon, aethvl r
DAfitfOSft
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
,
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
7V
0
0
1989/6-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
NEtf HAVEN
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6.7
4
0
0
4
0
0
HEW J.OWXM
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5.8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLtAND
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WINDHAM
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
101
0
0
126
0
0
Chlcrdsne
HARTFORD
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
3
79
0
3
0.01-0.30
1989/6,7
14
0
0
14
0
0
UTCHHEl©
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
. MIDDLESEX .
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
NEtf HAVEH
1988/6.8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
NEtf LONDON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLLAND
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WINDHAM
1987-89
10
0
0
11
0
0
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
3
129
0
3
0.10-0.30
l-CT-17
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF COKKECTIOJT
1,2-Dichloropropane to Heptachlor epoxide
•" ;
WELL BESULTS
"¥"' ttWlrREStiTS •
*Anerof
COMCIH-
rwuws
\ <#9m
U% -
,
total
«US
SAHPIED
#or
POSITIVE
TOTAl f
vWtPtfS,
• ^ ¦» *¦
• sy-"
v- posnm
" SAMPtHf-
••••..v.!. .
v'"" w V.
"¦ s s \
sS .• ^y¦ / v,-?
«*R/
*
Vss "v
AV.'
na
tv«n»zfr>*
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
HARTrORD
1987/6-9
53
0
0
53
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
25
0
0
39
0
0
1989/6-8
26
0
0
26
0
0
IITCHFIEID
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1988/6-8
4
0
0
7
0
0
1989/6-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
«tl»«SEX
1987/8,9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1988/5-8
6
0
0
12
0
0
1989/6,7
9
0
0
9
0
0
NEW HAVEN
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
NEW IONOOM
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/5-8
7
0
1
8
0
1
0.10
1989/6-8
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOLLAHD
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1988/5-7
6
0
0
9
0
0
1989/6-8
7
0
0
7
0
0
U1NDHAH
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/6-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
1989/7,
8,11
8
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
139
0
1
245
0
1
0.10
DOT
HARTFORD
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6,7
U
0
0
14
0
0
UTCHFJEID
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-CT-18
-------
PESTICIDE SMPL1NG IN THE STATE OF CCKXECTICUT
1,2-Dichloropropane to Heptachlor epoxide
< i
:
1
tSLl RESULTS 1
SAMPLE RESH.TS
WTKMS
nmam
¦
¦¦ *-<¦
,-v v"""v-
WTE
*" '¦» :
TOTAt
SAM PUD
#0F
Oyetis ml
:
*
:
WM
I
v.***
¦:
(DDT)
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
sf
-------
PESTICIDE SMVLIM6 II THE STATE OF COKKECTIOJT
1,2-Dichloropropane to Heptachlcr epoxide
¦
V
:
UEtt RESULT®*^
pwa*::;
N
PfcSTIClO?
:
"¦ s •"*
COUNTT
%\ f "•
DATE
lOTAt
«6U?
SAMPLED
POSITm
WEtiS
TOW. f
—M
K*sitm \
Ss^amatfe
tEAR/
MONTH
¦
* 1 -
ssllli
(DOE)
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
- ^\s^V 4
1989/6.7
2
0
0
2
0
0
SEW HAVEX
1988/6.8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6.7
4
0
0
4
0
0
UEtf LONDON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOILAND
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WfNOXAN
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
2
129
0
2
0.001
DSaztnon
HASTFOt©
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
1
79
0
1
0.07
1989/6.7
14
0
0
14
0
0
LtTCHMEU)
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
NEU HAVE*
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6.7
4
0
0
4
0
0
SEViLOHKttt
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLLAND :
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WINDHAM
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
117
0
1
124
0
1
0.07
Dicarba
fAIRFIELD
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
HAftTWRO
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/8
18
0
0
23
0
0
1989/6-8
22
0
0
22
0
0
tltCHFIEU)
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6-8
3
0
0
3
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/8
3
0
1
3
0
1
0.01
1989/6,7
7
0
0
7
0
0
l-CT-20
-------
PESTICIDE SAWIIMG III THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
1,2-Diehloropropane to Heptechlor epoxide
•. ¦v.v5^V/v
'
' - ;v^ ^^sxs»'
WELL RESULTS
MH&Of
pMi
villl!^pi\
•> ' ^ v ^ :
mntvx
W A s ¦ ¦ ^ %
\"-s \ -V . s> ^
MTS
' •
:
TOTAL
«eut
SAMPLED
#or
WSITW
IpMi
S'Ci.. :rs- \y-
w*/
nam-
% ¦ % •(
%
A
iSI
ft^V.v.sw.v^^Av,';
frX s-
v&
(Dlcairba)
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
1,2-Dfchloropropane to Heptuhlor epoxide
; ^ '
\ X \
hftAWffi <&
SCCMCEH-
S ^ A"" vn
"" \ \ » * \ N
PESTICIM
easily
MIE
: % > s ¦« ^:
TOTAL
flStlS**
*58*.
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
-A!\wivs,«s ¦¦
xrosiTive^
- * ~ '--X :
//¦ % X ^ \ N '\
ntw
^"'H0NT« V:
%Kk>:
*4>feidHn
HARTFOttJ
1987/9
3
0
1
3
0
1
0.034
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
6
79
0
9
0.01-0.13
1989/6.7
14
0
0
14
0
0
uTcwieu
1988/6-8
5
0
1
5
0
1
0.001
v.. ,,,\\
' ' S *•
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MIODtfSEX
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
NEW HAVEN
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
'
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
NEW LONDON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
- .¦
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOtLAKO
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
K'
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WINDHAR
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
7
129
0
11
0.001-
0.13
£08 {Ethylene
Of bromide)
HARTFORD
1987/12
1904
282
249
3099
770
304
0.03-7.1
MIDDLESEX
1987/12
41
3
1
65
7
7
0.02-0.09
TOLLAHD
1987/12
447
184
65
931
424
94
0.03-8.0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
2392
469
315
4095
1201
405
0.02-8.0
Endosutfsn
HASTFORD
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
r:
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6,7
14
0
0
14
0
0
LITCHFIELD
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
HEW HAVEN
1988/5,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
NEW LONDON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
l-CT-22
-------
PESTICIDE SAIVLING IN THE STATE OF COMECTIOn
1,2-Dichloropropane to Heptachlor epoxide
:
>:j:
i tt*ars
s \ s s\ VC" <">\ v
MCWCPh^
Stgllt
:
F5SHC1W
i
•. •%
CO^TY
:
BATE
i
: ' Xs" "J1-*". \
TOTAL 1 JO*
UEU.S I WSItlSS
ISMfrtfO 1 WtU* s
ii&W'
If
"V/'Vv/.'',',
WW
1 1
iSctli
xMSMk
•>»<#
iiali
(Endosulfan)
mtA«>
1988/5-7
ii
0
0
11
0
0
-J-*-,- " 'Hv
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
UtNDHAK
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
122
c
0
129
0
0
SncHn
fcASTfOaft
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6.7
14
0
0
14
0
0
LITCHFIELD
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MJOOLESEX
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
-
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
NEW HAVEN
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
NEW LONDON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLLAW)
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
U1KOHAH
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
129
0
0
€th»on
HARTFORD
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6,7
14
0
0
14
0
0
LITCHFIELD
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
:NEW HAVEH
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
NEU LONDON:
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
tttUffi
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-CT-23
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN TK STATE OF CONNECTICUT
1,2-Dichloropropane to Heptachlor epoxide
i
¦xv v.- ^2
fESTICIOE
•• •/ «vw.
easily
DATE
¦
TOTAL
WU.S
^«AMPt€9
¦"•"¦"a"
POSITIVE
TOTAL f
SAMPLES
Of;
TCWHTive^:
»W»"W
"\€ONC£)h
tfcAflWtf
;
v
TEAR/'
MONTH
»
V.ViSw.WA
XCfc^
-¦act*
S\%
• net
<«»m
(Ethion)
fitmm
1989/7
T
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
VELLS/SAMPLES
117
0
0
124
0
0
EtttvUm
HARTFORD
1987/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
-5w,
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6.7
K
0
0
14
0
0
UTCHFIEID
1987/7-9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
HEW HAVE* ¦
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
NEWLONDON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/6,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLLAND
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WINDHAM
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
129
0
0
Heptschlor
HA8TFO®
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6,7
14
0
0
14
0
0
LITCHFIEU)
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
NEW HAVEN
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0 ,
0
NEW LONDON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLLAND *
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-CT-24
-------
PESTICIDE SNPUK III THE STATE OF COMIECTICUT
1,2-Dichloropropane to Heptschlor epoxide
ip$
,V
SAMffi OP
COKCEM"
<;w * .
PESTICIDE
^ ^Nttsw
COUNT*
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
smpuo'
#CF
MSITIW
'V-:.
'TOTAL *
SAMPLES £
A®
HWWSfcOFiy
g#»fi3ve^l
!
*|AW
liWMT#,,,:::.;:
'¦ ¦' :V-* KS^S-
SSS&SSiSJS®1;:
t
l\<*»
I *
'MttLV
ks$^s%
ilis^lpF
(Heptachlor)
mmm
1989/7
1
0
1 0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
122
.
10
129
0
0
: Heptseftter
Epoxide
HARTWKO >
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
X^wav;.w^\v^.'.;.v.v.-
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6.7
14
0
0
14
0
0
LITCHFIE1D
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
HIOftieSEX
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
NEW HAVEN
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
UEU tOKOO#
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOttAMO
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
UTMDHAK
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
129
0
0
l-CT-25
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF CONHECTICUT
Lindane to Trifluralin
s «s ¦* -V
---
^ *
s concaH-;
••.,.:TMT1«0" *
^ wo
V^-S *\ * j
s * I
PESTICIDE
"• "*¦* ¦*
COUSTY
mi
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
posmv?
S'rf'
SAMPLES
' POSITIVE
^SAMPLES-* -J"'
' ; ¦ ¦ :
TEAR/
MONTH
¦iW^.'.'.y.vAsSsssv.^
. S
suet-
spill'
%¦!&;
-Mt:
¦•riSSxw:-
fv*!!
Uncisne (gww
e«t)
mitm
1987/9
3
0
1
3
0
1
0.004
19B8/3,
6-8
72
0
1
79
0
4
0.001-0.005
¦'.¦¦¦: : . '' ¦ ¦
1989/6-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
LlTCHFIELG
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
KrDOLSSEX
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
KEtf MAVEW
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
HEW LOWDON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOtLAUO
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
U1K0KAM
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
1
129
0 '
5
0.001-0.005
Malath ion
HARTfORD
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
LITCHFIELD
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
NEW HAVE#
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
NEW LONOOW
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5.8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLLAND
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WINDHAM
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
117
0
.0
124
0
0
l-CT-26
-------
PESTICIDE SMTLIKG IN THE STATE OF COKXECTiaJT
Lindane to Trlfluralin
-i .• \
S i
"j- . ,,''' ^::.
$
v.v.v.-.v"!v.v .¦/.v.v.v-'.'.v.v.vav
WRL -
i v.. ..a >
•SB.*
IjfliW
illiSll
:
PESTICIDE
COURT?
i., -wwr?
TOTAt
WELLS
SAMPLED
*w
gmtrivr -
£ ^'^"5
TW*
SAMPLES
wwtrraii
!
, s &
*
» ¦»' •? 0 '^v» V
^Sl
Vs, ¦¦¦ \ ¦¦¦
Sw,
^NOUT*
:V£$$
¦5-nc^
iljlip
Sf-v'iaLs.
I'S
¦Ss5;%^
Hettitwl
1987/8,9
5
0
0
s
0
0
1
s ^ •• •• ""
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
8ARTFORO
1987/8,9
51
0
0
51
0
0
1989/6-8
17
0
0
17
0
0
' UTCHFIEL&
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
1987/8,9
6
0
0
6
0
0
. \
1989/6,7
6
0
0
6
0
0
BEU BAVEH -
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
, *
1989/6,7
5
0
0
5
0
0
MCU LOHJOtf
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
s
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOtLAUO
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1989/6,7
5
0
0
5
0
0
UltffiHAM
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
129
0
0
147
0
0
MethoKychlor.
HARTFORD
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6-8
U
0
0
U
0
0
LITCHFIELD
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
»EU MAVEtt
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6.7
4
0
0
4
0
0
NEW LONDOU
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLLAND
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-CT-27
-------
PESTICIDE SMPIIKG II THE STATE OF COMECTICUT
Lindane to Trifluralin
i;VS^
r^amcm*
:!-ri»na»..
oat/iy -
aESTIGlQE
cowry
WTE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAKPtED
,4,
£»OB£E!W&
-Si'-
TOTAL#
SAMPLES
POSITIV?
-v^sMPies-" -*
.
'
.
> /
11
«. V
-
\ y-y
HO.:.
'm' •
¦¦ w ¦ V'
»,¦; -
(Methoxyehlor)
MWtHM
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
129
0
0
.-.Itet&tadilof
FAimEttk
1987/6-9
5
0
0
s
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
HARTfOfiD
1987/6-9
S3
0
2
53
0
2
2.0-26.0
1989/6-8
26
0
2
26
0
2
0.7
LltCHFtEti
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1989/6-8
A
0
0
4
0
0
«n»tES£X
1987/8.9
6
0
0
6
0
0
-
1989/6,7
9
0
0
9
0
0
WW HAVEN
1987/6.8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
REV lOWOOil
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1989/7,8
9
0
1
9
0
1
2.1
TOLtAMO
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1989/6-8
7
0
1
7
0
1
3.8
UlHtmAM
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/7,
8.11
8
0
1
9
0
1
0.3
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELL5/SAHPLES
137
0
5
178
0
7
0.2-26.0
Metrfbuztft
FAllfflElO
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
HARTfORO
1987/6-9
53
0
1
53
0
1
0.1
1989/6-8
26
0
2
26
0
2
0.5-1.3
LITCHFIELD
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1989/6-8
4
0
0
6
0
0
HIDOUStX
1987/8,9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1989/6,7
9
0
0
9
0
0
KtU HAVES
1987/6,8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
l-CT-28
-------
PESTICIDE SAW1IKG IN THE STATE OF COMECTiafT
Lindane to Trifduralin
.
, f S M t Q ">
: ivitfvx-w-x-x^x-w
S*-
WEIL RESULTS
SAfePL? 6f stats
•
igMB
.
: "" ¥-\v/% s-.
PESTICIDE
3;
" S
COUNTY
¦; ¦¦ PATE -¦
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
m m
'¦ ixs$rHwl!.
TOTAL #
¦fiAMPLBS '
-iBiiwroe^
«osmvc
'
' ' TiAW ,
'y'-natin \
mm
|:sfe>5
(Metribuzin)
Kftf tOKDftf
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1
. ¦¦ ¦
1989/7,8
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOLLAND
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1989/6-8
7
0
0
7
0
0
W1KDHAA
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/7,
8,11
8
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
137
0
2
178
0
3
0.1-1.3
Hire*
HARTFOf®
1987/8,9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
tlTCHFIEtfr ¦¦
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
¦ - V ¦¦-,¦¦¦¦'*:i.:
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
KEU 8AVEU
1988/6.8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
HEU LOKOOM
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLLAND
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WIHDHAM
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
129
0
0
ParatMoh, i-:
ethyl
HARTKK®
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6-8
U
0
0
14
0
0
LITCHFIELD
1988/6-8
s
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-CT-29
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN TIE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Lindane to Trifluralin
••
HELL W&JLTS
>v V-- .V.'/. ...
:;*AKQt m •,
soke*s c
1KATJ0K3 -
PESTICIDE
CCUtfTY
\ .S.*. %
date
s \w s
TOTAL
M-LLS.. ¦;
SAMPLED
: I'Viv'-'V/
POSITIVE
"V-,WELLS'
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
*tieu w
POSITIVE
i^SAHPlCS^ v.,
•\v>
TEAR/
HONTH
<*at
m&U- -.V-.
t
. s
:-\s s
<
#ci\.
(Parathion,
ethyl)
BAVE*
1988/6.8
2
0
0
2
0
0
¦ >¦.
1989/6.7
4
0
0
4
0
0
KEtt LOWO*
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5.8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLLAND
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
, -
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
VIKDHA*
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
117
0
0
124
0
0
faratMon,
methyl
KARTfORO
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
L1TC*MEL1>
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
HEW HAVER
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
KEU LOTOOH
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLLAND
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
UINOHAM
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
117
0
0
124
0
0
Ptclorsm
FAIRFIELD
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
HARTKSO
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/6-8
14
0
0
19
0
- 0
1989/6-8
22
0
0
22
0
0
LITCHFtEU)
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6-8
3
0
0
3
0
0
l-CT-30
-------
PESTICIDE SAJTUKG IN THE STATE OF ODMHECTIOfT
Lindane to Trifluralfn
v :¦ 7 /y-¦"
*
®sB*cw?^:
mm/mi
fvAsSswiwivi
'
WESTICI05
. •
v;v>JrW"TOA,w.,,v,'.
svs ,.
'.'.v^avSa-^wwa'vwA'
MTE
TW
WELLS
SAM>LEO
1WU,#
SAMPLES
•> v.-*' X.-.V, v:¥S:'v
POSITIVE
5:? < $MtW.€»V
-
TEAR/
NtMtft
*
^ v.
<^Ks«-:<'S«x-
<
(Picloreni)
-*U>OL£SSX
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
, v v
\r ; :
1989/6,7
7
0
0
7
0
0
«tf HAVE#
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
»•<£•••,..,•..•• ¦¦¦¦¦•¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦-
HOt LOUDON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOU.AK&
1987/8.9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/5-7
5
0
0
7
0
0
1989/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
UHOHAM
1989/8
1
X)
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
54
0
0
92
0
0
Prometen
FAWFKL0
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
8ARTFORO
1987/6-9
53
0
1
53
0
1
2.0
1988/6-8
25
0
1
39
0
1
0.10
1989/6-8
26
0
0
26
0
0
ItTCHFlElD
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1988/6-8
4
0
0
7
0
0
1989/6-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/8,9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1988/5-8
6
0
0
12
0
0
1989/6,7
9
0
0
9
0
0
UEU HAVEH
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
MEU 10W0H -
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/8
7
0
0
8
0
0
-
1989/7.8
9
0
0
9
0
0
l-CT-31
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IH Tffi STATE OF COUtECTICUT
Lindane to Trifluralin
. ^ c
y. s "• s sV. "¦ >
HELL RCSUtTS
vV .W Vs>«\ • V ¦> ,V\N
\VV s .
;:>-*a«« or •
coMcai*
•• »• ; . : ¦¦ >. v.1.".>X.\
PESTICIDE
COURT*
£>ATE
' «¦ -.s&v •• s
TOTAL
WELLS
SAKPiSO?
Msiro8
>-.v, vjssiss
¦:T9TAi k.r
8AMfiiS$>:
POSITIVE^
x$A*>tes*s:x
' *w s
TMR/
"a homth
"
Vv.ft'v ,
t
Ml
-net
.(Prometon)
tOtlAMO
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1988/5-7
6
0
0
9
0
0
1989/6-B
7
0
0
7
0
0
VtW>8AM
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/6-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
-
1989/7,
8,11
8
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
139
0
2
264
0
2
0.1-2.0
»J>ro«etryn
FAIRFIEIO
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/5-8
2
0
0
9
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
8ARTFW8>
1987/6-9
53
0
0
53
0
0
1988/6-8
25
0
1
39
0
2
0.9-1.1
1989/6-8
26
0
0
26
0
0
LITCHFttU)
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1988/6-8
A
0
0
7
0
0
1989/6-8
t>
0
0
4
0
0
MIDOLESEX
1987/8,9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1988/5-8
6
0
0
12
0
0
1989/6,7
9
0
0
9
0
0
KEU HAVEM
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
HEU LCM30N
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/5-8
7
0
0
8
0
0
1989/7,8
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOLLAND
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1988/5-7
6
0
0
9
0
0
1989/6-8
7
0
0
7
0
0
l-CT-32
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
lindane to Trifluralin
A.' WSW
¦. ^ A \
:; '"W ''¦¦¦, ..
s
yfsricioff '¦%
V;w»r-
a V>>.->v
¦wkS'WWvX'WW-:-:-?'
roT^t
VEILS
iSAIttttO:?
¦><:? «EU»^
ter«.t
wwwnwkwwsW".
POt
wm>M
J>S? « v > 'v
s® -. IV, o " ";
¦:0 w
OAV-WWKWX-SKv:
^
TEAR/
- N0N14 -
.V.VAV.V.VWWW>A">
y. «s Sv
si-.s5s%^
..~v.-.
Upl
sislll
pF
(Prometryn)
'¦¦ ¦:¦,/, "::A-
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/6-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
1989/7,
8,11
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
139
0
1
264
0
2
0.9-1.1
Wep8zlrie v
fAtSfltLO
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1 -
1988/6-8
2
0
0
2
0
0
\
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
HARTHS®
1987/6-9
53
0
0
53
0
0
1988/5-8
25
0
1
39
0
2
0.10
1989/6-8
26
0
0
26
0
0
LITC8FIEU)
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1988/6-8
4
0
0
7
0
0
1989/6-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
WDOISSEX
1987/8.9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1988/5-8
6
0
0
12
0
0
1989/6,7
9
0
0
9
0
0
REV HAVEN
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
mew loam
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/5-8
7
0
0
8
0
0
1989/7,8
9
0
0
9
0
0
toliaho
1987/6-9
17
0
1
17
0
1
0.10
1988/5-8
6
0
0
9
0
0
1989/6-8
7
0
0
7
0
0
UttfflHAM
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/6-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
1
1989/7,
8,11
8
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
139
0
2
264
0
3
0.10
l-CT-33
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN TIE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Lindane to Trifluralin
I
WEIL ftESUtTS
K'fe' SAM^teswis' ^»
, ¦. -5; ,,
Ol"
. ,aw£»*
•\TRATJOKS
V ;W» •
?¦«. ¦•• ¦v %\v \s, a..
v
PESTICIDE ;
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL
' WELLS: -
SAHPLEB
* g?
POSITIVE
TOTAl #
SAMPLES
"* V \
:o\\v „ ^ %
JMWEt Of
:^-'POSlTIW~r
^'•'^SAMPLES ;• x
S •*X% . / \ •1%4s"A"<
'
\ *.<%% ¦*<¦" \ < s .
-
*•". ^ sssv
"TEAR/
MONT#
s
If
x&r
J
v\ «.
-•<'
m,-
f>ro}3h*a
««wieu>
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
I
HARTHX» -
1987/6-9
51
0
0
51
0
0
-
1989/6-8
17
0
0
17
0
0
LITCHF1EL&'
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1989/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/8,9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1989/6.7
6
0
0
6
0
0
KEU HAVE* >
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
v.;-.;
1989/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HEW L
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING II THE STATE OF OOUECTICUT
Lindane to Trlfluralfn
•» •» t * ¦ *•
s + ¦ <•. «. *
WELL RESULT^
Sample testR.tr*
iPMaw
WMKii^P
¦to
,
;
KSTICJOE
COUOT*
"WTE
WAl
WELLS
SAMPLED
V J
rosmvE
illaiiifgi:
,v ,s5»
TOT Al *
SAMPLES
¦HvsWXXsN:^-VX^S'^«s\y
Of
POSITIVE
•
¦
; -wnki\
i
|§PJ
111
n^f
net
(Sfmazfne)
X'.'.W.W.V.'.V.V.'.V.VA/A'A
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1
^ . VWW.. s . .
' - s
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
A
' ... % \% * "¦
19)39/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
v , / ssy>
«w lowm
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/5-8
7
0
1
8
0
1
0.10
1989/7.8
9
0
0
9
0
0
tou m -
1987/6-9
17
0
1
17
0
1
0.10
1988/5.7
6
0
1
9
0
1
0.40
'\
1989/6-8
7
0
0
7
0
0
VtM>8AM "
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
S s
1988/6-8
6
0
1
8
0
1
0.01
¦¦ >
1989/7,
8,11
8
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
139
1
9
264
3
12
0.10-10.0
Simetryn
FAtRFtELO
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
8AKTFOHfr::: .
1987/6-9
53
0
0
53
0
0
1988/6-8
25
0
0
39
0
0
1989/6-8
26
0
0
26
0
0
UTCHFIELD
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
: " '
1988/6-8
4
0
0
7
0
0
1989/6-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/8,9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1988/5-8
6
0
0
12
0
0
1989/6-8
9
0
0
9
0
0
KEU HAVEN
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
v::.r
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
l-CT-35
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF CDKMECTIOJT
Lindane to Trifluralin
i
¦>"- *"
; ^cbkbK
v,-T*ATJ«»
-
pesticide'^"
COUHT*
PATt
WAl
¦ «us:.
SAMPLED
J*
positive
WELLS
total *
SAMPLES
' s *5*5 "
MUK8E* or
K
SAMPLES
¦c s 1
TEAR/
HOHTtf
*
Ma
'*a:
w.'.w ^v.w.;%Vis4'.v
5V- ^
«v%\
I
* '
"nee.
(Siroetryn)
NEW LOHOQN
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
I
1988/5-8
7
0
0
8
0
0
1989/7,8
9
0
0
9
0
0
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1988/5-8
6
0
0
9
0
0
*
1989/6-8
7
0
0
7
0
0
UtHDHAH
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/6-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
1989/7,
8,11
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
139
0
0
264
0
0
' Toxaphefw
8ARTFOI® ;
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
LITCHFIELD
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
NEW HAVE*
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
HEUtONOOU
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLLAND
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WINDHAM
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
129
0
0
trichloro-
ethylene
HARTFORD
1987/6-9
13
0
1
13
0
1
3.3
1988/6-8
44
1
2
47
1
2
0.40-14.0
l-CT-3 6
-------
PESTICIDE SWUNG IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Lindane to Trffluralin
i s% '
- y™*, 'S.v '
s --v/ -A.V,
s "¦ s
.,.'.,.v.vawxw:o»av.vX,.*aw.vX*Av.vawl«.«.^a
ill
t wfCTiatm
'
' » •• S . \
MTE
' -> •*,?*/
TOTAL
WELLS
VSAKPtEO
positive
"^-HEUS
TOTAL # I ttMSEt Of
SAMPLES I POSITIVE
I $MPi€S
«A«£*
cones*-
WATIOB
Ns 0> >\%
i; ^
TEAR/
- KONTri
Hp
¦*a;
&S&
"*U-
-jet; ;
<
(Trichloro-
ethylene)
LUCMFHUft
1987/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
^ C"
1988/7
1
i
0
1
1
0
20.0
Kflf HAVE*
1987/6.8
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOLtAJO - ¦
1987/6-9
15
0
1
15
0
1
0.5
N W '
1988/4,7
3
0
1
3
0
1
1.1
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
75
2
5
83
2
5
0.4-20
Trifluraiin
fAlftFIELD
1987/6-9
5
c
0
5
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
BARTfOftO
1987/6-9
53
0
0
53
0
0
1989/6-8
26
0
0
26
0
0
UTC8FKI&
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1989/6-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
WOOIESEX
1987/8,9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1989/6-6
9
0
0
9
0
0
NEW HAVEN :
1987/6,8
5
0
0
5
0
c
1989/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
HEW tONOOM
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1989/7,8
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOLLAND
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
..
1989/6-8
7
0
0
7
0
0
U1W)HA» :
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/7,
8,11
8
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
137
0
0
178
0
•I
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
2661
481
373
4570
1213
493
~ No MCL or Lifetime HA is available.
N.B. The reader is referred to the EOB totals which account for more
than 99X of the wells and sanples having values > HCL.
l-CT-37
-------
l-CT-38
-------
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
UELLS BT COUNTY
COUNTY
:
:
:
i :
IT ! Trr*yv tvpssgp wats ,.?h
.1 - V
^¦jiNxr-sowRce-op... : -
«MrAW«ATJ0» ,
CttJWER Of-^tXS) \
OtiflUtlG tltttt
\ ttOWltOftfW S&;
v.As\-N\s \*5
' ssS'
s
lOttt
SHPtO
£
¦*
xa
TOTAt
s "
*
«
s ¦" H
Ktt
TOT/tt,
S#M.O*
;S""V
:SV^>A
i'VHCt;,
\. <¦ ^ •.
-¦"m* :
m-
Patrfitttd
0
0
0
12
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
Hartford
1945
286
251
100
2
23
0
0
0
56
1
0
l/iteh-field - *:
0
0
0
20
1
5
0
0
0
6
0
0
Kiddies ex
48
4
2
10
0
4
0
0
0
10
0
0
New Haven
22
0
1
10
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Hew london
0
0
0
9
1
4
0
0
0
5
0
0
Tot land
459
186
67
17
1
8
0
0
0
262
0
0
tflndham
0
0
0
9
0
6
0
0
0
6
0
0
TOTAL
2474
476
321
187
5
52
0
0
0
853
1
0
NFU=Known or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS °Knoun or Suspected Point Source
UNK=Unknown
l-CT-39
-------
l-CT-40
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Q/mmi
ivieixne
Pesticides Detected
Alachlor Endosulfan
Aldicarb
Chlorothalonil
Dicamba
Dinoseb
Methamidophos
Metribuzin
Picloram
Total Wells Sampled
per County
El
E3
~
501
101 to
51 to
1 to
>1000
to 1000
500
100
50
No wells sampled
1-ME-l
-------
l-ME-2
-------
MAINE
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUNDWATER
The Ground Water Polity Review Committee of the Land and Water Resources Council
recommended to Governor Brennan in December of 1984, that a state-wide screen of the
impact of agricultural practices on ground-water quality be conducted. Detections of
pesticides in Maine and Connecticut had already been made. Governor Brennan and the
Legislature accepted the recommendation and directed the Maine Geological Survey,
Department of Conservation, to coordinate an inter-agency, three-year, screening study with
annual progress reports to the Legislature's Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUNDWATER
Neil, CD; Williams, JS; and Weddle, TK\ Second Annual Report - Pesticides in Ground
Water Study; Maine Geological Survey, Department of Conservation; 1987 (207-289-2801)
Neil, CD; Williams, JS; and Weddle, TK. Pilot Study: Pesticides in Ground Water - Final
Report; Maine Geological Survey, Department of Conservation; 1989.
Primary Objective of Studies
To determine the concentrations of certain pesticides and nitrates in selected wells which
were considered as "worst case" possibilities.
Design
To determine which pesticides should be considered, a matrix was developed which included
the quantity of each one sold, the application method used for it, and its leaching
characteristics. Aldicarb was specifically excluded from these studies since its use in Maine
had been restricted previously.
Sampling locations were chosen to provide information on pesticide concentrations in
various types of aquifers, as well as different agricultural areas of the State. Only wells
adjacent to fields where pesticides are used were selected. Based on results from the 1985
Pesticide Program, 1986 and 1987 sampling was concentrated in potato growing areas in
Aroostook County where agricultural chemical use is the highest.
l-ME-3
-------
Whenever possible, monitoring wells installed by the Maine Geological Survey, Maine
Department of Environmental Protection, and U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Aquifer
Mapping Project were sampled, as were similar wells from the USGS-MGS Saco River
Valley study. Use of these wells minimised logistical sampling problems and uncertainty
about well construction. In areas where monitoring wells were not available, private
household wells were used, mostly in Aroostook County. Private wells were used in orchard
sampling in central Maine. Eight monitoring wells, installed in Aroostook County as part
of the Aquifer Mapping Project, were sampled to supplement the private well Aroostook
County data base. Wells in Androscoggin, Hancock, Kennebec, Oxford, Penobscot,
Somerset and Washington counties were sampled also.
The studies were designed to explore the "worst case" scenario. It was assumed that ground
water in sand and gravel deposits would be most vulnerable to contamination, and the threat
to ground water from till and bedrock would be less pronounced.
Sampling of wells was conducted during the growing season, from mid-June to early
November, with most wells sampled more than once during this period. All wells that tested
positive for pesticides in one year were re-sampled the following year.
Analyses were not attempted for every pesticide in every sample taken. Included in one
screening procedure, for example, were 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-TP, dicamba, dinoseb, picloram,
and triclopyr. In another screening procedure, analyses were made for 27 other pesticides.
Methamidophos required a specific test. For a given well, there may have been samples
taken at different times, and with different combinations of analyses performed on each.
Methamidophos was the most prominent pesticide, being detected 4 times in 34 wells
(11.8%).
Samples from monitoring wells were filtered through 1.6 micron fiberglass filters to remove
sediment. Samples from private wells were not filtered since they were sediment-free. All
samples were refrigerated and delivered to the Maine Public Health Laboratory as soon as
possible after collection.
PESTICIDES INCLUDED IN THREE-YEAR STUDY
COMPOUND
DETECTION LIMIT
Mg/L
Alachlor
liS
Atrazine
3.00
Azinphos methyl
5.00
Butyiate
230
Captan
175
Carbaryl
50.00
Caibofuran
6.00
Chlorothalonil
1.25
COMPOUND
DETECTION LIMIT
Endrin
JO
Eptara [EPTC]
1.25
ETU
5.00
Hcxazinone
20.00
Imidan
[phosmet)
1230
Lindane
JO
Linuron
12.00
Malathion
liS
l-ME-4
-------
COMPOUND
DETECTION LIMIT
Mg/L
Chloipyrifoc
1.25
Cyanazusc
19.00
2,4-D
1.25
2,4,5-T
1.25
2,4,5-TP
- Diarioon
12S
Dicamba
. 125
Difolitan [captafol]
125
Duulfoton
6.00
DNBP [dinoseb]
1.25
Endosulfan
1.00
COMPOUND
DETECTION LIMIT
MgA-
Methaxychlor
150
Methyl parathioo
£0
MethamJdophoc
10.00
Metriburin
35
PCNB
ISO
Pidoiam
125
Simazine
8.00
TridopyT
50
Trifluialin
m
Results
The wells sampled in these studies were classified according to whether they were sand and
gravel, till, or bedrock. The unexpected result was the greater incidence of bedrock wells
containing pesticides, from potato and orchard/tree farms, compared to sand and gravel
types which had been thought most prone to the problem. Table 2 contains a breakdown
of the wells having detectable levels of pesticides in at least one sampling period, according
to the crop type and well type:
PERCENTAGE OF UELLS HAVING DETECTABLE LEVELS OF PESTICIDES*
CROP TYPE
WELL TYPE
Sand & Gravel
Till
Bedrock
Potato
15
20
42
Orchard
a
0
33
Blueberry
18
a
a
Market garden/ forage
22
a
0
* Taken from "Pesticides in Ground Water, Final Report, 1989", by Craig 0. Neil,
John S. Williams, and Thomas K. Weddle (Maine Geological Survey),
a No wells fall into this category
l-ME-5
-------
Davis, WjL to B. Kapner, 19 July 1988. Letter from Rhone-Poulenc with Office
Memorandum and data reporting well monitoring for aldicarb in Maine. EPA
Correspondence No. 88-255; USEPA, OPP/EFED, Washington, D.C
, 6 November 1989. Letter from Rhone-Poulenc with attached
data reporting well monitoring for aldicarb during 1989 in Maine. EPA Correspondence
No. 89-368; USEPA, OPP/EFED, Washington, DC.
Lovell, J.S. to M. Branagan, 27 August 1985. Letter from Union Carbide with attached data
titled Summary of Aldicarb Residues in Main Water Supplies, 1980-1985. EPA
Correspondence No. 391-85; USEPA, OPP/EFED, Washington, D.C.
Rourke, R. and R. Jones (1990) Rhone-Poulenc and Maine Department of Agriculture 1990
Aldicarb Potable Well Sampling. Research Triangle Park, NC: Rhone-Poulence
Agricultural Company.
Objectives
These data are part of a long term monitoring program by Union Carbide (Rhone-Poulenc)
performed in support of registration requirements for Temik [aldicarb].
Methods
Sampling was performed on 440 drinking water wells in Aroostock, Penobscot, Kennebec
and Cumberland counties. Nine-hundred fifty-six (956) samples were analyzed for aldicarb
residues over a 9 year period.
Results
One-hundred sixty-six of these wells were positive for aldicarb, and 97 had residues above
the MCL of 3 ug/L. Aldicarb has not been used extensively on potato crops in Maine since
the early 1980's. In 1990 Rhone-Poulenc voluntarily stopped the sale of Teniik (the trade
name for aldicarb) for use on potato crops in Maine because of reported residues in excess
of tolerances. Even though usage has been limited in Maine, residues are repeatedly being
found in potable wells in use areas, and concentrations increased at a significant number of
sites in 1990. In 1990, Rhone-Poulenc sampled 36 drinking water wells for aldicarb residues;
21 showed positive results and the concentration of aldicarb exceeded the EPA guideline
of 10 ppb in 7 of those wells.
l-ME-6
-------
PESTICIDE SANPLIKG IN THE STATE OF MM IE
:
¦
wEtt «8sotT$
fillips
1SSS&i
PKTfMW
COWT?'
s
PATE
TOTAl
«US
- SAMP1E& s
XsVWXS'
HOP 1
;i^'WRtS«x
«v.f «v^VX'
^SfWPiES&ll
¦
s|&.. ¦Jiiis
,\v.wa^.wv.v;a\%vaw.si.v,v.9
$.s NVttkS"
'¦xa?
llii
ii|l
PSttf;
*$&&
•
ZA*
AROostdat
1986
40
0
0
74
0
0
1987
14
0
0
19
0
0
OXFORD
1986
2
0
0
2
0
0
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
6
0
0
8
0
0
1987
3
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
62
0
0
119
0
0
2,«.s-r
ABOOSTOOK
1986
40
0
0
74
0
0
1987
14
0
0
19
0
0
OXFORD
1986
2
0
0
2
0
0
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
6
0
0
8
0
0
1987
3
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
62
0
0
119
0
0
2,<.S-TP . •
(Silvex)
AROOSTOOK
1986
40
0
0
74
0
0
1987
14
0
0
19
0
0
OXFORD
1986
2
0
0
2
0
0
PENOBSCOT-
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
6
0
0
8
0
0
1987
3
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
62
0
0
119
0
0
Alachlor
ANDRO-
SCOGGIN
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK > :
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
. OXFORD :
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PEW08SCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0 .-
l-ME-7
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING III THE STATE OF MIIE
'
v
&>^>:v;v.v:w;vXv:v:-
WEtt RESULTS
v.i SAKPLERESULTS
SANGE Of •
«KCfi«-
v?RAt«*S
• \\V. .
^ • V .» V ¦
•v. v^\.: _
,
vWvWvVv^;.::.'::..
nmcw
COUNT*
¦
DATE
TOTAL
«us
SAMPLE©
4 OF
POttTIVf
TOTAt *
if M
10
CtlMBE^fcAKO
1980-
89
1
0
0
1
0
0
ttHNEBEC '
1980-
89
1
0
0
2
0
0
WKoasttt
1980-
89
57
8
32
180
8
32
<3->10
UNSPECIFIED
COUNTIES
1990
36
7
14
36
7
14
<3->10B
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
445
30
140
992
34
153
<3->10
Atr»*ine
.ANDRO-
SCOGGIN
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORD
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
Azinphos-
methyl
ANDRO-
SCOGGIN
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK '
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-ME-8
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLMG III THE STATE OF MIIIE
V- <¦
: \ -..vis? i#'S h
m^/'Sakpls
sywaicror^
^¦tdrcEN*™'
IRATftfcS
, s >NN
PESTIClt*
¦* A v ••
cquwn
?£.% .
DATE
tOTAt
mts
SAMPLED
M VP
POSITIVE
HELLS
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
^lUME* Of-jg
s
,
:
v,- "> <.<\\\ <, -
;
*6A8/
*0*TH -
,
'p:$h
i;i|i
m
(Azinphos-
methyl)
: IC&weBEC
-
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFOf®
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
% ff
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
kweiitsEt' -""
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
s
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
Sutylate
AWH1CK ,
SCOGGTH
1986
3
c
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
c
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNE6EC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORO
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PEN08SCOT :
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAi. DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
Captafcrt
ANDRO- ¦¦ '
SCOGG1N
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KEKNE8EC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORO
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-ME-9
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HA IHE
*
' WELL: RESULTSv
-3M«W*e3mf3$&«g
•.:*Miee-OF .
-«W£N-
>|TlUTK*S'
* * -V ^
COUNT*
"» *• W
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLE®
P0SHIV5
TOTAL »
SAMPLES
a,-,
N Ns ¦. N v* \\s ss\ s S > j c
:;" j . ...s.y-W4'
•.WWAVAWAWWAW.SVMV
.,.vava™v.w.v.,,v.v,,.,.w .v
ttA*/
J40NTM
-
AW
-#«£•
*
s '
3888
AsJsV.
(Captafol)
UASHINGTW
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
Ceptan
AWORO-
SCOGG1N
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
•• '
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXKH®
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PEttOSSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELIS/SAHPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
Carboryl
ANDRO-
SCOGGIN
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORD
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
l-ME-10
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF IU1KE
tflSfiSpX'^^WS'
: ¦>"" WaV'reSULT5>^y
JUHtt W
¦¦11
N>' ^ V\.SS> ^
fWtW-^V
¦. -Wf'f -;
- ;JEv:v -
>.«1,X'Xv-,",'VA,.,.,,.v.,^.v«,iV.v.viVi
AWKV av<. «. s
< Ss
^WT*~-
:i "TOMtf:
USUI
SAW>t»
i
terbofuran
: AUrao-
SCOGGtK
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
1 AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
8AMC0CK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KCBNEBW * *s-
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
okVo)«fr ' -
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PEH03SCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
s
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
fcChloro-
';¦ vthatoni I
AN!>*0-
SCMfil#
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
1
74
0
1
trace
.. . •*
1987
IS
0
1
30
0
1
trace
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXfOftO
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PEW08SC0T
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
2
11
0
2
trace
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
4
140
0
3
trace
Chtorpyrifos
ANDRO-
SCOGGIN
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
1-ME-ll
-------
PESTICIDE SJW>LIKG IH THE STATE OF lUIKE
Hf
II WEU RESULTSs
SAMP
IS *ESUtT3^Willsc««ia or
PE$T1CID6 COiwn
If
DATE
TOTAL
iUueuSv-
SAHPJ. ED
A
:K
TOTAL M
5AHPtCS
iv»sC
NUNS8K or
fosiriv*
v -> SAMPtES
piritotttws
l| •:« - V.VaMvX
I
II ' '
1
11
llllt
m
t 1 <
I ' ' -*v
(Chlorpyrlfos)
WOftfc' '.V.
1986
»
0
—I
0
,
0
0
.
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET ¦
f986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
Cyanazina
AW80-
SCOCQ1N
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
4 2
0
0
74
0
0
%
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HAKCOCT
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORD
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PEN08SC0T
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
Oiazinon
ANDRO-
SCOGGIN
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORD
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PEHOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-ME-12
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLIKfi IB THE STATE OF MA IKE
:
*V.v.
Vat RESULTS
^juuwrorv
PESTICIDE
¦
vl\ > *. "
wuatt
!
DATE
TOTAt '
WELLS
SAMPLES
M
POSITIVE
UEltS
<• X. 4
%* £
•It
**
-sr
,
TEW/
#0#TH
«L
^#ipl
iitgM
ksm^
III
(Diazinon) fsWASHlHI&CW "
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1
1 r-
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES J||
71
0
0
140
0
0
Wcsnfca
i ASOOSTOOK -
1986
40
0
2
72
0
2
trace
1987
13
0
0
18
0
0
OXfOftfr
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
WBOftSfiof
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
8
0
0
13
0
0
¦¦s
1987
3
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
62
0
2
119
0
2
trace
OirtoBeb
AROOSTOOK
1986
40
0
2
74
0
2
trace-
2.3
1987
14
0
1
19
0
1
trace
; OXFORD
1986
2
0
0
2
0
0
MHOBSCOt
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
WASHINGTON :
1986
6
0
1
8
0
1
trace
-
1987
3
0
0
S
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
62
0
4
119
0
2
trace-
2.3
Oisutfoton
ANDRO*
SCOGG1H-
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KEHNE8EC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORD : :
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-HE-13
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN TIE STATE OF NAIIE
VEIL flSSUlTS
" ' SAMPLS 8ESUC#fe-'^
mutt of ;
; tOKCCT'
\ >Xy
>y>s3» ^
(Disulfoton)
WASHIHQTW
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
: «* , i s'
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
fc£ndo6ulfen ,
*J
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MIKE
UEU 1ffi5WtT$&HV
%fW swpis^sEsolw^#:
fiiispllt
f SAUffiE Of
worn- ¦
pkucioe
.
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAt
WUS
3A*PLE»
M Of .
wsiwve
fw'WHlLSiSs.'1
TpTAt *
SAKPUS
W»itiv*
vA,;$AW>t€S\ G:;
% *
*fcr-vw-v x.»»k«w;. -x< :<«v
safest*®®*
:v,v\v.,.v.,.v«v^S'1\v.,.v ivA'>.'
*
WAR/
1
ifcj
SMC
. AlftttO- "
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
1
rJWOOSTOOK :?*s
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
s'?'S'v5
.. *¦ «x^ *
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
: > % sO«vfr ¦> %/aw
BAKCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXfGft& , ,
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
P6MOBSCOT s
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
soKERser
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASKlWltTtm
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
,s;:p^
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
stu;'
SCOGG1W
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
.AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
¦ HANCOCK''
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KEHNE8EC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
mono
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PENOBSCOt
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET :
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
flexeiirone
ANDRO-
SCOGGIN
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORD
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
l-ME-15
-------
PESTICIDE SAWLIKG IN THE STATE OF MINE
•X <.
WEIL RESULTS
! C -SAHPtl SESULTSi^si"
.HM»SE\OF
¦'"C0KCCT-
:
^ N
^ v. \
Pisttcios ;¦
-- *
< s
COUNTY
.
DATE
TOTAL
UEUS
S/WP1E&""
s f % s ,/Va^
*0? -
positive
9«*hu»vk<
TOTAt M
ivmrnf.
i^SAWtfS^
tBAft/
TMOKTH
Ittlp
»r|||
|S1'
IPS
(Hexazinone)
MROBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOHERSEt
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WSHIMCTM
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
lindane
(gararra-BHC)
AflORCh
SCOGGIH
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
4 2
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HAHtOCX
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORD
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PENOBSCOT '•
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOHERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
Linuron
ANDRO- :
SCOGGIN
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORD
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
pemqbscqt
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
l-ME-16
-------
PESTICIDE SAIPUHG III THE STATE OF MIKE
:
'
'
y£
SJ58S™wSSi
' - VEU SESUJ.TS
-SAMPLE; SESW.TSS||1,
• *am« or
''cowani*••••¦
SHBi
mvtw
: '
COUtttt
.jmi ^
TOTAl
WUS
SAMPitt
A iff
rnnive
%^«Eits4v
11
\&rM
SMHSSs*^
.
.jC- 'S-.S "¦ viij- <, s \Nws%
-r --
TEAS/
XQHTtf
¦* •« V/ /H-s ' '
fep:
s ':-rro.v>>
--vsxl
¦ FSfMfA
5 w
:*CtA
v. £.+yv.N\"X\
\\ \
touthfon
.
-MDfiO"
SCOGfilH
1986
3
0
.0
3
0
0
:
AROOSTOOK!
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
BAKCOCK -
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
remoEC '
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
oxfos©
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
WttOBSCOt
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
UAStHNGTOW
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
llflilill
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTa: discrete
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
c
0
140
0
0
~HetCiamidophos:1
f:AROOSTO(kV
1986
21
0
4
22
0
4
trace-10
1987
15
0
0
22
0
0
>EH08SC0t •
1987
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON •
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
35
0
4
55
0
4
trace-10
Hathoxychlor :
ANDRO-
SCOGGIN
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HAHCOCIC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KEHNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXfORO
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
l-ME-17
-------
PESTICIDE SAW LI KG IK THE STATE OF MIME
¦
WElt RESULTS
MNCTDF
cotasu-
mwot«
« •• C , W\wv •
- O-
v&sf?5'.
pmmn^ }["
COLWTT
DAT*
TOTAt
«EUS
SAMPLED-
§9
positive
¦•UEL&..W"
TOTAt §
s\\ \
\ SAHJ>tCS
V S ¦" * J
V ^"a
'
,#0#TN
,
'
MCt#
> vv
isnct-
:;Ss afiW'fi'"
e
-¦¦net;
*Ma
-:^x ' ¦
Metrfboifb
AND80*
SCOGfil«5-
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
••teoosTowc'" •••••••
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
%
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
--
ttAMCdCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
' KERNE8EC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFOR&''
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
2
9
0
2
trace
1987
6
0
1
11
0
1
0.49
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
3
140
0
3
traee-
0.49
Parsthion,
methyl :
SCOGGTN:
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
' KENNE8EC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORD
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PEN08SC0T
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
"
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
PCNB
ANDRO-
SCOGGIN
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
«HME8EC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORD
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
l-ME-18
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLMG IM TS STATE OF MIME
: 0^ v / £"v s ''
'
;
nmcm
COUMTt
DATE
torn
wus
SAMPLED ;
il iff
POSITIVE
HEltS
TOTAt M
sm LE5
s "" , & "" s
¦
.
YEAR/
MOHTH
S <->S ^ v.
*
4*a ^
;v..
:#e£ i
YSSK:* v> -}
:;:;S $>"„?&
oS«s>
< Ml
v^CfJS:
(PCNB)
i SCHEMi*
1986
1
0
0
i
0
0
tiASKMGtt»
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
<\W'v .s-.v...........
¦
1987
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
Phosfliet
AilMO*
JCTKGIH
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
ASOOSTOGX
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
s > \
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK • ¦
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KERMEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORD
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PEB08SC0T
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
S<*Et»S£T "
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
UASIfHIGTOH
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
Picloram
AROOSTOOK
1986
40
0
1
74
O
1
1.4
1987
14
0
0
19
0
0
OXFORD
1986
2
0
0
2
0
0
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
0
0
8
0
0
1987
3
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
62
0
1
119
0
1
1.4
¦iiifliaijrtt '
ANDRO'
SCOGGIM
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK'
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORD :•
1986
4
0
0
4 .
0
0
l-ME-19
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING ID THE STATE OF MIME
III
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS^ .
3&NLES - i" \
rctwtcCT-
1
-mtin
t *
¦#ctr
8
-
(Sinazine)
II
:PER08SC0l
1
1987
,
0
„
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
UA5tttilCT0M
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
Trfctopyr
AftOOSTOO*
1986
40
0
0
74
0
0
1987
14
0
0
19
0
0
oxfoao
1986
2
0
0
2
0
0
pEMosscor
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
6
0
0
8
0
0
1987
3
0
0
S
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
62
0
0
119
0
0
Triflural in
ANDR0':|
SCOGGIW
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORD ;
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
490
30
162
1165
34
172A 1
A This nuttier represents the total individual detections of pesticides;
the actual nurfcer of samples containing pesticides would probably be slightly lower.
This nunber represents the nunber of wells over 10 ppb since the suimary data did not
separate concentrations at the present MCL of 3 ppb.
l-ME-20
-------
STATE OF MAIJfE
UELLS BT COUCTT
<; mart -
J- 1 J
' ¦. *' *••
TTPfS OF WEILS " : 's '
sisBr«
OSMItlBft wates
... . .... y.y........ ^ ^
iioMTtoitrm
„ \ % s
TOTAL
SWU)-"
mv
¦4
ttCL
TOTAL
SXPU>
u*-
MCt
<
;; *v
*.v. ••*;•, .v.v.'Wv-v.
> \v*v&
-tota£
v*Y
HO?'.
%ct\£
*FU
PS
ttUC*
is::-.--
:-AndroseoMifts*
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1
i->,V
Aroostook V
402
19
120
0
0
0
0
0
0
139
0
0 |
<'% >' <.
Cuaberltirtd
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<¦ ' -¦ - *
Mtancncfc. .>?S
0
0
0 .
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Kennebec
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oxford
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A v '
Penobsco?
57
8
32
2
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
Somerset
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Washington
0
0
0
11
0
9
0
0
0
9
0
0
Unspecified
Counties
5
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
TOTAL
466
28
155
24
0
9
0
0
0
192
0
0
NFU=Known or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS oKnoun or Suspected Point Source
UNK<=Unknown
l-ME-21
-------
l-ME-22
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Massachusetts
:::2/13W:S:
pesticides Detected
1,2—Dichloropropane
2, 4-D
Alachlor
Aldicarb
Atrazine
Carbofuran
Chlordane
Chlorothalonil
Chlorpyrifos
DCBA
DCPA acid metabolites
Dicamba
Dinoseb
EDB
Heptachlor Epoxide
Isofenphos
Metolachlor
Oxamyl
TrichJoropyridino]
Total Wells Sampled
per County
u
> 1000
w
501 to 1000
ra
101 to 500
E3
51 to 100
E3
1 to 50
~
No wells sampled
1-MA-l
-------
l-MA-2
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts developed a monitoring program designed to test for
the presence of eight agricultural chemicals in Massachusetts' waters in order that the
Commonwealth may take appropriate action in further regulating these chemicals.
The 1985 monitoring program represents a coordination of efforts among Massachusetts
agencies involved in the protection and regulation of water supplies and the regulation of
pesticides. This monitoring information, together with data generated by previous
monitoring programs which were undertaken independently by the Department of Environ-
mental Quality Engineering (DEQE), the Department of Public Health (DPH) and the
Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA) is beginning to provide an initial definition of
the relationship between land application of agricultural chemicals and the quality of
Massachusetts' waters.
Massachusetts Interim Drinking Water Guidelines
Pesticide
Guideline (ug/1)
Alachlor
2.0
EDB
0.04 to 0.10 (supply monitored
for up to 2 years)
0.10 (water supply closed)
1,2-D
1.0
1,3-D
1.0
Dinoseb
5.0
Carbofuran
10.0
Aldicarb
10.0
Oxamyl
50.0
NOTE: When water supplies contained a mixture of the
above chemicals at levels below guidelines, the health effects
posed by the mixture were evaluated by DEQE, and the
appropriate actions were recommended.
l-MA-3
-------
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Massachusetts Interagency Task Force; the Massachusetts Departments of Environmental
Quality Engineering, Food and Agriculture and Public Health, and the Massachusetts Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs (December 1986 revision) 1985 Summary Report:
Interagency Pesticide Monitoring Program. Publication # 14,653-15-200-12-86-CR.
Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture. Data sheets for the Massachusetts
Pesticide Monitoring Program 1983-1985.
Contact persons: Steve Ellis, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, Tel (413) 784-1100.
: Lee Corte-Real, Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture, Boston,
MA. Tel (617) 727-3020.
MASSACHUSETTS MONITORING PROGRAM: 1983-1984
As a result of [a labeling-change request by the manufacturers of Temik™ (aldicarb)] the
DFA initiated a preliminary ground-water monitoring program in May 1983. This survey
was designed to determine if aldicarb was entering ground water and contaminating wells
near potato fields in Franklin and Hampshire counties. Samples were taken from public
water supplies by DEQE, and from private water supplies by DPH and DFA. Analyses
were performed by the DFA laboratory.
The aldicarb survey was expanded after obtaining the following information: 1) aldicarb use
information, 2) the location of all private and public wells within 1500 feet of at least one
aldicarb treated potato field, and 3) an assesment of the EPA and other drinking water
guidelines to protect public health.
INTERAGENCY COOPERATIVE EFFORT AND MONITORING PROGRAM: 1985
Primary Objective
In the summer and fall of 1985, and Interagency Task Force was formed to carry out a
ground-water monitoring program for the following agricultural chemicals: aldicarb,
alachlor, carbofuran, 1,2-dichloropropane (1,2-D), 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), dinoseb,
ethylene dibromide (EDB), and oxamyl.
l-MA-4
-------
The purpose of tbe program was to determine the extent of pesticide contamination of
waters near potato and tobacco fields in order that the State [might] take appropriate action
in further regulating these chemicals. All the34 agricultural chemicals tested in this
sampling round are known or expected to have been used on potato and/or tobacco fields.
Design
The program involved the following steps: (1) development of strategy for sample site
selection; (2) development of interim drinking water guidelines for the pesticides; (3) sample
collection and analysis; and (4) notification of results.
A total of 341 water resources in 27 communities was sampled for the presence of at least
one pesticide. Approximately 86 percent of the sites were private wells.
Sample site selection was based on residue histoiy, hydrogeologic conditions, and location
based On previous surveys. The DEQE laboratory in Lawrence performed EDB, 1,2-D, and
1,3-D analyses, while the DFA laboratory in Amherst analyzed samples for aldicarb,
alachlor, carbofuran, dinoseb, and oxamyl.
The following detection limits were reported:
Limit of
Pesticide
Detection
(ppb)
EDB
0.03
1,2-D
0.03
1,3-D
1.0
Aldicarb
1.0
Carbofuran
1.0
Oxamyl
1.0
Alachlor
0.16
Dinoseb
1.0
Results and Conclusions: 1985
The three pesticides detected most often were 1,2-D, EDB, and aldicarb. For 1,2-D, 82 of
239 sources had detectable levels, with 31 of the 82 above the [Massachusetts) interim
[drinking water] guideline level. For EDB, 36 of the 239 sources tested were positive, 25
of which were over the interim guideline level. For aldicarb, 59 of 146 sources had
detectable levels, with 20 of those above the interim guideline level.
Of the other pesticides, 1,3-D was not detected in any sample. Oxamyl was detected in only
one sample, but was well below the interim guideline level. Alachlor was detected in 5 of
147 samples, but only 1 was above the interim guideline level. Dinoseb was detected in 10
of 147 samples, with 2 above the interim guideline level. Finally, carbofuran was detected
in 23 of 146 samples, with only 1 sample above the interim guideline level.
i-MA-5
-------
Results and Conclusions: Comparison of 1984 and 1985
Almost half of the sources which were sampled in both years did not contain detectable
levels of aldicarb (49%). Aldicarb levels for most of the remaining sources either decreased
(53%) or increased (38%), and a small percentage remained the same (9%). This small but
detectable trend in dreasing aidicarb concentration is expected since the use of aldicarb was
severely restricted by the Pesticide Bureau of the Massachusetts Department of Food and
Agriculture in 1984 and 1985.
This monitoring program was limited to areas engaged in potato and tobacco production
only and should not be interpreted as indicative of possible pesticide contamination in other
agricultural areas.
Cape Cod Commission, Water Resources Offices, The Cape Cod Golf Course Monitoring
Project. Study conducted April 1986 through November 1987. (June 1990, pp. 64)
Contact Person: Tom Cambareri, Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development
Commission, Tel: (508) 362-3828.
Primary Objective
The purpose of the study was to assess the impacts of golf course management on Cape
Cod's sole source aquifer. Through monitoring of pesticide and nitrate concentrations in
the ground water beneath trees, greens, and fairways, the project established a baseline data
set for use in making future development decisions.
Design
Four golf courses were included in the study: Bass River Golf Course, Hyannisport Golf
Course, Eastward Ho Golf Course, and Falmouth Country Club, all located in Barnstable
County. Each course is characterized by permeable soil above the aquifer, 30 or more years
of turf management* and intense chemical application practices. A total of 19 monitoring
wells was installed between 1984 and 1987.
Pesticides were selected for monitoring based on a use survey of the operators of the
courses. The ground-water samples were analyzed for the following pesticides using a
GC/ECD method and the identities were confirmed by GC/MS.
l-MA-6
-------
Pesticide
Detection Knit
<*9/1>
Pesticide
Detection Limit
(M/l)
Anilazine
*4
2,4-Dichlorobenzoic
Acid (DCBA)
0.20
Chlordane
0.125
Heptachlor epoxide
0.3
Chlorothalonil
0.15
Iprodione
0.50
Chlorpyrifos
0.05
Isofenphos
0.75
2,4-0
0.30
Necoprop
30.0
Dacthal diacid
0.025
Pentachlorophenol
(PCP)
0.5
Diazinon
0.20
Siduron
20.0
Dicasfce
0.05
Trichloropyridinol
0.10
Dacthal
Not included
Results and Conclusions
Ten of the 17 compounds tested for were detected in the ground-water analyses. DCBA was
not initially included among the tested compounds, but the high detected levels in the initial
sampling round forced its inclusion. Because the initial analyses were not geared for the
detection of DCBA, the initial sampling results were regarded as qualitative, rather than
quantitative results. Iprodione was not analyzed for after the first round due to the labor-
intensive nature of the extraction process and the total lack of detections for this pesticide
in the first round.
Generally, the highest concentrations found were DCBA, followed by chlordane, and the
remaining pesticides. Positive detections in 5 well sites located at the Bass River Golf
Course were found for DCBA, 2,4-D, chlorothalonil, chlordane, dacthal diacid, and/or
heptachlor epoxide. Positive detections in 4 well sites located at the Hyannisport Golf
Course were found for DCBA, chlordane, heptachlor epoxide, trichloropyridinol, and/or
isofenphos. Positive detections in 4 well sites located at the Eastward Ho! Golf Course were
found for DCBA, dacthal diacid, and/or dicamba. Positive detections in 2 well sites located
at the Falmouth Country Club were found for chlorothalonil, chlordane, chlorpyrifos, dacthal
diacid, and/or isofenphos. Chlordane was the only chemical present at levels exceeding the
MCL (2.0 ppb). Chlordane was banned from turf use in 1987 by USEPA.
DCBA (2,4-Dichlorobenzoic Acid) was the most commonly detected compound,
showing up in 11 out of the 19 wells. USEPA records indicate that DCBA has never been
a registered pesticide. Its source in this study is unkown. DCBA's structure is similar to
many pesticides. It has been suggested that DCBA may have been an impurity in the
chemicals applied to the golf courses. Other possibilities, considering the similarity of its
structure to many pesticides and its detection in the background wells, may be that it is a
breakdown product of a commonly used household compound or the by-product of natural
humic processes.
l-MA-7
-------
Jenkins, Massachusetts Pesticide Coordinator, University of Massachusetts, Tel: 413-545-
2004, C.T. Stone, and J. Bowes, The Johnson Company. Alachlor Monitoring of Soil and
Ground Water in Two Corn Fields in Western Massachusetts. Study conducted in 1987.
(24 pp.)
Primary Objective
The study objective was to obtain a better understanding of the impact of alachlor usage on
ground water under normal farming conditions.
Design
Water sampling from monitoring wells placed into unconfined aquifers began in late July
1987 at two sites in western Massachusetts: Hatfield (Hampshire County) and Deerfield
(Franklin County). Alachlor had been applied over the previous 17 years in Franklin
Comity and for the previous 8 years in Hampshire County. Eight wells were sampled six
times in Franklin County and five wells were sampled five times in Hampshire County.
Samples were analyzed using a GC method for alachlor, atrazine, and metolachlor.
The sampling procedure consisted of determining the purge volume. Then the well was
purged of three times the volume of standing water measured. After the initial purging, the
physical parameters of the water, pH, conductivity, temperature, and oxidation reduction
potential (ORP) were monitored until stabilization occurred indicating representative
natural ground-water conditions. Generally, temperature and conductivity stabilized after
5 minutes, pH in 5 to 15 minutes, and ORP in 15 to 30 minutes.
Samples were collected with splits taken for analysis at Environmental Research and
Technology (ERT) of Wilmington, MA, and Massachusetts Pesticide Analytical Laboratories
in Amherst, MA. A total of four splits from each well was taken at both sites for the first
two sampling events. After that, two splits were taken at each well. One of the wells was
selected at each sampling event for four splits. This method ensured that a sufficient sample
for laboratory duplicate analyses was provided to each lab without having to accumulate
large numbers of bottles.
Results and Conclusions
No confirmed detections of herbicides were found in any of the ground-water samples.
There were detections of metolachlor and atrazine by gas chromatography; however, none
of these detections was confirmed by GC/MS.
Alachlor was not detected by either lab in any of the water samples, which is noteworthy
because it had been applied regularly in Hampshire and Franklin Counties. Metolachlor
was found in some samples ranging from 1 to 7 ppb; however, these detections were not
confirmed by GC/MS. Atrazine was detected in both counties at relatively high
concentrations; these were also not confirmed by GC/MS. ERT did identify 2-chloroethanol
phosphate (a flame retardant and plasticizer) which is most commonly used with rigid and
flexible urethane foams. This compound may have been responsible for the false positives.
It has a gas chromatographic retention time similar to that of atrazine and appears to have
been introduced to the well during the installation of the sampling equipment.
l-MA-8
-------
Corte-Real, Lee, Department of Food and Agriculture, Tel: 617-727-3020. Letter to the
Pesticide Board, dated March 1,1989, Private Well Sampling Program for Corn Herbicides
in Massachusetts: 1987-1988 Results. Study was conducted 1987-88. (Presented in 1989,
5 pp.).
Primary Objective
A directed site-specific study was needed to assess the potential contamination of private
wells from corn herbicides used in Massachusetts.
Design
The study sampled vulnerable wells to determine if drinking water was being contaminated
by the corn herbicides alachlor, atrazine, and metolachlor. Samples were taken from wells
surrounding several cornfields to obtain a distribution of soil, hydrogeologic, and well
conditions. The following criteria were used in selecting well sites:
Field Criteria
- Corn production for a minimum of 3 of the past 5 years
- Common agricultural practices (i.e., conservation tillage)
- Average to above average herbicide application rates
Hydrology Criteria
- High permeability soils
- Low organic matter in the top and sub soils
- Shallow depth to the water table (aquifer)
- Level land area
Private Well Criteria
Wells within 500 feet of a treated field
- Wells downgradient from field
Shallow drilled or driven wells or dug wells
Wells used for human consumption
Sixty well sites in Berkshire, Bristol, Franklin, Plymouth, and Hampden Counties were
sampled and analyzed for alachlor, atrazine, and metolachlor using a GC method with a
limit of detection for all three chemicals of 0.1 ppb. All positive results were confirmed by
GC/MS at a maximum detection limit of 0.2 ug/L.
Results and Conclusions
Of the 82 samples taken, atrazine was positive 5 times (3 times in Bristol County ranging
0.3 to 1.4 ppb and 2 times in Berkshire County at 0.6 and 0.8 ppb), alachlor was positive in
a single sample/well in Bristol County at 022 ppb, and metolachlor was positive in a single
sample/well in Bristol County at 0.24 ppb. All positive responses were less than the
respective MCL, and the suspected source of contamination was normal field use.
l-MA-9
-------
The atrazine residues and the one metolachlor residue detected in Bristol County were
collected from wells located adjacent to the same corn field. Two of the positive atrazine
samples were collected from the same well. On July 16, the well had an atrazine residue
of 1.4 ppb, and on October 15 the atrazine residue level dropped to 0.70 ppb. The two
remaining wells containing atrazine residues, the one well containing the metolachlor
residue, and the one well containing the alachlor residue, were sampled only once.
Jones, Russell L., Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company. Progress Report: Measurement of Aldicarb
Degradation and Movement in a Massachusetts Potato Field. Study was conducted 5/86-
9/87. (Completed October, 1987, 34 pp.).
Primary Objective
The objective of this study was to measure the degradation and movement of aldicarb
residues in soil and ground water beneath a potato field near Deerfield, Massachusetts
(Franklin County).
Design
The site chosen for the study was selected to represent a worst-case situation in the
Connecticut River Valley, which is the major potato growing area in Massachusetts. Normal
growing practices were followed in all respects during the study. To monitor shallow
groundwater at the test site, three shallow well clusters were installed before application of
aldicarb, five well clusters were installed 5 to 6 months after application, two well clusters
were installed 10 months after application, and one well cluster was installed 12 months
after application. Each cluster contains two wells, one just below the water table and the
other ~ 1.5 meters below the water table.
Aldicarb carbamate residue concentrations were measured in soil and water samples by an
HPLC procedure (sensitivity of 1 ppb) using post-column reactions and fluorescence
detection.
Results and Conclusions
A precise estimate of the degradation rate cannot be obtained from the data. Aldicarb
residues from an emergence application to a Massachusetts potato field degraded at an
average rate corresponding to a half-life of about 1.1 month. Aldicarb was detected in 20
samples at levels greater than the MCL (3 ppb), and in 14 samples at levels less than the
MCL. No residues were found in wells 70 meters or more from the pesticide treated areas.
The samples collected in 1987 show declining residue levels with time.
Aldicarb residues appeared to reach groundwater approximately 4 months after application.
Although 3 ppb was detected in one well about 2 months after application, the absence of
residues in the subsequent sample suggests that these residues may be the result of soil
potentially introduced into the well during the uncovering and burying process. Aldicarb
residues were generally highest in the wells screened at the water table and did not exceed
10 ppb in wells screened 1.5 m below the water table.
l-MA-10
-------
PESTICIDE SMILING IN TIE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
~' s ~ v-. ¦.?
?:f«v
MBCE Of
¦iW?caiic£(ir:
<-s*
nmeik .
-
DATE
Siv -0 ,
IS "¦t
1985
161
26B
33
161
26®
33
0.03-51.0C
!*. ~ TOW*-"*..: .y
1985
44
4B
8
44
4B
8
0.03-51.0C
saoftsmoe^
1985
34
0
11
34
0
11
0.3-1.0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
239
30
52
239
30
52
0.03-51.0
2,4-D
SARN STABLE
1986/4
15
0
1
18
0
1
0.34
' V."* *•
1986/8
11
0
0
11
0
0
% •>' ' s
1986/11
18
0
0
18
0
0
1987/8
10
0
0
10
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
19
0
1
57
0
1
0.34
~2,4-Oiqhiorp*
benzoic Acid
(0C8A>
v \ vS>*
1986/4
15
0
8
18
0
10
0.08-298.0
1986/8
15
0
6
16
0
6
0.21-7.09
..W- <-s "• eC i.
1986/11
18
0
4
18
0
4
0.21-1.49
A»v^. *»"» ¦.¦- .• Sj
1987/8
15
0
2
15
0
2
1.31-7.33
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
19
0
11
67
0
22
0.08-298.0
Ala'cfilor; }
Vv,'v
BERKSHIRE
1987/4-10;
1988/7.10
11
0
0
21
0
0
BRISTOL
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
20
0
1
32
0
1
0.22
1985/7-11
31
0
1
32
0
1
0.53
ttAHKU#
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
17
0
0
17
0
0
;¦ :;v,i;;;'
1985/7-11
92
0
2
106
0
2
0.2-0.42
1987/7-10
8
0
0
48
0
0
8AMP08#
i
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
9
0
0
9
0
0
HAMPSHIRE
1985/7-11
22
0
1
22
0
1
0.82
1987/7-10
5
0
0
30
0
0
1-MA-ll
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
x.' 5 -.w
- l5®Sp
' tM'jk y-*Ss^s \
. „
trnttous
A'-
/ \ \ % S\ *
» -n, V ¦¦ -
-
P£«TIClOfi^f ..C^v
: s./
V# yib'-"*'', :
OATS
^iowiN
«EL«
SAMPLED
' * Of
POSfTIVE
$0WtL*§ \
mmxz
& * v-^r- ¦ i
¦ *
^«»ITJVE "
itmMM
' ' % •S'-V? v > " "¦ »
\ iFiT'&ZZ-.-?-.--.-..
vew
WIT*
s£\
a«:g-
I
fatA
:
m. ~
<
wx
(Alachlor)
1987/4-10;
| 1988/7,10
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
|
218
0
5
320
0
5
0.2-0.82
Alrficerb
1986/5
6
0
0
6
0
0
• * * . Ss ' >'
••' 'f ^ />« \s *¦ v > -¦¦¦ ^
1986/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
1 V * ; -.A
1986/8
6
1
0
6
1
0
3
1986/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1986/10
6
1
0
6
1
0
22
1986/11
11
2
1
11
2
1
2-19
¦"• \ "• •*
¦•v . sO- .> S V. •>
1987/3
7
1
2
7
1
2
1-10
1987/4
12
3
0
12
3
0
8-21
- V" ,
1987/6
21
4
2
21
4
2
1-7
1987/8
17
1
4
17
1
0
14
1987/9
18
2
0
18
2
0
3-7
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
22
9
7
129
20
7
1-22
AlcHcarb, total
BERKSHIRE ¦ •
1984/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
msm
1984/9-11
50
15
1
50
15
1
2-41
1985/8
21
10
2
21
10
2
2.2-43.8
ttAML]*
1983/5-12
11
4
1
22
6
2
1.3-181
1984/5-11
143
36
3
159
45
4
1.0-75
1985/8,11
90
26
10
104
28
10
1.0-45.6
KAHPDEH
1984/4
8
0
0
8
0
0
RWSHSRE
1983/6,
10-12
26
4
1
44
8
2
2.6-13
1984
65
10
0
72
17
0
3-26
-
1985/8,11
25
6
1
25
8
1
1.3-19.1
VORCSESTS? '
1984/10
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
322
62
6
451
125
19
1.0-181
l-MA-12
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
•*> ¦ y«;W:{-->. iV" '
-
Muse of
CONCSli*
mum
-Cwm
#'¦ :
,
-
'
¦'-¦4
,'¦©?¦:;¦ OAiTi; ¦?:¦¦¦ '
4:4%vV-
rmwm
WELIS
SAMPISD
^¦'^vSsiSS"^
fOStrnffi;:^
VLilS
SAW*LE€f
^ ' llf ¦!;
wsg&-.
m
&$¦
ife-
fURi
ill!
f8s
mmm
. .. ,
1986/4
15
0
0
17
0
0
:
1986/8
15
0
0
16
0
0
1986/11
18
0
0
18
0
0
iMMMPl
f f t
1987/8
15
0
0
15
0
0
¦•v-w \
1987/11
11
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
19
0
0
77
0
0
Atrazine
WS»KI8E
¦H'<\ •*
1987/4-10;
1988/7.10
11
0
2
21
0
2
0.6-0.8
>//i" -
wm
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
20
0
3
32
0
3
0.3-1.4
fJWKLUt
1987/4-10;
1988/7.10
17
0
0
17
0
0
1987/7-10
8
0
0
48
0
0
DAKRKK
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
9
0
0
9
0
0
HAMPSHIRE
1987/7-10
5
0
0
30
0
0
PiYWJUT#
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
73
0
5
160
0
5
0.3-1.4
Csrbofurart,
Total
MISTOL
V-. f
1985/8
21 .
0
4
21
0
4
3.0-4.6
FRANKLIK
1985/7-11
95
0
15
104
0
17
1.0-36.6
SAMPShtftC
1985/8,11
22
0
1
22
0
1
6.6
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
138
0
20
147
0
22
1.0-36.6
Chldrdane
SAMSTMLS
1986/4
15
1
4
18
1
5
0.20-3.63
1986/8
15
0
3
16
0
3
0.13-1.13
"-"j 1986/11
18
0
4
18
0
4
0.21-1.39
- '>•••¦ -| 1987/4
7
1
4
7
1
4
0.23-7.2
l-MA-13
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLIKG IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
/*¦ -.f s
ss S s ,s
'.VAW.W'iV.V.WAtV.vMWi^.v'
v ¦ "*•¦'s %' \CA:'^sS;: - :
ttLL RESULTS
N%CS> ....
"stent R6st&?4
PESTICIDE
s Y
; %,S3$V %^^^ -f
COUNTY
'"viv.-'Y s s \\ •.•¦:•¦¦
DATE
Wt«
«LtS
SAHPUP)
# OF
posnire :
mmmr'
TOTAL #
fSWtES
=>X sss
#©F
/-«»rriv* -:-
SAMPLES
' COMCEM*
TRATIQBS
"
*
: v a; sk: '"
"¦ t t * N, -.S^
*sSri r,1
YEAR/
HMTH
||:"5?:S r-.7
-Wsyv-iH
m-
KCf"
i
#Ct
m
Ont/i>
(Chlordane)
'
1987/8
15
0
2
15
0
2
0.43-0.87
:
1987/11
11
0
5
11
0
5
0.12-0.66
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
19
2
9
85
2
23
0.12-7.2
~CMorothatcml
barhstabie
1986/4
15
0
0
18
0
0
1986/8
15
0
1
16
0
1
0.22
1986/11
18
0
1
18
0
1
0.38
1987/4
7
0
0
7
0
0
1987/8
15
0
0
15
0
0
<¦ .>.¦* .> \ .
1987/11
11
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
19
0
2
85
0
2
0.22-0.38
Chlorpyrifoe
BARNSTABLE
1986/4
15
0
0
18
0
0
I
1986/8
15
0
1
16
0
1
0.10
1986/11
18
0
0
18
0
0
.
1987/4
7
0
0
7
0
0
1987/8
15
0
0
15
0
0
1987/11
11
0
1
11
0
1
0.05
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
19
0
2
85
0
2
0.05-0.1
DCfA
BAftNSTA&lE
1986/4
15
0
0
18
0
0 .
1986/8
15
0
0
16
0
0
1986/11
18
0
0
18
0
0
1987/4
7
0
0
7
0
0
- ^
1987/8
15
0
0
15
0
0
1987/11
11
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
19
0
0
85
0
0
l-MA-14
-------
PESTICIDE SJUPLING IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
dfepig Ksutts
MKCCOF
COHOSH*
THAT108$
.
PfSTIOOE
t.y
i '' -4
COUNTY
: * v . ' < '
OATS^ ;
V -Wl®:
SAMPUD
if s "#S'.
#<*
POSITIVE
*US
SAMPLES
.:f': "
s •> 7 'S>V
fosinvE
SAMP|£$
•\ v.% VX- SN
wk'X-x-i-kmk* •
¦Is/ ^vf-H ' '
'
i' ¦'¦¦ i '¦
*
¦" ¦» ¦ ¦¦ \
'
rwr '
mmmm:
v.< J "•
\ - »
¦>v " . ^ . *
w ,A % W
<,
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
m
: -
rat RESULTS
>S ,5s',,;a \ <¦ N N •, :
ttrtPLg KSUlTS
'HUtt'OP
\ cows*'
THATIOK? ;
i
V. \
PESTICIDE
cower*
' ' -A
'-v.'' ,*,v J ¦¦
TOTAL
UELLS
SMPltD
*OF
?QSrH¥E ! J
WELLS
g " '*s
TOTAL f
":.SA«?LfSC
\s ' % %%
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
Yftt/'
month
s5ftO$xM:
S V.« <\s ¦
f
s V&"- "¦*" V
<
m.
E09
dlbro«»l
> JU "!'i WW*} '
: ¦¦¦¦'¦• :
1985
161
20®
11
161
20B
11
0.03-6.9C
1985
44
5
0
44
5
0
0.1-6.9C
;
: aWSHJJlE V:';
1985
34
0
0
34
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
239
25
11
239
25
11
0.03-6.9
Heotachlor
epwMde
BARKSTABLE
1986/4
15
0
3
18
0
4
0.04-0.12
•
1986/8
15
0
2
16
0
2
0.04-0.06
1986/11
18
0
2
18
0
2
0.03-0.08
1987/4
7
0
3
7
0
3
0.05-0.16
-\ •¦s"; - :
1987/8
15
0
1
15
0
1
0.03
1987/11
11
0
2
11
0
2
0.03-0.08
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
19
0
4
85
0
14
0.04-0.16
fj
1prodione
BAWlSTABU
1986/4
15
0
0
18
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
15
0
0
18
0
0
Isofenphos
BARNSTABLE
1986/4
15
0
0
18
0
0
19B6/8
15
0
1
16
0
1
1.17
1986/11
18
0
0
18
0
0
\ > ,
1987/4
7
0
0
7
0
0
1987/8
15
0
0
15
0
0
1987/11
11
0
1
11
0
1 •
2.12
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
19
0
2
85
0
2
1.17-2.12
BARNSTABLE
1986/4
15
0
0
18
0
0
1986/8
15
0
0
16
0
0
1986/11
18
0
0
18
0
0
1987/8
15
0
0
15
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
19
0
0
67
0
0
l-MA-16
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLIKG IN TK STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
'
s ss {VS.** \
tfwmrof*8?
PJWSK-
WTIWS
tW/U<
••
mrmoa
»*
•jEOUWTf" ¦
A' ^ f*"
, %.¦'
s sV ¦.«!£-
TOTAt
WELLS
-am®-
^U*5
~ s,s* *<>•¦¥*
:.:wwiis.;
' *or
, TOSltjVE -
P,.i b ,'
mi
; $
>¦!
-mis
S-M-x'j-NW
.V.VAWA^^AV S'.1.
« «£:
' mkii-
^:W.;¦ £V
¦urni
r..
•¦^v ' V r '
-H*tou#»wr, ,..
¦¦ '¦¦¦ '™g"< ¦¦'¦ ^ -¦
B6W3HWE
1 1 "tv
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
11
0
0
21
0
0
WttSTOt
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
20
0
1
32
0
1
0.24
:
franklik
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
17
0
0
17
0
0
1987/7-10
8
0
0
48
0
0
MAHPOEK
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
9
0
0
9
0
0
HAMPSHIRE
1987/7-10
5
0
0
30
0
0
PiYKOOTK
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
73
0
1
160
0
1
0.24
tocvwi
Bristol
1985/8,11
21
0 0
21
0
0
fftAlUUW
1985/7-11
95
0 1
104
0
1
0.1
HAMPSHIRE
1985/8,11
22
0 D 0
22
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
138
0
1
147
0
1
0.1
PCP ,
ehtoroph-jnol)
8AWSr«lf
, ,%s
1986/4
15
0
0
18
0
0
1986/8
15
0
0
16
0
0
1986/11
18
0
0
19
0
0
1987/8
15
0
0
15
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
19
0
0
68
0
0
H»yrf«Ur
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN TIE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
"i j. \ o Ao»Xvvw»:-:®;
ft" " "• % ^ ^ s %
SAKPlE RtSUttS
:¦&{*
MKoeor I
CQNCSH'
. TKATI0R5 :
" V
sSwMtd
«Eti£
SAMPLED
f-Af! -¦
s W sW
POSITIVE
MELLS
TOTAL #
SAWLES
*W
POSITIVE
SAKPiES
:
5-nv jFT'f
lit
:' Urt. > "¦
.
V.' . %
net
K
«ci - j
Sfduron
summit
1986/4
15
0
0
18
0
0
'
1986/8
15
0
0
16
0
0
1986/11
18
0
0
18
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
18
0
0
52
0
0
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES*
571
138
109
3556
205°
205°
~ No KCL/HA available.
* The totals for detections of EDB and 1,2-Dichloropropane in Franklin, Hampden end
Hampshire Counties (and therefore the TOTALS) are estimates. The TOTAL positive
is overestimated by at least 27 wells, however it is not possible to determine in
which HCL categories. Total detections were given by chemical, not by well, and it was not
impossible to determine how many wells had more than one chemical detected. Those wells
may have been counted more than once.
D
These data were reported in surmary form, with positive results grn^jed above or
below Interim Drinking Uater Guidelines proposed by the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Quality Engineering (1,2-D 1.0 ppb; 1,3-D 1.0 ppb; EDB 0.04-0.10 ppt>).
These guidelines were retained for these data, instead of the MCL/HA.
C Estimated ranges (data were not provided by individual breakdown).
" These are total numbers of ANALYSES not total nurtoer of actual sanples.
l-MA-18
-------
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
WELLS BY COUNTr
V** f
: ^ .. s ^
\ 4 s
"'/w: i ^ < vs
: %
tcumnr
:
¦
TYPES m WU.S
SOURCE OF
tOKTAMlHATlOU
(iiUMER OF WELLS)
WAtER
MNttQKtliQ
t»«£R
TOTAL
imul
*a
......
<
total
i-wte,)
\
ssJKSlsi!
i:fiSJ®5SfC-v
TOTAL
-WUM
ss
.Ml !
^ s -
<
-m'<
A
Ufa
PS
UNK*
Bamstabte
0
0
0
19
1
14
0
0
0
15
0
0
9«*6hfre
13
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
Srfstot
81
14
9.
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
0
FranleUfl*
233
91
61
30
9
2
1
1
0
164
0
0
Haspdon*
61
9
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
Hampshire*
117
13
13
S
0
0
0
0
0
26
0
0
Plymouth
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
tforchcster
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL*
516
127
93
54
10
16
1
1
0
247
0
0
*
NFll = Known or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS ° Known or Suspected Point Source
UNK = Unknown
* The totals for detections of EDB and 1,2-Dichloropropane in Franklin, Hampden end
Hampshire Counties (and therefore the TOTALS) are estimates. The TOTAL positive
is overestimated by at least 27 wells, however it is not possible to determine in
which HCL categories. Total detections were given by chemical, not by well, and It was not
impossible to determine how many wells had more than one chemical detected. Those wells
may have been counted more than once.
l-MA-19
-------
l-MA-20
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
New Hampshire
Pesticides Detected
None
0/3:
W 2-
W4{
Total Wells Sampled
per County
u > 1000
ra 5Qi to 1000
K3 101 to 500
EZ 51 to 100
E3 1 to 50
~ No wells sampled
1-NH-l
-------
l-NH-2
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
In 1985, to initiate development of a statewide health-based ground-water strategy, the
New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services, in conjunction with the Pesticide
Control Division, and Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission undertook a two-
part project to address the potential for pesticide contamination in ground water in New
Hampshire. The first part of the project involved a literature review concerning the
environmental health implications of pesticide contamination in ground water throughout
the United States; there had been no reported incidence of pesticide contamination of
ground water in New Hampshire. The second part of the project involved sampling wells
adjacent to apple orchards with known pesticide use.
Recommendations for ground-water protection in New Hampshire have been made
based on the information developed in the literature review. It was recommended that
New Hampshire establish a statewide pesticide ground-water surveillance system, which
would study aquifers determined to be at risk for pesticide contamination, examine the
potential for pesticide contamination of soil in former agricultural areas which have
become residential, initiate an education outreach program concerning the potential for
pesticide contamination of ground water, and establish a chemical intoxication
surveillance system which would include pesticides.
In 1991, the New Hampshire Groundwater Protection Act was established which
specified that the Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control within the Department
of Environmental Services would be responsible for maintaining a statewide map
identifying the classes of ground water, assisting local and regional governments in the
development or administration of local wellhead protection programs, and cooperating
with the Office of State Planning in providing technical assistance for local ground water
and well head protection programs. A classification system for ground water and
ambient ground-water quality standards were also mandated under the act.
l-NH-3
-------
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services, Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission, Pesticide Control Division (March 28, 1986) A Survey and Preliminary
Health Assessment for Pesticide Contamination Problems Associated with Groundwater
Supplies in New Hampshire. Study conducted 1985. Contact: Amy Juchatz-Camanzo
Tel: 603-271-4664. Additional contacts: David Rousseau, Environmentalist m, New
Hampshire Department of Agriculture (Tel: 603-271-3551), and Sarah Pilsbury, New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (Tel: 603-271-3503).
Primary Objective
This study was initiated to determine the effects on ground water from pesticide use in
an area reflecting high, longterm pesticide use and where a significant increase in
population using ground water for drinking water had occurred.
Design
Apple orchard growing areas within Hollis in Hillsboro County and Londonderry and
Hampton Falls in Rockingham County were selected based on evidence of high pesticide
use and use over a relatively long period of time. Based on 20 years of data concerning
actual pesticide use, the kinds, amounts, and the extent of time of use for the pesticides
in various orchard growing areas of New Hampshire were tabulated. The project
involved 15 locations within nine basic sampling clusters. Wells to be sampled were
selected based on an evaluation of probable ground-water flow as determined by
available topographic information and on their proximity to the orchards. Samples were
scanned for 19 compounds (unspecified).
Results and Conclusions
No pesticide residues were detected in any of the well samples: however, in
consideration of the limitations of the sampling design of the study, including sample
size, sample location, percent of total application each chemical comprised, mode of
application, characteristics of pesticide studies, inadequacy of hydrogeological and soil
information, and periodicity of application, it was concluded that further studies of
pesticide contamination of ground water should be initiated.
[Note that only the summary portion of this study was available for review; insufficient
information was available to complete the state tables. Extensive reports concerned with
this monitoring project are available by contacting the State of New Hampshire, Office
of State Planning.]
l-NH-4
-------
New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services, Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission, Pesticide Control Division (December 19, 1986) Health Risks Associated
with the Potential for Ground water Contamination by Pesticides in New Hampshire.
Study conducted 1986. Contact: Amy Juchatz-Camanzo, Tel: 603-271-4664. Additional
contacts: David Rousseau, Environmentalist III, New Hampshire Department of
Agriculture (Tel: 603-271-3551), and Sarah Pilsbury, New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (Tel: 603-271-3503).
Primary Objective
Pesticides have been detected in ground-water wells in a number of states. Since this
discovery, efforts have been made at both the state and local levels to determine the
nature and extent of the problem. Because most pesticides are biologically active and
possess varying levels of toxicity, it was important to determine whether there was a
public health risk in New Hampshire from contaminated groundwater. This report is the
result of an interagency effort to evaluate the potential for contamination of ground
water by pesticides used in agriculture and golf course maintenance in New Hampshire,
to determine the possible health risks of such contamination, and to develop health
based ground-water protection strategies.
Design
The study involved sampling and analysis of twenty-five (25) existing shallow wells on or
immediately adjacent to, or downgradient of, pesticide use areas in fifteen (15) towns
throughout New Hampshire, undertaken during the growing season of 1986. The focus
was on a number of different crops including potatoes, forage crops (primarily field
corn), truck garden vegetables, berry crops and ornamentals. In addition, a number of
golf courses were sampled.
The agencies involved in this study were the Division of Public Health Services (DPHS),
the Division of Pesticide Control (DPC), Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission (WS&PCC) and the Office of State Planning (OSP).
Since the purpose of the study was to determine possible health risks by surveying
possible contamination in New Hampshire ground water, it was designed to maximize the
potential for detection of any pesticides which might be present rather than attempting
to perform a statistically valid sampling pattern.
Criteria for Selection of Sampling Locations
The objective of the 1986 study was to gather groundwater quality data for pesticides in
farm and golf course wells. The farms and golf courses identified by the DPC were
evaluated according to the following criteria:
1. At least 10 years of pesticide use information is available on the property;
2. The well is a readily accessible shallow water table aquifer well in close
(downgradient) proximity to locations of intense pesticide usage;
3. Adequate predictors of groundwater flow direction exist to indicate the probable
direction of flow so that wells are reasonably expected to reflect the groundwater
quality from the site in question;
l-NH-5
-------
4. Different geographic areas of the state are represented and the study sites are
clustered primarily in the more populated areas of the state in order to evaluate
and potential health hazards.
Compounds Selected for Study
The DCP has maintained records of pesticides applied in New Hampshire since 1966.
These records were compiled for specific agricultural areas of the state and golf courses
in this state. This list of compounds used, along with the quantities applied, were
compiled for each type of crop and for golf courses. The resultant list was evaluated
according to the following criteria:
1. The compound was detected in ground water in other states as a result of
normal agricultural usage;
2. The compound was detected in ground water in other states under any
conditions (including spills, applicator error or manufacturing);
3. The compound structurally resembles a compound which has been found in
ground water;
4. The compound has been used in more than minimal quantitiy on any of the
sites;
5. The WP&PCC laboratory has the capability to analyze the pesticide uithin
equipment, time and personnel constraints.
COMPOUNDS SELECTED FOR STUDY
Analyte
Detection Limit
Analyte
Detection Limit
(PPb)
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Disyston
2.5
Alachlor
1.0
Endosulfen
1.0
Aldicarb
2.5
Lindane
1.0
Atrazine
2.5
Nethoxychlor
1.0
Carbofuran
2.5
Oxamyl
2.5
Chlordane
1.0
Simazine
2.5
Chlorpyrifos
1.0
2,4-D
2.0
Dacthal
1.0
INORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
Diazinon
2.0
Arsenic
0.005
Dicerrbe
2.0
Cacbniun
0.005
Dieldrin
1.0
Lead
0.005
Dinoseb
2.0
Zinc
0.03
Analytical Methods
Sampling protocol followed procedures established by WS&PCC and which are in
accordance with U.S. EPA approved plans. Extractions were completed within 5 days of
sample collection. The carbamates, triazines, chlorphenoxy herbicides, organophosphates
and dinitro amines were analyzed by liquid chromatography. The organochlorines were
analyzed by gas chromatography/electron capture detection.
l-NH-6
-------
Results and Conclusions
1. No pesticides were detected in twenty-five samples of ground water taken from
shallow wells onsite, immediately adjacent or directly downgradient from agricultural
pesticide application areas or golf courses in New Hampshire.
2. Although no pesticides were detected, the detection limits are such that some risk
may be present if drinking water were contaminated with some of the pesticides at levels
below the detection limits.
3. Although the likelihood of undetected contamination is reduced since the wells were
selected to maximize detection, this does not eliminate the possibility of pesticide
ground-water contamination in other areas of the state. The sample size was restricted
due to funding considerations and utilized existing wells rather than installing monitoring
wells which could be placed in locations which would further maximize the detection
potential.
4. The presence of inorganic compounds in the wells sampled could not be attributed to
pesticide use since they were not elevated above levels naturally present in ground water
in the area except for those wells which reflected landfill leachate.
As a result of the study, health-based ground-water protection strategies were proposed
including development of a formal process for health and environmental input into the
pesticide registration process, mechanisms by which monitoring of wells for pesticides
will be instituted, development of health-based drinking water standards for New
Hampshire, and establishment of a chemical and pesticide intoxication registry. To
further protect public health by preventing future contamination, it was recommended
that the differences between other states and New Hampshire's agricultural practices and
pesticide use be compared in order to identify factors which may have mitigated the
potential for pesticide contamination of ground water in the state.
l-NH-7
-------
l-NH-8
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF KEU HAM>SHIRE
WELL RESULTS
..
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
COHCEH-
: "T8ATIEWS: -
0*9/I>
wttMi
* ^ SSiiX-ixw
'Aww •. *¦ %sss
v.>>
..¦ ,S'- T'-'*/'"' ^
.. ^ , i ,5 •?"$¦>
>y> \s. > . <. >!•?<&&&'.' y
CWITT
SS
dV''
DATE
' '¦¦
aW.'.'.'.v.vav.v.V.j'.'A
vat,?-,
SAKPLB>
~ #Of
P0SWVE
VEILS
,&Cv.\n*X%\'.\,\v.sv.w.\
TOTAL »
$wux
V ^^ &
- so
warn*
::.s: SAMPLES ?
v •w-SoxsXWfrN*: x'««»#taw>:sx*:
f 'A -. ^ + .v1 v\g
~K' - ^ >
YEAR/
ROttfS
'4 't;. i:
i«Ct i
v'
\*><» s N / s sv-
% v '•W \ \ \ss\ >
*
;ss
<
lieil
2>D
8ELXMAP
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
MtLSKSKJUGK
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
HE8RIMACK.
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
WK^IHOrtAh
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
stwwouo
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
20
0
0
20
0
0
Atachlor
COOS
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
HJUSBOROWK
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
SOCKJW6HAX
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
STftAFWRD
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
*
SULtJVAd
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
19
0
0
19
0
0
Aldtearb
COOS
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
JULLSBOROWH
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
MERRIMACK
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
14
0
t)
H
0
0
Atrazlne
COOS
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
HILLSBOROUGH
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
SOCK I RC HAM ,,
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
Strafford
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
St&LtVAK
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
19
0
0
19
0
0
Csrbofuran
coos
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
HILLSBOROUGH
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
STRAFFORD
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
ZklMk \
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
16
0
0
16
0
0
l-NH-9
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEU HAMPSHIRE
: ¦v>\wAy«'^ h ff
* f
WELL *EStft.TB
- jffitWLlS
: RAHCE 0t>
awccH-
TRATIOttS
co»rr
\N \ % $\S ..
9»^Vftv,wmv
«;-r
WE
V# i -, V ;
.'.'.•.w.vVawaVAw.v
'.V.VAV.'AVttVAWV.V.W
W\«« .. v>
total
WELLS
"SAW LED
#OF
WWW
VEILS
TpTAt- M' -
; $mmS
'
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MEU HMPSHIRE
^ s W-1 J \ «S. ^
« tstj. . fcEK&TS
1 ^siwptf-
..'¦-RAKCR;*??-;,
.CONCER-
\'?8ATI0KS
Qtgf I) :
^ ^ V SS j
'¦•S
tomm
¦" - - %-k: ¦ -' ',¦>%-
' V'i'J., .l-SjS.. '
¦gfS ¦¦
«owrt
i£: '¦ iii(M
. ¦mx, : *
SJWLED '
Mmt
: *mtm
VEIAS
w»uss
Wiirm
SAMPLES
SW V .'.W.V.VAi^.V'WASW,'. .
<:
¦M-'- ¦' a /'¦•"••' -
v'vtti&'r
mm
:
¦:JHa ,
<
-m.i
'
v.
~ *&••••<
<
:#et ^
Binoseb
COOS
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
WLtSBORQUGIt
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
H£fiftlKA&
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
RODf IKS HAH
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
17
0
0
17
0
0
Endosulfon
CODS
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
HJLtSBOROUGK
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
MERRIMACK
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
ROCKINGHAM
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
\? - V# '
STRAFfOfiD
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
19
0
0
19
0
0
iiwte'ne Csmm*
8KC)
HJLtSBOOOUS#
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
MERRIMACK
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
12
0
0
12
0
0
ficthoxychlor
8ElKNAP
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
HILLSBOROUGH
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
ROCKINGHAM
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
STRAFFORD
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
17
0
0
17
0
0
Oxamyl
HtlLS&OftOUGH
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
MERRWAClf
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
R0CK3 HGHAM
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
STRAFFORD
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
17
0
0
17
0
0
1-NH-ll
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IH Tffi STATE OF KEU HAMPSHIRE
. / Nsns \
|
¦; ;¦ - - "J ' ; -M s.-.i'
TQMt, 1 *0P
wb.es 1 mxtm
SAMPLED | WU.S
w*t *
s ; ,
f Of
Marine
rism>tEs:,: <
. .1
">\V > 1
I
| ifti/
' f '""i
f M0NT8
| >
'V Cv>,f^1
• id
<
: «&'~
OxycUsutfoton |
MUSBOWUGH | 1986/7-9
9 | 0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELIS/SAMPLES |
|
9 | 0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES |
|
25 0
0
25
0
0
l-NH-12
-------
STATE OF NEU KMPSHIBE
IELLS by aurrr
i \", '<;¦ "?' :5
fttsry
roes of teas
SCURCS OF
CONTAMINATION
(tfUMKft OF WELLS)
mwiw mt*
: ' . (' i" ¦">- ' 'N '
^ .. . ¦¦:¦¦¦. :: . . : . .¦ ¦ ¦¦:¦ ¦ ¦
OTHER
\\V>sy> ,
TOTAL
31
*CL.
<
NCL
tOtAL
£.¦ ¦ ¦:¦
<
M*cU-i
TOTAL
ft
*
'"HCC,
Wtf
*
re
XvI&V&NnhTsV
* *
i-uwc
Betlcnop
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
:C«»¥ L/,-
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Bilisfaoroush
6
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
•> f *
HerHMck
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Rocking an
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
Stratford
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SullSVftft
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL ''
13
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
*
NFU=Known or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS °Known or Suspected Point Source
UMK^Unknoun
l-KH-13
-------
l-NH-14
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
I
Rhode
Island
Total Wells Sampled
per County
¦ > 1000
ra 501 to 1000
E2 101 to 500
CD 51 to 100
ED 1 to 50
~ No weils sampled
Pesticides Detected
Aldicarb
Aldicarb Sulfone
Aldicarb Sulfoxide
Atrazine
Butylate
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Carbofuran, 3-Hydroxy
Dicamba
Dinoseb
Oxamyl
l-Rl-l
-------
l-RI-2
-------
RHODE ISLAND
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
The Rhode Island Department of Health has provided private well testing services to the
citizens of Rhode Island for many years. Prior to 1979 these services primarily involved
analysis of samples, with interpretation of results, for sanitary quality of the water. In 1979
the DOH began a program of monitoring of private wells in the vicinity of sites where
hazardous materials were likely to have contaminated the groundwater. The program was
initiated in northern Rhode Island following an industrial trichloroethylene spill at a wool
processing facility which resulted in the contamination of a dozen private wells.
In 1980 an Executive Order was issued by the Governor directing the DOH to begin
monitoring of private wells around potentially contaminated sites. Initially, the program
concentrated on hazardous waste landfill sites but has since expanded to include other areas
of groundwater contamination such as leading underground storage tanks, industrial sites,
and, in 1984, agricultural areas where the pesticide Temik [aldicarb] had been used.
The Office of Environmental Health Risk Assessment was created within the DOH in 1987.
This office has provided assistance to the program in establishing health advisories and
standards for chemicals found in private well drinking water and has also assisted in
communicating information on health risks to city and town governments, citizens' groups,
the news media, and homeowners with contaminated well water supply.
The Office of Private Well Water Contamination was established within the DOH by the
General Assembly in the 1988 session. The primary purpose of the program is to coordinate
the response of all state agencies to instances of private well water contamination.
l-RI-3
-------
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Dickerman, David C Hydrogeology, Water Quality, and Ground-Water Development
Alternatives in the Lower Wood River Ground-Water Reservoir, Rhode Island. Water
Resources Division, United States Geological Survey, Tel: 401-528-5136. Study conducted
April 1984 through December 1985. (Reported via correspondence, July 1984 through
September 1988.)
Primary Objective
The objective of this study was to determine if aldicarb was present in ground water in a
study area downgradient of potato fields to which aldicarb had been applied.
Design
Ten wells installed by USGS and one domestic supply well were sampled around a potato
field near an area where earlier monitoring had shown high nitrate levels. One well was
located upgradient of the field, one well at the southwest edge, three at 100 feet
downgradient, three at 500 feet downgradient, two at 1500 feet downgradient and one at
1800 feet downgradient. A total of thirteen samples was taken, including replicate samples
from two of the downgradient (100 and 500 feet) wells. These replicates were assigned
different well numbers. The samples were analyzed by high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC) for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, aldicarb sulfone, carbofuran, 3-
hydroxycarbofuran, oxamyl, carbaryl, 1-napthol, and methomyl. The detection limit was 1
ppb.
Subsequent sampling of the wells was performed in July 1984 and December 1985, although
the December data did not include replicate samples or samples from the domestic supply
well.
Results
Original sampling of the eleven wells yielded 13 samples. Of these, 7 wells/9 samples were
found to be positive for aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone with highest detected
concentrations of 94 ppb and 56 ppb, respectively. Carbofuran was detected in 6 wells/ 8
samples with the highest detected concentration at 7 ppb. Oxamyl was detected in 1 well/
1 sample at 2 ppb.
The second sampling in July 1984 showed the same number of wells positive for aldicarb
sulfone, aldicarb sulfoxide, and carbofuran. Of these wells, aldicarb sulfone and aldicarb
sulfoxide concentrations were higher for all but 1 well/2 samples which showed a slight
decrease in both constituents. Positive carbofuran levels decreased in 2 wells/3 samples,
increased in 2 wells/2 samples and were unchanged in 2 wells/3 samples. Oxamyl was
detected in 3 wells/4 samples with highest detected concentration at 2 ppb.
l-RI-4
-------
Sampling of the ten monitoring wells was repeated in December, 1985 with a total of 10
wells/10 samples tested. Of these, 7 wells/7 samples were positive for aldicarb sulfone and
aldicarb sulfoxide. Six of these showed decreased detected concentrations of both aldicarb
sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone from the previous sampling and 1 well/sample showed slightly
increased levels of both constituents. The number of wells positive for carbofuran decreased
to 4 wells/4 samples; 1 well/sample was positive for oxamyl at 1 ppb.
Rhode Island Department of Health, Office of Community Health Services/Health Engineering
Report of Private Well Testing Program for Pesticides. Study conducted 1984. (Reported
1985, 8 pp.)
Primary Objective
In response to detections of aldicarb during a USGS study, the Rhode Island Department
of Health began a program of private well water sampling in the areas of potato fields to
determine if aldicarb or any other pesticides had contaminated any private wells.
Design
On August 9, 1984, 474 drinking water wells in 9 towns in Washington County and 212
drinking water wells in 4 towns in Newport County were sampled for aldicarb, carbaryl,
carbofuran, and oxamyl. Analytical methods and limits of detection were not specified. The
numbers of wells with pesticide detections above and below the aldicarb health advisory
limit (at that time) of 10 ppb were tallied.
Results and Conclusions
A total of 100 of the 686 private wells sampled indicated the presence of aldicarb, with 75
wells below the 10-ppb health advisory limit, and 25 wells above. One well contained 4 ppb
carbaryl. Nine of the 25 wells above the health advisory limit also contained 1 to 19 ppb
carbofuran, while only 2 of the 75 wells below the health advisory contained detectable
levels of carbofuran (1 ppb each). Oxamyl was detected in one well contaminated with
aldicarb below the health advisory level at 2 ppb. Detailed results of the testing are
presented below:
No.
No.
No. Pos
Concentratioi
Pesticide
Town
Wells
Samples
Weils
fppb1
Aldicarb
(Washing-
Woodville
36
38
2
8, 63
ton Co.)
Hton Ochd
40
41
5
2, 31-73
Usquepaug
48
55
4
19-53
Railroad
152
159
26
1-7, 11-21
Tuckertown
100
103
9
1-8, 12-24
100-Acre Pnd
29
29
3
3, 5, 13
Matunuck
28
28
2
4, 16
Exeter
26
29
1
9
N. Kingston
15
15
0
l-RI-5
-------
Pesticide
Town
No.
Wells
No.
Samples
No. Pos
WeUs
Concentratioi
Yppb)
(Newport
Middletown
141
141
28
2-9, 12-17
Co.)
Tiverton
33
35
7
1-8, 12, 15
Ltl Compton
13
13
2
5,6
Portsmouth
25
25
8
1-6, 13-17
Cvtfbaryl
(Newport
Portsmouth
25
25
1
4
Co.)
Carbofuran
(Washing-
Woodville
36
38
1
4
ton Co.)
Hton Ochd
40
41
3
2-19
Railroad
152
159
2
1
Tuckertown
100
103
2
1,2
100-Acre Pnd
29
29
1
1
Exeter
26
29
1
1
(Newport
Ltl Compton
13
13
1
1
Co.)
Oxamvl
(Washing-
Railroad
152
159
1
2
ton Co.)
Groundwater Section, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Rhode Island
Private Well Survey Final Report, 1990. Study conducted in 1986. (Reported 1990)
Primary Objective
The survey was intended to screen for contamination of ground water in different land use
settings. Those sites designated to the land use categories of agriculture, turf farming,
silviculture and nurseries were analyzed for pesticides as well as for other potential
contaminants.
Design
256 wells/261 samples were analyzed for pesticides.
Depending on the land use category of the site, the well samples were tested for different
pesticides. The pesticides and corresponding land use categories are given below.
Analytical methods and limits of detection were not specified.
l-RI-6
-------
Methyl parathion
Nursery
Malathion
Nursery
Simazine
Nursery
Phosmet
Fruit crops
Endosulfan
Fruit crops
Azinphos-methyl
Fruit crops
Captan
Fruit crops
Methomyl
Vegetable crops, Fruit crops
Terbufos
Vegetable crops
Atrazine
Vegetable crops
Aldicarb
Potato/turf farming, Nursery
Alachlor
Potato/turf farming, Vegetable crops
Carbaryl
Potato/Turf farming, Nursery
Carbofuran
Potato/turf farming, Nursery
Chlorothalonil
Potato/turf farming
Eptam (EPTC)
Potato/turf farming
Metribuzin
Potato/turf farming
Oxamyl
Potato/turf farming
Permethrin
Potato/turf farming, Vegetable crops
Dinoseb
Potato/turf farming
Butylate
Potato/turf farming, Nursery,
Vegetable crops
Endosulfan
Potato/turf farming
Dicamba
Potato/turf farming
Mancozeb
Potato/turf farming
Diazinon
Potato/turf farming, Nursery
2,4-D
Potato/turf farming
Dacthal
Potato/turf farming
Criteria for site selection included: land use; availability of wells to test; and location of
available wells relative to land use of interest, e.g., downgradient of fields.
Results and Conclusions
Of the 256 wells/261 samples tested for pesticides, a total of 28 wells showed the presence
of pesticides. Of these, carbaryl was detected in 16 wells, carbofuran in 11 wells, atrazine
in 4 wells, dicamba and butylate each in 2 wells, and dinoseb and aldicarb each in one well.
Except for aldicarb, the concentrations at which the pesticides were detected were far below
established health advisory or maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Aldicarb was detected
in one well at 3 ppb, equal to the current MCL
l-RI-7
-------
Lee, Ronald G. (1989) State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Department of
Health Office of Private Well Water Contamination 1989 Annual Report, Providence, RI,
Telephone (401)277-3336.
This report has been prepared in compliance with provisions of the establishment of the
Office of Well Water Contamination within the Department of Health by the Rhode Island
General Assembly in the 1988 session. It provides background on the testing program and
a summary of the results since the program began in 1979 and for 1989.
Prior to 1979 the DOH provided private well testing services for the sanitary quality of the
water. In 1979 the DOH began a program of monitoring of private wells in the vicinity of
sites where hazardous materials were likely to have contaminated the groundwater. Initially,
the program concentrated on hazardous waste landfill sites but has since expanded to
include other areas of ground-water contamination such as leaking underground storage
tanks, industrial sites, and, in 1984, agricultural areas where the pesticide Temik [aldicarb]
had been used.
Note: only the 1989 data was utilized for the Pesticides in Ground Water Database Report
since the other data was in summary form and could not be separated.
In 1989 seven wells were found to be positive for aldicarb with a concentration range of 4-11
ppb in Washington Co., seven well in Newport Co. were positive with aldicarb
concentrations of 3-13 ppb, and 1 well in Providence Co. was positive at 19 ppb. There was
also one well in Providence Co. found positive for carbofuran at 1 ppb concentration.
Summary of Private Well Monitoring Activities and Results-1990 Annual Report (Excerpts)
As of December 1990 a total of 3760 private wells have been monitored by DOH: 1135 of
these were tested for Temik [aldicarb]. During 1990 twenty-two new wells were tested for
Temik; fortunately none were found to be positive. Sampling activities for Temik ranged
from a low of 452 samples collected in 1989 to a high of 965 samples collected in 1987 with
an average of 693 samples collected per year (between 1984 and 1990).
No data was submitted with this report.
l-RI-8
-------
Rhode Island Departments of Health and Environmental Management (1984) Joint Press
Release: Testing for Aldicarb in Rhode Island Public Water System Wells, 4 pgs.
As a preliminary step in determining if drinking water supplies in Rhode Island were
affected by Temik [aldicarb], an identification of the location of potato fields was made by
the University of Rhode Island and the Department of Environmental Management using
pesticide applicator records and knowledge of the potato industry. Based on the information
furnished, the Department of Health selected for sampling and analyses the public water
system wells which were most likely to be impacted by chemical infiltration from a potato
field. Seventeen public drinking water wells were sampled on 31 July 1984 and transported
to a University of Massachusetts laboratory facility in Worcester, Massachusetts for total
Temik analysis. The detection level for Temik in 2 ppb.
All of the water systems sampled were located in Washington Co. Three of the wells had
positive results, with aldicarb levels ranging from 3 to 7 ppb.
i-RI-9
-------
l-RI-10
-------
PESTICIDE SMVLMG IN THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAM)
// < ""w / ***& ;
:
VEU &35ULT5
amt ussjurs
-HAW* Of
EONCSK*
T*A1U<#5
C«lA)
s
is,«, ''
.
mr«u«
i - i'h ./ \
Asw/mv
count*
V?* i-'' '
0A7E
tOTAl
tKltt
SAHPtEO
,>»? * i
WStWE
VEUS
V\ N\. %
total f
OF
SAMPLES
#aw' "* %¦' ¦•'•'•vXv/ /*v'.
: V,V -"^0^ s
>
YEAR/
^'twata F'
S '¦
- -
Ip»
«etF
u-jtei®
s «. \ \\
*
na
«
*CL
VNaphthol
-H-
1984/4
11
0
0
13
0
0
1984/7
•11
0
0
13
0
0
1985/12
10
0
0
10
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAM?LES
11
0
0
36
0
0
2/4-0
VASH1S&TGN
1986
60
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAM?LES
60
0
0
60
0
0
Alaehlor
BRISTOL
1986
20
0
0
20
0
0
VASMIKGTOS
1986
64
0
0
64
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
84
0
0
84
0
0
Aldfcarb
8RISI0L
1986
43
0
0
43
0
0
1989
13
0
0
13
0
0
Hawr, 1 -
1989
31
0
0
31
0
0
NEWPORT
1984/8
212
10
38*
212
10
38*
1-17
1986
17
1
0
17
1
0
3
1989
91
7
0
91
7
0
3-13
PROVIDENCE
1986
11
0
0
11
0
0
¦Xss *
1989
278
1
0
278
1
0
19
WASHINGTON
1984/4
11
0
0
13
0
0
1984/7
11
0
0
13
0
0
1984/8
445
22
1
465
22
1
2-63
29
0
29*
29
0
29*
1-8
1985/12
10
0
0
10
0
0
1986
62
0
0
62
0
0
1989
443
7
0
443
7
0
4-11
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
1724
51
68*
1750
51
68*
1-63
1-RI-ll
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLING IN THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAM)
" % "
, •. •, V- % \ SV
— ' ?,
UEU *ESULT$
-V..;,, 0 -
x^WUKWE OF :
•(« CONCEtt*
"st*ATI0«$ :
pesrrcioe
•Crt n "-V ¦. s "¦ &'•( «v&
.V ^
•, "¦ r W* ^ v. f\e
cam
tW> •• ^
s ..
. OAIE
lOTAt
SMPLCO
WStlJVE
WELLS
TOT/4 *
OF
"SAMPLES-5
# OF
P3SUJ«
^SAMPLSS v;
•. •-•"•"¦. -• •• v *" £.•. .-
,s » A . , ,'SA'S
v > V ¦J<%sv.<-s .• '
I v,
' MOtlTH 7
*
-*¦¦¦¦¦
; *Ct'
-*ti ¦
vSt
*CL
¦
Altffesrb sutfone
VASHIKGTOS
1984/4
11
7
0
13
9
0
14-56
^ s s-
1984/7
11
7
0
13
9
0
19-44
:v
1985/12
10
7
0
10
7
0
3-33
TOTAL DISCRETE
UEUS/SAMPLES
11
7
0
36
25
0
3-56
Aitlfcsrb sutfox?1 <
1984/7
11
7
0
13
9
0
32-69
1985/12
10
7
0
10
7
0
6-47
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
11
7
0
36
25
0
6-92
Aliicsrb, total
1984/7
17
3
0
17
3
0
3-6
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
17
3
0
17
3
0
3-6
Atraiino
SRISTOL
1986
20
0
5
20
0
5
0.06-0.11
WSH1RGT08
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
24
0
s
24
0
5
0.06-0.11
1 Arinohos-^aethvl -
fROVIOEKCE
1986
99
0
0
102
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
| WELLS/SAMPLES
99
0
0
102
0
0
Sutylsto
BRISTOL
1986
63
0
2
63
0
2
1.1, 1.2
NEWPORT
1986
17
0
0
19
0
0
PROVIDENCE
1986
11
0
0
11
0
0
WASSJSOTOK
1986
66
0
0
66
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
157
0
2
159
0
2
1.1, 1.2
Csptan
PROVIOEXCE '
1986
99
0
0
102
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
99
0
0
102
0
0
Corbaryt
SRISTOL
1986
43
0
0
43
0
0
NEWPORT
1984/8
212
0
1
212
0
1
4
-
1986
17
0
0
19
0
0
l-RI-12
-------
(PESTICIDE SMPLIK6 IN THE STATE OF BHGDE ISLAND
&SWIWS& • 3
i \
S 1 S >\\ t
UEU. assays
'¦ s::;v,
RANGE OF
Sconce*-'
\t*At|0K$ ::
¦
vS*- W, \% \ s'vv! v.
\v. s \v, s \?/- y s
%w ; ^ % .. j >¦«/
wum
c-
. % % ¦¦ \
OATE
nsN">as<.
tOTAt
«eus
SMIH.EO
f Of
MSITIV6
TOTAL 9
OF
SAXPtSS/
#«F
* POStWf
SAXPtES
1
¦
s>W!tfy ' rfs sv
.WsV.ViViSV.'.'.V.'.^'.V.". AVAW.W
re**/
MMTtt
>"••>**? f % ""V
V« V.*^
*«.
^ > s r ¦=¦¦<
: ^ss V N
t-
¦>mv
<
HO,
>>*'¦ ¦¦ V""
z
xa
<
.•.sV.-A'c;v>p;
(Carbaryl)
PROVIDENCE <
1986
11
0
0
1V
0
0
WASHIBGTGS
1984/4
11
0
0
13
0
0
'.'.•JSw.w.'.v.v.Xv; ,'.v . .v.v.vJ.
1984/7
11
0
0
13
0
0
1984/8
474
0
0
494
0
0
1985/12
10
0
0
10
0
0
1986
62
0
12
62
0
12
0.11-0.72
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAM?LES
830
0
13
877
0
13
0.11-4
.
CorboftffflT
MtSVtt.
1986
43
0
0
43
0
0
xEwwar
1984/8
212
0
1
212
0
1
1
1986
17
0
0
. 19
0
0
¦ % " 'h
PROVIDE«CE
1986
11
0
0
11
0
0
: ^
1989
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
WASRIMGTON
1984/4
11
0
6
13
0
8
2-7
1984/7
11
0
6
13
0
8
1-6
1984/8
474
0
10
494
0
10
1-19
1985/12
10
0
4
10
0
4
1-3
1986
62
0
11
62
0
11
trace-2.0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAM?LES
831
0
29
876
0
43
trace-19
3-Hydroxy carhofuran
«ASai»cttO«
1984/4
11
0
0
13
0
0
/ v. *>
%N > •. %
1984/7
11
0
0
13
0
0
1985/12
10
0
1
10
0
1
1
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
11
0
1
36
0
1
1
ChlorotHeloniJ
uAsniixnoM
1986
60
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAM?LES
60
0
0
60
0
0
| DCf>A
WASBttttftO*) '
1986
60
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
| WELLS/SAMPLES
60
0
0
60
0
0
l-RI-13
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
: > ¦w,'s ;¦ »,> '&
i.wWvAwwsww.w.'M'.www ;«««wanv
sami** aesutrs
¦A - "Vs
,vftA*k«r
V EONCEIi*
,t*ATJ0«$
tett t> ;
i
*srreiOE
^ ' -"¦sv *>«vCV.v«.s v :
wmm%
..^ssss nV S \ Xv> / >v
? i"* s s /
Mt
•¦V. '-fr ?
w*t
«us
$AMPIED
*Of
\ wsitrvs
WEILS
''-o•>
mm i
SAMPLES
' - ¥-
~ OF
, POStTfW
SAMPLES
w ¦.N V-v^w ^ ¦¦
y£Ak/
MONTH
:% %vCs >&»$\
£
iUCfcJ'
net
%V> \
.
*
¦kct^
¦av.^^.sss •>:
im-
Diailnon
BRISTOL
1986
43
0
0
43
0
0
,*4-
NEWPORT
1986
17
0
0
19
0
0
PROVINCE
1986
11
0
0
11
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
62
0
0
62
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
133
0
0
135
0
0
Dicaroba
WASHINGTON
1986
60
0
2
60
0
2
0.25-1.41
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
60
0
2
60
0
2
0.25-1.41
Oinoseb
WASHINGTON
1986
60
0
1
60
0
1
0.23
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
60
0
1
60
0
1
0.23
EnctosuHan
PROVIDENCE
1986
99
0
0
102
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
60
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
159
0
0
162
0
0
EPTC
WASHINGTON
1986
60
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
60
0
0
60
0
0
Hatathiort
BRISTOL
1986
43
0
0
43
0
0
NEWPORT
1986
17
0
0
19
0
0
PROVIDENCE
1986
11
0
0
11
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
73
0
0
75
0
0
Naneoteb
WASHINGTON
1986
60
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
60
0
0
60
0
0
Methooyt 1 BRISTOL
1986
20
0
0
20
0
0
III PROVIDENCE
1986
99
0
0
102
0
0
l-RI-14
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAM)
;ss-. *st
W«
C0NCEN-
T*AT!0NS ;
\ % .¦¦ «¦
P£S"lCU>6.
¦\ s '.. >\ > *\
<
^ -SJSi
<
(Methcmyl)
VASKIRCTOK
1984/4
11
0
0
13
0
0
1984/7
11
0
0
13
0
0
1985/12
10
0
0
10
0
0
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
134
0
0
162
0
0
Mftribuzln
WASHINGTON
1986
60
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
60
0
0
60
0
0
Oxssyl
NEWPORT
1984/8
212
0
0
212
0
0
WAStUBCTOS
1984/4
11
0
1
13
0
1
2
-
1984/7
11
0
3
13
0
4
1-2
1984/8
474
0
1
494
0
1
2
1985/12
10
0
1
10
0
1
1
1986
60
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
757
0
5
802
o •
7
1-2
Porathion, aathyt
BRISTOL
1986
43
0
0
43
0
0
KEUPORT
1986
17
0
0
19
0
0
PROVXDERCE
1986
11
0
0
11
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
73
0
0
75
0
0
Pertnethrir
BRISTOL
1986
20
0
0
20
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
64
0
0
64
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
84
0
0
84
0
0
Phosmet
JHMVTDEHCE
1986
99
0
0
102
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
99
0
0
99
0
0
l-RI-15
-------
PESTICIDE SM*>tING IN THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
<¦ ^ o "¦ "•> /•
¦Wtii «ea«js
SAMP«, SESULTS
' ftAKGE OF
,C0NC£#>
- TRATiO«S
: ¦
WJWnr
:. -1/ ^ ^
¦ s
*S - «,
ftATE
,
- fi
-¦ x
* mi
| A «\> ¦¦ \\
- Vo
4 ,s:
x-.v.v.vJw.v
.i'-S?
: v
. :
; «&;-
t -
tiLt. ^
vCv* * ^ ' . .
'W.
<
m.
<
Sirauine
, \ /
MWOL
1986
43
0
0
43
0
0
J.EUP06T
1986
17
0
0
19
0
0
>
PROVTPEKCE
1986
11
0
0
11
0
0
WAWIRGTON
1986
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
73
0
0
75
0
0
terbofos
BRISTOL
1986
20
0
0
20
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
24
0
0
24
0
0
GRAMO TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES8
1826
58
99*
1859
76
99*
The results given In the Report of Private Well Testing Program for Pesticides Merc
given in suimary form. The results for eldicarb were grouped as being above
or below the health advisory limit at thBt tine (10 ppb). In sane instances it
uas impossible to separate the nuibers of wells above or below the current aldicarb
MCL (3 ppb). In these instances the entire block of positive wells were placed in
the 'less than MCL1 category, assunirig e best case scenario. The total mnber of wells
affected by this uncertainty is approximately 67.
D
Every attenpt was made to couit each individual well only once. In the case of simnnry
reports the data may not allow this distinction. Also, if en individual well was sanplcd
in more than one study, and not given a unique identifier, it may be counted as a
different well in each study.
l-RI-16
-------
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
wells st courrr
«wrr
V»
& :
, squat#
CQRTMINATIOM
(kuhkr of rnts)
WMKUW i»ra
A^Vw4.:
,**lT0RlHa
¦-
torn
, .v. .
»-ira&
<
MCI
: 4.V* ,j.v;
TOTal
<
^ s " > *
town.
%ict
M
4 ¦
INK
mz
s"> f * <¦ * s
BrJatot
76
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
Kent
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HewpArt
320
18
39*
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
0
0
Prtvidtnce
388
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
Washington
1001
32
52*
10
7
0
0
0
0
91
0
0
TOTAL
1.816
51
99
10
7
0
0
0
0
157
0
0
NFU°Known or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS "Known or Suspected Point Source
UNK°Unknown
The results given in the Report of Private Well Testing Program for Pesticides were
given in sunnary form. The results for aldicarb were grouped as being above
or below the health advisory limit at that tine (10 ppb). In scne instances it
was impossible to separate the meters of wells above or below the current aldicarb
MCL (3 ppb). In these Instances the entire block of positive wells were placed in
the 'less than MCL1 category, assuring a best case scenario. The total nutber of wells
affected by this uncertainty is approximately 67.
l-RI-17
-------
l-RI-18
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
0/29
;i/i5
0/7
Vermon
m
9/23
i/39;
Pesticides Detected
Atrazine
Cyanazme
Metolachlor
Simazine
3/29
IQ/22:
Totai Tfe2Is Sampled
per County
> 1000
to 1000
to 500
to 100
1/14:
501
101
[?/W:
wells sampled
1-VT-l
-------
l-VT-2
-------
VERMONT
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
The Vermont Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Monitoring Program was established
by the passage of Public Act No. 72, (Chapters 81 and 87 of Title 6, Vermont Statutes
Annotated, May 1985). The Governor signed it into law in May, 1985.
The Pesticide Monitoring Program was developed to:
1) provide Vermont's citizens, state agencies and the agricultural and industrial
communities with data on the extent and patterns of use and;
2) provide data on the environmental fate of pesticides under Vermont's unique
environmental conditions.
The primary objective of the Monitoring Program is to provide the information necessary
to continually evaluate the impact of pesticides on environmental quality, so that sound,
foresighted management decisions may be based upon those evaluations.
The activities of the program are funded by product registration fees paid by the
manufacturers and distributors of pesticide products offered for sale within the state.
The Commissioner of Agriculture is assigned the responsibility for implementing the
Pesticide Monitoring Program, but its administration and management is specifically the
responsibility of the Plant Industry Section within the Dept. of Agriculture.
The primary goals of the Pesticide Monitoring Program are:
1) to develop and maintain a pesticide monitoring library comprised of pesticide
registration standards and special review documents issued by US EPA, pesticide
monitoring studies conducted by other state and federal agencies and applicable
pesticide and groundwater monitoring publications;
2) to characterize the environmental fate of pesticides under conditions of use and
climate specific to Vermont;
3) to respond to requests from homeowners, businesses, agriculture producers and
other state agencies for sampling under routine or emergency situation; and
4) to provide the information necessary for the users of pesticides to evaluate
agricultural chemical management practices in Vermont.
l-VT-3
-------
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Vermont Department of Agriculture, Plant Industry Division, (July 1988) 1986-1987
Summary Report: Vermont Pesticide Monitoring Program. Point of Contact: Jeffery
Comstock, Pesticide Monitoring Program, Vermont Department of Agriculture, 116 State
St./State Office Building, Montpelier, VT 05602, Tel. (802) 828-2431.
Comstock, Jeffery (August 1988) Telephone conversation with M. Lorber of
EPA/OPP/EFED/EFGWB concerning preliminary results of 1986-87 sampling.
Comstock, Jeffery (October 1991) Computer printouts of herbicide detections through
10/15/1991. Vermont Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Monitoring Program.
The Vermont Pesticide Monitoring Program conducts various pesticide monitoring
projects, several of which are discussed below.
THE CORN HERBICIDE SURVEY
Primary Objective
The sampling activities of the corn herbicide survey project are focused on existing
private drinking water supplies adjacent to cropland used for the production of silage or
sweet corn where crop production occurs on land with the potential to serve as the
recharge area for the drinking water supply. Although the primary focus of the corn
herbicide survey was to sample farm water supplies, ten public drinking water supplies
were included in the project at the request of the Department of Health.
Design
Products selected for analysis were the herbicides alachlor, atrazine, cyanazine,
metolachlor, and simazine and nitrate from fertilizers and manure. These corn
herbicides were selected as the priority for the initial pesticide monitoring project
because pesticide use on cornland represents the most extensive use pattern for
agricultural chemicals in Vermont. In 1988, analysis for carbamates and pendimethalin
was added to the program.
Sampling for the corn herbicide survey began in the spring of 1986 and has continued on
a year-round basis. Wells that test positive for herbicides at any level are resampled
approximately every second month to determine if the detections represent isolated
events or continued contamination. Sampling intervals have been established to attempt
to represent seasonal variation in pesticide usage.
l-VT-4
-------
In the 1986-87 sampling period a total of 250 drinking water wells was sampled.
Approximately 90% of the wells sampled were private domestic wells, while the
remaining 10% represented public water supplies. All wells were located within 500 feet
of corn production. Wells in which nitrate levels of 8 ppm or herbicides at any level
were detected were resampled within 1 to 2 months for initial confirmation, then about
every 6 months afterwards to determine if positive detections were indicative of isolated
events or continued contamination. If no herbicides or excessive nitrate levels were
detected in the first round of sampling, wells generally were not resampled. Additional
information was recorded including the distance from the wells to septic systems and
manure storage, the depth of the wells, and the well types (spring, diy well, driven point,
etc.). Samples were analyzed by GC using a double-column method for confirmation
with ECD and/or NP detectors. The limits of detection were 2 ppb for cyanazine and 1
ppb for the remaining four herbicides.
Results and Conclusions
Of the 250 wells sampled in 1986-87, only 10 wells ever tested positive for herbicide.
The twelve detections included one well positive for both atrazine and cyanazine and one
well positive for both atrazine and metolachlor. Eight wells were positive for atrazine,
one for cyanazine, one for simazine and two for metolachlor. No alachlor was found.
During resampling, of the eight wells that tested positive for atrazine, four wells
continued to show detectable levels. The four wells positive for cyanazine, metolachlor
and simazine showed no detectable levels of these compounds when resampled.
Although the majority of the contamination was determined or suspected to have
resulted from normal field use, atrazine contamination in one Orange County well at 24
ppb and the metolachlor detection at 32 ppb in Windham County were determined to
be point source incidences.
All well owners that participated in the survey sampling project were notified of their
results in writing.
The data concerning the Corn Survey Project after 1987 available for incorporation into
the Pesticides in Ground Water Database was incomplete. Sample statistics are shown
in the following table. It can be seen that as many wells have tested positive for any
corn herbicide since 1987 as had tested positive during the initial sampling. Atrazine
remains the primary herbicide found, followed by metolachlor.
l-VT-5
-------
Pesticide Monitoring Program
Well and Sanple Statistics for Corn Survey (CS) Wells
•Including all samples from 1986 through 1991-
CS Sancles -
Analyzed for pesticides: 805
Analyzed for nitrates: 765
Analyzed for carbonates: 47
Total CS sanples in database: 808
CS Wells -
N inter of wells ever positive for -
Alachlor: 0
Atrazine: 16
Cyanazine: 1
Metolachlor: 6
Simazine: 1
Arty Corn Herbicide: 20
Nunber of wells ever positive for -
Aldicarb Sulfoxide: 1
Aldicarb Sulfone: 1
Any Carbamate: 1
Total CS wells sarpled: 424
(Detection linits - Herbicides and Carbamates: 1-2 ppb.)
All wells with detections of the five corn herbicides have been included in the State
tables. No specific information was available concerning the location of wells with no
detections; these wells are listed under UNSPECIFIED COUNTIES. No further
information was available concerning the chemicals added after 1988, therefore none of
these chemicals were added to the tables.
CHRISTMAS TREE SURVEY
Another project monitoring wells near Christmas tree farms in four counties has been
initiated. As of October of 1991, 15 samples from ten different wells were sampled for
the herbicides alachlor, atrazine, cyanazine, metolachlor and simazine. The locations
and dates of sampling were not provided. While two wells had low but detectable levels
of nitrates, no pesticides were found in any of the well samples (detection limits for the
tested pesticides varied from 1-2 ppb.).
l-VT-6
-------
CORN MONITORING PROGRAM
In addition to the above two monitoring projects, a long-term study involving a total of
29 monitoring wells located on three farms growing corn has been initiated. Data from
this study will be used to develop a modelling program for pesticides in ground water.
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE SURVEY
A survey of existing drinking water wells adjacent to small fruit and vegetable production
areas has sampled 11 wells in seven counties. Results were not available.
Broido, Thomas J. and Winslow H. Ladue (April 1985) Monitoring and Modeling of
Ground Water Quality Adjacent of Rights-of-Way Herbicide Application in Vermont-
Final Report, Vermont Department of Health, Division of Environmental Health, 60
Main Street, Burlington, VT 05401.
Primary Objective
The objective of this field study was to evaluate the impact of . rights of way (ROW)
herbicide spraying oh ground water quality. Three utility ROW sites were monitored:
an electric transmission, a state highway guardrail and a railroad site.
Design
The specific sites were selected because they were accessible, the landowner was
cooperative, a herbicide of interest was applied during the study period, the ground
water flow direction was relatively simple with a coarse grained overburden, there were
no conflicting land uses or chemical applications, and the depth to ground water was
relatively shallow.
Three test sites were established, an electric utility transmission corridor in Franklin Co.,
a railroad bed site in Washington Co. and a highway guardrail site in Chittenden Co.
Four wells were monitored at each site, one upgradient and three downgradient from the
spray site. The three downgradient wells were located at increasing distances from the
spray site: one as close as possible, one 50 feet downgradient and one 100 feet
downgradient. They were located to form a triangle so that the direction of ground
water flow could be determined.
The electric transmission and railroad sites were sampled prior to herbicide treatment in
order to check for background herbicide levels. The highway site was treated before the
monitoring wells could be installed so pretreatment samples could not be obtained.
l-VT-7
-------
Sampling Method
All samples of all sites were taken with a bailer made from 1 inch copper pipe and a
soldered end cap. Two or three well volumes were removed prior to sampling. All
sampling equipment was cleaned with acetone and rinsed with distilled water between
samples. Samples were taken at the upgradient well first, the farthest downgradient well
next, then the 50 foot downgradient well and finally the closest downgradient wells was
sampled. All samples were collected in silanized glass bottles with foil lined caps and
kept refrigerated until analyzed.
Analysis
All samples were analyzed by the Vermont Department of Agriculture Laboratory.
Picloram, 2,4-D and triclopyr were analyzed with a gas liquid chromatograph using the
electron capture detector. The detection limit for these compound was 30 ppb and spike
recoveries were 65 to 80 percent.
Bromacil, atrazine and diuron were analyzed with a gas liquid chromatograph using the
nitrogen phosphorus detector. The detection limit for these compounds was 1 ppb. The
spike recoveries for bromacil were 82 percent. The spike recoveries for atrazine and
diuron were 80 to 90%.
Electric Transmission Site
This site was treated on July 11, 1984. The application rates were:
picloram 0.405 lb. acid equivalent per acre
2,4-D 1.5 lb. acid equivalent per acre
triclopyr 0.75 lb. acid equivalent per acre.
All herbicides were dissolved in water and applied with sprayers. Samples were collected
from all wells at this site on the following dates: July 3,1984 (pretreatment), August 21,
1984 and November 20, 1984.
Highway Site
This site was treated on May 18, 1984. The application rate was 4.9 lb/ac bromacil
(active ingredient). The herbicide was mixed with water and applied with a sprayer.
Samples were collected from all wells at this site on the following dates: June 26, 1984,
September 4, 1984 and November 15, 1984.
Railroad Site
This site was treated on June 12, 1984. The application rates were 3.42 lb/ac atrazine
and 3.20 lb/ac diuron (active ingredients). The herbicides were mixed with water and
applied with a sprayer from a hyrail truck. Herbicides were applied to the track and
ballast portion of the right-of-way (15 foot width). Samples were collected from all wells
on this site on the following dates: May 30, 1984 (pre-treatment), July 11, 1984, August
7, 1984 and October 31, 1984.
l-VT-8
-------
Results and Conclusions
Herbicides were not detected in any of the samples collected. This could be due to may
reasons including:
The herbicide did not leach into the ground water because of various reasons
(adsorption, decay, volatilization, insufficient infiltration for movement).
The herbicide did not travel as fast horizontally as estimated.
The herbicide that reached the ground water was diluted below detection limits.
The herbicide migrated vertically to a portion of the aquifer which was not
monitored.
l-VT-9
-------
l-VT-10
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING 11 TOE STATE OF VERMONT
' ... S /
scw&."
WELL SESULTS "
^swte^ttsutrs
\3MttSet0f
COKCEK-
tftATlOKS
. Cw/*>
V-WOWAV^. .'.WAS^WAVA
>\ss-
¦
*T"-
*¦ ¦* <•<£"¦* 4-f ¦ "¦ ^
COtWT*
V 'SSS
'¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦¦¦¦¦¦%¦ -vc. ¦; ¦¦ .v::
4*. ^
SAMPLED
POSITIVE
„ iffltB '. : :
.sws
fOT*L *
SAKPiiS*
wsmw
SAMPLES
.
t •> v. ^ sN
,
- ¦¦ v
-mm *¦
#0*18
_
<
: HCt"<
- <
*ct"
2.4-0
^rAhklik
1984/7,8,11
4
0
0
12
0
0
1986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
v; /.v.ViV^ sSv.sv.vaAw.vA'
1987/3
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
4
0
0
18
0
0
Alochlor
ADDtSOtf' * -
1986/4-1987/12
34
0
0
34
0
0
' -
1988/4.9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3,6,9
1
0
0
3
0
0
1990/2,5,9
1
0
0
3
0
0
..... : . ^iyy; : .;...;.iV;:;.v;-::X;
1991/1.4
1
0
0
2
0
0
8ENN1HGT0M
1986/4-1987/12
13
0
0
13
0
0
1988/3,10
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/1
1
0
0
1
0
0
CALEDONIA
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
18
0
0
•* S N
1988/2,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3,5,8
2
0
0
5
0
0
N
1990/1
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHtTTENDEK
1986/4-1987/12
23
0
0
23
0
0
ESSEX
1986/4-1987/12
21
0
0
2
0
0
"
1988/3,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
s
1989/3.8
1
0
0
2
0
0
FRAHttUM
1986/4-1987/12
21
0
0
21
0
0
-
1988/3,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
-
1989/3,5,7
2
0
0
3
0
0
1990/1,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1991/3
1
0
0
1
0
0
GRAND ISLE
1986/4-1987/12
1
0
0
1
0
0
LAMOILLE
1986/4-1987/12
7
0
0
7
0
0
ORANGE
1986/4-1987/12
15
0
0
21
0
0
'
1988/2.5.9
3
0
0
4
0
0
1989/4,7,11
4
0
0
4
0
0
¦.
1990/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1-VT-ll
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IK THE STATE OF VEKMONT
S
:\o; ^ > y
tELt JESUITS
T W/WPie-WSULTS *
4UUK£Of
COKE*-
ttAtlQNS
> ; wY--* "
y^-^vx s
. .v-
1
COUHTT
OATf
WtAt
KtW
SAMPLED
9 OF
pwmve :
UEUS
SAMPLES
s v., < sj
! v v
wsmvtv
- BAM Pits O
\
, V.
nana
-
¦¦
<
m-i
i Lv-
<
mv
(Alachlor)
ow.Eah$
1986/4-1987/12
15
0
0
15
0
0
*
1988/2.9
2
0
0
3
0
0
V^WAWfl^AV,',/s'.%V.V-SX ¦¦•'
1989/3.8
2
0
0
4
0
0
KJTtAKO
1986/4-1987/12
22
0
0
22
0
0
UASKlttCTOtt
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
17
0
0
tflKtWAM '
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
21
0
0
1988/3
2
0
0
2
0
0
illPiiil;
1989/12
2
0
0
2
0
0
1990/1,2,12
1
0
0
3
0
0
1991/3
1
0
0
1
0
0
witrt>s«
1986/4-1987/12
27
0
0
33
0
0
1988/3,6.9.11
4 '
0
0
13
0
0
1989/2,5.9
2
0
0
4
0
0
1990/1.5.9.12
2
0
0
8
0
0
-
1991/4
2
0
0
2
0
0
UHSPECJFieO
COUHTI£SC
1988-1991
177
0
0
497
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
VELIS/SAMPLES
438
0
0
827
0
0
Ati-aiirie
1986/4-1987/12
34
0
0
34
0
0
1988/4.9
1
0
0
2
0
0
..... :
1989/3,6.9
1
0
0
3
0
0
1990/2,5.9
1
0
0
3
0
0
flgr
1991/1,4
1
0
0
2
0
0
6ENN1MGT0H
1986/4-1987/12
13
0
0
13
0
0
1988/3,10
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/1
1
0
0
1
0
0
CALEDONIA
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
1
18
0
2
1.10-2.20
1988/2,9
1
1
0
2
2
0
4.2-7.CO
1989/3,5,8
2
0
1
5
0
1
2.40
1990/1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1.70
CHITTENDEK
1986/4-1987/12
23
0
0
23
0
0
l-VT-12
-------
PESTICIDE 8MPLIMS IN TIE STATE OF VERMONT
;
»v.vasmaw
*
tCLt HESUITS
4MMPU WESULTS
fi»KE OF
COKCEN"
WaTjohs
' 'ViWv
" ¦ • ¦. '
mrteitts
COUHT* -
Mlf
TCt At
unit
SAMPLED
#0F
POSITIVE
UELtS
.. vx-.
»om *.
SAMWLS*
# OF
positive
SAMPLES
4
; *• > ^ S
: \ , < ' ss
tmt
*0#TB
W '
MCI
<
act
/ ••s %
S * «¦ s
w >
, X
act
. %s S--
*ct-
(Atrazine)
ESSEX
1986/4-1987/12
21
0
i
2
0
1
1.10
1988/3.9
1
0
1
2
0
1
1.20
1989/3.8
1
0
0
2
0
0
fRAmitt
1986/4-1987/12
21
0
0
21
0
0
V. ' -
1988/3.9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3.5.7
2
0
2
3
0
2
1.10-2.10
1990/1.9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1991/3
1
0
0
1
0
0
GRAKO ISLt
1986/4-1987/12
1
0
0
1
0
0
LAMM US
1986/4-1987/12
7
0
0
7
0
0
OWlttfc
1986/4-1987/12
15
1
1
21
1
1
1.20-
24.30
1988/2.5.9
3
0
2
4
0
2
1.30-2.30
1989/4.7.11
4
1
0
4
i
0
5.80
1990/9
1
0
1
1
0
1
1.30
ORLEANS
1986/4-1987/12
15
0
0
15
0
0
1988/2,9
2
0
2
3
0
3
1.00-1.20
1989/3.8
2
0
0
4
0
0
RUTLANO
1986/4-1987/12
22
0
0
22
0
0
uAirt!w6tot£
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
17
0.
0
-
1984/5,7,8,10
4
0
0
16
0
0
1986/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
WlNOKAH
1986/4-1987/12
17
1
0
21
2
1
1.4-5.0
1988/3
2
0
1
2
0
1
2.40
1989/12
2
1
0
2
1
0
5.40
1990/1.2.12
1
1
0
3
1
0
3.20
1991/3
1
0
1
0
0
UtWiSOR
1986/4-1987/12
27
1
1
33
1
3
1.80-3.90
1988/3,6,9,11
4
1
2
13
2
4
1.10-6.00
1989/2.5.9
2
1
4
0
2
1.00-1.80
1990/1.5.9.12
2
1
1
8
1
4
1.60-3.10
1991/4
2
0
0
2
0
0
l-VT-13
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IM THE STATE OF VERMONT
; ^ J ..
v-* Si-
UELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAXCE Of
- CORCEK"
v> v \ "•
¦s-x-wok
¦y-s*- v
. >
s < s s
PESTfCU*
'
v*--\ .. /
«
TOtAt
SAMPLED .
i>
# or
POSITIVE
x^u:6'—
TOTAt «
SAMPLES*
if:;: \
M *.»
POSITIVE
* 'SAMPLES5' ...
s\s' -ss.^
<.\Xk ^-.vy
WAH/
fcOWTH
N \ S>S
/j V/ s% -X t O
- •*. 3fcH &
net
X* 'i
>. .v>
' S\-CS sss
V
*a;
<
net
(Atrazine)
UHSKCIFIED
vcouwties '
1988-1991
177
0
2b
497
0
2
UNKNOWN
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
438
5
11
827
12
31
1.00-24.3
8romacit
WITOtfOS#
1984/6,
9.11
4
0
0
12
0
0
1986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
4
0
0
15
0
0
Cyanaifne —;
A00t«BJ
1986/4-1987/12
34
0
0
34
0
0
--
1988/4.9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3,6,9
1
0
0
3
0
0
1990/2,5,9
1
0
0
3
0
0
1991/1,4
1
0
0
2
0
0
BENMHJGTOff
1986/4-1987/12
13
0
0
13
0
0
. ¦;::
1988/3,10
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/1
1
0
0
1
0
0
CALEDONIA
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
18
0
0
1988/2,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3,5,8
2
0
0
5
0
0
1990/1
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHITTENDEN
1986/4-1987/12
23
0
0
23
0
0
ESSEX
1986/4-1987/12
21
0
0
2
0
0
1988/3,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3,8
1
0
0
2
0
0
fRAHKLlH
1986/4-1987/12
21
0
0
21
0
0
1988/3,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3,5,7
2
0
0
3
0
0
1990/1,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1991/3
1
0
0
1
0
0
CRAW) ISLE
1986/4-1987/12
1
0
0
1
0
0
LAHOaiE
1986/4-1987/12
7
0
0
7
0
0
l-VT-14
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IH THE STATE OF VERMONT
.
:
^S> AVS
.... iVv i.j. ...... A .. ¦¦¦ J
UELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
MIKE OF
COtCE#-
T8ATIOKS
•5* 5: '"N.
PESTfCU*
:
COW*
. ¦ s'lggS&tot
OAlt
¦.*
rotAt
i|ti$
SUIW.€D
^ V"" w,s\
*0?
POSITIVE
¦^"¦s-UELlS
WAt «
-
mtim
"'EAXPttS"'"
s'
3\k • ""Vl-. > V
ISA*/
aowra
:
MCf'i
Ss"^
\
m
<
net
(Cyanazine)
ORANGE
1986/4-1987/12
15
0
0
21
0
0
1988/2.5.9
3
0
0
4
0
0
1989/4.7.11
4
0
0
4
0
0
1990/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
ORLEANS
1986/4-1987/12
15
0
0
15
0
0
1988/2.9
2
0
0
3
0
0
1989/3,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
RUTLAND
1986/4-1987/12
22
0
0
22
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
17
0
0
mUDXAM
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
21
0
0
1988/3
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/12
2
0
0
2
0
0
1990/1,2,12
1
0
0
3
0
0
1991/3
1
0
0
1
0
0
WINDSOR
1986/4-1987/12
27
1
0
33
1
0
7.00
1988/3,6,9,11
4
0
0
13
0
0
1989/2,5,9
2
0
0
4
0
0
1990/1.5.9.12
2
0
0
8
0
0
1991/4
2
0
0
2
0
0
UHSPECIF1EO
COUNTIES
1988-1991
177
0
0
497
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
438
1
0
827
1
0
7.00
Oiuron
WASHINGTON
1984/5,
7,8,10
4
0
0
16
0
0
1986/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
4
0
0
18
0
0
MetOlaeMor
ADDISON
1986/4-1987/12
34
0
0
34
0
0
1988/4.9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3,6,9
1
0
0
3
0
0
1990/2.5.9
1
0
1
3
0
2
3.20-3.40
1991/1,4
1
0
1
2
0
2
2.60-7.20
l-VT-15
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLIN6 ID THE STATE OF VERMONT
^•s i
'S,
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VERMONT
•.<» f f "
WELL RESULTS
1 SAMPLE RESULTS
flAJTCE Of
TOKEN-
TiATlOKS
<#«/n
•• i.XX- V . ;••••• •
caw*
OAtf
~ , s\ *•
Wflt
KUS
SAMPLfD
#0f
wum
VEILS
rOTAL *
«AXP«$*
wsmw
SAMPLES
*
^ * ¦ •.
%
^ tim - vj
**T»
¦" "-i v\" ¦ ^ s
¦¦
« \ -A- *•
s s . % \ *+
m
"" 5sX$V:
*
wet
«. •*s»s
< -
MCt
(Metolachlor)
uIhdsob
1986/4-1987/12
27
0
0
33
0
0
1988/3.6.9.11
4
0
0
13
0
0
1989/2.5.9
2
0
0
4
0
0
1990/1.5.9,12
2
0
0
8
0
0
1991/4
2
0
0
2
0
0
COUtfTJES
1988-1991
177
0
0
497
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
438
0
6
827
0
12
1.10-7.20
>
fRAttKtm
1984/7
08,11
4
0
0
12
0
0
1986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1987/3
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
4
0
0
18
0
0
Simaiirte
1986/4-1987/12
34
0
0
34
0
0
s',\
1988/4,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3.6.9
1
0
0
3
0
0
' ,
1990/2.5,9
1
0
0
3
0
0
1991/1,4
1
0
0
2
0
0
' 8EHMIKOTOS
1986/4-1987/12
13
1
0
13
1
0
3.40
1988/3.10
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/1
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAteocwtA*
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
18
0
0
¦¦ %
1988/2,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
-
1989/3.5.8
2
0
0
5
0
0
1990/1
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHITTENDEN
1986/4-1987/12
23
0
0
23
0
0
ESSEX
1986/4-1987/12
21
0
0
2
0
0
1988/3.9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/3,8
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-VT-17
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VERMONT
; :
;
¦. ¦¦ .
v.y/.w.'.'.v.v.vAW.viViVAV.'.v.v.'.w.
WELL JESUITS -
s
SAMPLE RESULTS
'"wowrof'
' .
,N,\ %* " '
PESTfClt*
cowrtr
Vs s *.SN
- \\ <. "£ < '
DAfl?
row
«ELt$
SAHPifBr-
#6F
WITIVt
sC^tKLtS
mm «
SAMPilS*
>
f Of
wsmvs
«"'SAHPtS$
*
*
" tm/iMk,
MKTS
% N SS Wi
*• *• V\V. "A M
_
%
act
¦*ct i
> *v
**ctv
net J
(Simazine)
tftAwaitf'
1986/4-1987/12
21
0
0
21
0
0
%
1988/3.9
1
0
0
2
0
0
'i™- ~
1989/3,5,7
2
0
0
3
0
0
V m- ¦¦ f ¦•:
1990/1.9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1991/3
1
0
0
1
0
0
8RAWT JStf '
1986/4-1987/12
1
0
0
1
0
0
tAHOiUt
1986/4-1987/12
7
0
0
7
0
0
ORANGE
1986/4-1987/12
15
0
0
21
0
0
- -
1988/2,5,9
3
0
0
4
0
0
1989/4,7,11
4
0
0
4
0
0
"} 5?"
1990/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
ORLEANS
1986/4-1987/12
15
0
0
15
0
0
1988/2.9
2
0
0
3
0
0
* %
1989/3.8
2
0
0
4
0
0
RUTLAND
1986/4-1987/12
22
0
0
22
0
0
UASHlKfllOK
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
17
0
0
WlNDHAM
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
21
0
0
v >
1988/3
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/12
2
0
0
2
0
0
1990/1,2,12
1
0
0
3
0
0
1991/3
1
0
0
1
0
0
WINDSOR ,
1986/4-1987/12
27
0
0
33
0
0
1988/3,6,9,11
4
0
0
13
0
0
1989/2,5,9
2
0
0
4
0
0
1990/1,5,9,12
2
0
0
8
0
0
1991/4
2
0
0
2
0
0
un$pecinet>
cojKties
1988-1991
177
0
0
497
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
438
1
0
827
1
0
3.40
l-VT-18
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VERMONT
UEU RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
fiAHCE OF
CORCEH-
T8ATI0HS
'
A S". \ \ N
< s *¦ sv
WSWCIDE
v, ••••
mm*
OATf
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPIED
#0?
POSITIVE
WELLS
rom \
i,. %
posniw
SAMPLES
^ '
YEAR/
HOWTB
*ct
, jf
«Cl
X
*Cl
trfclopyr
FRAKKLiW
1984/7.8,11
4
0
0
12
0
0
1986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1987/3
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAKPLES
4
0
0
18
0
0
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELLS/SAKPLES
446
8
12
874
17
39 ||
A Data provided did not list the ntmber of samples taken by county.
B Data provided does not list concentrations for some of the detections. All positives
thusly reported are placed in the
-------
l-VT-20
-------
STATE OF VERMONT
UELLS BY COUNTY
CDUKTY
r
< . . <-> - v
types of veils
< 'Sit;
«**<* OF
COKTAHitttTJOK
OtUMBEK Of UELLS)
t>Rll«lNG WttR
NOKlTORltiQ
OTJO
l&TAt
CTW.0
• \ X\s ,
*
MCL
Ma
TOIM.
4im»
*
«Cl
<
NO.
tqTAi
sm.«
<
NO.
iffy
**
WK*
I
1
V,
0
1
o .
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Semfnstw
13
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
*
Caledonia
18
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
thfttendro
23
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Essex
21
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
?ranVlliv
22
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
Grand
1
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
0
0
iamotUe
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.
drarme
17
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
Orleans
16
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
fiuttancf
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Washington
17
0
0
i.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Windham
17
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
Windsor
29
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
s
0
0
Unspecified
Counties
167
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
624
8
12
12
0
0
10
0
0
18
2
0
NFlMKnoun or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS =Known or Suspected Point Source
UNK=llnknoun
l-VT-21
-------
l-VT-22
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
APPENDIX I - PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
HEfEJttNC*
M£L
1HA
tssnciK - -
CAfESOfcr
: 8eGUUT<**
StAtUS
t-Nephthol
Insecticide
C
' ' 's' <\> *¦>
1 2,4'THchtorobenzaM
9
9
Herbicide
U,C
1,2-D
t,2»lMehtoropropBr>e
f tfitorpsthen*
5
Fumigant
s
1.2-D f cMoropfopane
5
Funigant
c
1f3-D
OichlorOp(-open^
1,3-Dichloropropene
OfChloropropen*
~ -
2-Chloroallyl-
diethyIdith iocarbamate
CDEC
2(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)
propionic acid
Didiiorprop
2(2,4-DP)Diethylamine salt
Oicbloroprop
2.M -v-^/ :
70
Herbicide
S.SRPre
2.4-DB
Herbicide
S,SRPre
2>*&l(ht«»-aben*oic acW
Possible
degradate or
inpurity
2,4-0 i chlorophenoxyacet ic
acid
2,4-D
2,4-Dfnftrophenot
Acaricide
insecticide
U,C
2,4-DP
DiChlorprop
2,4,5*T
70
Herbicide
C,SRC
2,4,5-TrichIorophenoxy-
acet ic acid
2,4,5-t
2>,5-TP
50
Herbicide
C,SRC
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
TricMorophenot
2>-ctfethytanJHne
Alachlor
Degradate
3-Byttroxyearbofuraft
Carbofuren
Degradate
3-Kctocsrbofuran t
3'KetocarbOfUron
Carbofuran
Degradate
3r5*Dichtoroben2otc acid
Pronamide
Degradate
^firopherot
Parathion, methyl
60
Degradate
Fungicide
s
4(2,4-DichIorophenoxy)
butyric acid
2,4-DB
4(2,4-DB), Butoxyethanol
ester
2,4-Dft
APPENDIX 1-1
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
'¦ 3
"*• •* 0
. :i«A
^pbn«orcJ *eauT<*r
:;;;- CA*€80R*.S>"1, -StATUS
{
¦jr"^ V •> - v s -v"> - f * *
4(2,4-08), Dimethyl amine
salt
2,*-M
S-Sydroxy dfcaefca
Dicamba.
Degradate
AMnapbthene
¦¦ a ¦"• vfc> ' ss s ¦»
Insecticide
Fungicide
S
AtetfitU
Insecticide
s
Atrffluorffcrt
Herbicide
s
is;%|'
i \s *b %
1;
•* •.' ¦•
•¦ - •**
1
1
i
i
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
S,R
,vA\sww>aw.<w-y-:^w>x.>>sx.::.:-:-:-:-:-
Aldlcarb, Total
xttWiXxVxttWxVxtf&Nv&tfxX::::::^
Aldicarb
3
Parent ~
degradates
SRP
Aldrin
Insecticide
C.SRC
' s ' '
Anetryn
60
60
Herbicide
S
Aninaearb
Insecticide
U.c
Amitru
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R,SRC
Aaitrole
Herbicide
S,RP
Am'taiine
Fungicide
S
Arsenic
50
Arsenates, Arsenites
Arsenic , , v
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
. SRC
Arsenic acid
Arsenicals
Arsenic
Defoliant
Insecticide
tf
Atrewn
experimental
discontinued triazine
Herbicide
C
Atrazine
3
Herbicide
S.R
Atr«Jne, rfeatkytared
Atrazine
Degradate
Ailnphcs-ethyl "
Insecticide
C
Az5nphos*«»tfcyl
Insecticide
S.R
Banvel
0t canto
APPENDIX 1-2
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
8ETEfiENC£
tea.
um
- uts/iy
PSsruHoe
catebckt
1 \ \ "< V f .%•. \
necuuwr
STATUS
* yrt < ' s * < »
""
v. .W.X- s. •••
iSBwkan
Herbicide
c
Baygon
isSlropoxup
WvivXwXvx-XvX-x XvXvXw^>$*x x<\\x\v:,x->xvx,x\vx,x
. s-> ' ..fjM&.f s r . . •*
Bundlocarb
Insecticide
S.R
Benefit
:
Benfluralin
Insecticide
Herbicide
S
Benfluralin
Benafin
v. <%<¦¦¦ f >
W/AV.V.V.'.SV.'.V.V V.'.WAV.VAV.VMJV.ViV.V.V.V.'.V.V.'.V.V.'.V,
>ft'£xta*x4>x*y. r>---\ ¦
Fungicide
S,SRC
^fcMUA^SW.wv'
¦;8ef«44rt **-- ¦-,,/iWSi- '
Herbicide
S
SentaZort
20
20
Herbicide
S
, . . . W '
v ivi • • ? •» \ ¦. . -v jv
«6tft$fe-.6at£S:. < -
Bentazon
Degradate
8ttC <«,&,£)
Insecticide
C,SRC
BHC CD
Undarte
90
Herbicide
S
5 fir'' B'"
Sodium bromide
BrwnoxynU
Herbicide
S
: llufencarb
Insecticide
c
fiutachlor
Herbicide
c
fiutytatfc
350
Herbicide
s
€tf>tdf»i / :;.W: :;
Fungicide
c
_
¦ Ceptan
Fungicide
S,SRC
Cerbaryt
700
Insecticide
S
Cerbendtttlm - ^ \ *
Fungicide
C
Ctrbofumn
ill ii^iiiiii^wii
40
40
Insecticide
Acaracide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S,R,SRC
Cerbofuren phenol
Carbofuran
Degradate
Ccrbofurcn, total
Carbofuran
Parent ~
degradates
SRC
Carbon disulfide
Fumigant
Fungicide
U
Carbon tetrachloride
5
Fire retardant
in funigant
formulations
SRC
CsrbopfierotMon
Insecticide
Acaricide
C
CftrbdptienotMon, aethyl
Insecticide
Acaricide
u
APPENDIX 1-3
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
,; \ ;v§-
CHSxuSAt «A«
s % .. 'w, v ^ i ^ •> "¦ '"• 'o v
•"•¦/¦ ^ ^ . •, "¦ < ••
RtfeseNtt
\ W\-y- ^ss's<;?\s
KCl
tW
Cm/D
pontine
CATCcour
- - ¦¦
>eaaT<*r
,..;::" 3TAtOS "
X.>
700
Fungicide
S
:-mc ' ;>r -
Herbicide
c
fcbloranben
100
Herbicide
U.C
CMordarw
*
2
Insecticide
Tertniticide
C,SRC
.
Chlordeeonc
Insecticide
C,SRC
Chtordiaefom
Insecticide
Acaricide
Ovacide
C,SRC
Chtorfetwc
Herbicide
u.c
Cht&rfenson
Acaricide
u.c
Chtoroaliyt aleohot
Insecticide
c
ChloroberoUat#
S •• v J J$V". . % Ssf ' v.
s TOsVxv1
Insecticide
Acaricide
C,SRC
A*" •^J"" ^ * f <
p*Chtpr0"«^fesel
FLngicide
Antimicrobial
S
p^Cht^rp-^-a^Dl '*v' ""
Chlorefor#'; '> -
100
Fumigant
C.SRP
Chloroneb
Fungicide
S
Chtoropic'Hn s„, ,." ':...
^ v s V V $ X-
Fumigant
Uarning agent
S,R
< ' «/>
ChtOf-othitOftU - /•
Fungicide
S
Chtoroturott
c
Chlorprophasi
Herbicide
5
ChtorpyHfos
20
Insecticide
S
CMorpyrlfos, nethyl
Insecticide
S
CM or sulfur on
Herbicide
s
Chiorthai dimethyl
DCPA
Copper
Copper salts
Copper
Insecticide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
Fungicide
some S
some U
Copper oxides
Copper
Insecticide
Herbicide
Firgicide
S
Eotmaphos
Insecticide
s
trwfoaata
Insecticide
CyanarJn#
1
Herbicide
S,R,SRC
APPENDIX 1-4
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
.S. A ¦•'¦ \s s*> N •. A.
.£¦. ¦"¦ > .y\ s v. ^V. ' ,.s.\\V.V
>,VAV-WWAVW,'. wJv.^.w^y^Avy.sy.^/.y.'^W.v^vft",
<$¦*, -.5 ''1 •.
**¦"* "•% *¦ s N N V V % % '*'•'*•'
tttttiNtt
S s ^\0 S <*¦% ^
KCt
(M/O
M
m/i)
PCS? I(IW
CATEGORY
^ N s
eeojiAT<*y
ttATW
Csarridte 1 ^
200
200
Cyanide, calcius or
potassius
Cyanafde
Rodenticide
U
Cyariaide, sodiuo
i ^'' \ . '^>s/
sCyanlde
Rodenticide
S,R
Cyttoate'T; " "
Herbicide
S
: Cypenwtnrin
Insecticide
S,R
Cyprazine
Herbicide
C
Dacthal
wiiwp .> ' >-• -'
Oacthal disc id
DCPA actd metabolites
!$ttii.*0Oft s »-oparw
DC'A
4000
Herbicide
s
DCPA «ei
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
comical «u*
^ ^ Ay/~ ' W'O V
s
.vwisy.v.vh'Asv.'.VAwS'AiSw.wwi'.w.w.'Aw.v
,w',W«>c.v,v .••¦.¦.• AW,V,'.WWWAW.W
REftUteWCE
«a
¦:¦¦¦ W" '"" 't V '
^PfSlWW-
RX; CAtt&Oirr v"-
vv"'*
teCUUTtt* i
r- *utus
Bifaucyt phthatate
Insect
repel lent
u,c
v<~ *¦¦¦¦¦;- ;¦ ™
200
Herbicide
s
Dtefctobenil
Herbicide
s
600
600
Antimicrobial
u
p-Dichlorobfnzene
•v;" ' • '•.*.'< £«v:v:::i^xX\$®®
75
75
Insecticide
Fungicide
Rodenticide
Antimicrobial
s
bichtaroproparxr
fiidiloropropetvj
», ' vSs"' y„
v.StfX'l'l^s-^'^i'&'SWwft'AvXv.y^vXvXWvWvX'X'^X-jiv
Nematicide
Funi gant
S,R,SRP
Dichlorprop
Herbicide
S,SRPre
Dichlorprop, butoxyethenol
ester
Dichtorprop
Dichiorvrat
Insecticide
S,SRP
Dicofot
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,SRC
Dicrotophos
Insecticide
S.R
Dteldrin
Insecticide
C,SRC
Diethylhexyl phthalate
Dloctyt phthalate
DimethooU
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,SRC
Dfnostb «
7
7
Herbicide
C,SRC
Dinitrocresol
ONOC
bJoctyi phtfvalate
Acaricide
C
Dfoxacarfc
C
l)iox«thion
Insecticide
C.R
(Xphenasld
200
Herbicide
C
Oiqufif
20
20
Herbicide
S
Diquat dibromide end
various salts
Otquat
OttUlfotor*
0.3
Insecticide
Acaricide
S.R
bfcuHotcn sulfa*
Disulfoton
Degradate
OJsulfoton sulfoxide
Disulfoton
Degradate
DSuron
10
Herbicide
S
m>k
Fly larvicide
c
APPENDIX 1-6
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CH&UdUt tMME
AN\::Nv:sss^-:::;:vv>v-,
REFERENCE
#a
wt)
"¦¦:¦ ¦ :K;S.,;S
IKA
-PSSTICIP6
CATEGORY
RE8fcAT«r
Status
ONOC
wr<-•. ¦ > s.> -vi j i.irfife; <
..:. "».r ..;; ;^v -
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
u.c
DMOC, sodiun salt
DKOC
EDB
fthyterw dlbromido
EBDC coropomds
-* "v. , s >
Haneb, Haucozeb,
2ineb :'-™i ""
SRC
Ewfosutfar.
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
S
EniMUlfaft 1
Endosulfan
Isomer
Ento&uttot 11
Endosulfan
Isomer
s&Ktbfiutfan sulfate
Endosulfan
Degradate
tndothaU
100
100
Herbicide
s
.•XUj "«A vflivM1.% •. .• \v. .•. ,'av^A-.v.vJG.sx.vNv.v Aw.v
i&Wf lfl - - 0:~" -
2
2
Insecticide
U,C,R,SRC
Erxfe-in aldehyde
Endrin
Degradate '
£M ¦ r . ;
Insecticide
Acaricide
C,R
cptt
Herbicide
S
Ethatfluralin
Herbicide
SfSRC
Etiiioft
¥:•:••¦•;¦ ;• > S¥*&:¥>SS¥ AvXv¥v:wvWSft*>y::J
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R
Hthoprpp
S>s
\ s \\*. \
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S.R
Ethyl Medio! ' , '"
Disinfectant
S
8thylaft
Insecticide
U,C,SRC
Ethylene
bisdithi©carbamate
compounds
Harwb, Hawozeb,,
2»neb
• t-thy! one dibrcmido
0.05
Insecticide
C,R,SRC
Ethylene dichlorfde
t,2->Dichlorpethane
Ethylene thiourea
ETU
Ethyl parathion
Pa^athtortj ethyl
Etrtdfatol*
Fungicide
S
ETU
Maneb
Degradate
Fenac
Chtorfenae
fonamiphoo
i III i lllilllili
2
Insecticide
Fungicide
Hematicide
S.R
APPENDIX 1-7
-------
PESTICIDE CROS S-REFEREMCE TABLE
CUSIIOU 4Mb
¦>>
.,w>?Av^y.'x.WJJ/.'.x.'.,.v.,.,rVy^'.',,,\w/.v.-.v.VA,.,wX
,/ww.vww,,,v'v.'/iVMyAW,v,:.,.w^ViV.,.,.,.v.i
^
SEFttENCE
"'xtm
Nf*..
tw/U
pesncioe
CAT£EO«T
1
ttmwrat?
.v?^ $tA.tU$- - :
•¦•C S1
Fertamiphos
Degradate
1
1
i
¦fc
1
Fenamiphos
Degradate
f«OBH«ol
Fungicide
s
-
Insecticide
Acaricide
s
f«rwulfoihi«n
s . W. ¦*#•. * ' s "¦
Insecticide
Fungicide
Hematicide
C,R
fenttnon
Insecticide
C
fenureft
Herbicide
C
f«*>vaterate \ ¦¦:¦¦ , ,> "-
Insecticide
S,R
ftUBiffciip-bUtyt ¦ ;:'"
Herbicide
s
flueMoratia
Herbicide
s
ftunetr«t*H
Herbicide
s
ftuometuron
90
Herbicide
s
fiuridone
Aquatic
herbicide
s
fonof-os , - " '',t
10
Insecticide
S.R
Formaldehyde
1000
Firtgicide
Antimicrobial
u
Clyphasata
700
700
Herbicide
s
Glyphosate isopropylanlne
salt
Clyphosate
Guthion
A2tf**£>S'Biethyt
HCH (a,B,i)
8HC <«.M>
HCH (D
lindane
Heptachlor
0.4
Insecticide
C,SRC
fleptaehlar epoxide 1
Heptachlor
0.2
Degradate
flexachlorobefuene
1
Seed
protectant
flexaiiriom
200
Herbicide
s
Xydroxyatachior
Alachlor
Degradate
Jprodione
Fungicide
s
Isobornyt thtocyanoaeetate
Insecticide
c
iBofenpttos
Insecticide
Herbicide
S.R
Isopropatin
Herbicide
c
APPENDIX 1-8
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
1 - -'
CK&UCAL sue
8£fEftEKC£
Ha
:m/o
i HA
~esncwe
CAttSORT
: v V»*
: t&ztmwt
STAttlS
Kepone
sChlwdecww
v ¦ ¦¦ ¦¦ <¦. > ff •'.•'•.•yy .- :• ¦¦
'"lindane V- - ; i. j-,
0.2
0.2
Insecticide
S.R.SRC
' ' " ' , - ,,, - ;¦
itnurcn
Herbicide
S.SRP
* '1M? ' ^
~v<.; , ...
200
Insecticide
S
^JKilwOn ' '
Malathion
Degrsdate
•N ^ > "¦ S"
H*»c<»tto\, ' "" V-"
Fungicide
S
' *\*C * -
Fmgicide
S
+ , ->
KCPA
- - -
10
Herbicide
some C,
some S
MCPA acids, salts, esters
MCPA
¦¦ .-;¦ -
RCP8
Insecticide
S
MCPB salts, esters
' MCPB ,
NCPP salts, esters
Meeoprop
MCPPA
Heeoprop
Hocoprtjp
Herbicide
S
: Merpury ;
2
2
SRC
Herpbo# ^ '
Fungicide
Herbicide
u,c
Het#laxyl " - , ,
Fungicide-
s
Meth$»5.'-
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R
~»ptharo<«
Herbicide
s
1 HetMdathiion
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R
HetMccsrb
Insecticide
Acaricide
Molluscicide
Rodenticide
Bird repellant
S.R
Methottyl '-
200
Insecticide
S,R
, S
HethfwtychlOf
40
40
Insecticide
Acaricide
S
Methyl torttfc
Insecticide
Antimicrobial
S.R
Methyl carbophenothion
¦Carbophenothion,
methyl
flethyl Isothlocyanate
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
S.R
'Methyl paraoxoft , '¦¦
Parathion, methyl
Oegradate
APPENDIX 1-9
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CKSWCAlt «M€
BEF68ENCE
WC
- pgsrjtjpe ,
H >CAt€6o«r;;v-' ;s
ivjtrouwctr
IsyStATUS
Methyl parathion
ParatMon, *ethyt
Methyl trithion
Cerbophenothion,
ncth/4
Methylene ehtoHde
Insecticide
u
MetolacMor
100
Herbicide
s
,
Hetribuzfn
200
Insecticide
s
Hetrftwzin QK r"' 1
Metribuzin
Degradate
MetHbuiin ftADtf
Metribuzin
Degradate
Metrjbuzto Wt " " -
Metribuzin
Degradate
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R
-rtexfeCitfwte ''' *
Insecticide
u.c
Hirer-"- - .i- -
Insecticide
C,SRC
X .
moHm»
Herbicide
S
Mot irate sui-f oxide
Molinate
Degradate
Monocrotoptioa
Insecticide
Acaricide
C,R
f "* t s +/
Monuron
Herbicide
C,SRC
, > ~ ..-.. , ;¦ ...
»el«f .
"• s *•
Insecticide
Acaricide
S
naphthalene ' ''
20
Insecticide
S
NapropMtide •>
Insecticide
S
\ V <• sS Ns / \
Herbicide
s
Meburoo
Herbicide
c
Nemagon
DBCP
Nftrofen "
Herbicide
c
p-Nitrophenol
4-mtrophenol
NowhUr ^
Chlordane
Impurity in
formulation
UorHuraxon '
Herbicide
s
Octyi bfcyclohepifm'
dfesrboxlatde
Insecticide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
s
Ortho-dichlorobenzene
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL *m.
ililflyiiiNl
' ft?F£S£KC£
>:^>V H
¦
#a
w. s ^ %
J.HA
CffB/O
¦¦ „ S V 5 'V "S ^ V
pesnewe
CATEfiOtt -
•:>;-:-s>x.syc^y
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
%' v s. . va % \ «. '.V/W.VJW.W.1 '.vAviV,
,
conic* «me
»li|sl|llilliw?
«/>/ «sV' s s y vw j 0
tfFttEXtt
«a
«0 ^ v"
it*
wo-
CATEcwr
: Vs s s «, •, •.
^StATOS't"-..
: %ov «c«s«fr •• ^ \ .
. .A •» J "" "• •• . v/A.-i' £s s ^ ¦•
vTOS".'.'. S.vS.'.vav/WI'aw.vA'.'.'.wS'j'.aWiV .'
Pfonawt «xwm analog #¦¦
Phosnet
Degradate
N -/.^v ¦ ;'./-*> "
MiospNmfdon
Insecticide
C.R
¦Hctoraw -
500
500
Herbicide
S,R
*
Aphidicide
C
?frf*lcBPb tulfone
Pirimicarb
Degradate
Insecticide
S.R
Prtrf Uirbt ift "
Herbicide
C
PfttuecArb ^ *¦ " %
Insecticide
NR (in US)
" ' S •. N -. N ^ ^
100
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
S
Pr
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
OMttt «MH .
8Ef£8£NC£
HO. .
tophanat«
Fungicide
c
T*iopharwt«-methyl
Insecticide
Fungicide
S,SRC
Tordon
Pleloram
Tsxaphene
3
Insecticide
U,R,SRC
TratonethHn
Insecticide
S.R
Tr«n$»nonachtor
chlordane
Impurity in
formulation
THadlmefon*
Fungicide
S
APPENDIX 1-13
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
ms ,*>* <¦
"
'w s
HO,
tu«
%s % •. s
s *¦ w v > s ""N s
..wi*srw&& h
t,- CAteewnr;."-™-
,,.V\ v
S^StAtUS ¦
: *>> ''
, ;¦
Herbicide
S
'<¦ '2 \ £'¦ ¦¦¦¦¦¦'
trfchiorfon
Insecticide-
s
Trichloro«c«ttc acid
Herbicide
u
Trichlorobenzene
\ 7 k+
*****
Me*rt«tt>bewene
THchloroetfwrwr
Trichloroethylene
4rJ«M©r:«ttfcw»..1
5
Funigant
c
• .* ' '
T rS^iorWWt tfc)'- ^ J
Insecticide
c
Trlthlorpphenot
.v. W,W/».V.V.V.VMV.' 'AWMVA'A ,'Vv." X'A'.'.V.wN.V.V.vX'
\"N\V •..% w *» % *>
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antinicrobial
u.c
Trichlorophon
tHeWorfon -¦¦¦¦ - -
Trtctopyr
.¦.¦.¦.¦.¦.vsv. w,v,\v.v.vmwm,.v.,ato)mwov.,a,av^ s j
Insecticide
Herbicide
s
THeytUtbU *
Fungicide
NR
TrffluraHn
5
Herbicide
S,SR,C
Trithion
Carbophenothfon
Tmic
HetfwzoXe
UracU/Urw
Antimicrobial
u
VernoUte
Herbicide
s
Vorlex
1,2-0 J ch I orgprcp«ne,
Dichloroprcpene*
Methyl isothiocyanate
xytefte '
10000
10000
. Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
u
ZiMb
Insecticide
Fungicide
c
tlrm
Insecticide
Fungicide
u
SRPrePresently in Pre-Special Review
D
SR Special Review in progress
r
SR Special Review completed
S Supported: The producer(s) of the pesticide has made cownitments to conduct
the studies and pay the fees required for ^registration, and is meeting
those conrnitments in a timely manner.
APPENDIX 1-14
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
U Unsi^iperted: The producer(s) of the pesticide has not nade or honored a
ccamitment 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.
R Restricted Use: The pesticide has been classified as a Restricted Use
Pesticide irder 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.
A In Hawaii both dichloropropane and 1,2-dichloropropane appear in the data.
APPENDIX 1-15
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
APPENDIX H - NATIONAL SURVEY OF PESTICIDES IN DRINKING
WATER WELLS
-------
*; QFTESllQife IN PRINKIKG 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 (NPS). 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: atrazine, DCPA acid metabolites, dibromochloropropane,
dinoseb, hexachlorobenzene, prometon, simazine.
Rural Domestic: alachlor, atrazine, bentazon, DCPA acid metabolites,
dibromochloropropane, ethylene dibromide, ethylene thiourea,
gamma-BHC (lindane), prometon, simazine.
Appendix II-l
------- |