Prevention
United States Pesticides and EPA 734-12-92-001 >
Environmental Protection Toxic Substances August 1992
Agency (H7507C)
EPA Pesticides In Ground Water Database
A Compilation Of Monitoring Studies: 1971-1991
Region 3
: : §f||
Ml
DELAWARE MARYLAND PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA WEST VIRGINIA
•'??> Printed on Recycled Paper
V
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
ERRATA
VOLUME PAGE
COMMENTS
All APPENDIX Regulatory status for chloroform is given as SRp, it should
Volumes 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 Report
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 3
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 3
CONTENTS
OVERVIEW OV-1
REGIONAL MAP OV-14
GRAPH: WELLS BY STATE OV-15
STATE SUMMARIES:
DELAWARE
State Map 1-DE-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-DE-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-DE-3
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Delaware 1-DE-l 1
Table: State of Delaware - Wells by County l-DE-13
MARYLAND
State Map 1-MD-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-MD-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-MD-3
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Maryland l-MD-9
Table: State of Maryland - Wells by County l-MD-15
PENNSYLVANIA
State Map 1-PA-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-PA-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-PA-3
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Pennsylvania 1-PA-l 1
Table: State of Pennsylvania - Wells by County l-PA-15
VIRGINIA
State Map 1-VA-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-VA-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-VA-5
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Virginia 1-VA-ll
Table: State of Virginia - Wells by County l-VA-27
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report, Region 3
CONTENTS
WEST VIRGINIA
State Map 1-WV-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-WV-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-WV-3
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of West Virginia l-WV-5
Table: State of West Virginia - Wells by County l-WV-9
APPENDICES
Pesticide Cross-Reference Table Appendix 1-1
National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells Appendix II-l
-------
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
I. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Pesticide Programs (EPA/OPP)
is responsible for protecting human and environmental health from unreasonable risk due
to pesticide exposure. Monitoring efforts carried out during the last decade have shown that
the nation's ground water can become contaminated with pesticides, particularly in areas
with high pesticide use and vulnerable aquifers. Therefore, OPP has taken a strong
preventive approach to the protection of this valuable resource. Regulatory activities have
evolved to include, as a condition of registration or re-registration, a more rigorous
evaluation of a pesticide's potential to reach ground water. OPP has also formed strong
partnerships with other federal and state agencies responsible for various aspects of ground-
water protection.
The Pesticides in Ground Water Database (PGWDB) was created to provide a more
complete picture of ground-water monitoring for pesticides in the United States. It is a
collection of ground-water monitoring studies conducted by federal, state and local
governments, the pesticide industry and private institutions. It consists of monitoring data
and auxiliary information in both computerized and hard-copy form. This report, Pesticides
in Ground Water Database - A Compilation of Monitoring Studies: 1971 -1991, was prepared
to summarize and share the results of the studies in the PGWDB. It consists of 11 volumes:
a National Summary and ten EPA regional summaries. Each volume provides a detailed
description of the computerized PGWDB and a guide to reading and interpreting the data.
The data are presented as maps, graphs and tables.
These data are extremely valuable, but must be interpreted carefully. In general, the
PGWDB provides an overview of the ground-water monitoring efforts for pesticides in the
United States, the pesticides that are being found in the nation's ground water, and the
areas of the country that appear to be vulnerable to pesticide contamination.
When viewed as a whole, it might appear the data gathered for this report are
representative of the United States and/or of general drinking water quality. This is not
necessarily the case. For example, many studies included sampling of aquifers that supply
drinking water, however these samples were usually taken at the well, not at the consumer's
tap. Therefore, conclusions concerning finished water can only be drawn by careful
examination of the data on a study by study basis. In addition, ground-water monitoring
programs vary widely in sampling intensity and design from state to state. Not surprisingly,
the states that sampled the greatest number of wells were often those that found the
greatest number of contaminated wells. This should not be misconstrued to mean that the
ground water m 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 TTie PIN is a computerized collection of files
that contain pesticide monitoring and regulatory information. The PIN functions much like
a PC-PC bulletin board and can be accessed by anyone with a computer and a modem. The
PIN is currently undergoing an expansion that will allow new types of information to be
included and increase the number of simultaneous users. The new PIN will be available in
1993 and will contain the PGWDB, environmental fate chemical/physical parameters for
pesticides, pesticide regulatory information (Restricted Use, Special Review, canceled and
suspended) and a certification and training bibliography.
II. THE ROLE OF PESTICIDE MONITORING
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires EPA to
monitor the environment for pesticide residues [section 20, parts (b) and (c)]. The primary
goal of pesticide monitoring is to improve the soundness of FIFRA risk/benefit regulatory
decisions by providing information on the concentrations of pesticide residues and the
effects that exposure to these residues have on human health and the environment. In
addition, long-term changes in environmental quality can be detected through the analysis
of monitoring data. OPP can use this information to measure the effectiveness of regulatory
decisions and to indicate potential environmental problems.
EPA has directly sponsored some large-scale pesticide monitoring projects, such as the
National Monitoring Programs of the 1970s2 and the recent National Survey of Pesticides
in Drinking Water Wells.3 This type of monitoring is intended to provide information on
a national level involving large numbers of pesticides. It does not provide information
concerning localized problems or long-term trends. This method of data gathering is also
extremely resource-intensive. An alternative approach for OPP is to support and gather
information from monitoring studies performed by others. Since the responsibility for
protecting the nation's ground water is shared by federal and state governments, OPP's data-
handling responsibilities not only include procuring the most current information for its own
needs, but also sharing this information with its partners in state and federal agencies. The
development of the Pesticides in Ground Water Database is a step in this direction.
OV-2
-------
III. BACKGROUND
OPP began collecting ground-water studies for the PGWDB in the early 1980s. In 1988,
an effort was made to review and catalog these data. Summary results of this effort were
computerized and then published in the Pesticides in Ground Water Database: 1988 Interim
Report.4
Since the 1988 Interim Report was issued, many things have changed. State-sponsored
projects, initiated in the late 1980s, have been completed and digitized, monitoring
methodologies and computer technology have improved, and the quality and quantity of data
have increased. Based on extensive use of the 1988 database by OPP's Ground Water
Technology Section and the comments received from other users, both within and outside
of OPP, the computerized database and the hard-copy report were restructured. The new
computerized structure is more appropriate for the quality and quantity of the information
currently available, as well as for that expected in the future. The new structure is both well
and sample specific; that is, it contains description and location information for each well
sampled and the results of each analysis. This structure allows ground-water monitoring
data to be sorted in a variety of ways, such as by well depth, well location, and sampling
date. The new report structure provides national, regional, state and county summaries so
that readers can select the resolution appropriate for their needs.
Most of the data in the PGWDB have been produced directly by state agencies or by
private institutions that are sponsored by federal or state agencies. Some pesticide industry-
sponsored studies have also been included in the PGWDB. These studies were conducted
to support the registration status of a particular pesticide and were generally conducted in
areas that are vulnerable to ground-water contamination by pesticides.
The database is a compilation of data submitted in several different formats, including
computerized and hard-copy sampling results as well as hard-copy reports containing study
descriptions and summary information. Many states are now routinely storing their data in
computerized form and have shared their data with OPP. Some of the hard-copy data are
from older studies that were never computerized. Some are from studies that have been
computerized, but OPP has not yet been able to obtain the data. OPP is also retaining
hard-copy final reports for as many studies as possible. These reports provide vital
information such as study design, well design, analytical methods, quality control and
environmental conditions.
The focus of the PGWDB is quite narrow. It contains only ground-water monitoring
data in which pesticides were included as analytes. Therefore, the PGWDB does not
replicate STORET5 or WATSTORE6. While these large databases contain some pesticide
monitoring data and some ground-water data, their primary focus is general water quality.
As a result, these databases contain a great deal more information about water quality, but
lack many of the pesticide focused studies that are included in the PGWDB. Many states
have used STORET to store water-quality data, including analyses for pesticides. STORET
data were downloaded and added to the PGWDB when the data could be directly
OV-3
-------
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*
FIGURE 1. Data Elements for the Pesticides in Ground Water Database
STU« mfc
ttli mfc-:
SAMPLE t=|LE
Study Number
Study Number(s)
Study Number
Study Title
Unique Well Nurber'
Unique Well Nunber1
Sponsoring Agency(ies)
2
State and County FIPS Codes
Pesticide7
Project Offieer(s) (PO)
Latitude and Longitude^
Concentration (ug/L)
P0 Address(es)
Depth to Uater Table (m)
Limit of Detection (ug/L)
P0 Telephone(s)
Well Depth (m)
Sairple date
USEPA Region
Depth to Top and Bottom of Screen
Interval (m)
Analytical Method®
Starting and Ending Dates
Uell Type4
o
Origin of Contamination
Publication Date
Well Log & Other Information^
Abstract
Attitude'
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 digit
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
-------
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 are 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 in 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
UELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
.. COMCEK*
tration -
0«g/l>
8
PESTICIDE
1
COUNTY
DATE
llllll
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
# OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
5
: TOTAL':! ;
SAMPLES
NUMBER OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
7
W
MO
:'MCL
<
HCL
mm
HCL
Pesticide K
County A ¦
1989/
1.3
1990/6
County B
1987/
1-5
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS OR SAMPLES
9
10
10
11
12
12
• Pesticide B
County A
1989
1990
County 8
1987
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
13
14
K
15
16
16
I 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
-------
2 County names are listed in alphabetical order for each pesticide that was monitored.
3 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.
I 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.
6 The total number of samples analyzed for that pesticide within the time period recorded in the date column.
7 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.
8 The range of positive results in ug/L (ppb) for the time period specified in the date column.
5 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.
II 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 tne 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
WELLS Br COUNTY
COUNTY* , '
TYPES Of WEUS
SOURCE OF
" CONTAMINATION
(NUMBER OF WELLS)
OBINKING WATER
1
kom!Tor:ng
Z '
OTHER '
j 3
total
SUPLD
4
%MC£-x
MSW
«a
:V5
TOTAL:
SWLD
4
s
Ma
-t
HCl
5
^ T6UL
| SHPLD
>4
tta
s
<
HCL
5
MFU
6
' PS:
LINK
8
County A
County 8
TOTAL *
1. 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 TrambeT of each type of well sampled m each county.
J 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:
6 NFU=Known or Suspected Normal Field Use.
7 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.
9 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 of ground-
water resources resulting from the normal use of registered pesticides. OPP routinely
reassesses the impact that registered pesticides have on the quality of ground-water
resources. The PGWDB will be used to support ongoing regulatory activities, such as
ground-water label advisories, monitoring studies required for pesticide re-registration and
special review activities. In addition, combining the information in the PGWDB with other
environmental fate data and usage data will assist OPP, at an early stage in the regulatory
process, in refining criteria used to identify pesticides that tend to leach to ground water.
On a state or local level, the PGWDB can be used as a reference so that a state may
access data from neighboring states. Evidence that pesticide residues occur in ground water
can be used to target a state's resources for future monitoring and to re-assess pesticide
management practices to prevent future degradation of ground-water quality. The
information presented in this report will also be useful to state and regional agencies when
implementing two pollution-prevention measures being developed by EPA; the Restricted
Use Rule and the State Management Plans outlined in the Pesticides and Ground Water
Strategy. Additional uses for the data in the PGWDB include identification of areas in need
of further study, identification of the intensity of monitoring for particular pesticides, and
graphic display of ground-water monitoring activities and localization of pesticide
contamination.
VII. DATA LIMITATIONS
Despite their apparent value, these data do have limitations and must be used and
interpreted carefully. Differences in study design, laboratory procedures/equipment,
sampling practices, or well use can affect results. Some of the limitations governing the
interpretation of the data in the PGWDB are discussed below:
1) The PGWDB is not a complete data set of all ground-water monitoring for
pesticides in the United States. While we have attempted to include as many
sources as possible, other data exist of which we are not aware or to which we do
not yet have access.
OV-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 radically affect the results.
Many monitoring efforts were initiated in response to suspected problems, and
therefore yielded a disproportionately high number of positive samples. These
results cannot be extrapolated to represent a larger region or state. Other efforts
sampled a small number of wells or sampled under conditions in which
contamination was unlikely. Still others were statistically designed studies, intended
to be extrapolated to a specific population of wells. Each of these scenarios
presents a vastly different view of the condition of the ground-water resource
sampled.
4) Analytical methods and limits of detection have changed over time, and also vary
from laboratory to laboratory. Therefore, comparisons between the results of
different studies and across several years must be performed carefully to avoid
errors in interpretation.
5) Differences in construction, depth, location and intended use can greatly affect the
likelihood that a particular well will become contaminated by pesticides. Some of
these issues "were addressed in the individual study summaries -when such details
were available. However, this information was not always provided and tends to
be obscured when large amounts of data are summarized. The reader is cautioned
to read the study summaries carefully and interpret the resulting data summaries
conservatively.
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. The 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)
Re
41/95
5/20:
149/211
Total Wells Sampled
per State
S3
(Zl
~
501
101
> L 000
to 1000
to 500
51 to 100
1 to 50
No wells sampled
OV-14
-------
REGION 3
WELL STATUS BY STATE
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
2
VA
VAVM^YAYAWMJ l4a
21
1 J
*
PA
(-XXXXXXXJ 61
f
91
14
MD
a'VYYY J
41
95
24
DE
^xxx5
32
/
36
WV
I 1
n
20
l
0
50
100 150
WELL COUNTS
200
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
I TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
OV-15
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992
STATE SUMMARIES
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
20/24!:
Pesticides Detected
Alachlor
Aldicarb
Atrazine
Carbofuran
Cyanazine
Dicamba
Metolachlor
Simazine
Total Wells Sampled
per County
m > 1000
ESS 501 to 1000
ES 101 to 500
E3 51 to 100
ED 1 to 50
~ No wells sampled
3-DE-l
-------
DELAWARE
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Regulations concerning ground water quality control for the Delaware River Basin
established that no substances or properties which are in harmful or toxic concentrations or
that produce a color, taste, or odor in the water shall be permitted or induced by the
activities of man to enter the ground water. Heat discharges which may adversely affect
ground water shall be regulated; and certain activities, such as approved solid or liquid
waste disposal systems or fertilizer applications for farming practices, may be permitted.
The use of regional water pollution control facilities providing optimum combinations of
efficiency, reliability, and service area will be required throughout the Delaware River Basin
to the maximum extent feasible.
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Ritter, William F., Agriculture Engineering Department, University of Delaware, Newark,
DE, 19717. Tel.: 302-451-2460. Quantification of Pesticide Losses by Leaching and Runoff
in Tilled and Untilled Fields in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Study conducted between
1984 and 1986. Reported in November, 1988 (26 p.).
Primary Objective
The primary objectives of this study were 1) to evaluate the leaching and runoff losses of
pesticides from fields planted to corn as influenced by tillage system, soil structure, and
regional variation, and 2) to collect data to test and calibrate generally accepted water
quality models.
Design
In 1984 three plots were established on a site at the University of Delaware Research and
Education Center located near Georgetown, Sussex County. The plots were approximately
0.5 ha in size. The plots were planted to no-tillage corn. Atrazine was applied pre-
emergence at rates of 1.12, 2.24, and 4.48 kg/ha. Alachlor and carbofuran were applied to
all three plots p: e-emergence at a rate of 2.24 kg/ha.
3-DE-3
-------
In 1985, a conventional till plot was established. The other plots were maintained in no-till
corn. Atrazine was applied pre-emergence to the no-tillage plots at rates of 1.12, 2.24, and
4.48 kg/ha, respectively, and to the conventional tillage plot at a rate of 2.24 kg/ha.
Cyanazine, simazine, metolachlor, and carbofuran were also applied pre-emergence to all
plots at rates of 1.68, 2.24, 1.68, and 3.34 kg/ha. Dicamba was applied post-emergence to
all plots at a rate of 0.28 kg/ha. The same treatments were used in 1986 as in 1985.
Carbofuran was banded in the row, while all other pesticides were broadcast.
There was very little slope to the plots, and no runoff occurred. The plots were located in
an Evesboro loamy sand soil (mesic, coated, typic quartzipsament). The corn was irrigated
with solid-set sprinkler irrigation on a 9.2-m spacing.
The plots were used during the 1970s for a poultry manure experiment, and monitoring wells
were installed for that experiment. The monitoring wells were installed to a depth of 3.1
m and were constructed from 2.5-cm galvanized steel pipe. The well points were
constructed from stainless steel. For the pesticide experiment, three monitoring wells were
sampled in each plot. Five background monitoring wells were installed outside the plots.
These wells were constructed from 3.25-cm PVC pipe with a screen length of 1.5 m and a
slot size of 0.25 mm. The wells ranged in depth from 4.6 to 15.3 m and were installed by
the auger drilling method.
All monitoring wells were sampled monthly with a battery-operated pump. The shallow
wells were pumped dry and allowed to recharge before a sample was collected. Soil and
water samples were analyzed by the New York Agricultural Experiment Station Pesticide
Residue Laboratory in Geneva, New York, for atrazine, simazine, cyanazine, metolachlor,
and alachlor. Samples were analyzed for the presence of dicamba and carbofuran by the
Pennsylvania State University Pesticide Research Laboratory. The methods of analysis were
outlined by Ritter and Brinsfield, 1987. The detection limit for each pesticide was 1 ug/L.
Results and Conclusions
Alachlor
Alachlor was detected in the ground water in all 9 monitoring wells at concentration ranging
from 0.2-2 ug/L 24 days after it was applied. The highest concentration (15 ug/L) occurred
59 days after application. Concentrations of alachlor in the ground water gradually
decreased, and after 159 days, no detectable concentrations of alachlor were found until
180 days after post application. At that time alachlor was detected again at concentrations
up to 1.0 ppb. The rapid movement of the alachlor to the ground water shortly after it was
applied was probably by macropore flow. A dye study on the no-tillage plots indicated rapid
movement through root holes and worm holes. The concentration may have decreased to
below detectable levels because of a dilution effect or because the alachlor degraded in the
ground water.
3-DE-4
-------
Atrazine
In 1984, atrazine was detected in 5 of the 9 monitoring wells 24 days after application. The
maximum (54.0 ug/L) was detected 59 days after application in one of the monitoring wells
where atrazine was applied at a rate of 4.48 kg/ha.
Higher atrazine concentrations were detected on the 1.12- and 4.48-kg/ha plots than on the
plot where the atrazine application rate was 2.24 kg/ha. After reaching a peak
concentration 59 days post application, atrazine concentrations slowly decreased in the
ground water; no atrazine was detected 300 days after application. In 1985, atrazine was
not detected until 183 days post application at which time 5 of the 12 monitoring wells had
concentrations of atrazine that ranged from 3-9 ug/L. In 1986,7 of the 12 monitoring wells
were positive at 3-29 ug/L. Atrazine was detected in the ground water shortly after it was
applied on all plots. The greatest atrazine concentrations in the ground water occurred on
the 2.24- and 4.48 kg/ha application rate, no-tillage plots 118 days after it was applied.
Higher atrazine concentrations occurred in the ground water in the conventional treatment
than in the no-tillage treatment. More rainfall occurred in 1984 and 1986 shortly after the
atrazine was applied than in 1985. Therefore, some of the atrazine detected in the ground-
water samples taken 24 days after it was applied in 1986 may have been from the 1985
atrazine application. The rainfall probably caused rapid movement through the macropores
to the ground water.
The 1986 soil data indicated atrazine had moved through the top 152 cm of the soil profile
17 days after it was applied. At the 123-152 cm depth, the atrazine concentration was 3.0
ppb for the conventional tillage treatment. In 1985, atrazine also was detected in the 122-
152 cm depth 17 days after it was applied in both the no-tillage and conventional tillage
treatment plots. Atrazine moved more rapidly in the soil profile in the conventional tillage
than in the no-tillage, even though no atrazine was detected in the ground water shortly
after it was applied in 1985.
Carbofuran
In 1984, carbofuran was detected in one of the monitoring wells at a concentration of 3.0
ug/L. No carbofuran was detected in ground water in 1985 or 1986. Some of the ground
water samples in 1985 and 1986 were also analyzed for hydroxycarbofuran, but none was
found. Carbofuran was also not detected in any of the soil samples analyzed 1985.
Carbofuran was applied as a band to the row, and all soil samples were taken between the
rows. Carbofuran may have degraded rapidly, so it was not detected in the soil or ground
water.
Cvanazine
Cyanazine was not detected in any of the monitoring wells in 1985 before the May 1986
application. In 1986, cyanazine was detected in one of the 12 monitoring wells on a
conventional till plot at 29 ug/L 24 days after application. Twenty-three days later the
concentration decreased to 4.0 ug/L.
3-DE-5
-------
Dicamba
In 1985,12 days after application dicamba was detected in all monitoring wells on both the
conventional and no-till plots at a concentration range of 2.0-37.0 ug/L. After 102 days, no
dicamba was detected in any of the monitoring wells. Macropore movement of dicamba
probably occurred and was similar to the alachlor, simazine, and atrazine movement in 1984.
In 1986, dicamba was detected in the ground water on the conventional treatment but was
not detected in any of the monitoring wells in the no-tillage plots. Concentrations in the
monitoring wells on the conventional tillage plot ranged from 0 to 4.9 ppb 16 days after
dicamba was applied.
Metolachlor
In 1985, thirty-nine days after metolachlor was applied, it was detected in two of the three
monitoring wells in the conventional tillage plot, but was not detected in any of the no-
tillage monitoring wells. One-hundred and eighty-three days after metolachlor was applied,
it was detected in the ground water beneath all plots. In 1986, metolachlor was detected
in 3 monitoring wells in the conventional tillage plot, 24 days after application but was not
detected in any of the not-tillage monitoring wells.
Simazine
Simazine was detected in the ground water on all plots in 1985 and 1986. In 1985, 39 days
after application, simazine concentrations were as high as 2.0 ug/L. In 1986, 24 days after
application concentrations were as high as 4.0 ug/L on no-tillage plots and 37.0 ug/L on
conventional tillage plots. High concentrations of simazine were detected in the ground
water in 1984, even though it was not applied to the plots. The may have been due to the
fact that simazine can occur as an impurity in the manufacture of atrazine.
Conclusions drawn from the research are as follows:
1. The pesticides examined in this study can be ranked by their of rate of
movement to ground water as follows: atrazine > dicamba > simazine >
alachlor > metolachlor > cyanazine > carbofuran.
2. If sufficient rainfall occurs shortly after some pesticides are applied, they may be
leached rapidly through macropores to the ground water in sandy soils with
water tables at depths of 1.5 to 3.0 m.
3. The pesticides studied moved more rapidly in conventional tillage than in no-
tillage.
4. There is the potential for trace amounts of atrazine may be present in the
shallow ground water in Delaware.
3-DE-6
-------
[Note: Pesticide concentrations were reported as the range and the average of three
samples taken from three different wells. The third value was calculated using the formula:
x = (3 x Average) - Sum of 2 known values. The available data were insufficient to
calculate the grand total number of samples >_ or < the MCL because individual samples
analyzed for different pesticides were not identified.]
Ritter,W.F., R.W. Scarborough, andAE.M. Chimside, Agricultural Engineering Department,
University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19717. Herbicide Leaching in a Coastal Plain Soil.
Study conducted in 1987-1988. Reported at the 1991 International Summer Meeting
sponsored by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Albuquerque, New Mexico,
June 23-26, 1991.
Primary Objective
This study was designed to compare the magnitude of leaching of atrazine, cyanazine,
simazine, and metolachlor under conventional and no tillage corn in a Coastal Plain soil.
Design
The research was conducted at the University of Delaware Research and Education Center
near Georgetown, Sussex County. In 1987 and 1988, two large plots (0.25 ha) were planted
in conventional corn and two large plots were planted in no-tillage corn. Atrazine, simazine,
cyanazine, and metolachlor were applied pre-emergence to all plots at rates of 2.24, 2.24,
1.68, and 1.68 kg/ha, respectively. The plots have very little slope and a high infiltration
rate, so no runoff occurred. During the winter of 1987, six monitoring wells were installed
in each plot. The wells were constructed from 3.25 cm diameter PVC pipe with a screen
length of 1.5 m and a slot size of 0.25 mm. Five background wells, that were installed
previously, were located outside the plots. All wells were installed by the auger drilling
method.
All monitoring wells were sampled monthly with a battery operated peristaltic pump. Soil
samples were also taken four times in 1987. All water samples and soil samples were
analyzed by the New York Agricultural Experiment Station Pesticide Residue Laboratory
at Geneva, New York. All samples were kept frozen at -20 C between collection and
analysis. Samples were analyzed by capillary chromatographic analyses using either Tracer
Model 365 or 540 gas chromatographs equipped with Ni electron capture detectors.
Minimum detection limits using these methods for water and soil samples were 1 ppb.
Results and Conclusions
Atrazine
In 1987, atrazine was detected at 3 and 4.5 m depth in all wells of the no-tillage plots 9 days
after application. Concentrations ranged from 1 to 4 ug/L on no-tillage plots and up to 17
ug/L on conventional tillage plots. Atrazine was detected more frequently than the other
herbicides in the ground water under no-tillage and was detected as frequently as simazine
3-DE-7
-------
and more frequently than metolachlor or cyanazine under conventional tillage. In 1988,
higher atrazine concentrations occurred in the ground water later in the growing season.
Thirty-five days after application, concentrations ranged from 0 to 2 ug/L at 3 m depth on
both the no-tillage and conventional tillage treatments. At the 4.5 m depth, concentrations
ranged from 1 to 2 ug/L for the conventional tillage and from 0 to 1 ug/L for the no-tillage.
Atrazine concentrations increased in the ground water on three of the four plots in August,
105 days after application. One well at 3 m depth had a concentration of 22 ug/L. In
September, atrazine concentrations decreased to levels detected during other parts of the
year.
Cyanazine
Nine days after cyanazine was applied in 1987, it was detected in 6 of 12 wells on the no-
tillage plots and in 10 of 12 wells on the conventional tillage plots. Concentrations ranged
from 0 to 4 ug/L at 3 m depth and from 0 to 7 ug/L at 4.5 m depth for no-tillage. Under
conventional tillage, concentrations ranged from 1 to 14 ug/L at 3 m depth and from 0 to
6 ug/L at 4.5 m depth. After the first sampling, cyanazine was only detected in one
monitoring well for all other sampling dates. Cyanazine was not detected in the ground
water in 1988 in the no-tillage plots and only 3 times in the conventional tillage.
Metolachlor
Nine days after metolachlor was applied in 1987, it detected in 5 of 6 wells on the
conventional tillage plots at 3 m depth. Concentrations ranged from 0 to 13 ug/L. At the
4.5 m metolachlor was detected in 4 of 6 wells at concentrations from 0 to 1 ug/L.
Metolachlor was only detected in one well on the no-tillage plots. Thirty-one days after
metolachlor was applied, concentrations decreased to zero in all but 2 of the wells. In 1988,
metolachlor was detected in one monitoring well under both no-tillage and conventional
tillage 35 days after application. Fifty-seven days after application, metolachlor was detected
in 2 monitoring wells under conventional tillage and in 6 monitoring wells in the no-tillage
plots at concentrations ranging from 1 to 5 ug/L. Eighty days after application,
concentrations were below the detection limit of 1 ug/L in all monitoring wells.
Data indicate that all four pesticides were leached to the ground water shortly they were
applied in 1987. Pesticides may move to shallow ground water by macropore flow in the
sandy soils of the Mid Atlantic states if more than 30 mm of rainfall occurs shortly they
were applied. The pesticides will probably decrease to non-detectable concentrations in the
shallow ground water with time because of dilution.
3-DE-8
-------
Ritter, William F. Agriculture Engineering Department, University of Delaware, Newark,
DE, 19717. Tel.: 302-451-2460. Ground Water Quality Monitoring in the Appoquinimink
Watershed. Study conducted from June, 1984 through June, 1987. Reported August, 1987
(42 p.).
Primary Objective
With the increase in conservation tillage and no-till in the Appoquinimink watershed, the
question arose that nitrate and pesticide leaching to the groundwater may be occurring. In
order to evaluate the impact of Best Management Practices on groundwater quality, the
Water Resources Agency for New Castle County contracted with the University of Delaware
in 1983 for ground-water monitoring in the Appoquinimink watershed.
Design
Monitoring wells were installed in May and June 1984 on a dairy farm with an animal waste
handling system, two grain farms, and two potato farms. Monitoring wells were installed by
the Delaware Geological Survey using the auger drilling method. The monitoring wells were
constructed from 1.25-inch diameter PVC with the bottom 5 ft. of the wells screened. The
top 5 ft. of the well casing was grouted with bentonite. A total of 24 monitoring wells was
installed. They ranged in depth from 14 to 39 ft.
Monitoring wells were sampled in June 1984 and in March 1985 for pesticide analysis. All
of the samples were analyzed for atrazine, and the samples taken from the potato farms
were analyzed for aldicarb. A few wells were also sampled in October 1984 and analyzed
for atrazine by another laboratory for Ciba-Geigy to confirm the atrazine analysis
methodology of the commercial laboratory used for the June 1984 pesticide analysis.
Pesticide analysis was performed by A&L Laboratories, and all other analysis was performed
by the Agricultural Engineering Department Water Quality Laboratory. All samples were
collected by a battery-operated pump, packed in ice for transport to the laboratory, and
stored at 0°C. For the 1984 sampling, the minimum aldicarb detection limit was 10 ug/L;
however, in March, 1985 aldicarb detection limit was 1 ug/L. Atrazine detection limit was
1 ug/L in samples from June, 1984 and March, 1985, and 0.10 ug/L in samples collected in
October, 1984.
Results and Conclusions
Twenty-three monitoring wells were analyzed for the presence of atrazine in June 1984, and
22 in March 1985. Atrazine was found in approximately half of the wells at concentrations
ranging between 1 to 29 ug/L in 1984 and from 1-23 ug/L in 1985. In October, 1984
samples were taken from 5 wells and analyzed by Ciba-Geigy. Atrazine was detected in 4
of the wells at concentrations ranging from 0.29-45 ug/L. One well located near a pond had
atrazine concentrations ranging from 23 to 45 ug/L. There appears to be no explanation
as to why the atrazine concentrations are so high in this well. The dairy farm and grain
farms had the highest atrazine concentrations.
3-DE-9
-------
In June 1984 the minimum aldicarb detection limit was 10 ug/L. None of the 10 wells had
aldicarb concentrations above 10 ug/L. In March 1985 the detection limit was lug/L. Two
of the 10 wells were positive for aldicarb at concentrations of 1 and 7 ug/L. The well with
7 ug/L was resampled in April 1985 to confirm the presence of aldicarb. The concentration
for the second sampling in 1985 was 2.5 ug/L. This well is located at the edge of a potato
field in the direction of ground-water flow. Aldicarb was applied to the potato field in 1984.
3-DE-10
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE
-
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
- RANGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
tug/1) -
• PESTICIDE
COUIITY
DATE
TOTAL
W£t,LS
SAMPLED
' # OF
positive
VELtS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
# Of
fOSIWt
SAMPLES
TfEAR/
HONTH
>
HCL
<
HCL
*
, MCt
< .
HCL
AlacMor
SUSSEX
1984
9
6
3
99
10
39
0.1-15
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
9
6
3
99
10
39
0.1-15
AldiCarb
KEU CASTLE
1984A
10
0
0
10
0
0
1985
10
1
1
10
1
1
1-7
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
10
1
1
10
1
1
1-7
Atrazfne
NEU CASTLE
1984/06
23
7
6
23
7
6
1-29
1984/10
5
2
2
5
2
2
0.29-45
1985/10
22
10
2
22
10
2
1-23
SUSSEX
1984
9
2
5
99
3
20
0.1-54
1985
12
5
7
156
11
18
0.1-9
1986
12
7
4
84
18
15
0.1-29
1987
29
6
2
156
63B
60®
1.0-17.0
1988
29
3
4
90
38
41®
1.0-22.0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
65
41
16
635
58
106
0.1-54
Carbofuran
SUSSEX
1984C
9
1
0
99
1
0
3
1985
12
0
0
156
0
0
1986
12
0
0
96
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
12
1
0
351
1
0
3
Cyanazine
SUSSEX
1985
12
0
0
156
0
0
1986
12
1
1
96
1
2
0.1-29
1987
29
16
0
156
16
0
1-14
1988
29
3°
0
90
3
0
not
listed
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
41
17
1
498
20
2
0.1-29
3-DE-ll
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF DELAUARE
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
PESTICIDE
countr
DATE
TOTAL ...
WEUS •
SAMPLED
¦; « of
POSITIVE •
WELLS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
m at
POSITIVE
: : SAMPLES
TEAR /
MONT H
£ •
MCL
, <
MCt
jg-
Ma
' <
MCL
Dvcamba
SUSSEX
1985
12
0
12
120
0
27
0.1-23.5
1986
12
0
2
84
0
4
0.2-4.9
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
12
0
12
204
0
31
0.1-23.5
Hetolachlor
SUSSEX
1985
12
0
9
156
0
25
0.1-5
1986
12
0
7
84
0
12
0.1-12
1987
29
0
10
156
0
12
0-13
1988
29
0
9
90
0
11
1-5
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
41
0
19°
486
0
60
0.1-13
Simazine
SUSSEX
1984
9
7
1
54
24
2
0.1-67
1985
12
9
1
156
50
9
0.1-27
1986
12
10
0
72
32
1
0.1-32
1987
29
28
0
156
43
0
1.0-16.0
1988
29
28
0
90
49
0
1.0-30.0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
41
39
0
528
201
12
0.1-67
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
65
52
8
851
19E
O
m
a
In New Castle samples analyzed for aldicarb in June, 1984 the detection
limit (<10 ppb) exceeded three times the HCL of 3 ppb; since all samples
had aldicarb level <10 PPb, response was accounted as negative.
D
The nunber of samples above and below the MCI was not given. Nuntoers in the Samples < and >
MCL columns are estimates based on the average concentration of the three same-depth wells in
each plot.
r
No raw data were available for carbofuran.
" Data was insufficient to determine whether more than one detection was found in any one well.
^ Sussex County data not included in Grand Total (Positive) Samples. The available data
w°r or < the
MCL because individual samples analyzed for different pesticides were not
identified. In the 1984-86 study, pesticide concentrations were reported as the range and the
average of three samples taken from three different wells. The third value
was calculated using the formula: x = (3 x Average) - Sun of 2 known values.
3-DE-12
-------
STATE OF DELAUARE
HELLS BY COUNTY
COUNTY
TVPES OP WHLlS
SOURCE Of '
CONTAMINATION
(NUMBER Of V£LLS>
DRINKING WATER
honITorIng
OtHgR
TOTAL
SKPLD
Will
MCL
< ,
HCL
TOTAL
SHPLD
.!'! ¦>-I-:?
HCL
MCL
TOTAL
SHPLD
t
HCL
MCL
»
NfU
|«
UNK*
Hen Castle
0
0
0
24
13
7
0
0
0
20
0
0
Sussex 1
0
0
0
41
39
1
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
36
24
8
0
0
0
32
0
0
*
NFU=Known or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS =Knoun or Suspected Point Source
UNK=Unknoun
3-DE-13
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
iii/i;
Mary
15/15:
Total Wells Sampled
per County
E3
501
101
51
1
>
1o
1 o
to
10
1000
1000
500
100
50
~ No welIs sampled
Pesticides Detected
Alachlor
Atraton
Atrazine
Cyanazine
DBCP
1,2-Dichloropropane
Simazine
Trifluralin
o
3-MD-l
-------
MARYLAND
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
State regulation COMAR 10.50.01.04, Groundwater Quality Standards regulates the manner
by which groundwater is used for the disposal or discharge of water or wastewater. Separate
permits are required for spray irrigation units, groundwater recharge systems, landfill
leachate, and other disposal systems as identified. Specific quality criteria for discharge into
groundwater are established for each type of aquifer. Along with that are general guidelines
for the discharges, in addition to specific conditions imposed by the permit. (Comprehensive
Groundwater Protection Strategy: Report to the Maryland General Assembly, July 1986)
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Pinto, E., Environmental Health Division, Wicomico County Health Department, Tel: 301-
546-4446. Report of Groundwater Contamination Study in Wicomico County, Maryland.
Study conducted 1979-81. (Reported 1980, Addenda #1 and #2 reported 1981, 37 pp.).
Primary Objective
The primary objective of this study was to assess the amount of contamination to
underground water supplies in Wicomico County by the nematocide l,2-dibromo-3-
chloropropane (DBCP). DCP (1,2-dichloropropane) was added to the study after the first
sampling set.
Design and Discussion
In 1979, with the aid of the State Department of Agriculture and the users involved,
determinations were made as to the location of areas of use, method of application, extent
of use, etc. Information obtained indicated seventeen fields or field areas where DBCP was
currently being used - approximately 300 acres total, exclusively on fields growing strawberry
nursery stock in Wicomico County. Wells considered most likely to be affected in relation
to use areas were determined, i.e. irrigation wells within or adjacent to strawberry fields,
shallow wells within close proximity to product use area, etc. A decision was then made to
do initial survey sampling to determine if there appeared to be any cause for concern.
DBCP product samples were obtained for laboratory standardization and submitted, along
with three initial well water samples, to the Maryland State Department of Health
Laboratory in Baltimore, Maryland for analysis.
3-MD-3
-------
The samples were taken, in 50 ml. glass containers with teflon lined caps, filled completely
with no air space, and kept at temperatures of 40° F. or below (not frozen) until delivered
to the Maryland State Health Department Mass Spectroscopy Laboratory. All subsequent
samples were handled in the same manner.
The initial sampling stations were two irrigation wells located directly in the product use
area fields and one domestic well adjacent to one of the fields. Results of analysis showed
that one of the wells, an irrigation well, contained a DBCP level of 2 ppb. This well is listed
at a depth of 100 feet but is most probably multi-screened, which made it difficult to
determine the exact depth at which the water with this reading was obtained.
An interesting sidelight to the basic analysis was that another nematocide, 1,2-
dichloropropane, was found in both irrigation wells at levels of 40 ppb and 10 ppb. Further
investigation showed that, in fact, DCP was also being used on the same fields were DBCP
had been used. All subsequent samples were also analyzed for this product.
Based on the initial information obtained, it was decided that all wells most likely to be
affected, in relation to the use area, would be sampled. Thus, a total of 36 wells, including
some control units, were sampled over an extended period of time.
Of the 36 wells sampled, three showed discernible levels of DBCP and thirteen showed
discernible levels of DCP.
All wells positive for DBCP were resampled and, even though the levels varied, the samples
which showed initially positive results also showed positive with subsequent sampling. The
same situation held true for all DCP positive samples which were resampled.
At this point, even though the presence of DBCP and DCP had definitely been determined
in several water supplies, there was not complete definitive proof of the presence of these
nematocides in the underground water strata. Some of the wells involved were of
questionable construction and protection, and varied in depth from approximately 30-100
feet. This led to some conjecture that the contamination may be as a result of direct
introduction into the wells and be strictly a localized well problem.
It was determined that in order to know whether there were actually levels of the products
in the underground water supplies and, if so, at what depths. Some test drilling would be
necessary. The site picked for the drilling was adjacent to the area where a domestic well
and an irrigation well had both shown positive for DBCP and DCP. They were within
approximately 70 feet of each other and adjacent to a field where the products had been
used. There were four depths or wells developed - 25, 50, 75 and 100 feet. Samples for
DBCP and DCP were taken at each depth.
The results indicated levels of DBCP and DCP in three of the four test wells, the highest
at the 50-foot depth (13 and 46 ppb respectively) but also some discernible levels at 25 feet
(1 and 1.5 ppb) and 75 feet (0.1 and 0.5 ppb). There were none at the 100-foot level.
3-MD-4
-------
Conclusions
The survey and test well results proved reasonably conclusively that DBCP and DCP can
and do leach through the soil in both the vertical and horizontal direction and ultimately
into the ground-water supplies. Indications are that the pesticide movement tended to
follow the ground-water movement, based on hydrologic projections of the areas involved,
i.e. towards a drainage basin or outlet. The vertical movement of pesticides in the study
area appeared to be less than 100 feet. The study also indicated a close correlation between
elevated nitrate-nitrogen levels and the potential for pesticide contamination.
1981 Follow-up Study
As a follow-up to the study area concerning the use of DBCP and DCP, additional sampling
of some of the sites which had previously shown levels of same was performed on June 17,
1981. The follow-up sampling indicated that there was little significant change in the levels
found or the number of wells which had initially been positive for DBCP and DCP.
1981 Continued Follow-up
As a continued follow-up to and expansion of the study area were DBCP ha previously been
found in existing wells and verified by test wells in 1980, an additional area, not previously
tested, was surveyed and tested during the summer and fall of 1981.
Eight sites were sampled in the vicinity of a field adjacent of two of the original field study
areas. Seven of these sites were domestic wells and one was and irrigation well.Three of
the domestic wells showed levels of DBCP and DCP while the irrigation well and one
additional domestic well showed only DCP.
Additional sampling was conducted of the closest available wells beyond the aforementioned
eight sites listed (in the direction of underground flow). These sites, including a surface
pond sample, showed no levels of DBCP or DCP.
Elmore, D. (1987) Results of a Maryland Groundwater Herbicide Reconnaissance Survey -
Technical Report #61, State of Maryland's Office of Environmental Programs, Department
of Health and Mental Hygiene, Water Management Administration. Study conducted
August-October 1983. Points of contact: Donald L. Elmore and Karl Weaver, Maryland
Department of the Environment, Watershed Nonpoint Source Division, Special Projects
Section, Tel: (301) 225-6285.
Primary Objective
The primary objective of this study was to assess the presence and magnitude of herbicide
contamination i.i the ground water of agricultural areas throughout the state of Maryland.
Design
Wells were selected using the criteria that they: (1) were used as a water supply for human
consumption; (2) were relatively shallow in depth with a good pumping rate; (3) were
3-MD-5
-------
located in an agricultural area, preferably one where no-till is predominant; (4) had
evidence of nitrate contamination, preferably not livestock associated; and (5) were easily
accessible. All wells were to be geographically distributed to reflect statewide agricultural
practices. Based on the above criteria 30 wells were identified in Caroline, Carroll,
Dorchester, Frederick, Kent, Washington, and Wicomico Counties; 36 ground-water samples
were obtained. Thirteen of these wells were public water supply sources, 10 wells were
private drinking wells, and 7 were observation wells. All samples were taken from areas in
or adjacent to agricultural operations.
A selection process based upon frequency of specific herbicide use was used to select
pesticides for analysis. Data compiled from various sources indicated that paraquat,
atrazine, simazine and alachlor were the most frequently used herbicides in Maryland.
Since a large group of pesticides could be analyzed for using one procedure, thirteen
pesticides were chosen. Paraquat which required other procedures. The following table lists
the pesticides and their detection limits.
Chemical Detection limits:
Chemical Species Detection limit Cppb')
U.S.G.S. Central Laboratory, Atlanta Georgia
Alachlor
Ametryn
Atraton
Atrazine
Cyanazine
Cyprazine
Prometon
Prometryn
Propazine
Simazine
Simetone
Simetryn
Trifluralin
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Paraquat
DHMH Central Laboratory,
Baltimore, Maryland
USEPA, Anapolis, Maryland
Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, CA
Office of State Chemist, MD Dept.
of Agriculture, College Park, MD
Method
25.0 Ion exchange, Colorimetric
C)
3
10
Gas Chromatography
Cation exchange, alkaline reduction,
spectrophotometric measurement,
Chevron Method RM-8W.
Liquid Chromatography
* Recoveries inconsistent; detection limit not quantified.
3-MD-6
-------
Results and Conclusions
Sampling took place from August to October, 1983. Eight discrete wells showed positive
results at low levels, less than the respective MCL or LHA. Alachlor was detected in 4
samples/wells in Caroline (2), Dorchester, and Wicomico Counties ranging from 0.1 to 0.$
ppb, atrazine was detected in 3 samples/wells in Caroline, Carroll, and Washington Counties
ranging from 0.4 to 0.9 ppb, and trifluralin was detected in Carroll County, simazine was
detected in Carroll County, and atrazine was detected in Caroline County each in one
sample at 0.1 ppb. Of the eight wells, three were on the western shore of the Chesapeake
Bay and five were on the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay. Generally, the
concentrations of all detected herbicides were low, near or just above the detection limit.
The data indicate the potential for contamination of ground-water supplies by some
agricultural herbicides, especially considering that sampling occurred well after the dates of
pesticide application.
Isensee, A.R., C.S. Helling, T.J., Gish, P.C., Kearney, C.B., Coffman, and W. Zhuang (1988)
Groundwater Residues of Atrazine, Alachlor, and Cyanazine Under No-Tillage Practices.
Chemosphere 17(1): 165-174, 1988. Study conducted 1984-86. Point of contact: Allen R.
Isensee, Tel: (301) 344-3297.
Primary Objective
The primary objective of this study was to measure the persistence and movement of
atrazine, alachlor, and cyanazine through ground water for 3 years following annual
application to no-till corn plots.
Design
No-till cornfield plots were established at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center
(Prince Georges County) in 1981. The experimental design was a randomized complete
block with treatments replicated four times; plots measured 3.1 x 7.5 m. In December 1983,
wells were established in plots representative of combination treatments of atrazine +
cyanazine, atrazine + alachlor, and cyanazine + alachlor, plus several untreated plots. Each
well consisted of a 5.1-cm (0) aluminum tube installed to a depth of 1.1-1.4 m. Gravel
layers were encountered at different depths between plots and became a depth-limiting
factor for installation of wells. Two off-site control wells were installed in May 1985 prior
to treatment. The wells contained a Teflon tube for sampling, and were kept sealed and
capped.
Ground-water samples were taken at pre- and post-treatment intervals during 1984, 1985,
and 1986. Samples were stored at 5 C until analysis (1 to 6 weeks). The herbicides were
analyzed by GC Atrazine was confirmed by GC/MS. Alachlor and cyanazine residue
levels were too low for GC/MS confirmation. The limits of detection are listed below.
3-MD-7
-------
Chemical Detection Limits
Pesticide
Detection Limit (pptA
1984
1985 1986
Alachlor
Atrazine
Cyanazine
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5 0.1
0.5 0.1
0.5 0.1
Results and Conclusions
Of the 15 discrete wells tested, 20 samples/13 wells were positive for alachlor, ranging from
0.1 to 1.0 ppb; 16 samples/11 wells were positive for cyanazine, ranging from 0.1 to 3.6 ppb;
and 127 samples/15 wells were positive for atrazine, ranging from 0.1 to 95 ppb. All
positive responses were below the respective MCL or LHA, except 4 samples positive for
atrazine were above the MCL (3.0 ppb). Because the depth to ground water was relatively
small (0.9 m) the plots were considered to be severe representations of pesticide leaching
potential for a medium textured soil. Soil core analysis showed early vertical transport of
atrazine when significant rainfall events occurred during the first few weeks after pesticide
application. However, the ground-water analyses support soils data in that alachlor and
cyanazine dissipation greatly reduced the odds of detecting either herbicide in ground water.
The effect of no-till management on pesticide leaching and persistence is inconclusive.
3-MD-8
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND
-
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAKGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
tegyi)
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL
WELl$
SAMPLED
* OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
9 OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
,
YEAR/
MCNTH
' t .
MCL
<
MCL
l
MCL
<
MCL
i,z*
Dich I oropropcirte ••..
WICOMICO
1979/8
10
3
4
10
3
4
2-110
1979/9
21
4
1
27
11
2
1-440
••
1979/10
4
2
0
4
2
0
5-75
1979/11
1
0
0
1
0
0
1980/1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1.4
1981/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
1981/7
6
2
2
6
2
2
1.2-13
1981/8
6
2
1
6
2
1
2.6-11.8
1981/10
5
0
1
5
0
1
2
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
50
10
8
68
20
11
1-440
Alachlar
Caroline
1983/
9,10
8
0
2
8
0
2
0.5-0.8
CARROLL
1983/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
DORCHESTER
1983/9
1
0
1
1
0
1
0.1
FREDERICK/CARROLI
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENT
1983/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
PRINCE GEORGES
1985
15
0
2
51
0
2
1.0
":V
1986
15
0
13
56
0
18
0.1-0.7
WASHINGTON
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
WICOMICO
1983/
9,10
11
0
1
18
0
1
0.1
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
45
0
17
144
0
24
0.1-1.0
~Atraton
CAROLINE
1983/
9,10
8
0
1
8
0
1
0.1
CARROLL
1983/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
DORCHESTER
1983/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
FREDERICK/CARROLL
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
KEXT. ....
1983/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
3-MD-9
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEN-
: TRATIONS
{(40/
PESTICIDE
COUNtr
DATE '
, TOTAL
WEUS
SAMPLED
# OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL. #
SAMPtES
# OF
POSITIVE
V SAWLES
YEAR/
MONTH
t
ttCL
<
KCL
fc
HCL
¦¦¦¦ <
MCL
(Atraton)
WASHINGTON
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
WICOMICO
1983/
9,10
11
0
0
18
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
30
0
1
37
0
1
0.1
Atra?{ne
CAROLINE
1983/
9,10
8
0
1
8
0
1
0.4
CARROLL
1983/8
7
0
1
7
0
1
0.9
DORCHESTER
1983/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
FREDERICK/CARROLL : s
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENT
1983/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
PRINCE GE03GES
1984
11
2
9
43
4
38
0.1-95.0
1985
15
1
10
67
1
28
0.4-3.8
1986
15
2
13
56
3
53
0.1-5.9
WASHINGTON
1983/8
1
0
1
1
0
1
0.4
WICOMICO
1983/
9,10
11
0
0
18
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
45
4
14
203
8
122
0.1-95.0
Cyariazine
CAROLINE
1983/
9,10
8
0
0
8
0
0
CARROLL
1983/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
DORCHESTER
1983/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
FREDERltt/CA&ROLL
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENT
1983/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
PRINCE GEORGES
1985
15
2
1
67
2
1
0.7-3.6
1986
15
0
9
56
0
13
0.1-0.7
WASHINGTON
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
WI CO«ICO
1983/
9,10
11
0
0
18
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
45
2
9
160
2
14
0.1-3.6
3-MD-10
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MARYLAM)
WELL RESULTS
."sample results
BAKGE OF
pesticide .
CCUNTT
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
# OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL#
SAMPLES
» OF
POSITIVE
samples
SOHCEK-
TRATiOjiS
YEAR/
MONT*
t
MCL'.
<"
MCL
" fc..
MCL
*•
cyprarirte
CAROLIh:
1983/
9,10
8
0
0
8
0
0
CARROLL
1983/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
DCSCHESTER
1983/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
"FREDERICK/CARROLL.
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENT
1983/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
UASrtlNGTCN
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
UICONICO
1983/
9,10
11
0
0
18
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
30
0
0
37
0
0
D&CP (DFbroa*)* %
chloroprapane -
WICOMICO
1979/8
10
2
0
10
2
0
2-6
1979/9
21
3
0
27
7
0
2-13
"
1979/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
1979/11
1
0
0
1
0
0
1980/1
2
0
0
2
0
0
1981/6
7
4
0
7
4
0
2-76
1981/7
6
2
0
6
2
0
3-5
i;!l!l!lilli!!!|p
1981/8
6
3
0
6
3
0
1.5-4.6
1981/10
5
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
50
6
0
68
18
0
2-76
Paraquat *
CAROLINE
1983/
9,10
8
0
0
8
0
0
CA3RC.L
1983/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
DORCHESTER
1983/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
FREDERICK/CARROLi
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENT
1983/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
WICOMICO
1983/
9,10
11
0
0
18
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
30
0
0
37
0
0
3-MD-ll
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
{ps/i>
PESTICIOE
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL
WEUS
SAMPLED
it OF"
Positive
WELLS
TOTAL #
:5AMP«S
U OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YEAR/
MONTH
t
HCL
•<
HCL
-
iliil
HCL
HCL
Prometon
CAROLINE
1983/
9,10
8
0
0
8
0
0
CARROLL
1983/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
DORCHESTER
1983/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
FREDERI OC/CARROLt
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENT
1983/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
g i com co
1983/
9,10
11
0
0
18
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
30
0
0
37
0
0
.
Prcmetryn
CAROLINE
1983/
9,10
8
0
0
8
0
0
CAftROLL
1983/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
DORCHESTER:
1983/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
FREDERICK/CARROLi '
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENT
1983/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
UICOHtCO
1983/
9,10
11
0
0
18
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
30
0
0
37
0
0
Prapaiirte
CAROLINE
1983/
9,10
8
0
0
8
0
0
CARROLL
1983/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
&ORcn«te*
1983/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
FREOER IOC/CARROLL
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
KEN1*
1983/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
WlXHfCO
1983/
9,10
11
0
0
18
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
30
0
0
37
0
0
3-MD-12
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
"range or-
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
PESTICIDE
counnr
DATE*
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
# OF
> positive
WELLS
TOTAL #.
SAMPLES
* OF
wjsrnve
SAWLES
-
YEAR/
MONTH
t
HCL
<
HCL
t
NCL
<
HCL
Si matine
CAROLIKE
1983/
9,10
8
0
0
8
0
0
CARROLL ¦¦
1933/8
7
0
1
7
0
1
0.1
DORCHESTER
1983/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
FREDERICK/CARROLL
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENT
1983/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
uicomco
1983/
9,10
11
0
0
18
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
30
0
1
37
0
1
0.1
Simetortfc
CAROLINE
1983/
9,10
8
0
0
8
0
0
CARROLL
1983/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
' OOftMsTEIt'-
1983/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
FREOER1CK/CARPOLL
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENT
1983/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
WICCNtCO
1983/
9,10
11
0
0
18
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
30
0
0
37
0
0
' JS i re t ryri ; v ^
CAROLINE
1983/
9,10
8
0
0
8
0
0
CARROLL
1983/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
1983/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
FREDERICK/CARROLL
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENT "' " '
1983/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
UICOMCO
1983/
9,10
11
0
0
18
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
30
0
0
37
0
0
3-MD-13
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL
weus
SAMPLED
# OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
# OF
WstttvE
SAMPLES
YEAR/
MONTH
tiiit
MCI
MCL
«CL;:
<
MCL
TrlfluraUn
CAROLINE
1983/
9,10
8
0
0
8
0
0
CARROLL'"
1983/8
7
0
1
7
0
1
0.1
DORCHESTER
1983/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
FREDERICK/CARROLL
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENT
1983/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1983/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
WICOMICO
1983/
9,10
11
0
0
18
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
30
0
1
37
0
1
0.1
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
95
16
25
271
27
133
» No MCL or Lifetime HA available.
3-MD-14
-------
STATE OF MARYLAND
UELLS BY COUNTY
COUNTY
TYi>e$ Of WEILS
SOURCE OP
CONTAMINATION
(NUMBER OF WELLS) '
DR tUKlMd: WATER,,, .
MOUlTtifttUG
- • ¦„ OTHER " . „
TOTAL
SHPLD
t,
, HCl
<
HCL'
TOTAL
J:SW»Li)
-
«CL
¦<
Ma
TOTAL
SHPIO
fc
KCL :
< "
HCL
HFU* •
*
PS
"UK*
Caroline
8
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
Carroll
7
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
flcrclmter
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
frederfck
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(Cent
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Prinee Georges is
0
0
0
15
6
9
0
0
0
15
0
0
Washingtort
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Wicomico
52
B
9
0
0
0
9
2
0
19
0
0
TOTAL
71
8
16
15
6
9
9
2
0
41
0
0
*
NFU=Known or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS =Known or Suspected Point Source
UNK=Jnknown
3-MD-15
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
ID
rennsyivania
Total Wells Sampled
per County
h > 1000
ESS 501 10 1000
K3 101 to 500
ZZ 51 to 100
E3 1 to 50
~ No welIs sampled
Pesticides Detected
Alachlor
Atrazine
Cyanazine
Metolachlor
Propazine
Simazine
3-PA-l
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
"The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, as a trustee of Pennsylvania's
natural resources under Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Clean
Streams Act, the Solid Waste Management Act and other statutes, is obligated to conserve
and maintain [the State's] ground waters for the benefit of all Pennsylvanians, including
future generations. The ultimate goal of DER's ground water quality protection program
is nondegradation of ground-water quality; however, it recognizes that there are technical
and economic limitations to immediately achieving the goal of nondegradation for all ground
waters.
The ultimate goal of nondegradation of ground water quality may be more immediately
attained in those areas which have been identified as Areas of Special Ground Water
Concern. For those ground waters which are not classified as Areas of Special Ground
Water Concern, the highest feasible protection will be achieved through implementation of
best demonstrated technology (BDT). Use of BDT should achieve protection of human
health and the environment without entirely precluding existing and essential activities for
which nondegradation technologies are currently unavailable or economically prohibitive."
(DER Ground Water Quality Protection Strategy, Feb. 1992)
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Fishel, David K. and Patricia L. Lietman (1986) Occurrence of Nitrate and Herbicides in
Ground Water in the Upper Conestoga River Basin, Pennsylvania-Water Resources
Investigations Report 85-4202. U.S. Geological Survey, Harrisburg, PA. Study conducted
from 1982-1984. Data are also included in USGS Water Resources Pennsylvania, Water
Years 1983 and 1984 reports. Points of contact: District Chief, USGS, WRD, 4th Floor,
Federal Building, P.O. Box 1107, Harrisburg, PA 17108-1107 or David Fishel, USGS,
Tel: (717) 730-6900.
Primary Objective
Data were collected in this ongoing study to evaluate the effectiveness of agricultural best-
management practices for improving water quality. Data collected early in the Pennsylvania
Rural Clean Water Program indicated that high concentrations and nonpoint-source
discharges of herbicides occur in the Conestoga River.
3-PA-3
-------
Design
A network of 42 domestic wells and one spring in Berks Co. (3 wells) and Lancaster Co. (39
wells) was selected for continued monitoring of the shallow ground-water system (100-250
ft deep). Most of the wells are cased to bedrock to prevent surface water and ground water
in unconsolidated deposits overlying the bedrock from entering the water supply. Water-
quality samples were collected from the wells after pumping for a sufficient period to allow
water temperature, specific conductance, and pH to come to equilibrium. Wells were
sampled in March, June, and October of 1983. Samples were analyzed for alachlor,
atrazine, cyanazine, metolachlor, propazine, simazine, and toxaphene according to a
modification of USEPA proposed method 608. Limits of detection were: 0.05 ppb for
alachlor, 0.1 ppb for metolachlor, 0.2 ppb for atrazine, cyanazine, propazine, and simazine,
and 1 ppb for toxaphene.
The 188-square mile area of the upper Conestoga River basin was chosen for this study
because it was designated as a watershed having the highest priority in Pennsylvania's
Agricultural 208 Plan, a program designed to identify and control nonpoint-source
discharges. Data collection was concentrated in carbonate-rock areas of the basin, where
agriculture is most intense. Of the 43 sampling sites, 33 are in carbonate rocks, and 10 are
in noncarbonate rocks. The chemical quality and levels of ground water were measured
four times (analysis for herbicides was not conducted on the first round of samples) to
characterize existing conditions during periods of varying ground-water recharge.
Results and Conclusions
Of the 43 sampling sites, 23 tested positive for one or more of the herbicides included in
the study. Alachlor and atrazine were detected at 3.0 ppb in one well each, exceeding the
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) established by EPA of 2 and 3 ppb, respectively.
Simazine was detected above its MCL of 1 ppb in 3 wells at 1.1 to 1.6 ppb. Cyanazine was
found in one well above its Lifetime Health Advisory level (LHA) of 1 ppb. Toxaphene was
not detected in any of the wells sampled. Additional positive detections below established
MCLs or LHAs were as follows:
Chemical MCL/LHA No. Wells No. Samples Range (ppbl
Alachlor
2
6
10
0.10-1.8
Atrazine
3
19
38
0.20-2.0
Metolachlor
100
5
7
0.10-0.41
Propazine
10
1
1
0.20
Simazine
1
5
5a
0.20-0.59
aData were unavailable for the October 1983 sampling; however, the report indicates
eight additions! samples at >0.20.
3-PA-4
-------
Alachlor, atrazine, metolachlor, and simazine, the herbicides detected most frequently, were
found almost exclusively in the agricultural and carbonate areas. Although all of these
herbicides were applied pre-emergence in May and June, maximum concentrations of
simazine and alachlor were detected in the summer and fall, respectively; atrazine and
metolachlor were detected at highest concentrations in the spring. The number of wells in
which herbicides were detected was relatively constant throughout the year, indicating that
a significant amount of the residue remains in the soils and is leached to the ground-water
system after the growing season. In the nonagricultural area, atrazine and simazine were
each found in only one analysis, and the concentrations were traces slightly above the
detection limit. Data collected from March to October 1983 indicate that detectable
herbicide concentrations in ground water are closely associated with agricultural practices
and carbonate geology.
Buchanan, J.W., W.C. Loper, W.P. Schaffstall, and R.A. Hainly (1983) Water Resources Data
Pennsylvania, Water Year 1983, Volume 2. Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins-U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Data Report PA-83-2.
Loper, W.C., T.E. Behrendt, W.P. Schaffstall, and R.A. Hainly (1984) Water Resources Data
Pennsylvania, Water Year 1984, Volume 2. Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins-U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Data Report PA-83-2.
Points of contact: District Chief, USGS, WRD 4th Floor, Federal Building, P.O. Box 1107,
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1107 or Pat Lietman, USGS, Tel: (717) 730-6960.
Primary Objective
The Water Resources Data (WRD) report is a compendium of studies intended to provide
hydrologic information needed by State, local, and Federal agencies, and the private sector
for developing and managing national land and water resources. The reports for 1983 and
1984 (which span October 1982 through September 1984) include ground-water data from
three separate investigations: (1) the Conestoga River Basin study discussed above; (2)
ongoing data collection from a network of observation wells installed by USGS in eastern
Lancaster County to evaluate changes in ground-water quality; and (3) data collected from
drinking water wells in Bedford, Blair, and Mifflin counties.
Design
(1) Details for the Conestoga River Basin study are provided above. In addition to the 42
wells included in the study, the 1983 WRD report contains data from 4 additional domestic
wells in Berks (1) and Lancaster (3) counties. Samples were collected in March 1983.
(2) Six observation wells in eastern Lancaster county are being monitored in an ongoing
study for alachlor, atrazine, cyanazine, metolachlor, propazine, simazine, and toxaphene.
Data included in the 1983 and 1984 WTRD reports reflect monthly sampling for water year
1983, and a modified schedule for sampling in 1984 in which wells were sampled weekly
3-PA-5
-------
during the late spring and summer months. A total of 144 samples was analyzed. .Limits
of detection were: 0.05 ppb for alachlor, 0.1 ppb for metolachlor, 0.2 ppb for atrazine,
cyanazine, propazine, and simazine, and 1 ppb for toxaphene.
(3) A total of 10 drinking water wells in Bedford, Blair, and Mifflin counties was sampled
for alachlor, atrazine, cyanazine, metolachlor, propazine, and toxaphene in August 1984.
The wells were classified by the U.S. Geological Survey as ground-water miscellaneous sites-
-sites where limited water-quality data are collected on a random basis for use in hydrologic
analyses. One sample from each well was analyzed. Limits of detection were: 0.05 ppb for
alachlor, 0.1 ppb for metolachlor, 0.2 ppb for atrazine, cyanazine, and propazine, and 1 ppb
for toxaphene.
Results and Conclusions
(1) None of seven herbicides was detected in the additional 4 wells sampled in the
Conestoga River Basin study. Based on the analysis results from the March 1983 sampling,
these wells were not included in the remainder of the study.
(2) Atrazine and simazine were detected in all six observation wells at levels less than their
respective MCLs of 3 and 1 ppb. Atrazine levels of 0.10 to 0.40 ppb were detected in 63
samples, and simazine levels of 0.20 to 0.50 ppb were detected in 10 samples. Metolachlor
(LHA = 100) was detected in 5 wells/22 samples at 0.10 to 0.20 ppb.
(3) Metolachlor, propazine, and toxaphene were not detected in any of the wells sampled
in Bedford, Blair, and Mifflin counties. Alachlor (MCL = 2 ppb) and atrazine (MCL = 3
ppb) were detected in one well in Blair county at 20 and 11 ppb, respectively. This well
was identified as being within a few hundred feet -of a distribution point for fertilizers and
pesticides. Alachlor was detected at 0.08 ppb in one well in Bedford county; atrazine was
detected in two additional wells in Bedford county and one well in Blair county at 0.14 to
0.30 ppb. Alachlor and atrazine were not detected in any Mifflin county wells.
3-PA-6
-------
Pionke, H.B., D.E. Glotfelty, A.D. Lucas, and J.B. Urban (1988) Pesticide Contamination of
Groundwaters in the Mahantango Creek Watershed, J. Environmental Quality Vol. 17, No.
1: pp 76-84, Jan-March 1988. Study conducted 1986-1987.
Pionke, H.B., and D.E. Glotfelty (1989) Nature and Extent of Groundwater Contamination
by Pesticides in an Agricultural Watershed. Water Res. Vol. 23, No. 8: pp 1031-1037.
Study conducted 1986-88.
Point of contact: H.B. Pionke, Northeast Watershed Research Center, Research Office
Building, Rm 117, Hastings Road, University Park, PA 16802-4709, Tel: (814) 865-4709.
Primary Objective
The objectives of the study were to survey the pesticide concentration in ground waters
representing a typically farmed central Pennsylvania watershed, and then relate these data
to pesticide use and cropping patterns, aquifer soil and well site characteristics, and patterns
of other agriculturally associated chemicals found in ground water.
Design
Waters from 22 observation wells and two springs, in the Mahantango Watershed were
analyzed for the most heavily and extensively applied pesticides as determined by farm
survey: alachlor, atrazine, carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, cyanazine, 2,4-D, dicamba, fonofos,
metolachlor, and terbufos. The wells were located in Schuylkill (3) and Northumberland
(19 + 2 springs) counties. All wells represent unconfined aquifers. One spring and one well
were included as controls because no chemical pesticide had been applied to or disposed
of in the drainage areas. Wells ranged in depth from shallow (<15 m), to intermediate (15-
30 m), to deep (>30 m). To exclude direct entry of shallower ground waters, intermediate
and deep wells were cased in steel and grouted at the bottom with concrete followed by
bentonite clay extending to the land surface. Wells were sampled during 10-20 December
1985, 18-28 August 1986, and 30 March to 14 April 1987. The springs were sampled on
February 12 and 13 1986, August 21 1986, and March 30 and April 4 1987. The well
sampling periods were selected to correspond to what would be normally a net ground-water
recharge-discharge-recharge sequence.
Samples were analyzed for alachlor, atrazine, 2,4-D, dicamba, metolachlor, and simazine by
GC/ECD, and for chlorpyrifos, fonofos, and terbufos by GC/FID. Carbofuran and
cyanazine were determined by GC equipped with an N-P thermionic selective detector
(GC/NP); GC/NP was used as a confirmatory method for the other pesticide detections.
Limits of detection, which varied for the sampling intervals, were: alachlor and metolachlor,
0.005-0.05 ppb; atrazine and simazine, 0.003-0.015 ppb; cyanazine, terbufos, chlorpyrifos, and
fonofos, 0.003-0.01 ppb; carbofuran 0.015-0.032 ppb; 2,4-D, 0.1 ppb; and dicamba, 0.05 ppb.
Trace levels were defined as detections above the minimum detection limit but at <3 times
this concentration.
3-PA-7
-------
The Mahantango Creek Watershed is primarily agricultural, and was selected for study as
an area with potential for pesticide contamination of ground water based on the following
criteria: total ground-water recharge >250 mm/yr and the presence of high NOa levels (an
indicator of agricultural recharge source).
Results and Conclusions
Atrazine was detected in 20 wells/40 samples (8 trace detections) and in 1 spring/sample
at levels below the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 3 ppb established by DEP.
Simazine was also detected at levels below its 1-ppb MCL in 12 wells/17 samples (6 trace
detections). Cyanazine was detected at very low levels, <0.009-0.09 ppb, in 2 wells/3
samples (2 trace detections); the lifetime health advisory (LHA) for cyanazine is 10 ppb.
No alachlor, carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, 2,4-D, dicamba, fonofos, metolachlor, or terbufos was
detected. Although use of alachlor, atrazine, 2,4-D, and cyanazine has been widespread and
longterm, ground-water contamination was practically limited to extremely low but
widespread concentrations of atrazine. The findings suggest widespread atrazine
contamination of the ground waters at extremely low concentrations.
The highest atrazine concentrations were associated mostly with continuous corn production.
Aquifer rock type, depth to water table, and the degree of recharge short-circuiting were
concluded not to be important factors. The most strongly adsorbed insecticides (terbufos,
fonofos, and chlorpyrifos), and the rapidly degradable alachlor were not detected, even
though fonofos had been frequently applied to some near-well areas for over a decade. The
effects of the soil, geologic, and well site characteristics on atrazine patterns in ground water
were minor or generally not detected because of the dominance of the effect of corn
production, and because there were too few wells in each category.
Stumpf Karen S. to R. Mountfort, USEPA (1987) Letter from Ciba-Geigy Corporation dated
July 27, 1987 entitled Follow-up to Findings of Metolachlor and Atrazine in Groundwater
in Berks County, Pennsylvania.
Stumpf Karen S. to T. Becker, USEPA (1988) Letter from Ciba-Geigy Corporation dated
October 24, 1988 concerning verification of data from six Ciba-Geigy reports. Point of
contact: Karen S. Stumpf, Ciba-Geigy Corporation, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC
27419, Tel: (919) 292-7100.
Primary Objective
Detection of atrazine and metolachlor in ground water in Berks County was reported under
EPA's proposed Interpretive Rule of FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) for the reporting of adverse
effects. The pesticides were detected in an ongoing monitoring program conducted by Ciba-
Geigy.
3-PA-8
-------
Design
Four test wells in Berks County were sampled in April, June, and July 1987, and were
analyzed for atrazine and metolachlor by gas chromatography. Samples collected in April
and June were also analyzed for alachlor and simazine by qualitative methods. The limits
of detection were: 0.10 ppb for atrazine and 0.25 ppb for metolachlor, alachlor, and
simazine.
Results and Conclusions
Atrazine (MCL = 3 ppb) was detected in one well at levels of 20.0,0.82, and 2.3 ppb in the
April, June, and July samplings, respectively. Metolachlor (LHA = 100) was detected in
the same well at 48.0,1.2, and 3.8 ppb for the same respective sampling periods. Atrazine
was detected at 0.13-0.28 ppb in 2 additional wells (5 samples). Alachlor and simazine were
not detected in any of the wells.
3-PA—9
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANSE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS :
G^g/I)
.PESTJCIDE
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED •'
P Of
POSITIVE.
liUHLOsBiii
TOTAL «
SAMPLES
:: '# OF
POSITIVE
- SAMPLES
: . . - "
lliiMlll
HOJ.TH
>
MCt'
<
MCL
»
MCt
g£
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
•uell kesults ":'
SAMPLE RESULTS ; :
RANGE OF
CONCEN-
. TRATIONS
Cms/i)
PESTICIDE ::
COUMTY
: DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
# OF" "
fosftiv't
WELLS
: (-total r
SAMPLES
-r-iU, # -OF 'Si;-'
positive
SAMPLES
• YEAR/ •
• MOUTH
i
HCL
<
HCL
£
HCL
KCL :
Carbofuren
NORTKtMBERLAXD
1986/8-
1987/4
21
0
0
39
0
0
SttMYLltttL
1986/8-
1987/4
3
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
24
0
0
44
0
0
Chlorpyrifos
NORTHUMBERLAND
1985/12-
1987/4
21
0
0
56
0
0
SCHUYLKILL
1985/12-
1987/4
3
0
0
7
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
24
0
0
63
0
0
Cyanazipe
SE0FORD
1984/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
1983/3-6
4
0
0
7
0
0
1983/10
3
0
0
3
0
0
SLA IS
1984/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1983/3-9
49
0
1
115
0
1
1.1
1983/10-
1984/9
46
0
0
180
0
0
MIFFLIN.
1984/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
NOaTHJNBERLAND
1985/12-
1987/4
21
0
2
56
0
2
trace-
0.09
SCHUYLKILL
1985/12-
1987/4
3
0
1
7
0
1
trace-
0.009
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
87
0
4
378
0
4
trace-1.1
Dicantoa
NORTHUMBERLAND
1987/4
20
0
0
20
0
0
SCHUTLKJiL
1987/4
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
23
0
0
23
0
0
Fonofos
til ViWWBERLAND
1985/12-
1987/4
20
0
0
37
0
0
SCHUYLKILL
1985/12-
1987/4
3
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
23
0
0
42
0
0
3-PA-12
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
- ' : " "
WELL RESULTS"
SAMPLE KEStitTS
RAhtiE or
CONCEH-
TRATIODS
£*g/l>
PESTICIDE
COUMf
DATE
TOTAL
veils
SAMPLED
# OF
POSITIVE
UEtLS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
# OF
POSlTJVfi
SAMPLES
TEAR/
XOfHH
I
HCL
<
HCL
i
MCL
<
ilil
Metolact»lo<-
BEDFORD
1984/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
8E3KS
1983/3-6
4
0
0
7
0
0
1983/10
3
0
0
3
0
0
1984/4-7
4
0
4
12
0
12
trace-48
: 8LATR
1984/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
il'AiiCASTtft:: ¦ --
1983/3-9
49
0
4
114
0
5
0.17-0.41
1983/10-
1984/9
46
0
8
180
0
31
0.10-0.30
MIFFLIN
1984/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
NORTHUMBERLAND
1985/12-
1987/4
21
0
0
56
0
0
SCHUY.iCILL
1985/12-
1987/4
3
0
0
7
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
91
0
15
389
0
48
trace-48
Prwwzine
BEDFORD
1984/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
BERKS
1983/3-6
4
0
0
7
0
a
1983/10
3
0
0
3
0
0
BLAIR
1984/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
LANCASTER
1983/3-9
49
0
1
115
0
1
0.20
1983/10-
1984/9
46
0
0
180
0
0
MFFLIK
1984/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
63
0
1
315
0
1
0.20
Simazine
8E3KS
1983/3-6
4
0
0
7
0
0
1987/4-6
4A
0
0
8
0
0
LANCASTER
1983/3-9
49
3
9
115
3
13
0.20-3.4
1985/12-
1987/4
21
0
10
56
0
12
trace-
0.17
5:hutlki.l
1985/12-
1987/4
3
0
2
7
0
5
0.018-
0.051
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
81
3
21
193
3
30
trace-3.4
3-PA-13
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
WELL'RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
PESTICIDE
couutr
; DATE
.. TOTAL -
• UELtS •
"SANPLEO
n of
¦ <>osmve '
' UELLS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
• # OF
. fosiTive
SAMPLES
YEAR/
MONTH
£ '
MCL
< •.
HCL
MCL ¦
:' < /'
MCL
Terbufos
HOSTHUHBERtAND
1985/12-
1987/4
21
0
0
56
0
0
SCHUYLKILL
1985/12-
1987/4
3
0
0
7
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
24
0
0
63
0
0
Toxaphena
BEDFORD
1984/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
BERKS
1983/3-6
4
0
0
7
0
0
1983/10
3
0
0
3
0
0
SLA If!
1984/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
tANCASTEft
1983/3-9
49
0
0
115
0
0
1983/10-
1984/9
46
0
0
180
0
0
MfFfLtN
1984/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
63
0
0
315
0
0
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
91
7
54
389
7
102
NOTE: Northumberland Co. wells includes two springs.
a
Gualitative analysis.
3-PA-14
-------
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
UELLS BY COUNTY
WUfITt
TYPES OF WELLS- ¦
SOURCE OF
CONTAMINATION
(NUMBER Of WEllS)
• bRlH^JNG water
MONITOR INS
OTHER
• TOTAL
SMPtO '
i
HCL
<
HCL
TOTAL
SHPLD
Ilill
HCL
<
HCL "
TOTAL
SHPL& .
»
HCL
. <.
HCL
NFU*
•
PS
INK*
Bedford
4
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Berks • - - •
4
0
2
4
1
3
0
0
0
2
4
0
"Btatr
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Lancaster
42
5
16
7
0
7
0
0
0
28
0
0
Mifflin
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Horthurtwrland: 1
0
0
0
21A
0
18
0
0
0
18
0
0
Schuylkill
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
56
6
23
35
1
31
0
0
0
51
4
6
*
NFU=Knoun or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS =Knoun or Suspected Point Source
UNK=Unknoun
A
Includes 2 springs.
3-PA-15
-------
Well Sampling by County ¦
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Virginia
.36/40
¦42/60':
2/13
Pesticides Detected
3-VA-l
-------
VIRGINIA
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUNDWATER
Virginia has declared a state-wide uniform standard for protection of all waters. The
Virginia Water Control Law creates what is commonly referred to as the anti-degradation
policy which mandates the protection of existing high quality waters and provides for the
restoration of all other State water to such a condition of quality that any such water will
permit. In 1987 the Commonwealth adopted a Groundwater Protection Strategy for
Virginia setting forth goals, policies and needed actions. This document summarized
Virginia's statute and ground water quality standards as follows:
1. There is no right to degrade the ground water of Virginia from its natural state.
2. No ground water source is pre-classified to allow degradation by human activity.
3. Those responsible for ground water pollution that has occurred or might occur
can be required to restore the water to its natural condition.
4. Ground water protection activities must take social and economic consequences
into account.
1989 Virginia passed the Pesticide Control Act based on recommendations prepared by the
Council on the Environment and the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services. The Act established a Pesticide Control Board with broad regulatory powers. The
Board is composed of 11 citizen members and staffed by the Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services. The Act requires annual business licenses, record keeping and reports,
and bonding or liability insurance for firms manufacturing, selling or storing pesticides. It
also establishes general licensing requirements for pesticide applicators. The Pesticide
Board, if necessary, can cancel or deny registration of pesticide products which contaminate
groundwater above certain levels or result in death or impairment of wildlife species.
3-VA-3
-------
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUNDWATER
Shepard, Monica R, Acting District Engineer, Division of Water Programs, Commonwealth
of Virginia, Department of Health, Tel.: 804-460-5318. Sussex County Health Department
Findings of Dowicide 70E in Private Wells in Sussex County. Study conducted in 1979.
(Reported 9/79, 20 pp.)
Primary Objective
This sampling was performed as part of routine water quality testing for a new well. When
dibromochloropropane (DBCP) was found in one well others in the area were sampled.
Design
Samples were collected August 1979 from 10 public or household wells in Sussex County,
Virginia. The detection limit was 1.0 ug/L. TTie MCL for DBCP is 0.2 ug/L.
Results and Conclusions
DBCP (Dowicide 70E) was detected in the water from the new residential well at 76 ug/L
and at the tap in the house at 114 ug/L. The high concentration in the house may indicate
the presence of Dowicide 70E in the house plumbing. DBCP was not detected in any of the
other samples. It was recommended that the owners not use this well as a source of
drinking water.
Goodell, H. Grant, Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia,
Tel.: 804-924-7761. The Effects of Agricultural Chemicals on Groundwater Quality in the
Northern Shenandoah Valley, Virginia. Study conducted 1986-87. (Reported 12/87,48 pp.)
Primary Objective
The study objective was to assess the effects of agriculture on the near surface water table
aquifers in Clarke and Frederick Counties of the Northern Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.
Design
Ground water samples from 229 sites in Clarke and Frederick counties were used to assess
the influence of aquifer lithology and land use on water chemistry. Limestone and dolomite
are common, soils are thin, clay with poor infiltration. Clarke and Frederick Counties have
the highest concentration of orchards in Virginia with the most intense application of
pesticides. Samples were analyzed for total dissolved solids, pH, hardness, conductivity,
heterotrophic bacteria, major cations and anions. Samples for water quality analysis were
collected in the summer of 1986. Some of the wells were resampled in the fall of 1986 and
the spring of 1987 to investigate the seasonal effects of groundwater quality and sixty of the
wells were resampled in July and August of 1987 for pesticide analysis. The majority of
3-VA-5
-------
samples were from domestic wells in agricultural areas from the Carbonate and Valley Shale
Aquifers. A few samples ere taken from other aquifers to establish background levels of
contaminants.
Samples for pesticide analysis were collected from filtered water samples in specially cleaned
glass mason jars and returned to the laboratory for pesticide extraction and analysis by gas
chromatography using an electron capture detector. Samples were analyzed for the
following pesticides:
Results and Conclusions
Fifty-six of the 60 wells sampled had detectable levels of one or more of the 11 pesticides.
Samples from Frederick County contained slightly higher numbers of insecticides but both
counties have about equal numbers of herbicides. There is no apparent influence of aquifer
lithology on the presence or absence of a pesticide. The overriding factor appears to be
land use. Both Carbonate and Shale Aquifers in Frederick County show about the same
levels of pesticide occurrence and in similar concentrations. The slower ground-water
discharge from these aquifers could mean higher pesticide concentrations. However, ground
water beneath orchards has significantly higher numbers and concentrations of both
insecticides and herbicides than ground water beneath agricultural land uses. Some what
surprisingly, the reverse is true in Clarke County where ground water from agricultural areas
show higher numbers of pesticides than the orchard areas. Most samples in which pesticides
were detected contain endosulfan, with azinophos methyl and methyl parathion occurring
somewhat less frequently. Endosulfan concentrations rarely exceeded 20 ug/L. Azinophos
methyl often exceeded 75 ug/L. Methyl parathion was usually found in concentrations less
than 5 ug/L Silvex and 2,4-D occurred at approximately the same rate, however silvex
concentrations were only a few ug/L while 2,4-D was found at concentrations that exceeded
the MCL of 70 ug/L in several samples.
Phosphamidon
Azinophosmethyl
Phosmmet
Parathion, methyl
Insecticides
Endosulfan
Herbicides
Glyphosate
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
Alachlor
Simazine
Paraquat
3-VA-6
-------
Mostaghimi, Saied, PhD. (Principal investigator, Virginia Tech), Agricultural Engineering
Department, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Watershed/Water Quality Monitoring for Evaluating BMP Effectiveness. Study conducted
June 1986 through December 1990. (Reported in biannual reports) For additional
information contact J. Michael Flagg, Agricultural Program Supervisor, Commonwealth of
Virginia, Department of Soil and Water Conservation, Tel.: 804-786-3959.
Primary Objective
A 3616-acre watershed located in Westmoreland County, Virginia, was selected for intensive
monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of Best Management Practices. Approximately half
of the watershed is located on agricultural lands and the other half is forested. The focus
of this study was surface water, however ground water samples from 12 wells were also
analyzed.
Design do-*;-*: Cr+^k
Samples were taken in 1985 and 1986 from 4 household wells in the Westmoreland, Water
Shed. Based on these results, 8 monitoring wells were installed in the Wcslm'or'ciana Water
Shed (Westmoreland County) and were sampled approximately monthly from June 1986
through December 1990. TTie samples were analyzed for a total of 24 pesticides. Only
positive samples were reported. The following list pesticides was compiled from the
biannual reports:
acifluorfen
bentazon
2,4-D
fluazifop-butyl
metolachlor
paraquat
simazine
alachlor
carbaryl
dicamba
linuron
metribuzin
permethrin
toxaphene
atrazine
carbofuran
disulfoton
malathion
oryzalin
fenvalerate
trifluralin
Pesticides were determined using a GLC method with an EC Ni63 detector. Identities were
confirmed with a flame photometric detector. This study is ongoing until 1995.
Results and Conclusions
Detectable pesticide levels were found in all 4 wells at concentrations below the respective
MCLs. One of the 4 household wells was consistently higher in pesticide levels than the
others. It was suspected that this well was not being sufficiently protected and is
contaminated by surface runoff from the adjacent lands.
All of the 8 monitoring wells had positive levels of pesticides at some time during the coarse
of sampling. Three of the wells had positive levels pesticides above the MCL. The
pesticides detected in these wells at high concentrations were atrazine (3.31, 4.04, 25.56
ug/L), disulfoton (2.87 ug/L), bentazon (41.89 ug/L), and simazine (1.0, 1.198, 2.59, 3.67,
4.21 ug/L).
3-VA-7
-------
Monitoring well #1 had detectable levels of the following pesticides: alachlor, atrazine, 2,4-
D, dicamba, disulfoton, malathion, metolachlor, metribuzin, paraquat, permethrin, simazine,
and trifluralin. The detected levels were less than the respective MCLs or LHAs, except
1 sample was positive for atrazine at 3.31 ug/L, greater than the MCL (3 ug/L).
Monitoring well #2 had detectable levels of the following pesticides: alachlor, atrazine, 2,4-
D, carbaryl, carbofuran, dicamba, disulfoton, malathion, metolachlor, metribuzin, oryzalin,
paraquat, fenvalerate, simazine, and trifluralin. The detected levels were less than the
respective MCLs or LHAs, except 1 sample was positive for simazine at 2.59 ug/L, greater
than the MCL (1 ug/L).
Monitoring well #3 had detectable levels of the following pesticides: alachlor, atrazine, 2,4-
D, carbaryl, carbofuran, dicamba, disulfoton, fluazifop-butyl, malathion, metolachlor,
metribuzin, paraquat, simazine, and trifluralin. The detected levels were less than the
respective MCLs or LHAs, except 1 sample was positive for atrazine at 4.04 ug/L, greater
than the MCL (3 ug/L) and another sample was positive for disulfoton at 2.87 ug/L, greater
than the LHA (0.3 ug/L).
Monitoring well #4 had detectable levels of the following pesticides: acifluorfen, alachlor,
atrazine, bentazon, 2,4-D, carbaryl, carbofuran, dicamba, disulfoton, linuron, malathion,
metribuzin, paraquat, simazine, and trifluralin. The detected levels were less than the
respective MCLs or LHAs.
Monitoring well #5 had detectable levels of the following pesticides: acifluorfen, alachlor,
atrazine, 2,4-D, carbaryl, carbofuran, dicamba, disulfoton, linuron, malathion, metolachlor,
metribuzin, paraquat, permethrin, fenvalerate, simazine, and trifluralin. The detected levels
were less than the respective MCLs or LHAs, except 1 sample was positive for simazine at
3.67 ug/L, greater than the MCL (1 ug/L).
Monitoring well #6 had detectable levels of the following pesticides: alachlor, atrazine,
bentazon, 2,4-D, carbaryl, carbofuran, disulfoton, linuron, malathion, metolachlor,
metribuzin, paraquat, permethrin, fenvalerate, simazine, and trifluralin. The detected levels
were less than the respective MCLs or LHAs.
Monitoring well #7 had detectable levels of the following pesticides: alachlor, atrazine,
bentazon, 2,4-D, carbaryl, carbofuran, dicamba, fluazifop-butyl, linuron, malathion,
metolachlor, metribuzin, oryzalin, paraquat, permethrin, fenvalerate, simazine, toxaphene,
and trifluralin. The detected levels were less than the respective MCLs or LHAs, except
1 sample was positive for bentazon at 41.89 ug/L and for simazine at 4.21 ug/L, greater
than the LHA and MCL (20 and 1 ug/L, respectively), and two other samples were positive
for simazine at 1.0 and 1.198 ug/L, equal to or greater than the MCL (1.0 ug/L).
Monitoring well #8 had detectable levels of the following pesticides: acifluorfen, alachlor,
atrazine, bentazon, 2,4-D, carbaryl, carbofuran, dicamba, fluazifop-butyl, malathion,
metolachlor, metribuzin, paraquat, simazine, and trifluralin. The detected levels were less
than the respective MCLs or LHAs, except 1 sample was positive for atrazine at 25.56 ug/L,
greater than the MCL (3 ug/L).
3-VA-8
-------
Ross, B.B., J.E. Woodard, T.A. Dillaha, E.B. Orndorff, J.R Hunnings, and KM. Hanna,
Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia. Evaluating Household Water Quality in Warren County. Study
conducted September 1989. (Reported 6/91, 41 pp.)
Ross, B.B., J.E. Woodard, T.A. Dillaha, W.H. Whittle, J.M. Griffith, F.E. Campbell, D.L.
Southall, Final Report based on work supported by the U.S.D.A. Extension Service under
project number 90-EWQI-1-9250. Evaluation of Household Water Quality in Page County,
Virginia. Study conducted August 1990. (45 pp.)
Ross, B.B., J.E. Woodard, TA. Dillaha, T.V. Williams, H.W. Smith, D.L. Southall, Final Report
based on work supported by the U.S.D.A. Extension Service under project number 90-
EWQI-1-9250. Evaluation of Household Water Quality in Rappahannock County, Virginia.
Study conducted August 1990. (45 pp.)
For additional information contact B.B. Ross, Associate Professor, Department of
Agricultural Engineering, VPI and SU, Blacksburg Virginia. Tel.: 703-231-6809.
Primary Objective
The primary goal of these three projects was to conduct a pilot educational program on
drinking water quality to include water testing/diagnosis in Page, Rappahannock, and
Warren Counties in Virginia. The general program objectives were to: (1) improve the
quality of life of rural homeowners by increasing the awareness and understanding of water
quality problems, protection strategies, and treatment alternatives; and (2) create a ground-
water quality data inventory, including mapping of sampled wells, to assist local governments
in land use and ground-water management planning.
Design
Based on submitted questionnaires, "high risk" household water supplies were selected for
testing for the presence of 32 pesticides and other chemical compounds, such as PCBs.
Participants were provided with a sampling kit which they returned to the County Extension
Offices. Water quality analyses were performed by the Pesticide Research Laboratory in
the Biochemistry and Nutrition Department at Virginia Tech using standard analytical
procedures (USEPA, 1979). Twenty-six household wells were sampled in Warren County
in early September of 1989, 60 household wells were sampled in Page County and 40
household wells were sampled in Rappahannock County in August of 1990. The samples
were analyzed for the following pesticides:
3-VA-9
-------
Pesticide Page Ctv Rappahannock Ctv Warren Ctv
alachlor
X
X
X
atrazine
X
X
X
butylate
X
X
-
carbaryl .
X
X
X
carbofuran
X
X
X
captan
X
X
X
chlordane
X
X
X
chlorothalonil
-
-
X
chlorpyrifos
X
X
X
cyanazine
X
X
-
2,4-D
X
X
X
dacthal (DCPA)
X
X
X
DDD
X
X
-
DDE
X
X
-
DDT
X
X
-
diazinon
X
X
X
dicamba
X
X
X
dimethoate
-
-
X
flumetralin
X
X
X
heptachlor
X
X
-
heptachlor epoxide
X
X
-
lindane
X
X
X
malathion
X
X
X
methoxychlor
X
X
-
metolachlor
X
X
X
parathion
X
X
-
picloram
X
X
X
pyrethrins
X
X
X
silvex [2,4,5-TP]
X
X
-
simazine
X
X
X
2,4,5-T
X
X
X
tetrachloroethylene
X
X
X
trichlorocthylene
X
X
X
triclopyr
X
X
X
trifluralin
X
X
X
X analysis performed on ground-water samples taken in that county.
- analysis not performed in that county.
Results and Conclusions
Five of the 26 wells sampled in Warren County had detectable levels of carbofuran,
carbaryl, or picloram. All detected levels were below the respective MCL or LHA.
Forty-two of the 60 wells sampled in Page County had detectable levels of alachlor, atrazine,
carbofuran, cyanazine, 2,4-D, diazinon, dicamba, lindane, metolachlor, PCBs, 2,4,5-T,
tetrachloroethylene, triclopyr, trifluralin, and/or silvex. Three wells contained chemicals
above MCL or LHA: 1 well was positive for atrazine at 3.513 ug/L, 1 well was positive for
lindane at 0.326 ug/L, and 1 well was positive for PCBs at 0.595 ug/L.
Thirty-six of ths 40 wells sampled in Rappahannock County had detectable levels of
alachlor, atrazine, carbofuran, chlordane, chlorpyrifos, 2,4-D, diazinon, heptachlor,
heptachlor epoxide, lindane, picloram, and/or tetrachloroethylene. All detected levels were
below the respective MCL or LHA, except 1 well which was positive for chlordane at 6.386
ug/L, greater than the MCL of 2.0 ug/L.
3-VA-10
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
• WELL RESULTS
SAHPLE RESULTS
RAKCE'OF
CWC£(f-
- TRATtONS
0«8/i);;!:!
PESTICIDE \
COUHTY
DATE
TOTAL
"weus-
SNPLD
# Of '
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL
*CL •
<
*CL
2,4-D
CLARKE
1987/7,8
30
i
4
30
1
4
aproacbing
100B
SREDESJCK
1987/7,8
30
1
8
30
1
8
aproacbing
100B
PACE
1990/8
60
0
10
60
0
10
0.029-0.136
RAPPAHANNOCK
1990/8
40
0
13
40
0
13
0.017-0.095
WARREN
1989/9
26
0
0
26
0
0
WESTMORELAND
1986/1-4
4
0
4
16
0
5
0.025-0.140
1986/6-7
8
0
3
16
0
3
0.009-0.032
1986/9-11
8
0
6
24
0
6
0.25-3.49
1987/1-3
8
0
1
40
0
1
0.43
-
1987/7-12
8
0
5
56
0
6
0.01-4.74
1988/1-5
8
0
0
32
0
0
1988/8-12
8
0
0
40
0
0
1989/1-6
8
0
2
56
0
2
0.031-0.040
1989/7-12
8
0
1
48
0
1
0.045
1990/1-6
8
0
5
56
0
7
0.072-1.108
N , •>
1990/7-12
8
0
7
48
0
11
0.02-1.002
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
198
2
47
618
2
77
0.009-4.74
2,4,5-T
PAGE
1990/8
60
0
2
60
0
2
0.011-0.045
RAPPAHANNOCK
1990/8
40
0
0
40
0
0
WAROEM
1989/9
26
0
0
26
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
126
0
2
126
0
2
0.011-0.045
2,4,5-TP
CLARKE
1987/7,8
30
0
3
30
0
3
<3.0®
FREDERICK
1987/7,8
30
0
13
30
0
13
<3.0B
PACE
1990/8
60
0
2
60
0
2
0.002-0.008
SAPPAHANNOCK
1990/8
40
0
0
40
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
160
0
18
160
0
18
0.002-<3.0
3-VA-ll
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
PESTICIDE
DATE
TOTAJL
WEtLS
SMPLD
POSITIVE V.
WELLS
TOTAL
SMPLS
# OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
¦ CONCEH-
: TRATIONS
(fig/i)
YEAR/
MONTH
liilll
t
MCL
i:w< :'?.V
MCL
MCL.
A. < '
*CL
~Actfluorfen
WESTMORELAND
1986/1-4
4
0
0
16
0
0
1986/6-7
8
0
0
16
0
0
1986/9-11
8
0
0
24
0
0
1987/1-3
8
0
0
40
0
0
1987/7-12
8
0
0
56
0
0
1988/1-5
8
0
1
32
0
1
0.01
1988/8-12
8
0
1
40
0
1
0.01
1989/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
1989/7-12
8
0
1
48
0
1
0.003
1990/1-6
8
0
1
56
0
1
0.025
1990/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
12
0
3
432
0
4
0.003-0.025
Alachlof
¦cuftkElllliili
1987/7,8
30
0
0
30
0
0
FREDERICK
1987/7,8
30
0
0
30
0
0
¦PAGE
1990/8
60
0
4
60
0
4
0.060-0.321
RAPPAHANNOCK
1990/8
40
0
17
40
0
17
0.033-1.314
WARREN
1989/9
26
0
0
26
0
0
WESTMORELAND
1986/1-4
4
0
2
16
0
2
0.2-0.230
1986/6-7
8
0
2
16
0
2
0.08-0.028
1986/9-11
8
0
6
24
0
8
0.03-0.18
1987/1-3
8
0
4
40
0
4
0.01-0.02
1987/7-12
8
0
1
56
0
1
0.03
1988/1-5
8
0
2
32
0
2
0.09-0.12
1988/8-12
8
0
4
40
0
4
0.03-0.08
1989/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
1989/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
1990/1-6
8
0
8
56
0
9
0.048-0.437
1990/7-12
8
0
1
48
0
1
0.027
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
138
0
31
558
0
54
0.01-1.314
3-VA-12
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAN&e OFs
COfcCEN'
TRAT IONS
Cji9/t >
PESTICIDE ..
count*
DATE ¦
TOTAL
W&15
SMPLD
# Of -
fOSftlVE
WELLS
TOTAL
U
SMPLS
U OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
:: ' :T
TEAR/
MOUTH
i
HCL
<
MCL
>
MCL
<
KCL:
Atrszfne
PAGE
1990/8
60
1
3
60
1
3
0.611-3.513
RAPPAHMNOCK
1990/3
40
0
2
40
0
2
0.418-2.046
WARREN
19B9/9
26
0
0
26
0
0
WESTMORELAND
1986/1-4
4
0
2
16
0
3
0.146-0.332
1986/6-7
8
2
5
16
2
8
0.153-25.56
'
1986/9-11
8
1
6
24
1
8
0.15-3.31
.
1987/1-3
8
0
5
40
0
6
0.16-0.56
1987/7-12
B
0
7
56
0
17
0.24-1.66
1988/1-5
8
0
2
32
0
3
0.10-0.73
1988/8-12
8
0
8
40
0
10
0.03-0.74
1989/1-6
8
0
1
56
0
1
0.924
1989/7-12
8
0
1
48
0
1
0.121
1990/1-6
8
0
6
56
0
7
0.330-1.753
-¦ I ;:¦"¦¦¦
1990/7-12
8
0
7
48
0
7
0.161-2.414
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
138
4
12
558
4
76
0.03-25.56
AiinphosrBKthyl
fLAfttt
1987/7,8
30
0
4
30
0
4
often
excelled
FREDERICK
1987/7,8
30
0
12
30
0
12
often
excelled
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPIES
30
0
5
432
1
5
0.04-2.87
Bentazon
• WESTMORELAND <
1986/1-4
4
0
1
16
0
1
0.430
1986/6-7
8
1
0
16
1
0
41.89
1986/9-11
8
0
1
24
0
1
4,07
1987/1-3
8
0
1
40
0
1
2.10
1987/7-12
8
0
1
56
0
1
0.35
1988/1-5
8
0
1
32
0
1
0.28
1988/8-12
8
0
0
40
0
0
1989/1-6
8
0
3
56
0
3
0.186-0.417
3-VA-13
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
PESTICIDE
COUNT*
DATE
TOTAL
weus
SNPL&
# Of
positive
UELLS
TOTAL
*
SHPLS
# Of
fosjtive
SAMPLES
CONCEH-
TRATtOKS
TEAR/
MONTH
t
HCL
<
HCL
:J;S
: ¦HCL :
:• <
KCL
(Bentazon)
(Westmoreland)
1989/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
-
1990/1-6
8
0
1
56
0
1
0.547
1990/7-12
8
0
1
48
0
1
0.364
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
12
1
10
432
1
10
0.186-41.89
Butyl ate
PAGE
1990/8
60
0
0
60
0
0
RAPPAHANNOCK
1990/8
AO
0
0
40
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
100
0
0
100
0
0
Captan .
:>Ai3E • SS0f.
1990/8
60
0
0
60
0
0
SAPPAHANMOCK
1990/8
40
0
0
40
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
100
0
0
100
0
0
Carbar/l
PAGE
1990/8
60
0
0
60
0
0
SAPPAHANNOCK
1990/8
40
0
0
40
0
0
WARREN
1989/9
26
0
4
26
0
4
0.160-0.501
WESTMORELAND
1986/1-4
4
0
1
16
0
1
0.169
1986/6-7
8
0
2
16
0
2
0.182-0.257
1986/9-11
8
0
3
24
0
3
0.03-0.21
-
1987/1-3
8
0
0
40
0
0
1987/7-12
8
0
2
56
0
2
0.22-1.22
-
1988/1-5
8
0
0
32
0
0
1988/8-12
8
0
3
40
0
3
0.03-0.06
1989/1-6
8
0
2
56
0
2
0.164-0.184
1989/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
1990/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
1990/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
138
0
11
558
0
17
0.03-1.22
3-VA-14
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
WELL RESULTS
< SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS-
tpg/t),
PESTICIOE
COUNTY
DATE.
TOTAL
U&LS
SNPLD
« Of
fOSlTlVt
WELLS
TOTAL
U
SHPLS,
n of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YEAR/
KOKTH
-
At O
as
¦<
#£L
>
NCI
<
MCL
Carbofuran
PAGE
1990/8
60
0
2
60
0
2
0.024-0.025
RAPPAHANNOCK
1990/8
40
0
6
40
0
6
0.028-0.058
WARREN
1989/9
26
0
1
26
0
1
0.040
WESTMORELAND
1986/1-4
4
0
0
16
0
0
1986/6-7
8
0
5
16
0
5
0.07-0.23
1986/9-11
8
0
5
24
0
5
0.02-0.04
1987/1-3
8
0
0
40
0
0
1987/7-12
8
0
4
56
0
4
2.06-3.67
1988/1-5
8
0
1
32
0
1
0.14
1988/8-12
8
0
3
40
0
4
0.06-0.11
1989/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
1969/7-12
8
0
1
48
0
1
0.027
1990/1-6
8
0
2
56
0
2
0.019-0.032
1990/7-12
B
0
0
48
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
138
0
16
558
0
31
0.019-3.67
Chlordarte
PAGE
1990/8
60
0
0
60
0
0
rappahanuock
1990/8
40
1
0
40
1
0
6.386
WARREN
1989/9
26
0
0
26
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
126
1
0
126
1
0
6.386
Chtorpyrifo6: ;
PAGE
1990/8
60
0
0
60
0
0
RAPPAHANNOCK
1990/8
40
0
7
40
0
7
0.013-0.654
WARREN
1989/9
26
0
0
26
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
126
0
7
126
0
7
0.013-0.654
Cyanazine:
PAGE
1990/8
60
1
0
60
1
0
1.616
RAPPAHANNOCK
1990/8
40
0
0
40
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
100
1
0
100
1
0
1.616
3-VA-15
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
VELt RESULTS < •-
SANPLE RESULTS
RANGE Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
tps/O
PESTICIDE
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
'SNPLD•
S Of2;r?:':
positive;:;
WELLS :
TOTAL
«
SHPLS
It Of :
posntve
SAHPLES
TEAR/
MOHTH
IMCL!
KCL
5: v;.-
HCL
<
MCL
DBCP (OSbroro*
chloropropane)
Sussex
1979/8
13 j 2
0
13
2
0
76-114A
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
13 | 2
0
13
2
0
76-114
DCPA .:
page
1990/8
60
0
0
60
0
0
aappahakncck
1990/8
40
0
0
40
0
0
WARftEH
1989/9
26
0
0
26
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
126
0
0
126
0
0
DDT
PAGfc
1990/8
60
0
0
60
0
0
RAPPAHAMOCK.
1990/8
40
0
0
40
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
100
0
0
100
0
0
ODD
1990/8
60
0
0
60
0
0
SAPPAHANOOCK-
1990/8
40
0
0
40
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
100
0
0
100
0
0
DDE ----r
PAGE
1990/8
60
0
0
60
0
0
RAPPAftANNOCK
1990/8
40
0
0
40
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
100
0
0
100
0
0
Di'azinon
fAfi£
1990/8
60
0
6
60
0
6
0.043-0.103
RAPPAHANNOCK
1990/8
40
0
9
40
0
9
0.029-0.262
WARREM
1989/9
26
0
0
26
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
VELLS/SAHPLES
126
0
15
126
0
15
0.029-0.262
Dicamba
PAGE
1990/8
60
0
4
60
0
4
0.006-0.064
PAPPAHAHNOCK
1990/8
40
0
0
40
0
0
WARREN
1989/09
26
0
0
26
0
0
WESTMORELAND
1986/1-4
4
0
0
16
0
0
1986/6-7
8
0
1
16
0
1
4.68
1986/9-11
8
0
0
24
0
0
3-VA-16
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
" .
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE Of
CONCEU-
TRAT IONS
tw/t> '
PESTICIDE
couiirr ¦
DATE
TOTAL
' uEUS
SMPLD
# Of
:¦ POSITIVE ::
WELLS
TOTAL
#
SHPLS
•" U Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
""
YEAR/
MONTH
I-
;«CL
<
MCL
>
/MCL:;:
- <
MCL"
(Dicamba)
(Westmoreland)
1987/1-3
8
0
0
40
0
0
1987/7-12
8
0
1
56
0
1
0.04
*
1988/1-5
8
0
3
32
0
3
0.01
-
1988/8-12
8
0
1
40
0
1
0.01
1989/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
1989/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
-
1990/1-6
8
0
1
56
0
1
0.008
1990/7-12
8
0
4
48
0
7
0.01-0.019
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
138
0
11
558
0
18
0.006-4.68
Dimethoate
1 UARREM
1989/9
26
0
0
26
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
|
26
0
0
26
0
0
:Disulfoton
WESTMORELAND
1986/1-4
4
0
0
16
0
0
¦
1986/6-7
8
0
0
16
0
0
1986/9-11
8
1
1
24
1
1
0.04-2.87
1987/1-3
8
0
1
40
0
1
0.10
1987/7-12
8
0
3
56
0
3
0.10-0.16
1988/1-5
8
0
0
32
0
0
1988/8-12
8
0
0
40
0
0
1989/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
1989/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
1990/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
1990/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
12
1
5
432
1
5
0.04-2.87
Endosutfan
CLARKE
1987/7,8
30
0
10
30
0
10
<20®
FREDERICK
1987/7,8
30
0
19
30
0
19
<20®
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
60
0
29
60
0
29
<20
3-VA-17
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
:'¦ ¦ - WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
(f£»/l>
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
• ' DATE ' •
TOTAL.
U&LS
SNPLB
# OF
POSITIVE .
WELLS
TOTAL
:5. : #.:
SHPLS
ft Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES :
YEAR/
KONTH
WWt-
HCL
<
KCL
' :1
MCI
•<
KCL
~Fenvalerate :
WESTMORELAND
1986/1-4
4
0
0
16
0
0
1986/6-7
8
0
0
16
0
0
1986/9-11
8
0
2
24
0
2
0.05
..
1987/1-3
8
0
0
40
0
0
1987/7-12
B
0
1
56
0
1
0.28
1988/1-5
8
0
3
32
0
3
0.01
1988/8-12
8
0
0
40
0
0
1989/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
1989/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
1990/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
1990/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
12
0
5
432
0
6
0.01-0.28
*Ruazt'fop*butyl
WESTMORELAND •
1986/1-4
4
0
4
16
0
4
0.480-1.300
1986/6-7
8
0
0
16
0
0
1986/9-11
8
0
0
24
0
0
'
1987/1-3
8
0
3
40
0
3
14.55-20.32
1987/7-12
8
0
0
56
0
0
-
1988/1-5
8
0
0
32
0
0
1988/8-12
8
0
0
40
0
0
1989/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
1989/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
1990/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
1990/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
12
0
7
432
0
7
0.480-20.32
1
FtunetratJn |
PAGE
1990/8
60
0
0
60
0
0
RAPPAHANNOCK
1990/8
40
0
0
40
0
0
WARREN
1989/9
26
0
0
26
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
126
0
0
126
0
0
3-VA-18
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF '
CWCEN-" -
TRAT
(fifl/f)
PESTICIDE ••• •
COUNTT
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SNPLD
# Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL
#
SHPLS
# OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
MONTH
t
HCL
<
¦ «CL'
11III1I1
v >
XCL
<
KCL
Gtyphosste
CLARICE
1987/7,8
30
0
3
30
0
3
<700®
FREDERICK
1987/7,8
30
0
3
30
0
3
<700®
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
60
0
6
100
0
6
0.004-0.009
Heptachlor
3AGE
1990/8
60
0
0
60
0
0
RAPPAHANNOCK
1990/8
40
0
6
40
0
6
0.004-0.009
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
100
0
6
100
0
6
0.004-0.009
Hestaihlor Epoxtde
PAGE
1990/8
60
0
0
60
0
0
RAPPAHANNOCK
1990/8
40
0
1
40
0
1
0.055
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
100
0
1
100
0
1
0.055
tfndarie
PAGE
1990/8
60
1
2
60
1
2
0.059-0.326
RAPPAHANNOCK
1990/8
40
0
5
40
0
5
0.010-0.085
WARREN
1989/9
26
0
0
26
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
126
1
7
126
1
7
0.010-0.326
~Llnuron
WESTMORELAND
1986/1-4
4
0
0
16
0
0
1986/6-7
8
0
0
16
0
0
1986/9-11
8
0
0
24
0
0
1987/1-3
8
0
0
40
0
0
1987/7-12
8
0
4
56
0
4
0.35-1.31
¦-
1988/1-5
8
0
0
32
0
0
•
1988/8-12
8
0
0
40
0
0
1989/1-6
8
0
1
56
0
1
3.794
1989/7-12
8
0
2
48
0
2
0.083-0.087
1990/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
1990/7-12
8
0
1
48
0
1
0.042
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
12
0
5
432
0
8
0.042-3.794
3-VA-19
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
WELL RESULTS '
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
Cfi 9/* >
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SHPLD
# Of
fOStttVfe
WEILS
TOTAL
U
SHPLS
# OF
POSlttVE
SAMPLES
1IIIK;
montb::;::-.'-
t
MCL
<
«CL
>
MCL
MCL
Matsthion •
PAGE
1990/8
60 .
0
0
60
0
0
RAPPAHANNOCK
1990/8
40
0
0
40
0
0
WARREN
1989/9
26
0
0
26
0
0
WESTMORELAND
1986/1-4
4
0
1
16
0
1
6.17
1986/6-7
8
0
2
16
0
2
0.014-0.177
1986/9-11
8
0
0
24
0
0
1987/1-3
8
0
7
40
0
10
0.03-0.47
1987/7-12
8
0
1
56
0
1
0.16
1988/1-5
8
0
0
32
0
0
1988/8-12
8
0
0
40
0
0
1989/1-6
8
0
1
56
0
1
3.118
'
1989/7-12
8
0
3
48
0
3
0.363-1.102
1990/1-6
8
0
4
56
0
4
0.007-0.239
1990/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
138
0
9
558
0
22
0.007-6.17
Hethoxychlor
PAGE ' ••••:•
1990/8
60
0
0
60
0
0
RApipAHANHOCKv::?:
1990/8
40
0
0
40
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
100
0
0
100
0
0
Metotachtor
PACe
1990/8
60
0
2
60
0
2
0.335-0.842
RAPPAHANNOCK
1990/8
40
0
0
40
0
0
WARREN
1989/9
26
0
0
26
0
0
WESTMORELAND
1986/1-4
4
0
2
16
0
2
0.360-0.639
1986/6-7
8
0
6
16
0
8
0.062-2.86
1986/9-11
8
0
0
24
0
0
1987/1-3
8
0
3
40
0
3
0.03-0.10
1987/7-12
8
0
3
56
0
3
0.05-0.49
1988/1-5
8
0
3
32
0
3
0.04-0.10
1988/8-12
8
0
5
40
0
6
0.02-0.16
1989/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
3-VA-20
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
'• WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
(f£0/t >
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL
" ugus
SNPLD
# OF
POStTlve
UELLS
TOTAL
#
SHPLS
••roF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
MONTH
I
MCL
<
"ftCL-
3:
KCi. '
<
MCL
(Metolachlor)
(Wesinor-eland)
1989/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
1990/1-6
8
0
1
56
0
2
0.074-0.370
1990/7-12
8
0
1
48
0
1
0.074
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
138
0
11
558
0
30
0.02-2.86
Metribuzin
WESTMORELAND
1986/1-4
4
0
0
16
0
0
;P||||||||!|
1986/6-7
8
0
4
16
0
4
0.011-0.177
1986/9-11
8
0
4
24
0
6
0.01-2.73
-
1987/1-3
8
0
2
40
0
2
0.02-0.09
1987/7-12
8
0
8
56
0
15
0.01-0.07
1988/1-5
8
0
1
32
0
1
0.01
lilliilllll
1988/8-12
8
0
0
40
0
0
1989/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
¦
1989/7-12
8
0
1
48
0
1
0.005
1990/1-6
8
0
2
56
0
2
0.071-0.077
1990/7-12
8
0
6
48
0
7
0.031-1.235
TOTAL DISCRETE
VELLS/SAKPLES
12
0
8
432
0
38
0.005-2.73
~Oryzalin
WESTMORELAND
1986/1-4
4
0
0
16
0
0
1986/6-7
8
0
0
16
0
O
1986/9-11
8
0
0
24
0
0
1987/1-3
8
0
2
40
0
2
0.06-0.87
1967/7-12
8
0
0
56
0
0
1988/1-5
8
0
0
32
0
0
1988/8-12
8
0
0
40
0
0
1989/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
1989/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
1990/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
1990/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
12
0
2
432
0
2
0.06-0.87
3-VA-21
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
: RANGE OF
C0NC£(f-
• TRATIOH&
Oig/l>
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SNPLD
9 or
Postrjvfe
WELLS
TOTAL
M
SNPLS
U Of
POSIT We
SAMPLES
111PW11I
MONTH
I
MCL
•<
MCL
i
MCL
<
MCL
Par&quat
CLARKE
1987/7,8
30
0
0
30
0
0
FREDERICK
1987/7,8
30
0
0
30
0
0
WESTMORELAND
1986/1-4
4
0
1
16
0
1
15.80
1986/6-7
8
0
1
16
0
1
7.31
1986/9-11
8
0
5
24
0
6
0.11-18.03
1987/1-3
8
0
5
40
0
8
2.37-8.35
1987/7-12
8
0
8
56
0
16
0.01-1.96
1988/1-5
8
0
0
32
0
0
1988/8-12
8
0
0
40
0
0
1989/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
1989/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
1990/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
1990/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
12
0
9
432
0
32
0.01-18.03
Pararhion, ethyl
PACE
1990/8
60
0
0
60
0
0
sappahannock
1990/8
40
0
0
40
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
100
0
0
100
0
0
Parathion, methyl
PAGE
1987/7,8
30
0
0
30
0
0
SAPPAHAnWOCK
1987/7,8
30
0
13
30
0
13
<5.0B
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
60
0
13
60
0
13
~Permethrm
WESTMORELAND
1986/1-4
4
0
0
16
0
0
1986/6-7
8
0
0
16
0
0
1986/9-11
8
0
0
24
0
0
1987/1-3
8
0
1
40
0
1
1.25
1987/7-12
8
0
0
56
0
0
1988/1-5
8
0
3
32
0
3
0.01-0.10
1988/8-12
8
0
1
40
0
1
0.02
1989/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
3-VA-22
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
WELL REQJLTS 1
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAXGE OF"
PESTICIDE
couhtt
DATE
TOTAL
WEUS
SNPLD "
* OF
ppsmvr
. UELLS
TOTAL
n
SHPLS
* OF
POSJt'lvE
SAMPLES
CQMCEN-
TRATICKS
tw/ f)
YEAR/
MONTR
t
HCL
¦<
HCL
*
HCL
<
#CL
"
(Permethrin)
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS V
RANGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
(£g/l>
PESTICIDE
COUNT*
DATE
iSoriii
WELLS
SHPLO
# Of
' K)$mv£
UELLS
TOTAL
a
:¦ SMPLS
# OF
positive
¦ SAMPLES
YEAR/
KOKTK
¦t
HCL
-<
KCL
MCL
<
MCL
(Simazine)
WESTMORELAND
1986/1-4
4
0
2
16
0
2
0.234-0.239
1986/6-7
8
2
3
16
2
3
0.54-4.21
!
1986/9-11
8
0
4
24
0
5
0.06-0.47
1987/1-3
8
2
3
40
2
5
0.32-2.59
1987/7-12
8
0
0
56
0
0
1988/1-5
8
0
0
32
0
0
1988/8-12
8
0
1
40
0
1
0.99
1989/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
1989/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
1990/1-6
8
1
1
56
1
1
0.755-1.198
1990/7-12
8
0
1
48
0
1
0.180
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
19B
3
36
618
5
54
0.06-4.21
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
(Tetrachtoroathene)
PAGE
1990/8
60
0
21
60
0
21
0.004-0.142
RAPPAHANNOCK
1990/8
40
0
21
40
0
21
0.002-0.196
WARREN
1989/9
26
0
0
26
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
126
0
42
126
0
42
0.002-0.196
Tcxaphene
WESTMOR£(.ANt>
1986/1-4
4
0
0
16
0
0
1986/6-7
8
0
1
16
0
1
1.75
1986/9-11
8
0
0
24
0
0
1987/1-3
8
0
0
40
0
0
1987/7-12
8
0
0
56
0
0
1988/1-5
8
0
0
32
0
0
1988/8-12
8
0
0
40
0
0
1989/1-6
8
0
0
56
0
0
1989/7-12
8
0
0
48
0
0
3-VA-24
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
WELI RESULTS • -
-SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
Cfjg/t)
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL
WEUS'
SMPLD
# OF
.mttive
l»WELLS«:--r
TOTAL
wmm
SHPLS
# OF
POSITIVE
' SAMPLES
TEAK/
month
IIIlp
NCL
<
HCL
£
HCL
<
KCL
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
WELL RESULTS
• SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATION
: tffl/O
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL '
SNPID
Jiiri:
fgsmvfc
UEILS
TOTAL
U
SHPLS
n of ¦
POSJttVE-
::: SAMPLES' 1
YEAR/
MONTH
liPl!
MCL
<
HCL
SkM
•MCL '
<. ¦¦¦
MCL
(Trifluralin)
(Westooreland)
1990/1-6
S
0
0
56
0
0
1990/7-12
B
0
3
48
0
3
0.036-0.051
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
138
0
9
558
0
26
0.01-0.23
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
211
15
134
631
17
327
~ No MCL or Lifetime HA available.
A
The limit of detection (1.0 ppb) for this study was greater than the HCL (0.2 ppb) for DBCP.
g
Absolute values were not provided for every sample taken in this study. The narrative provided the nunber of
wells sampled, nunber positive end whether or not the concentrations detected were above or below the HCL. Levels
of contamination for certain pesticides were also provided as round figures such as "concentrations rarely exceeded
2 ug/L" or "concentrations frequently exceeded 75 ug/L."
3—VA-26
-------
STATE OF VIRGINIA
UELLS BY COUNTY
COUNTY
TYPES OF UELLS
SOURCE OF
CONTAMINATION
(NUMBER OF UELLS)
DRINKING WATER:
MONITORING
- OTHER
TOTAL
SMPLD
MCt
<
KCt
TOTAL
SMPLD
i
hcL
<
HU
TOTAL
SMPLO
net
<
hCl
ttfU*
:> PS.;:.
UliK*
Clarke
30
1
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
A
0
0
Frederick
30
1
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
A
0
0
Page
60
4
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
0
0
Rappahannock
40
1
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
0
0
Sussex
13
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Warren
26
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
Westmoreland
4
0
4
8
6
2
0
0
0
12 '
0
0
TOTAL
203
9
132
8
6
2
0
0
0
2
0
*
NFU=Known or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS =Known or Suspected Point Source
UNK=Unknown
60 wells were sampled in Clarke and Frederick counties. 50 of these wells were contaminated
by one or more pesticides at levels less than the MCL from normal field (agricultural and non-
agricultural) use. Two were contaminated above the MCL. There is not enough detail in the
report to determine the location of the positive samples
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
W est
V ireinia
Pesticides Detected
Terbacil
Endrin
Total Wells Sampled
per County
m > 1000
KS 501 10 1000
EJ 101 to 500
[21 51 to 100
E3 1 10 50
~ No wells sampled
3-WV-l
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
In 1991 the State of West Virginia established the West Virginia Ground Water
Protection Act. The purposes of this Act are to:
1. maintain and protect the state's ground water so as to support the present and
future beneficial uses,
2. provide for the establishment of a state ground-water management program,
and
3. provide such enforcement and compliance mechanisms as will assure the
implementation of the state's ground-water management program,
West Virginia's ground-water management program gives the Division of Natural
Resources primary authority to promulgate regulations concerning ground water. This
program will also establish standards of purity and quality for ground water, establish
ground-water protection and remediation funds, and provide mapping and analysis of
ground-water resources, and provide public education on ground-water resources and
methods of preventing contamination.
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Hogmire, Henry E., Brooks, J.L., and Weaver, Joseph E., Associate Professor, Division of
Plant and Soil Sciences, West Virginia University, Tel.: 304-293-6023. Survey for
Pesticides in Wells Associated with Apple and Peach Orchards in West Virginia. Study
conducted 1985-87. (Reported 1/89, 12 pp.)
Primary Objective
The presence of karst terrain and residential development of orchard land resulted in
increased concern about water quality in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia. This
study was initiated in 1985 to evaluate ground water from wells associated with orchards
for pesticide contamination.
Design
Twenty wells were sampled during this study. The wells chosen represented various
conditions: (1) wells located within or adjacent to orchards; (2) wells located at pesticide
mixing sites and at various distances from mixing sites; and (3) wells with various use
patterns (household only, pesticide mixing only, or both). There were 7 drinking wells
3-WV-3
-------
and 1 mixing well in Berkeley County; 3 drinking wells and 5 mixing wells in Jefferson
County; and 4 drinking wells in Hampshire County.
Monthly samples were collected from all wells from May through October 1985 and from
only positive wells from April through November 1986. Additional samples were taken
from three of the positive wells in December of 1985 and from one positive drinking
water well in December 1986, January 1987 and February 1987. The samples were
analyzed for terbacil and endrin by GC. The detection limit was 0.1 ppb for endrin and
was not available for terbacil.
Results and Conclusions
A total of 165 samples were analyzed from 20 wells over the three year sampling period.
Five wells contained terbacil residues in 1985, however no terbacil was detected in
samples collected from these wells in 1986. Four of the five wells with terbacil residues
also had residues of endrin. Two of the wells were contaminated above the MCL; one
drinking water well and one mixing well. The drinking water well did not meet
acceptable standards for construction. The other three wells were used for pesticide
mixing. It is likely that contamination of these wells occurred as the result of pesticide
mixing operations rather than field use. Improper well construction and disposal of
empty pesticide containers are believed to be important contributing factors.
3-WV-4
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF UEST VIRGINIA
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
• RANCe.Cf
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
(pg/l)
PESTICIDE
COUNTT
DATE '
TOTAL
UELLS
SAHPLED
# OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL «
SAMPLES
tt OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
yeas/
K0NTK
i
KCL
¦ HCi"..
lill
IP!
KCL
Endrm-:
BERKELEY
1985/5
8
0
0
8
0
0
1985/6
8
0
0
8
0
0
llllllill
1985/7
8
0
2
8
0
2
0.1-0.6
1985/8
8
0
1
8
0
1
0.4
1985/9
8
0
1
8
0
1
0.2
1985/10
8
0
1
8
0
1
0.7
1985/12
2
0
1
3
0
2
1.6-1.9
1986/4
3
0
0
3
0
0
1986/5
3
0
0
3
0
0
1986/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
1986/7
3
0
1
3
0
1
0.5
1986/B
3
0
1
3
0
1
0.2
1986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1986/10
3
0
1
3
0
1
0.1
...
1986/11
2
0
1
2
0
1
1.4
1986/12
1
0
0
1
0
0
1987/1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1987/2
1
0
0
1
0
0
HAMPSHIRE
1985/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
1985/6
4
0
0
4
0
0
1985/7
4
0
0
4
0
0
1985/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
1985/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
JEFFERSON
1985/5
8
0
0
8
0
0
1985/6
8
0
0
8
0
0
1985/7
8
0
2
8
0
2
0.1-1.3
1985/8
8
1
0
B
1
0
2.7
1985/9
8
0
1
8
0
1
0.7
1985/10
8
0
0
8
0
0
3-WV-5
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF UEST VIRGINIA
VEIL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAHGf Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
: (jig/l)
PESTICIDE
COtJNTT
DATE
TOTAL
WEILS
SAMPLED
# OF
POSITIVE
VSU.S
¦MoiWi":
SAMPLES
# OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
VEAft/
«0MT»
#CL
<
HCt
HCL
, ¦ < ¦
MCI
(Endrin)
(Jefferson)
1985/12
1
0
0
1
0
0
.•
1986/4
2
0
0
2
0
0
1986/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
1986/6
1986/7
2
2
0
1
0
0
2
2
0
1
0
0
2.1
1986/8
2
1
0
2
1
0
3.5
1986/9
2
0
0
2
0
0
1986/10
1986/11
2
1
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0.8
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
20
1
3
165
3
15
0.1-3.5
Terbaelt
BERKELEY
1985/5
8
0
0
8
0
0
1985/6
8
0
0
8
0
0
1985/7
8
0
2
8
0
2
0.4-1.2
1985/8
8
0
1
8
0
1
1.2
1985/9
8
0
2
8
0
2
0.4-0.6
1985/10
8
0
1
8
0
1
0.3
1985/12
2
0
0
2
0
0
1986/4
3
0
0
3
0
0
1986/5
3
0
0
3
0
0
1986/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
1986/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1986/10
3
0
0
3
0
0
1986/11
2
0
0
2
0
0
1986/12
1
0
0
1
0
0
1987/1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1987/2
1
0
0
1
0
0
3-WV-6
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF UEST VIRGINIA
MELi RESULTS .
SAHPLE RESULT?
RAUG£ OF
CWCEN- ¦
TRATIONS
(Jig/l)
PESTICTOE
coukt*
DATE
TOTAL
UELLS
SAMPLES
# OF
POSITIVE -
weits
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
U OF
-POSITIVE
SAMPLES
'
•
KOHTft"
i.
«CL
*
HCL
IIII
NCL
HCL
(Terbacil)
'HAMPSHIRE
1985/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
1985/6
4
0
0
4
0
0
1985/7
4
0
0
4
0
0
1985/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
1985/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
JEFFERSOH
1985/5
8
0
0
8
0
0
1985/6
8
0
0
8
0
0
1985/7
8
0
1
8
0
1
0.7
1985/8
8
0
0
8
0
0
1985/9
8
0
1
8
0
1
0.5
1985/10
8
0
0
8
0
0
1985/12
1
0
0
1
0
0
1986/4
2
0
0
2
0
0
1986/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
<
1986/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
< r
V.'.'.V.V.V.V '.'.V.'.'.-.V.-.V.'.V -.v.'.
1986/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
% •.
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
-
1986/9
2
0
0
2
0
0
1986/10
2
0
0
2
0
0
. - . . ¦
1986/11
1
0
0
1
0
2
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
20
0
5
164
0
8
0.3-1.2
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
20
1
4
165
3
15
3-WV-7
-------
STATE OF UEST VIRGINIA
UELLS BY COUNTY
COUNTY
TYPES Of WELLS
SOURCE OF
CONTAMINATION
(NUMBER OF UELLS)
bRlNKING VATER
MONITORING
CITHER
TOTAL
SHPLD
>
llci!
<
• HCL
TOTAL
SHPLD
i3!f
HCL
<
HCL'
TOTAL
SHPLO •
>
iMi
•• '<• •••
• MCL.-
NFU
*
PS
UHtf*
Berkeley
7
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
Hampshire
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Jefferson
3
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
1
0
2
0
Total
14
0
3
0
0
0
6
1
1
0
5
0
NFU = Known or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS = Known or Suspected Point Source
UMK = Unknown
3-WV-9
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
APPENDIX I - PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
ckemVe aW; ||l|il;
reference'--
MCL
Carbofuran
Degradate
3-Ketocarbofu-an &
3-Ketocarbofursn (phenol)
Carbofuran
Degradate
3,5-Dichtorobenzotc acid
Pronamide
Degradate
4-Nitrcphenol
Parathion, methyl
60
Degradate
Fungicide
S
4(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)
butyric acid
2,^-DB
4(2,4-03), Butoxyethanol
ester
2,4-DB
APPENDIX 1-1
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL NAME
REFERENCE
MCI.
. (na/t)
LHA
(tffl/l)
PESTICIDE
CATEGORY
REGULATORY
. STATUS
4(2,4-DB), Dimethylamine
salt
2,4-08 .
5-Hydroxy dicambs
Di camba
Degradate
Acenaphthene
Insecticide
Fungicide
S
Acephate
Insecticide
s
Acifluorfen
Herbicide
s
Acrolein
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
S.R
Acrylonitrite
Fumigant
C,R,SRC
Alachtor
2
Herbicide
S,R,SRP
Atdicarb
3
1
Insecticide
Acaricide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S,R,SRP
Aldicarb Sulfone
Aldicarb
2
1
Degradate
Aldicarb Sulfoxide
Aldicarb
4
1
Degradate
Aldicarb, Total
Aldicarb
3
Parent +
degradates
SRP
Aldrin
Insecticide
C,SRC
Ametryn
60
60
Herbicide
S
Aminocarb
Insecticide
U,C
Amitra*
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R,SRC
Amitrole
Herbicide
S,RP
AnUazine
Fungicide
S
Arsenic
50
Arsenates, Arsenites
Arsenic
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
!«C
Arsenic acid
Arsenica Is
Arsenic
Defoliant
Insecticide
Atratan
experimental
discontinued triazine
Herbicide
c
Atrazine
3
Herbicide
S,R
Atrazine, deal Icy lated
Atrazine
Degradate
Azinphos*ethyl
Insecticide
c
Azinphos-methyl,
Insecticide
S,R
Banvel
Dicaaiba :
APPENDIX 1-2
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL NAME'
REFERENCE
llil!
Iffir
LHA
Cm/I)
. . PESTICIDE
CATEGORY
REGULATOR*
STATUS
Barbae
Herbicide
C
Baygon
Propoxur
Bendiocarb
Insecticide
S,R
Bertefln
Benfluralin
Insecticide
Herbicide
S
Benflural in
Bcnef i n
Benonr/l
Fungicide
S,SRC
Bensutide ¦
Herbicide
S
Bentazon
20
20
Herbicide
S
Bentazon/ sodium salt
Bentazon
Degradate
BHC
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL NAME
REFERENCE
.MCL
• (
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL NAME
REFERENCE
MCL
LHA ,
(H9/I)
PESTICIDE '
CATEGORY
REGULATORY
STATUS
Cyanide
200
200
Cyanide, calciun or
potassium
Cyanaide
Rodenticide
U
Cyanaide, sodiun
-Cyanide
Rodenticide
S.R
Cycloote
Herbicide
s
Cypermethrirv
Insecticide
S.R
Cypraiine
Herbicide
c
Dacthal
DCPA
Dacthal diacid
DCPA acid metabolites
Dalapon
200
200
Herbicide
u,c
DBCP
0.2
Fumigant
C,R,SRC
DCBA
2,4-Dichlorobenzoic
acid
OCP
1,2-Oichloropropane ••
UvrM ;.y^v A..y:
4000
Herbicide
S
OCPA acid metabolites • •
DCPA
Degradate
D-D Hix
1,2-0ichloropropane
and fliehloropropone
DDT
Insecticide
C
tJDD
DDT
Degradate
SRC
DDE
DDT
Degradate
DDVP
Oichlorvos
DEF
Tribufos
Insecticide
Acaricide
C.R
Oemeton
Insecticide
Acaricide
C
Oemeton-methyl
Insecticide
Acaricide
C
Demeton-S
Degradate
Demeton-5 sulfone
Demeton-S
Degradate
Des-ethyl atrazine
Atrazine
Degradate
Des-isopropyl at-rszine
Atrazine
Herbicide
C.R
Dial late
Herbicide
C,R,SRC
Oiazinon
0.6
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S,SRC
D i bromoch I oropropane
OBCP ,
APPENDIX 1-5
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL «AME
REFERENCE '
. MCL.
(ug/U
ilHA
PESTICIDE
CATEGORY
REHJIATORY
STATUS
Oibutyl phthalate
Insect
repellent
u.c
Oicasiba
200
Herbicide
S
DichtobeniI •
Herbicide
S
o-Dichlorobenzene
600
600
Antimicrobial
u
p-Dichlorobenzene
75
75
Insecticide
Fungicide
Rodenticide
Antimicrobial
s
A
Dichloropropane
Dichlorapropene
Nematicide
Fumigant
S,R,SRP
Dichlorprop
Herbicide
SfSRPre
Dichlorprop, butoxyethanol
ester
t>i chlorprop
Oichlorvos
Insecticide
S,SRP
Dicofol
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,SRC
Oicrotophoa
Insecticide
S,R
?lO»et drift i..
Insecticide
C,SRC
Diethylhexyl phthalate
Dioctyl phthalate
Diroethoate
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,SRC
0 i noseb
7
7
Herbicide
C,SRC
Dinitrocresol
DNOC
Dioctyl phthalate
Acaricide
c
DioXacarb
C
Dioxathion
Insecticide
C,R
Dfphenemtd
200
Herbicide
C
Diquat
20
20
Herbicide
S
Diquat dibromide and
various salts
Oiquat
Disulfoton
0.3
Insecticide
Acaricide
S.R
Oisulfoton sulforte
Disulfoton
Degradate
oisulfoton sulfoxide
Disulfoton
Degradate
Oiuron
10
Herbicide
s
DMPA
Fly larvicide
c
APPENDIX 1-6
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL NAME
REFERENCE
HCL
(»»g/U
LHA
(M9/D
PESTICIDE
CATEGORY
REGULATORY
STATUS
DNOC
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
U,C
DNOC, sodion salt
DNOC
EDB
Ethylene dibromide
EBDC compounds
Maneb, Hancazeb, ,
Zineb
SRC
tndosulfan
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
S
Endosulfan t
Endosulfan
Isomer
Endosulfan IT
Endosulfan
Isomer
Endosulfan sulfate
Endosulfan
Degradate
EndothalI
100
100
Herbicide
S
Endrirt
2
2
Insecticide
U,C,R,SRC
Endrir aldehyde
Endrin
Degradate
EPtt
Insecticide
Acaricide
C.R
EPTC
Herbicide
S
EthalfluraUn
Herbicide
S,SRC
Eth ion
Insecticide
Acaricide
S.R
Ethoprop
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S.R
Ethyl alcohol
Disinfectant
s
Ethylan
Insecticide
U,C,SRC
Ethylene
bisdithiocarbamate
compounds
Ha neb, Mancozeb,
Zineb
Ethylene dibrosiidc
0.05
Insecticide
C,R,SRC
Ethylene dichloride
1,2-D»chloroetharte -
Ethylene thiourea
ETU
Ethyl parathion
Parathion, ethyl
Etridiazole
Fungicide
s
ETU
Maneb
Degradate
Fenac
Ch Ibrfenac
Fenamiphos
2
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S.R
APPENDIX 1-7
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL NAME
REFERENCE
MCL
0«g/l).
I HA
:
PESTICIDE
CATEGORY .
REGULATORY
STATUS
Fenamiphos sutfone
Fenamiphos
Oegradate
fenamiphos sulfoxide
Fenamiphos
Degradate
: ferwrimol
Fungicide
S
Fenbutatfn-ox»d<>
Insecticide
Acaricide
S
Fensulfothion.'
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide
C,R
Fenthioi
Insecticide
C
Fcnuron
Herbicide
C
¦Fenvalerste
Insecticide
S,R
Ftuazifop-butyl
Herbicide
S
Fluchtoratin
Herbicide
S
Ftunetralin
Herbicide
S
Fluometuron
90
Herbicide
S
Fluridone
Aquatic
herbicide
S
Forrofoi
10
Insecticide
S,R
f anraldehyde
1000
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
U
jGtyphosatp
700
700
Herbicide
S
Glyphosate isopropylamine
salt
Glyphosate
Guthion
Azinphos-methyl
HCH (a,B,5)
BHC (a,R,i)
HCH (D
Lindane
•Heptachlor ..
0.4
Insecticide
C,SRC
Heptfrchtor.epoxide
Heptachlor
0.2
Degradate
Hexachlorobenzene.
1
Seed
protectant
Hexazinone
200
Herbicide
S
Hydroxyalacftlor
Alachlor
Degradate
Iprodione
Fungicide
S
Isobornyl thiocyanoacetate:;
Insecticide
C
rsofenphos '
Insecticide
Herbicide
S,R
tsopropalin
Herbicide
C
APPENDIX 1-8
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL NAME
REFERENCE
MCI
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL NAME ...
REFERENCE
MCt '
IlKli?
{M9/1)
v PESTICIDE
CATEGORY
REGULATORY
STATUS
Methyl parathion
Parathion, methyl
Meth/l trithion
Carbcphenothi on,
methyl
Methylene chloride
Insecticide
U
Ketolechlor
100
Herbicide
s
Metribuzin
200
Insecticide
s
KetnbuZfn DA
Metribuzin
Degradate
Hetrtbuztn DADK
Hetribuzin
Oegradate
Ketrtbuzfn DK
Metribuzin
Degradate
Kevinphos
Insecticide
Acaricide
S.R
Kexacarbstc
Insecticide
u.c
Mi rex
Insecticide
C,SRC
Wotinate
Herbicide
S
Holinate sulfoxide
Holinate
Degradate
Jforwcrotophos
Insecticide
Acaricide
C.R
Monuron
Herbicide
C,SRC
Naled
Insecticide
Acaricide
S
Naphthalene
20
Insecticide
S
Nopropamide
Insecticide
S
Naptatam
Herbicide
S
Neburon
Herbicide
C
Nemagon
08CP
(titrofen
Herbicide
C
p-Hitrophenol
4*Kitrophertol
Nonachlor
Chlordane
Impurity in
formulation
Norflurazon
Herbicide
s
Octyl bicycloheptene*
dicarboximide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
s
Ortho-dichlorobenzene
o-OicMorobenzene • •
Oryzatin
Herbicide
s
Ovex
Chldrferisori
APPENDIX 1-10
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL NAME
REFERENCE
MCI*. .
IHA
WO-
PESTICIDE
CATEGORY
REGULATOR*'
STATUS' '
Oxamyl
200
Insecticide
Acaricide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S.R
Oxychlordane ' "
Chlordane
Animal
metabolite
Oxydematon-roethyl
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R,SRP
Ox^dtfcutfoton
Insecticide
Acaricide
C
Oxyfluorfen
Herbicide
S,SRC
Para-chlorometacresol
p-Chloro-m-creool
para-Dichlorobcnzene see
p-Dichlorobenzene, listed
at dichlorobenzene
p-Chloro-o-cresol
Paraquat
30
Herbicide
S.R
Paraquat dichloride
Paraquat
Parathion
Pafrathion, ethyl
Parathion, ethyl-
Insecticide
S,R,SRC
Parathion, iwthyl
2
Insecticide
S.R
PCMB
Fungicide
S,SRC
PCP
Pentachlorophenol
Pebulate
Insecticide
Herbicide
S
Pendimsthalin
Herbicide
s
Pentacfilorophenol
1
Insecticide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
S,R,SRP
Perrocfirin
Insecticide
S.R
Pertharie
Ethylan
Phorato
Insecticide
S.R
Phorate sulfone
Phorate
Degradate
Phorate sulfoxide
Phorate
Degradate
Phoratoxon
Phorate
Degradate
Phoratoxon sulfone
Phorate
Degradate
Phoratoxon sutfoxide
Phorate
Degradate
Phosatone
Insecticide
Acaricide
U.R
Phossiet
Insecticide
S
APPENDIX 1-11
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL MAKE
REFERENCE
• MCI
LHA
(M/1)
PESTICIDE
CATEGORY
REGULATORY
STATUS
Phosmet oxygen analog
Phosmet
Degradate
PhoSphamidOn
Insecticide
C/R
Pitloram
500
500
Herbicide
S.R
PiHmiearb
Aphidicide
c
PiHmfcarb 'sOtforte'"'
Pirimicarb
Degradate
Profenofos
Insecticide
S.R
Profluralin
Herbicide
c
Prontccarb
Insecticide
NR (in US)
Prometon
100
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
S
Promatryn
Herbicide
S
Pronamide
50
Herbicide
S,R,SRC
Propachlor
90
Herbicide
S
Propanft
Herbicide
S
Propargite
Insecticide
Acaricide
S
Propaztne
10
Herbicide
c
Propham
100
Herbicide
c
Propoxur • •
3
Insecticide
p
S,SR
Propyzamide
Pronamide
Prothiofos
Prothioohos
ProtMophos
Insecticide
NR
Pyrethrins
Insecticide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
U
Pyrictor
Herbicide
c
Rormel
Insecticide
U,C,SRC
Rotenolorie
Rotenone
Degradate
Roterione
Insecticide
Acaricide
Piscicide
S
Sccbumeton
Herbicide
c
Sethoxydim
Herbicide
S
Siduron
Herbicide
S
Si Ivex
2,4,5-TP
S
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL NAME
REFERENCE
'• MCt •
(»g/U
IM
PESTICIDE
CATEGORY
REGULATORY
STATUS v;
Si metone
Herbicide
MR
Simetryn
Herbicide
NR
Sodinn bromide
Bromide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
S
Sodium cyanide
Cyanide
Sulprofos'
Insecticide
S,R
Swep
Herbicide
C
TCA and salts
Trichloroacetic acid
TCE
Trichloroethene
Tebuthiuron
500
Herbicide
S
Telone
Dichloropropcne
Terbacil
90
Herbicide
S
Terbu^os
0.9
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S,R
Terbutos sul forte
Terbufos
Degradate
Terburhylezine
Herbicide
Algaecide
S
Terbusryn
Herbicide
C
Terrazole
Etridi.uole
Tet rach toroethyIene
5
Fumigant
C
T et rachIorvi nphos
Insecticide
S
Tetrad)fon
u,c
Thanite
Isoboryt
thiocyanoacctatc
Tniobcncarb
Herbicide
s
Thiobencarb sulfoxide
Degradate
Thiophanate
Fungicide
c
Triiophanate-methyl
Insecticide
Fungicide
S,SRC
Tordon
(Mctoram
:Toxaphene
3
Insecticide
U,R,SRC
Tralomethrin
Insecticide
S,R
Trahs-nonachlor
chlordane
Impurity in
formulation
Triadimefon
Fungicide
S
APPENDIX 1-13
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL name
R£F£REMCE
...net
• LHA
PESTICIDE
CATEGORY
REGULATORY
. . STATUS
Tribufos
Herbicide
S
Trichtorfon
Insecticide
s
Trichloroacetic acid ¦ ¦¦¦¦¦¦¦>>::
Herbicide
u
Trichlorobenzene
w-
T r ichlorobenzene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethylene
-Trichloroethene
5
Fumigant
c
Trichloronst
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
U Unsupported: The producer(s) of the pesticide has not made or honored a
commitment to seek reregistration, conduct the necessary studies, or pay
the requisite fees for reregistration of the product.
C Canceled: The active ingredient is no longer contained in any registered
pesticide products.
R Restricted Use: The pesticide has been classified as a Restricted Use
Pesticide under 40 CFR Part 1, Subpart 1. It is therefore restricted to
use by a certified applicator, or by or under the direct supervision of a
certified applicator.
A In Hawaii both dichloropropane and 1,2-dichloropropane appear in the data.
APPENDIX 1-15
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
APPENDIX II - NATIONAL SURVEY OF PESTICIDES IN DRINKING
WATER WELLS
-------
NATIONAL SURVEY OF PESTICIDES IN DRINKING-WATER WELLS.
At this time the Pesticides in Ground Water Database does not contain data from
the National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells (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
------- |