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 10
NY r^fRI
PA V/NJ
DE -7
MDO
ALASKA IDAHO OREGON
WASHINGTON
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database -1992 Report
Mention of trade names, products, or services does
not convey, and should not be interpreted as
conveying, official EPA approval, endorsement, or
recommendation.
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Form Approved
OMB No, 0704-0188
Pi;o!ic i-aooriii ourcen 'or tms collection of information * estimates ' "cur oer 'esoorse. ;ncfu<3ing trie time for reviewing instructions, iearcmng e* jti.ig aaca sou*:?*,
^athenng jid ^atntammg theoata needed, and completing and revving tre collection of information Send comments regarding tri* Burden estimate or any other asoect of this
coMect'On of intormat-or\ rci^d'C-s su^e-v-:-^ :zr ^-^ang :his curae* re //nsrvngton Heaaquare^ 0r.ctif* *0? 'nforfraticn **oom, I2i5 Jefferson
.i ;?}•''ard tc cne Office anjqe^ert and Budget. ?icerv
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database -1992 Report
Pesticides in Ground Water Database
A Compilation of Monitoring Studies: 1971 -1991
• "W
Region 10
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
t k j
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report, Region 10
CONTENTS
OVERVIEW OV-1
REGIONAL MAP , OV-14
GRAPH: WELLS BY STATE OV-15
STATE SUMMARIES:
ALASKA
State Map 1-AK-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-AK-3
IDAHO
State Map 1-ID-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-ID-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-ID-3
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Idaho l-ID-4
Table: State of Idaho - Wells by County l-ID-4
OREGON
State Map 1-OR-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-OR-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-OR-3
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Oregon l-OR-9
Table: State of Oregon - Wells by County l-OR-23
WASHINGTON
State Map 1-WA-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-WA-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-WA-3
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Washington l-WA-9
Table: State of Washington - Wells by County l-WA-19
APPENDICES
Pesticide Cross-Reference Table Appendix 1-1
National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells Appendix II-1
W
-------
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 in these states is more contaminated than that of other states, or that all
ground water in these states is contaminated. On the contrary, an active, supported
sampling program generally indicates a high regard for ground-water quality.
OV-1
-------
The database and this report are the result of the efforts of a great many individuals,
significant among whom are the state officials and principal investigators who gave
generously of their time to provide OPP with information concerning their work. In
publishing this report, OPP intends not only to provide data, but also to identify points of
contact, in order to share expertise among those responsible for the protection of the
nation's ground-water resources.
To make this information available to as many decision makers in state and other
federal agencies as possible, the computerized portion of the PGWDB will become a part
of the Pesticide Information Network (PIN).1 The PIN is a computerized collection of files
that contain pesticide monitoring and regulatory information. The PIN functions much like
a PC-PC bulletin board and can be accessed by anyone with a computer and a modem. The
PIN is currently undergoing an expansion that will allow new types of information to be
included and increase the number of simultaneous users. The new PIN will be available in
1993 and will contain the PGWDB, environmental fate chemical/physical parameters for
pesticides, pesticide regulatory information (Restricted Use, Special Review, canceled and
suspended) and a certification and training bibliography.
n. THE ROLE OF PESTICIDE MONITORING
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (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
-------
m. 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*
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
. sAwie file |
Study Nunber
Study Nutfcer(s)
Study Nunber
Study Title
Unique Well Ninber'
Unique Well Number*
Sponsoring Agency(ies)
State and County HPS Codes^
Pesticide^
Project Officer(s) (PO)
Latitude and Longitude^
Concentration (ug/L)
PO Addressees)
Depth, to Water Table Cm)
Limit of Detection (ug/L)
PO TelephoneCs)
Well Depth (m)
Sample date
USEPA Region
Depth to Top and Bottom of Screen
Interval
-------
3., Coordinate representations that indicate a location on the surface of the earth using the equator (latitude)
and the Prime Meridian (longitude) as origin. Coordinates are measured in degrees, minutes, and seconds
with an indicator of north or south, and east or west.
4. Wells have been classified as follows:
Drinking water public community - a system of piped drinking water that either has at least 15 service
connections or serves at least 25 permanent residents.
Drinking water public non-community - wells serving public facilities such as fire stations, schools, or
libraries.
Drinking water private - privately owned wells serving a residence or farm.
Non-drinking water monitoring - wells installed specifically for monitoring ground water.
Non-drinking water other - wells used for irrigation, industrial application, etc.
5. This field will allow storage of limited well log or other information about the well, such as construction
details.
6. The vertical distance from the National Reference Datum to the land surface or other measuring point in
meters.
7. Pesticides are tracked by their Chemical Abstracts System (CAS) number. There is also a cross-reference
file that contains all pesticide synonyms and other OPP reference numbers. Any chemical that is currently
or has ever been registered as a pesticide by the USEPA, Office of Pesticide Programs is eligible to be
included in the PGWDB. Some chemicals might be more commonly associated with industrial processes;
however, if these chemicals are now or were previously registered and used as pesticides, monitoring results
will be included in the database.
8. A short name, reference or description of the analytical method which was used. This field is not intended
to hold the entire method.
9. An origin of contamination is listed for each analysis performed as follows:
NFU - Known or suspected normal field use
PS - Known or suspected point source
UNK - Unknown source of contamination
These files will be available through the PIN in 1993. The data management software
for this system is ORACLE running under UNIX. However, OPP will accept and translate
data created in nearly any format, operating system or medium. To access the PIN, contact
User Support at 703-305-7499.
V. THE 1992 PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER DATABASE REPORT
The 1992 PGWDB report is a summary and presentation of all the data OPP currently
has available, both in computerized and in hard-copy form, concerning pesticides in ground
water. The report is organized as a National Summary and ten EPA regional summaries.
Each volume provides background information on pesticide monitoring, a description of the
computerized portion of the database and a guide to reading and interpreting the data
presented in the report.
OV-5
-------
The National Summary contains summary results of the data collection effort for all
states and a discussion of the data. The regional volumes contain data from the individual
states in each EPA Region. Each regional volume contains state summaries, which consist
of: 1) a short overview of the state's philosophy and pertinent regulations concerning
ground-water quality and pesticides, 2) a summary of each study or monitoring effort sent
to OPP, and 3) summary data for each state presented in tables, graphs and maps. In
essence, the study summaries were written by the principal investigators of each study.
Whenever possible, the author's abstracts, summaries and conclusions were reproduced
verbatim, so that the tone and intent of their work would not be misinterpreted.
There are two appendices in each volume of the report. Appendix I contains a
Pesticide Cross Reference Table, which provides pesticide names, synonyms and the
regulatory status and lifetime Health Advisory (HA) Level or Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL)7 for each pesticide. Appendix II provides a brief overview and reference information
for the NPS.
Summary and Presentation of Ground-Water Monitoring Data
The data in this report are presented in three different formats: maps, graphs and
tables. Their format and content are explained below. Each format is displayed at four
different resolution levels: national, regional, state and county. The charts and maps were
intended to provide an "at-a-glance" visual summary of the information collected for the area
in question. The tables provide detailed information concerning sampling dates, numbers
of wells sampled, samples analyzed, concentration ranges, and the relationship between
pesticide concentrations and current EPA drinking water standards.
1. Maps
The maps presented in this report display the number of wells sampled and the number
of wells with pesticide detections. Map legends are consistent throughout the report to
assist in any visual comparison of the maps. A regional-scale map illustrating the
frequency of pesticide detections as a function of the total number of wells sampled is
presented at the beginning of each EPA regional volume. The regional maps display
information for each state in that EPA region. All of the regional maps are included
in the National Summary. In addition, a state- scale map, in which the data are
presented at the county level, is included with each state summary. State maps 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 Testicides" 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.
| ¦ 11—< j% f-% .* * j nn 1 1
FIGURE 2. Pesticides Table
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
BANGS 0?
COfcCEK-
IRATION
O*0/1 >
8
resTfcrcE •* -
1 -
COUKTT
PATE
- 3
TOTAL
WELLS
SAHPLEO
4
: # of
1 positive
WELtS
5
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
6 '
NUMBER OF
POSITIVE
SAWLES
¦
W
*0
i
Ha
t
net
fc -
HCL
KCL
Pesticide A
County A
1989/
1.3
1990/6
County B
1987/
1-5
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS Oft SAMPLES
9
10
10
11
12
12
Pesticide 8
County A
1989
1990
County 8
198?
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES¦
13
14
14
15
16
16
1 The tables are arranged in alphabetical order by the parent pesticide common name. Degradates of parent
pesticides are listed directly following the parent. Any chemical that is currently or has ever been registered as
a pcstidde 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.
J Well sampling dates sure given by year and month(s). Months separated by a comma (13) 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.
J The total number of wells that were sampled at least once during the time period stated in the previous
column.
J 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 p-eater 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.
2 Samples with pesticide detections were counted based upon whether the results were above or below the MCL
or lifetime HA as stated in 5 above.
8 The range of positive results in ug/L (ppb) for the time period specified in the date column.
9 The total number of discrete wells that were sampled at least once and analyzed for the pesticide listed in
column 1. 'See Note
10 The total number of discrete wells in which the pesticide was detected based upon whether the results were
above or below the MCL. Wells were classified as explained in 5 above, based upon the highest analytical result.
11 Total number of samples analyzed for a particular pesticide.
12 The total number of samples in which the pesticide was detected that are > MCL or < MCL as explained
in 5 above.
13 The grand total of discrete wells sampled in the state for any pesticide. * See Note
14 The grand total of discrete wells with at least one detection of any pesticide. Wells are classified above or
below MCL or HA as explained in 5 above. *See Note
i
15 Grand total of samples taken in the state. 'See Note
16 The grand total of samples with any pesticide detection for the state. Samples were classified as > or < the
MCL based upon their highest analytical result as explained in 5 above. *See Note
•Note: Some wells were sampled more than once, (i.e., during several successive years) and some wells were
sampled for more than one pesticide. Therefore, the total number of discrete wells is not necessarily the
arithmetic sum of the wells listed. Similarly some samples were analyzed for more than one pesticide, therefore,
the total number of discrete samples for the state will not be, in all cases, the arithmetic sum for the column.
OV-8
-------
Figure 3 illustrates the "Wells" table. In this table, ground-water monitoring information
is organized by well type, or use, and source of contamination. In the National
Summary, the information is summarized by state. In the regional volumes, the
information is summarized by county for each state in the region.
FIGURE 3. Wells Table
STATE OF
uells by court
cowity fk
County B
TOTAL 9
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.
1 Other wells include: irrigation wells, stock watering wells, springs, and tile drains.
4 Total number of each type of well sampled in each county.
5 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:
£ NFU = Known or Suspected Normal Field Use.
2 PS = Known or Suspected Point Source.
8 UNK=Unknown source of contamination. Wells were categorized as 'unknown" if the study director did not
know the source of* contamination, or if there was no information available concerning the source of
contamination.
5 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. TTie 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}
WA
59/182
114/165
Region X
Total Wells Sampled
per State
m > 1000
m 501 to 1000
CXI 101 to 500
Z2 51 to 100
E3 1 to 50
~ No wells sampled
OV-14
-------
REGION 10
WELL STATUS BY STATE
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
OR
WA
AK
NO DATA AVAILABLE
50 100 150
WELL COUNTS
200
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL fT>
2x—,
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
OV-15
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database -1992 Report
STATE SUMMARIES
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Weils with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
O
Total Wells Sampled
per County
¦ > 1030
El . 501 to 1000
Q 101 to 500
EI 51 to 100
E3 1 to 50
~ No wells sampled
10-AK-l
[
-------
ALASKA
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
In August 1990, Alaska published its Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy. Under
this strategy, Alaska's ground-water resource is described along with details of its use and
abuse in the state. Although the four major sources of potential contamination of
aquifers in Alaska are considered to be onsite septic systems, land disposal of wastes,
leakage from abandoned fuel tanks and salt-water intrusion, the management of
pesticides is also addressed under the Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy.
Pesticide use in Alaska is small compared to midwestern agricultural states; however, in
those areas of the state with pesticide use, there is concern about the potential for
ground-water contamination due to pesticides. The Groundwater Quality Protection
Strategy recommends the following: (1) development of a state pesticide ground-water
management plan, based on Alaska use and conditions, that is consistent with EPA's
approach for pesticide management; (2) identification of areas in Alaska where
pesticides are applied, the types of pesticides used, methods of application and methods
of handling, storage, and disposal; (3) identification of soil type(s), depth to ground
water, and current and potential ground-water use in pesticide application areas; (4)
evaluation of the potential impact of pesticide application on ground-water quality in
pesticide application areas; and (5) educational efforts to improve prevention, detection,
and correction of contamination of ground-water resources. Currently a state
management plan is under development, incorporating the results of a cooperative
sampling of private wells in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough north of Anchorage.
Results of the study were unavailable for review.
-------
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Iciaiho
Pesticides Detected
None
Total Wells Sampled
per County
¦ > 1606
533 501 to 1000
0/15
~ No wells sampled
10-ID-l
-------
IDAHO
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
In 1989 the Idaho state legislature passed the Ground Water Quality Act. Under the Act,
activities are divided into three areas; the assessment of ground water quality, the
establishment and maintenance of a database to collect and track ground water quality data,
and the establishment of a Ground Water Council. The state agencies which have
responsibilities under the Act are:
1) the Department of Water Resources - to establish and maintain the ground water
monitoring network and database.
2) the Department of Health and Welfare - to determine the site selection in the pound
water monitoring network.
3) the Department of Agriculture - to carry out pesticide licensing and enforcement
activities.
Currently the Dept. of Water Resources' ground water network is comprised of 400 wells
that include production wells, monitoring wells and those wells located at the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory (DOE). The sampling program began in 1990. Site selection by
the Dept. of Health and Welfare may vary yearly depending on a priority ranking of
targeted areas or pesticides.
Information from this monitoring program will become available early in 1992.
REPORTED STUDIES ON PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Brokopp, Charles D. (April 1981), Idaho Pesticide Hazard Assessment Project; Examination
of Drinking Water for Aldicarb, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare.
Primary Objective
The primary objective of this study was to determine whether aldicarb residues could be
found in ground water in Minidoka County.
Design
Three sites near Rupert in southern Minidoka County were selected for this study. The sites
were selected based on known aldicarb usage and the presence of runoff drain wells. Site
A included a 20-acre field of sugar beets that was treated with Temik (aldicarb) at a rate
"^ceding page blank j
10-ID-3
-------
of 3 lbs ai/acre. Site B included three fields of potatoes and beets (total 100 acres) to
which Temik was applied at rates ranging from 1.5-3 lbs ai/acre. Site C included a single
20-acre field of potatoes that was treated with Temik at 2.5 lbs ai/acre. Several large
injection wells that receive irrigation runoff water are located within this area.
Samples were taken from 5 private or public drinking water wells and 1 drainage channel
at each site. Each water supply and channel was sampled prior to the application of
aldicarb and then weekly for the first six weeks and bi-weekly for the next 12 weeks.
Samples were analyzed using a GC method provided by Union Carbide. The method
involved the oxidation of aldicarb and aldicarb sulfoxide to aldicarb sulfone.
Results
No residues of aldicarb as aldicarb sulfone were detected in the 251 samples (212 ground
water samples) analyzed.
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN TIE STATE OF IDAHO
WSU RESULTS
5AMPLE RESULTS
8AKGE OF
COWCEN-
TBATJMiS
HCL
< ¦
Mil
Aldicarb
MINIDOKA
1980/4-7
15
0
0
212
0
0
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE .
WEILS/SAMPLES
15
0
0
212
0
0
STATE OF IDAHO
VEILS BY COUNTY
COUNTY
... .4 ' ''.'..types of mCs , - w.
SOURCE OF
CONTAMINATION
CHLUSEK OF tKLtS}
PRIUKING 1«IAT£R
WJtHTOttKG
OTfER
TOTAL
SMPLB
>
HCL
.*
MCL
TOTAL *
SKPLD
. >
HCL
¦ <
HCL
TOTAL
SHPLB
6
wet
<
Ma
' *¦
HFU
*
PS
UK
Hi n idol's ]
15
0
0
0
0
0
0 | 0
0
I o
0
0
TOTAL |
15
0
0
0
0
0
0 | 0
0
I o
0
0
NFU=Knowrt or Suspected Normat Field Use
PS =Known or Suspected Point Source
UNK=Unknoun
10-ID-4
-------
WeJl Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Oregon
;
Total Wells Sampled
per County
¦ > 1008
W 501 to"1000
ra 101 to 500
IZ3 51 to 100
E3 1 t o 50
~ No wells sampled
Pesticides Detected
1, 2-D DCPA Acid Metabolites Fonofos
2,4,5-TP Carbofuran Lindane
Aldicarb Dinoseb MCPA
Atrazine EDB Pentachlorophenol
Bromacil Terbacil
10-OR-l
-------
OREGON
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Policy for ground water management and use in Oregon has been established under the
Water Pollution Control Laws. Under this policy, the following are specified: (1)
establishment of public education programs and research and demonstration projects
to increase public awareness of the importance of protecting ground water; (2)
development of state-wide programs to identify and characterize ground-water quality;
(3) development of programs to prevent ground-water quality degradation through use
of best practicable management practices; and (4) establishment of trigger levels for
specific contaminants. Ground-water policy in Oregon is administered by the Strategic
Water Management Group within the Department of Environmental Quality.
Although the Oregon Department of Agriculture had conducted some limited analyses
for pesticides in well water prior to 1985, in June of 1985 a more extensive effort began.
At that time the EPA included analyses for 13 pesticides in a ground-water quality
survey it was conducting in the Ontario area. Oregon's Water Pollution Control Laws
mandate an ongoing, state-wide monitoring and assessment program to be conducted
by the Department of Environmental Quality in cooperation with the Water Resources
Department and the Oregon State University Agricultural Experiment Station. The
goals of the monitoring program are to identify: (1) areas of the state that are
especially vulnerable to ground water contamination; (2) long-term trends in ground-
water quality; (3) ambient quality of the ground-water resource in Oregon; and (4) any
emerging ground-water quality problems.
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Pettit, Greg, State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality
Division, Tel: 503-229-5983. Assessment of Oregon's Ground Water for Agricultural
Chemicals. Study conducted June 1985 to December 1987. (Reported 1988, 17 pp.)
Primary Objective
The goals of the project were to: (1) determine if contamination currently exists, and
if so, with what, and to what extent; and (2) determine if a correlation between
vulnerability factors and actual contamination can be established. The project was
designed to provide a basis of information upon which to build future activities.
These goals were accomplished by sampling of highly vulnerable wells, sampling the
water supply in priority areas, compiling the information on pesticide use by county, and
establishing a data base in a geographical information system, and comparing the results
to suspected vulnerability factors.
, ; 10-OR-3
^ceding page blank!
-------
Design
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, in coordination with other State
and Federal Agencies determined which areas of Oregon where vulnerable to
contamination by agricultural chemicals. The following criteria were used to select
sampling sites: sensitive State aquifers, irrigation practices, crops grown, pesticide and
fertilizer practices, rainfall, soils, and existing problems. As a result, 12 areas were
selected which contain a majority of the intensive agricultural areas in Oregon.
Public water supply (PWS) wells (63) were sampled and tested for pesticides in these
12 priority areas.
Domestic wells were sampled for pesticides in only five of these areas: (1) the Ontario
Area in Malheur County, 81 wells; (2) the Willamette Valley Area which spans Benton,
Clackamas, Lane, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk and Yamhill Counties, 52 wells; (3)
the Boardman Area in Morrow and Umatilla Counties, 12 wells; (4) Curry County, 10
wells; and (5) the Klamath Falls area in Klamath County, 55 wells.
Wells to be sampled in each area were determined on the basis of suspected
vulnerability, susceptibility to contamination, and availability of information on well
construction and depth. Well logs for each of the areas were evaluated to determine
where shallow wells existed, and where there was a lack of restrictive layers between
the land surface and the aquifer. Reconnaissance surveys and consultation with local
Extension agents were used to identify specific areas of intensive agricultural practices.
Sampling was initiated in June of 1985 and was completed in December, 1987.
Analyses for 14 to 32 pesticides were conducted in each of five study areas selected
based on local use and the pesticide rankings on the EPA prioritization list for the
national pesticide survey. The sampling program consisted of three phases: (1) initial
sampling of vulnerable domestic wells; (2) follow-up and confirmational sampling in
areas where pesticides were detected; and (3) sampling of the most vulnerable public
water supply (PWS) wells in the state. Follow-up and confirmational sampling was
limited to those pesticides detected originally. The pesticides included in the study and
the areas in which they were tested for are presented below. The report did not specify
which pesticides were tested for in the PWS wells nor the individual location of PWS
wells. Analytical methods and limits of detection for the various pesticides were not
specified.
1Q-OR-4
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN OREGON
Area
Pesticide
Ontario
Willamette
Boardman
Currv
Klamath
Alachlor
X
X
X
-
•
Aldiearb
X
-
X
X
X
Atrazine
-
X
X
.
-
Benomyl
-
-
X
X
¦ -
Bentazon
-
X
-
-
Bromacil
-
X
-
-
-
Bromoxynil
-
-
-
-
X
Butylate
-
X
X
-
-
Captan
-
•
X
-
X
Carbaryl
-
-
X
-
-
Carbofuran
X
X
X
-
X
Carbon disulfide
-
-
-
X
-
Carboxin
-
-
-
X
Chlorothalonil
.
-
X
X
X
Chlorpyrifos
-
-
_
-
X
CIPC
-
-
-
X
-
Cyanazine
X
-
X
-
-
Cycloate
-
X
-
-
-
2,4-D
X
X
X
-
X
2,4-DB
X
.
-
-
-
Dacthal (DCPA)
X
.
X
-
-
Diazinon
-
X
X
-
-
1,2-Dibromo-
ethane (EDB)
X
X
X
X
X
Dicamba
-
X
X
-
X
Dichloran
-
-
X
-
-
1,2-Dichloropro-
pane
X
-
X
¦ X
X
cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene
X
-
X
X
X
trans-1,3-
Dichloropropene
X
-
X
X
X
Dimethoate
-
-
-
-
X
Dinoseb
X
X
X
-
-
Disulfoton
-
X
X
-
X
Diuron
-
X '
-
-
-
Endrin
-
X
-
-
-
Eptam (EPTC)
-
-
X
-
X
Ethoprop
-
-
-
-
X
Ethylene
dichloride
X
-
X
X
X
Fenamiphos
-
-
-
X
-
Fonofos
X
"V
A
X
-
¦
(Cont'd.)
10-or-5
-------
Area
Pesticide
Ontario
Willamette
Boardman
Currv
Klamath
Hexachloroben-
zene (HCB)
X
.
-
-
-
Hexazinone
X
X
X
-
-
lindane (y-BHC)
-
'¦ : X
-
-
-
MCPA
-
X
X
X
Metasystox
-
-
-
X
-
Methomyl
-
X
-
, -
-
Methoxychlor
-
X
.
-
-
Methyl parathion
-
- .
-
-
X
Metolachlor
X
X
-
-
-
Metribuzin
X ¦
' ' X
X
X
Parathion
-
.
-
X
PCNB
-
-
-
X
Pentachlorphenol
-
X
X
-
-
Phorate
X
X
-
-
Phosmet
-
-
-
_
X
Pronamide
-
X
-
-
X
Propachlor
X
-
-
-
-
Propham (IPC)
«
X
-
-
X
Silvex
-
X
-
•-
-
Simazine
X
X
X
X
X
Terbacil
-
X
-
-
-
Thiophanate
-
-
X
-
-
Toxaphene
-
X
-
-
-
Results and Conclusions
The data indicated that in certain situations pesticides are entering the ground water
in Oregon as a result of field applications. Considering the wide number of pesticides
used, and the number screened for in the study, relatively few pesticides were detected
in Oregon's ground water. Where pesticides were detected, they were usually at low
levels. Of the 216 wells sampled only 5 wells contained confirmed levels of a pesticide
above a health advisory level. The only area where widespread contamination has been
detected as a result of normal agricultural practices in the easter section of the stat in
Malheur county. DCPA contamination is widespread in the shallow aquifer, however,
all of the levels of DCPA detected were below the health advisory level of 4000 ppb.
From the preliminary results obtained, it appears that problems of pesticide
contamination in ground water in Oregon are limited and involve only a few pesticides
applied under specific conditions.
10-OR-6
-------
Stumpf, Karen S, (1991) Letter to Ms. Elizabeth Behl of EPA re: Rldomil Groundwater
Monitoring Study Results During 1983 and 1984, Ciba-Geigy Corporation, P.O. Box
18300, Greensboro, N.C. 27419-8300, (919) 632-6000.
Purpose
The study was conducted by the registrant (Ciba-Geigy Corporation) to support
amendments to add additional crops to their registration for Ridomil [metalaxyl].
Design
Wells in various locations where metalaxyl is used were monitored for residues. In
Marion Co., Oregon, four monitoring wells located in hops fields were sampled from
1983-1985.
Beginning in May 1983, and continuing monthly, samples were taken from three wells.
In some months no samples were taken. In September 1984, a new well was substituted
for one of the originals.
Results
None of the 64 samples contained metalaxyl over the detection limit of 0.01 ppb.
10-OR-7
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF OREGON
WEIL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAHGE OF
CDttCEN*
TRAtlOKS
ugm
PtsncifJE
martr
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLES
#0*
POSITIVE
mis
TOTAL-*
OF
SAMPLES
NUMBER ttf
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
>
<
¦ HCt
2
«CL
<
KCL
1,2-
DfeMoroeihsr* ¦
CURftY
10
0
0
10
0
0
KLAHATH
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
MALHEUR
1985-8?
81
0
0
81
0
0
MORROW
1985-8?
7
0
0
7
0
0
UMATILLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
117
0
0
117
0
0
1,2*
JJicto Iwjproparw
€UM>
1985-87
10
0
8
10
0
8
B-4
¦ KLAMATH """"
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
HALKEUR
1985-87
81
0
1
81
0
1
1.4
HQS ROW
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
UMATILLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
117
0
9
117
0
9
1.4-4
immmsmiM
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
LINN
1985-87
3
0
0
¦ 3
0
0
1985-87
81
0
0
81
0
0
HAS K»
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
UMATILLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
WASHINGTON
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
151
0
0
151
0
0
;2,4-08 ¦
«ALH6LfR .
1985-8?
81
0
0
81
0
0
|
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
81
0
0
„ _ ^ 10-OR-9
lieceding page blank j
-------
PESTICIDE SMVLIIK IN THE STATE OF QKEGOU
" HELL WSOLTS; . N
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEM-
T RATIOS.
(Jig/1 >
FESHCfQE ¦¦ :-
COUWTY
&ATE
TOTAL
WELLS*
SAMPLES
0 Of
¦: POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL *
Of .
SAMPLES
«IWB£« OF
POSITm
SAKPuES
¦
£
mcl
<
wet
2
*Cl
<
MCI
<$Hv«x}
LA*£
1985-87
7
0
0 -
7
0
0
' cm*:;:
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
* >^sicik ::::
1985-87
16
0
1
16
0
!
0.023
MO»ROW
1985-87
7
a
0
7
0
0
MULTKCWAH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
UMATILLA
1985-87
5
0
a
5
0
0
WASHINGTON
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
56
0
i
56
0
1
0.023
AiacMoi"
LAME
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
LINK
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0 '
0
HALHEUfi :
1985-87
81
0
0
81
0
0
MAR 50#
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
HORROW
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
WJLTXCMAH
1985-67
9
0
0
9
0
0
WWT1LLA
1985-67
5
0
0
5
0
0
WASHIHGTON
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
Q
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
137
0
0
137
0
0
: Atoicarb
..tURRf
1985-87
10
1
3
10
1
3
B-10
1985-87
14
. 0
0
14
0
0
MALKEUB
1985-87
81
0
0
81
0
0
SORROW
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
UMATILLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
117
1
3
117
1
3
10
Afazin*
LANE
1985-87
7
c
0
7
0
0
LItW
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
MARION
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
MORROW
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
10-OR-10
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF OREGON
UEli RESULTS
SAMPtlT RESULTS -
*AHSE OF
COMCEU*
TRA7IOH5
cw/n
PESTICIDE
COMY
OATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLES
* Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
OF
SAWl£S
MAOER Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
>
f&L
<
mCl
2
ffCl
¦<
Ma
(Atrazine)
IfiJLtHOHAH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
UMATILLA
1985-8?
5
0
2
5
0
2
0.6-2.3
WASHINGTON
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
56
0
2
56
0
2
0.6-2.3
ftenaayi
CUSRY
1985-67
10
0
0
10
0
0
MORROU
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
UMATILLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
22
0
0
22
0
0
ftwtflioft
LADE
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
LiMM
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
MAHtOK
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
SULTJ) OK AH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
VA581R5TOK
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
44
0
0
44
0
0
BranacU
USE
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
IMK
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
WAR tOS
1985-87
16
0
2
16
0
2
5-7.4
MORS-OW
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
MLfLfliOMAH
1985-87
9
0
. 0
9
0
0
UMATILLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
WASHINGTON
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
56
0
2
56
0
2
5-7.4
BromoxyrtU
Ki-AMATH
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
MALHEUR
1985-87
81
0
0
81
0
0
MORROW
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
10-OR-ll
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF OREGON
;; II : ¦
111
—sujiati
WT5 ^tAi | f
illliBfilBlii
IMNMV
111
S .SAMPL
W 1 TOTAL#
ULS^I SAMPLES
I RESUL
MMB£
POS!
£
HCL
* OF' III TlteTIQHS
| (Broncxynil)
UHAtltLA
1985-67
5 I 0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
| UELLS/SAMPLES
107 | 0
0
107
0
0
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
IXMH '
1985-67
3
0
0
3
0
0
mam
1985-87
16
0
0
16
. o
0
WSRQU
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
MULT+IOHAH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
mwtitLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
VASJUBGTOS
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
56
0
0
56
0
0
captsn
SLAMATH ....
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
NORROg
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
WATItLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
26
0
D
26
0
0
Cerfcaryl
MORROW
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
UMATILLA .:
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
12
0
0
12
0
0
Carbofursn :¦¦ :
KLAMATH
1985-87
14
0
D
14
0
0
LAKE
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
LINK
1985-87
3
0
0
3 ¦
0
0
¦ HALHEUft
1985-87
81
0
0
81
0
0
;
umm
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
HORROH
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
HULTKOKAH
1985-87
9
0
1
9
0
1
0.1
UMATltLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
10-OR-12
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF OREGOi
WEIL 8ESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAKE OF
CONCEN-
tHAtlOHS
cm/o
PESTICIDE
couwtv
DATE
¦ total-:
WELLS
SAMPLED
f Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL U
. OF :
SA#PL£S
NUMBED OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
£
mCl
<
KtL
2
¦«CL
<
MCI
(Carbofursn) J
«ASHlHGTOH
1985-87
9
0
2
9
0
2
0.05-
0.24
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES |
151
0
3
151
0
3
0.05-
0.24
Ca*bon disulfide
CURRY
1985-87
10
0
0
10
0
0
i
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
10
0
0
10
0
0
I
Cerbcxin
KLAMATH
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
LANE
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
LOW
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
MARION
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
MJLtUCNAH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASSJKGTGK
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0 ,
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
56
0
0
58
0
0
CMorcrthalanii
CURftf
1985-87
10
0
D
10
0
0
KLAMATH
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
MORROW
1985-87
7
0
D
7
0
0
UMATILLA
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
38
0
0
38
0
0
Chl-of-pyiMfoi
KLAMATH
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
|
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
14
0
0
14
0
0
Cyansiine
HALFfgUR
1985-87
81
0
D
81
0
0
SORROW
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
UMATILLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL OISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
93
0
0
93
0
0
LANE :
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
LW#
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
10-OR-13
-------
PESTICIDE SMVLING IN THE STATE OF ORES*
WEIL RESULTS
SAHPLE RESULTS
RAM3E OF
: once#-:
TRATIOKS
PESTICIDE
cam*
DATE
TOTAL ¦
WELLS
SAKPLEO
# Of
POSITIVE
¦¦ WELLS.-.
TOTAL #
Of
»LtS
HLHBER OF
POSITIVE
SAttPlES
&
: *CL :
<
met
i
HCL
<
HCL
(Cvcloate)
nak km
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
MULWOMAH
1925-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
ttASfllNSTOH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
44
0
0
44
0
0
DCPA.acid
Betabot it«£
*ALK£l«
1985-87
81
0
54
81
0
54
1-431
HOPROW
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
UMATILLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
'3
0
54
93
0
54
1-431
Eieraet mi- raettiyi
CURftY
1985-87
10
0
0
10
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
10
0
0
10
0
0
Dlajinon
LAKE
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
LINK
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
. 0
HAPIGK
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
iDRROU
1985-87
7
0
D
7
0
0
HtfLTHOMAH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
UMATILLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
D
0
WASH1KCTO#
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
56
0
0
56
0
0
Dieartfca
XLAKATH
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
LAME
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
Litm
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
KAtfW'
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
NORW3K
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
MULtHCHAH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
OMATHLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
10-OR-14
-------
PESTICIDE SMPUNG IN TIE STATE OF OREGON
.
;3:i
mmmmm.
j':' •':' |:V : V '::: j:
tmrnm
immi
T
¦ ¦ :
(Dicanba)
WASHlK&tOM
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAKPLES
70
0
0
70
0
0
OicMorDprbpentv
1985-87
10
0
0
10
0
0
ttlAWTH'¦
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
HAL«UR
1985-87
81
0
0
81
0
0
MORROW
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
UMATILLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
117
0
0
117
0
0
Dfmcthoate
KLAMATH
1985-87
14
0
0 ,
14
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAKPLES
14
0
0
14
0
0
Dinoseb
LANE
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
LINK
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
MALHEU8
1985-87
81
0
0
81
0
0
HARIOR
1985-87
16
0
1
16
0
1
0.008
MORROW
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
HULTNONAH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
UMATfLLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
«ASRXKGTG«
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE '
WELLS/SAMPLES
137
,0
1
137
0
1
0.008
Difiulfoton
j$akaSH ;
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
-
lASE
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
LtHU
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
#A*fCS '
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
MORROW
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
IWLTSOMAH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
Sj"^T ILLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
10-OR-15
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING II TIE STATE OF OKEGM
WELL RESULTS
SAHPtE RESULTS
RASSF OF
COMC£JK
TRATJOttS
<*9/»
resriCtCE
cawrtr
DATE
torn
WELLS
S*Wt£&
# Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
OF
SAMPLES
KUHBER OF
POSITIVE
SAKPLfS :
£
MCL
¦ <
KCL
MCL
<
Ktt,
(Disulfoton)
[' WASftlK&TOK
1985-87
9 | 0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
1
70 | 0
0
70
0
0
piMron
LANE
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
LINK
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
MR J Oft
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
HOLTtlWAH '
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
WAStflKUTOR
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
44
0
0
a
0
0
EDB {Ethylene
dibromide)
CUR** : :
1985-87
10
0
0
10
0
0
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
-
lane
1985-87
7
4
3
7
4
3
0.043-
0.172
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
•4ALKEUR . . .
1985-87
81
0
0
81
0
0
1985-87
16
3
3
163
3
3
0.22-
0.057
' '
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
W3LTKQHAH
>v;y:v:x^::v;x;v:
1985-87
9
1
4
9
1
4
0.034-
0.05
mmtimrn
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
ttSlillMtal :
1985-87
9
2
0
9
2
0
0,06-
0.072
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
161
10
10
308
10
10
0.034-
0.172
Endrm ¦" :
LANE
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
LINK
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
JWRI
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF OREBOI
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
PAUSE OF
..COUCH*.
T*ATIC#i$
Gigm
wsrtciae
COUtlTT
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED-
f Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
OF
SAMPLES
HIMBER Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
-
£
net.
<;
wet
i
HCL
MCL
(EridrfnJ
WASStKtiTOH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0 _l
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
44
0
0
44
0
0
£?TC
KLAMATH
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
MORRCW
1985*87
7
0
0
7
0
0
UHATRLA
1985-87
.5
c
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
26
0
0
26
0
0
Ethoprep
KLAMATH
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
14
0
0
14
0
0
.::Jenwniph )
CURRY
1985-87
10
0
0
10
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
10
0
0
10
0
0
fonofo?
LAME
1985-87
7
0
1
7 •
0
1
0,05
LfKH
1985-87
3
0
0
3 ,
0
0
MALHEUR
1985-87
81
0
0
81
0
0
MAS I OK
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
MOfiFfflU
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
MULTNOMAH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
o
UMATILLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
WASHINGTON
1985-87
9
0
2
9
0
2
0.007-
0.018
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
137
0
3
137
0
3
0.007-
0.05
berusne
1985-87
81
0
0
I „ 81
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
| 81
0
0
Hexazinone
LAHE
1985-87
7
0
0
7
a
0
LtNB
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
MALHEUR
1985-87
81
0
0
81
0
0
10-0R-17
-------
PESTICIDE SMfLIMG IN THE STATE OF OREGON
w<
WELL RESULTS'
SAMPLE SESULTS'
RAKGE OF
COHCEM-
TRATjOHS
(W/t)
pesncire
COUMTY .::
we
tOt4t
WEILS
SAMPLES
f Of
POSITIVE
UELLS
TOTAL «
OF
SAMPLES
WjMSEft tit
POSITIVE
SAMPtES
' 2 ¦ '
feCL
<
KCt
2
wet
V
MCI
(Hexaiinooe)
MAfelOtJ
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
MOBROW
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
MULThOHAH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
UMATILLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
VftSWIKTQH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELIS/SAMPLES
137
0
0
137
0
0
Lfrxferte <^aawa-
BHC)
LAME V.
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
Lt#H
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
MARION
1985-87
16
0
1
16
0
1
0.005
MORROW
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
MULTHOMAH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
OMATItLA
1985-87
0
0
0
0
WASH1KGTG#
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
.56
0
1
56
0
1
0.005
«KPA
KLAMATH
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
LANE
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
LINK
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
KATHOS
1985-87
16
0
1
16
0
1
5.3
M0RRSW
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
MULTtfONAH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
UMATILLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
WASHINGTON
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
70
0
1
70
0
1
5.3
Ketslaxyl
KARIOK
19B3
3
0
0
21
0
0
1984
4
0
0
34
0
0
10-0R-18
-------
PESTICIDE SAMH.HG IN TK STATE OF OREO*
iffilL RESULTS
SAMPiE RESULTS
RAHSE Of
COMCEN-
IRATlDttS
C#S/l>
COU#TT
&ATE
torn
WEILS
EAM?LE&
# 01
POSITIVE -
WELLS
TOTAL *
. OF
SAWPLES
MUHBER . DF
TOSITiVE
SAKPltS
: s ,
lit
¦ <
KCt
t
KCL
*¦
net
(MetelaxyU
1985
3
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
4
0
0
64
0
0
M^thomyl -
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
tl*N
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
MASION
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
WLT^OHAH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHINGTON
1985-87
9
0
D
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
44
0
0
44
0
0
KetScxychlar
LANE
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0'
0
Lttl#
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
MULTNOMAH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASMR6TOK
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
44
0
0
44
0
0
Metolectilw
MALHEUR
1985-87
81
0
0
81
0 .
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
81
0
0
MetrSbuiStt
ICUMATK
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
LANE
1985-87
¦ 7
0
0
7
0
0
LINN: :
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
MALHEUR
1985-87
81
0
0
81
0
0
MARt£t#
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
BORROW '
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
SyLTHOWAH
19B5-B7
9
0
0
9
0
0
UKATILLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
WASHINGTON „
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
151
0
0
151
0
0
10-OR-19
-------
PESTICIDE SWUNG IN THE STATE OF OREGON
¦¦ .
WELL'RESULTS ¦
' SAHPtE RESULTS
RAK8E OF
COttCEM*
fRATIONS
: Gig/» >
PfMltttE
COtiftiT?
mte
TOTAt
: WELLS
SAMPLED '
f Of
¦ POSITIVE
WELLS .
TOTAL #
. OF :
SAMPLES
NUMBER OF
POSITIVE
samples ¦ ¦¦
' I "
:
'i
UCl
<
net
2
*
MCt
Pwethion.,- ethyl
tftAMATH
1985-87
14 | 0
0
14
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
14 j 0
0
14
„ 0
0
Pir&tliiwi,
neuivt
llAMATH
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
1
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
14
0
0
14
a
0
P«3 . .
CURRY
1985-87
10
0
a
10
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
10
0
0
10
0
0
P-entBchiofo*
phenot
-------
PESTICIDE SWPIIIK IH TIC STATE OF OREGOU
WEIL fiESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RASGE OF
COHCEW-
T&AHOKS
Cdfl/O .
MeSTJClOE.
cam*
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAWL6&
* Of
POSITIVE
UELLS
WAL *
Of
SAMPLES
NUMBER ftf
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
i
MCL
<
(ta
¦
?
HCL
<
NCI
Ptiesnwt .
ICIAMATH
1985-87
14
0 I 0
14
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
14
0 | 0
14
0
0
Pronafnide
tftAKATH
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
LANE
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
il)W
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
MASIGK
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
MULTKOHAH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASH1RGTQ8
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
58
0
0
58
0
0
PropscMor
MALMElffi
1985-87
81
0
0
81
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
81
, 0
0
Prophaf*
fLAMATR
1985-87
14
0
D
14
0
0
LANE ' '
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
LJJIN
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
MARK*
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
MULTflCHAH
1985-87
9
0
D
9
0
0
WASHINGTON
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
58
0
0
58
0
0
Simszine
CURRY
1985-87
10
0
0
10
0
0
XLS HATH
1985-87
14
0
0
14
0
0
LANE
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
LIU#
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
«AL«W!
1985-87
81
0
0
81
0
0
SARIDH
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
TORROW
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
WLtSEWAH .
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
«MA*UIA ¦
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
10-0R-21
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING Ii THE STATE OF WEBM
-
UEIL RESULTS . .
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
COtfCEN'
TRATIOKS
CM/l)
PfiSTIClttE .
££MNtr,
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
# Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
OF
SAMPLES
NUMBER. OF
POSITIVE
S*«PL£S
-
i
fcCL
4
Ntt
i
KCL
<
Met
CSimaiine)
«AS)41*GTQ«
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
161
0
0
161
0
0
Tflrbacil ¦.
LAUE
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
L'WH
1985-87
3
0
0
3
0
0
MARION
1985-87
16
0
0
16
0
0
KOSRQU
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
WJLTflOHAH
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
UHATILLA
1985-87
5
0
1
5
0
1
8.9
WASHIRCTOfi
1985-87
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
56
0
1
56
a
1
8.9
Thlopihanate
MORROW
1985-87
7
0
0
7
0
0
UMATILLA
1985-87
5
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
12
0
0
12
0
0
To'xapfc
-------
STATE OF OREGON
WELLS BY COUNTY
COUHTf
. , TYPCS OF WEUt
SOURCE OF .
.CONTAMINATION' '
(hUKCEP OF WELLS)
DRJHKIWC- VATtR
HON ITQHINS
OTHER
TOTAL
SMPtO
2:
NCt :
<
MCI
TOTAL
¦SHPtD
i
net
«
HCt
TCTAl.
SHPL&
>
KtX
<
wet
RFU*
PS*
unk'
Curry .
10
1
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
Xlamath -
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
lane
1
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
tinn
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
Haiheor
81
0
55
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
0
0
Hariwi
16
3
13
4
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
borrow
7
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
9
1
7
0
0'
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
Ufliati Us
5
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
Washington
9
2
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL
161
13
101
4
0
0
0
0
0
114
0
0
* NFU = Known or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS = Known or Suspected Point Source
LINK = Unknown
10-OR-23
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Washington
5/16:
s;/2s
wm
Pesticides Detected
1,2-D DBCP
Arsenic DCPA
Atrazine EDB
Bromacil Mercury
Carbofuran Prometon
Cycloate
Dacthal (&/or metabolite)
Total Wells Sampled
per County
m > 1000
ra 5Bi to 1000
0 101 TO 500
E3 51 to 100
E3 1 to 50
~ No wells sampled
r
10-WA-l
-------
WASHINGTON
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
In 1987-88 the State of Washington prepared a series of reports that collectively present a
comprehensive approach to ground water monitoring in the state. The first report [Carey,
Barbara M,, Ground Water Monitoring Strategy for Washington. I. Objectives for Ground
Water Monitoring. March 1987] outlines objectives for an integrated ground water
monitoring program. These objectives are as follows:
1. Characterize the ground water resource,
2. Promptly identify new problems,
3. Assess known problems by establishing cause and effects relationships,
4. Ensure compliance with regulations, and
5. Evaluate program effectiveness.
The goal of the objectives when integrated is to provide information to prevent or
solve ground water problems. Subsequent reports built upon the framework developed in
the first report, and discussed ground water monitoring activities, needs and strategies for
addressing monitoring needs.
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Erickson, D. and Norton, D, (1990) Washington State Agricultural Chemicals Pilot Study-
Final Report. Washington State Department of Ecology, (206) 586-4480, Olympia,
Washington 98504-8711.
Primary Objective
To provide information on the presence and concentration of pesticide residues in ground
water resulting from normal pesticide usage in selected areas of Washington State.
Design ^ /
To provide a state wide perspective, three agriculturally diverse and geographically
separated study areas were chosen in Whatcom, Franklin and Yakima Counties. Small study
areas (6.5 to 34 square miles) were chosen to allow hydrogeologic characterization and to
provide a sufficient density of wells to define ground water quality. Twenty-seven shallow
wells in each study area were tested for 46 pesticides (Table 1), a few were also tested for
metals. The sampling was conducted in autumn of 1988 and spring of 1989.
' Preceding page blank ]
10-WA-3
-------
Results and Conclusions
The findings of the Pilot Study, based on two sampling events from each study area, indicate
that pesticide residues have migrated to shallow ground water in these areas. Of the 81
wells sampled, 23 wells showed at least one pesticide during the initial sampling. All
occurrences were verified with only three exceptions during the second sampling round.
Additional sampling and studies axe needed to define the extent of the problem.
Positive results for mercury in six wells in Franklin County and for arsenic in four wells in
Whatcom County are considered unreliable since the metals were found in both the samples
and the transport blanks. They are therefore considered negative results in the Washington
State tables.
Extrapolation of Pilot Study findings to other Washington State aquifers is not justified in
a quantitative sense and is beyond the scope of the Pilot Study. The reasons for this are
listed as follows: a) The movement of pesticides to and through ground water is a complex
process that is affected by numerous site-specific factors including soil and aquifer
properties, climatic and irrigation patterns, physical and chemical properties of the
pesticides, and application rates and timing of applications; b) the relative vulnerability of
study area aquifers to other Washington aquifers is not known; and c) quantities and types
of pesticides actually used over Washington aquifers is not known; only qualitative estimates
are currently available.
Target Pesticides for the Agricultural Cheaicals Pilot Study.
Pesticide
Reporting
limit (uq/l)
Pesticide
Reporting
limit Cus/l)
1,2-Dichloropropene
0.20
Atrazine
0.20
2,4-D
0.50
Sentazon
0.50
2,4-DB
2.0
Bromaci I
2.2
2,4,5-Trichlorophen-
oxyacetic Acid
0.20
Carbofuran
0.50
3,5-Oichloroberizoi c
Acid
0.60
Carboxirt
1.0
4*Nitrophenot
5.0
Chloramben
0.50
5-Hydroxy Oicamba
0.20
Cyarwzirte
0.80
Acifluorfen
0.20
Cycloate
0.40
Alachlor
1.0
Dalapon
5.0
Aldicarb
1.5
Dacthal (4/or
metabolites)
0.20
Aldicarb Sulfone
1.0
Dibromochtoro-
propane
0.01
Aldicarb Sulfoxide
1.0
Dicaraba
0.20
Ametryn
0.30
Dichlorprop
0.50
Arsenic
0.2
Dirvoseb
2.5
10-WA-4
-------
Pesticide
Reoortir*
limit (uo/l)
Pesticide
Reoortir*
limit fua/l)
Oiphenamid
0.40
Pentachlorophenol
0.20
Oluron
0.50
PieLoram
1.0
Ethylene Dibromide
0.01
Prometon
0.30
Fenamiphos
0.30
Propazine
0.20
Hexazinone
0.30
Propham
0.50
Kercury
0.06
Propoxur
1.1
He th orry I
0.50
Si Ivex (2,4,5-TP)
0.20
Netolachlor
1.5
Simazine
0.80
Metribuzin
0.40
Tetouthiuron
0.40
Oxamy I
0.60
Terbacil
3.50
Plews, Gary (1985) Results and Implications of the Investigation of Ethylene Dibromide in
Ground Water in Western Washington. Washington State Department of Social and Health
Services, (206) 753-5968, Olympia, WA 98504.
Primary Objective
In January 1984, the EPA Region 10 office (Seattle) was notified that EDB had been
identified in a well located in the Skagit River flood plain in Skagit County, Washington.
This was the first report of EDB contamination of ground water in Washington. Additional
sampling of three other nearby private wells showed EDB contamination ranging from 0.1
to 12 ppb. All of the contaminated wells were drawing drinking water from an unprotected
aquifer located less than 15 feet from the ground surface.
The potential contamination of public water supplies prompted the Department of Social
and Health Services to expand the investigation of EDB in ground water to a statewide
survey.
Design
Criteria established for sample point selection were:
1. Type of supply
" A. Public supplies.
B. Private supplies if sampling would provide information to protect the public.
2. Location of well with respect to application site
A. Less than 1/2 mile from application site.
B. Downgradient of application site.
C. 15% of samples should be upgradient of the application site.
3. Aquifer and soil characteristics
A. Shallow, unconfined aquifer - well depth less than 40 feet if possible.
B. Permeable soils.
10-WA-5
-------
Procedures for sample collection and transport outlined in EPA's Standard Laboratory
Instruction Sheet were closely followed. Approximately 100 well water samples were
analyzed by the EPA laboratory at Manchester, Washington using the gas
chromatography/electron capture method. The detection level was 0.01 ppb. Positive
results were confirmed by mass spectrometry. Any sample found to contain EDB was
confirmed with a check sample.
Results and Conclusions
The results of the study can be briefly summarized as follows:
1. The soil fumigant EDB has been found in ground water in Washington.
2. EDB has been found at levels exceeding 0.02 ppb in four counties at 14 sites.
3. Ten of these sites are public water supplies which provide drinking water to
approximately 550 persons.
4. EDB levels reported for the affected wells ranged from 0.18 ppb to 5.7 ppb.
Finally, it should be noted that gasoline presents an unknown potential for ground water
contamination by EDB. limited sampling (two samples taken at two sites) showed that
gasoline contributed EDB to the ground water at one site. Further investigations should be
conducted to define the extent of the problem.
(Note: Discrepancies exist between the study design/results summary table and the raw
data tables which were not resolvable. Data for the tables in this report were derived from
the raw data.)
Erickson, Denis (1991), Quincy Agricultural Chemicals and Ground Water Quality
Assessment. Washington Department of Ecology. Tele. 206-586-4480. Olympia, WA
98504-8711.
Primary Objective
As a result of the findings of the 1988 Washington State Agricultural Chemicals Pilot Study
conducted by the departments of Ecology Health and Agriculture, the Quincy Agricultural
Chemicals and Ground Water Quality Assessment was initiated. Quincy, a major
agricultural region, was selected for testing because of the area's ground water vulnerability
to contamination from agricultural practices. Crop production in the area includes potatoes,
onions and corn and intensive irrigation has caused ground water to rise to about 10 to 15
feet below the soil surface. Soils in the area are very permeable.
Design
During April and May of 1991 the Washington Department of Ecology sampled ground
water in a 30 square mile area southeast of Quincy in Grand County.
10-WA-6
-------
Twenty-three private drinking water wells, four ground water monitoring wells and two
agricultural drains were sampled for more than 73 pesticides. The state Department of
Health also sampled the City of Quincy's municipal wells and several other public water
supply wells in the area.
Results and Conclusions
The preliminary testing found that 26 of the 27 wells had at least one pesticide. The
pesticides detected were:
1) Atrazine - detected in one well at 0.28 ppb.
2) DCPAs (Dacthal and breakdown products of Dacthal) - detected in 15 wells at
concentrations ranging from 0.25 - 8.3 ppb.
3) 1,2-dichloropropane - detected in 17 wells at concentrations ranging from 0.1 -
0.7 ppb.
4) 1,3-dichloropropene - detected in 3 wells at 0.1 ppb.
5) EDB - detected in 17 out of 23 private wells at concentrations ranging form 0.01 -
0.26 ppb.
EDB was the only pesticide to have concentrations exceeding the MCL or Lifetime Health
Advisory Levels established by EPA. It was found that three wells had EDB concentrations
equal to the 0.05 ppb MCL, six wells exceeded the MCL.
In June 1991 routine monitoring, required by the Department of Health, of a small public
water system, serving about 750 people south of Quincy, detected 4.0 ppb EDB. A
resampling of the water system confirmed the 4.0 ppb detection. In August of 1991, the
Department of Health detected EDB in two other small public water systems south of
Quincy at levels of 0.4 and 0.3 ppb. No EDB was found in Quincy's municipal water supply.
All of the well owners, who voluntarily participated in the study, have been notified of the
test results. Since the results are considered preliminary, The Department of Ecology will
resample all of the private wells where pesticides were detected. Sample results should be
available after May 1992. All of the contaminated public water systems are being resampled
on a quarterly basis through routine Department of Health monitoring.
The Department of Ecology has also notified the Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, under
conditions of a recent settlement between the company and the department involving EDB
contamination in several western Washington counties.
(NOTE: The results of this study were not available for inclusion in the State tables.)
10-WA-7
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLING IN THE STATE OF (MSHINGTON
VELi RESUCTS :
SAMPLE RESUITS
RAAfGE OF
COKCEIt-
TSATfWS
?e«TlCHJ£
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAl. :
WEILS
SAXPL®
ft W
POSITIVE.
:WELl$ .
TOTAL # .
SAMPLES
;:ia#IBES OF .
POSITIVE
SAMPLES: ¦¦
YEAH/
HOSTS
: t
KCL
<
«CL
: I
' «CL
<
HCl
t>*«Mar«©roeane
ffiANKUK
1988/9
27
0
2
30
0
2
0.4-0.8
1989/5
2
0
2
4
0
4
0.3-1
• VHATCOH
1988/8
27
5
4
29
5
4
0.3-24
1989/5
10
4
5
12
6
5
0.4-20
TA «*»
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
5
7
105
11
15
0.3-24
2.4-0
FSANKIIS
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOC
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAKIttA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
2.4-08 '
FRA"«L IN
1988/9
• 27
0
0
30
0
0
imAtG^::::: ¦
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
m i ha
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES '
B1
0
0
89
0
0
2.4/5-T
FPJWKilM
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
U-WTCOM
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAKIKA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
2,4,5-TP
f$iivex>
fRAJIKUK
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOM
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
?*Ki#k
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
Aeifiuorfen ...
FRAHfctl>l
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOK
1988/8
27
0
* 0
29
0
0
YAKiMA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
10-WA-9
Receding page blank}
-------
PESTICIDE SAWLIMG !i THE STATE OF IMSHIHGTQH
¦WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAWGE Of
COTCEIt-
TRATiONS
i*9/t>
; rtsticrre
COWTt
CATS / =
T0TAI
WEILS .
SAILED
¦ 0' OF
POSITIVE
VELLS
TOTAt #
SAMPtES
kumbES
positive
SAMPLES
YEAR/. :
KONTtt
t
KCL
<
KCL
t
WL
<
Mti
Alechlor
FRAHKUN
1988/9
27
O
0
30
0
0
WMATCW
19B8/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAKIMA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
Aldi^Srb
fPANtaiN
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
UrfATCOM
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAKIMA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
*
81
0
0
89
0
0
Ald'carb
Suf f one
FRANK*. IH
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOM
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAKIMA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
'
81
0
0
89
0
0
Aldicarb
Sulfoxide
FRANICtJ#
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOK
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAKIKA
1988/10
27
0
0
301
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
Ametryn
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOM
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAKJKA
1958/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
Arse-rut
L IN
19B8/9
6
0
6
6
0
6
1.6-13.3
WHATCOM
1968/8
6
0
1A
6
0
1A
1.7
TAKIrtA
1988/10
8
0
8
8
0
8
2-11.7
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
20
0
15
20
0
15
1.6-13.3
10-WA-10
-------
PESTICIDE SWUNG II TIC STATE OF IMSH1HGT0M
¦ ¦¦ ¦¦ . WELi RESULTS ¦
SAMPLE RESULTS
EAMGE OF
CONCEK-
TSATiWS
.4*9/1 >
PESUCTOE
CQUHTY ¦
w«
tOTAl
weus
-s*WLaa
* OF
POSITIVE .
VELIS '
TOTAL. U
SAMPLES
NUM3E* OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
tzm
KOKTH
S
hcl
<
KCL
*
MCL
<
MCi :
JStraiine
FRAMKLIM
1988/9
ii
0
0
30
0
0
WVTCOH
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
-yMMMimKK
1988/10
27
0
1
30
0
1
0.4
1989/5
1
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
1
89
0
1
0.4
Sentezon
FSAMtftfll
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOM
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAKIMA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
BfOfffcT'l '
TRAWL IN
1988/9
27
0
1
30
0
1
14.9
1989/5
1
0
1
3
0
3
11-12
UHATCOH /J-?
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAKIMA.
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
1
92
0
4
11-14.9
Carbofyen
FRANICtIN
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
1988/8
27
0
1
29
0
1
2.4
Ilfl|||||l§§
1989/5
1
0
0
3
0
0
1TAKJMA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
1
92
0
1
2.4
¦CarboxTn
I FRANkLlN
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
VKATCOM
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
[ Mlf3«A
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
|
81
0
0
89
0
0
aiora*»' : :
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOM
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
10-WA-ll
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING ID THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE Of
CONCER-
TS AT IONS
GlfljM)
PEStlCIW .
axaxr
Wt€
TOTAL
WEILS
SAMPLED
. # Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
AMBER Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
MOiJTH
¦-t-
JKL
¦ :«¦ •
HCL
S
«CL
* ¦
HCl
Cynnsnfrw
FRAWCU#
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOM
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
Vaki«a
1988/10
27
0
O
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
Cycloste
f RANKLUi
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOH
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAK! HA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
SI
0
7
98
0
16
0.2-1.08
Datepon
FfiANrtJij
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOM
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
: iYAKIHA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
o.
oscp .
cMoropropa-ie) :
FRANICitK
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
1988/8
27
1
0
29
1
0
0.36
1989/5
3
1
0
7
3
0
0.3
YAKIMA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
1
0
96
4
0
0.3-0.36
OcPa6
fRAN Id IN
1988/9
27
0
7
30
0
7
0.26-
1.08
1989/5
7
0
7
9
0
9
0.2-1
VHATCOK. .
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAHIHA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
7
98
0
16
0.2-1.08
i'OiCB-Ttffl
FftAJilCi-lM •
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
KHATCOK
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
VAK:ma
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
1O-WA-12
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING II TIC STATE OF WASHINGTON
VElt RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CQNCEK-
TSATiOfcS
i>f5titrp£
¦CQtatY
. DATE
TOTAl
UEILS
SAWLED
¦ #- OF - -
POSITIVE
: VE11S
TOTAl n
SAHPUS
(CJMBE8 OF
: POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TCAR/
HOHTS
t
HCl
<
KCl
e
HCL
' wet
S-hydroxy
8l«mb» -¦
F8ANICUH
1988/9
27
0
0
30
O
0
UHATCOH
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
>Alf JMA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLiS
81
0
0
89
0
0
Dichlorprop
FRAkKLIN
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOM
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAKIMA
1988/10
' 27'
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
Dinoseb
' FRANKLIN -
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
VHATCW
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
TAKJMA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
Oiphefisinid ¦ ¦
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
VHATCOH
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAIC1HA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
Diuron
ffeAnKLIN
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOM
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YASIWA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
EDB (Ethylene ¦
D(bromide} . : :
FRANKLIN
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
FIERCE
1984 JUNE
18
0
0
18 .
0
0
SKAGIT
1984 JUNE
5
0
0
5
0
0
1984 JULY
5
1
1
5
1
1
0.018-
0.160
10-WA-13
-------
PESTICIDE SWUNG IN THE STATE OF UfcSHlKGTGN
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RISUtTS
RANGE Of
COKCfK-
TRATIONS
: Otg/t)
PESTiCIW
COLBIT* .
OA YE
TOIAl
UEUS
SAWLHJ
# Of
pcsmvE
WELLS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
feJHBES &
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
-
YEAS/ .
NOKTH
t
HCL
<
KtL
a
MCL
¦¦
*Cl
(EDB)
{SKAGIT)
1984 SEPT
4
3
0
4
3
0
0.13-
0.79
; 1
1984 OCT
6
2
0
6
2
0
0.69-
1.37
SNOHOMISH
1984 SEPT
3
1
0
3
1
0
0.41
,
1984 OCT
3
1
0
3
1
0
0.22
TKUflSTON
1984 JUNE
6
1
0
6
1
0
0.327
1984 JULY
9
4
0
9
4
0
0.55-
0.76
1984 SEPT
11
3
1
11
3
1
0.041-
5.7
'
1984 OCT
8
2
0
8
2
0
0.27-
0.55
VKATCOH
1984 JUNE
12
5
0
17
8
0
0.098-
6.3
-
1984 JULY
9
2
0
9
2
0
0.072-
2.31
1984 SEPT
9
3
0
9
3
0
0.065-
4.3
1984 OCT
8
1
0
8
1
0
0.43
19B8/8
27
1
1
29
1
1
0.02-
2.95
1989/5
I
1
0
7
3
0
1.5-1.72
YAKIHA
1968/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
181
21
2
217
36
3
0.018-
6.3
Fenamiphos
fRANKLlK
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOM
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAKIKA
1908/10
27
0
D
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
Hexailrwrte-
FRAJIKlfN
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
VHATCOH
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
Sakjha
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
1Q-WA-14
-------
PESTICIDE SWUNG IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
¦
WELt RESULTS
SAWLE iESytTS
RANGE of
COS CEN-
TRA! IO*S
. <**/!>
cotisTr
SATE .
Torn
yaus
SAMPLED
# Of
posmve
WELLS
total n
samples
tflJKBES OF'.
. MKJT1VE
SABLES
"" - -
tanTH .¦¦ ¦ ¦
; fc:
KCL
feci
fc
" MCI,
.« !
m
Kercury
fSANKLlH
1988/9
6
0
0A
6
0
0A
..VfHAtCOH.
19B8/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
1988/10
8
0
3
8
0
3
0.08-
0.11
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAKPLES
20
0
3
20
0
3
0.08-
0.11
rtetHaflyl
FRANKLIN
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOM
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
TAttWt
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAKPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
Metot&ehior
,.fRANKLf 8
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
¦ WKATCOM
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAKIMA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
Netribuzin
fRAMKttK
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHAT0OK
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAKittt
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WILLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
CxatsyL
fRANKUN
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOK
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAKIMA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
A-«it^0ph6fWt
(ParstMorij
methyl
nefabolitci:
FRAKHTt. IN
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOW
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAK3HA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
a
0
89
0
0
1G-WA-15
-------
PESTICIDE SMPtllK IN THE STATE OF IMSHINCTOi
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAKGE OF
COHCttt-
TRATIWS
0*/t>
¦¦
fPSTICfOC COtWT*
MIS
TOTAi
UEUS
SAMPLES
# OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
TfftAi,1 # :
SAMPLES
HUM3FR Of :
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
nw ¦
KOWTH
t
NCL
*
»!CL
¦ a
HCL
<:¦
net
P0> tPwita-
cbtoroohentrl)
ffiANKUN
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOM
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
TfAKIHA
1958/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
pjctoram
FRANKLIN
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
• VHA7COH
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
' YAICIHA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
Proreeton
FRAKKLIN
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHS.TCOH
1988/8
27
0
2
29
0
2
0.5-0.6
1989/5
3
0
2
5
0
5
0.9-6
YftltlfcA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
2
94
0
7
0.5-6
srietsbolite)
¦
1:-¦; :
i
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOM •
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAKIHA : i:
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
P-rcjsl'Pe
FRANKLIN
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WtATCOH: '
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAtCIMA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
Propham '
fRAAKLIN
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOH
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAklHA: : ¦
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
10-WA-16
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
. .
peeticiw. ....
COOIT*
om ....
70TAL
¦ WELLS '
SA»pie&
posmvE
¦¦¦ WE IIS ¦
TOlAl #
SAMPLES
KUK6ER Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
nw
¦WOHTa
t
HCL
i «
¦ HCL
HCL
¦¦ t ¦
HCL
FRANK11V
1988/9
27
0
0
' 30
O
0
WHATCW
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
TAKIHA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
SI
0
0
89
0
0
¦SisTBzine
fRAiw.™
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOM
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
n*m
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
Tcbuthiuron
FRANKLIN
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
WHATCOM
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
YAKIMA
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
¦ Terbacil ¦
1988/9
27
0
0
30
0
0
VtiAtCOK ' '
1988/8
27
0
0
29
0
0
TAtt«A
1988/10
27
0
0
30
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
89
0
0
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAKPLES
182
26
33
247
51
75
A Some of these results were determined to be positive, but quality
assessment experiments indicate that these detections are unreliable.
8 Includes DCPA S/or metabolites.
10-WA-17
-------
STATE OF WASHINGTON
IELLS BY COUNTY
COUNTY
TYPgS OF UHLLS
SQUfiCE Of
coHimmiim :
{HUHBE* OF
tfftW*
OSIHtllifi WfcTE*
MaitTaaiNG
OTHER
TOTAL
SKPtO
is
#CL
¦ K :
wa
TOTAL
SHP10
* t
WX
*
Ha
TOTftl
SKPIO
&
#a
. ¦ .<.
JtCL
Hfu'
PS*
UMJC' :
»
0
14
5
0
2
0
0
0
15
0
1
Si,
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WmmmB
16
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
22
4
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
4
.1
0
SsKiiaifSi
59
16
5
0
0
0
4
0
2
23
0
0
::Yak^ V-^-'l
25
0
9
0
0
0
2
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL
168
25
29
7
1
2
7
0
2
56
2
1
NFU=Known or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS =KnoMn or Suspected Point Source
UNK=Uhkn©nn
10-WA-19
Preceding page blank
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
APPENDIX I - PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
| -CHEHtEM. llAHr
REFERENCE '
MCL .
Diethylamine salt
&ietU*wopfop
2^-o
70
Herbicide
S,SRPre
za-m
Herbicide
S,SRPre
2,4-Dichlofoberaoic scfcf
Possible
degradate or
impurity
2,4-D i ch I oropfienoxyacet i c
acid
2,4-B
2,4jn11rophencI
Acaricide
insecticide
u,c
2,4-DP
Oichlorprop
2,4,5-T •
70
Herbicide
C,SRC
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy-
acetic acid
, -s. -
2,4,5-T
2A5-TP
50
Herbicide
f CD^*
v f 9"
2,4,6-TrichIorophenoI
T riehtorophericl
2,6--di ethy tarti I i ne
Alachlor
Degradate
S- (fydroxycarbofuran
Carbofuran
Degradate
l-Ketocarbofuren &
3-retocarbo#ursn (pha»w>i)
Carbofuran
Degradate
3j5-fl1cM
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL IWME
R£F£R£hCE
«a
t»$/U
IDA
{*9/1}
PESTICIDE
CATECiOfit
REGULATOR
STATUS
4(2,4-DB), Dimethylamine
salt
2,4-OB
5- Kydraxy di
Dicarrbs
Degradate
AcBnapht^ne
Insecticide
Fungicide
S
Acephat*..
Insecticide
s
Acifluorfen
Herbicide
s
Acrolein
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
S,R
Aerylomtrite
Funigant
C,R,SRC
Aiachior
2
Herbicide
S,R,SRP
Atdiearb
3
t
Insecticide
Acaricide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S,R,SRP
Aldicarb Sulfone
Aldicarb
2
1
Degradate
Atdicaffe Sulfoxide
Aldicarb
4
1
Degradate
AWi'carb, Total
Aldicarb
3
Parent +
degradates
SRP
At drift
Insecticide
C,SRC
Antetryn
60
60
Herbicide
S
Aminoearb
Insecticide
u,c
Araife?
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R,SRC
Amitrote
Herbicide
S,RP
AnHezine
Fungicide
S
Arsenic
50
Arsenates, Arsenites
Arsenic
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
SRC
Arsenic acid
Arsenicals
Arseni c
Defoliant
Insecticide
S,|
SR
Atratan
experimental
discontinued triazine
Herbicide
C
Atrazine
3
Herbicide
S,R
Atrazine, desVkyLated
Atrazine
Degradate
Azfnphos-ethyJ
Insecticide
C
Atinpfios-methyl
Insecticide
S,R
Banvel
Oica«iba
APPENDIX 1-2
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
JilliSSllll
sssmmmsmwmMm
:'i«A ¦
II X
¦ ¦ '•
'
"K£"
fcarfearv
Herbicide
c
Baygon
PrDpCKUf1
freodtocsrb
Insecticide
S,R
&enefin
Benflurelin
Insecticide
Herbicide
S
Benfluralin
Benefin
BenosyL
Fungicide
S,SRC
Bensulide
Herbicide
5
Bentatw*
20
20
Herbicide
S
8«ntftjort,, sodi ire sst t
Bentezon
Oegradate
BHC <(r,M5
Insecticide
C,SRC
BHC (D
lindane
ftronaeft
90
Herbicide
s
Bromfde
Sodiun bromide
BromoxymJ
Herbicide
s
Bufencarb
Insecticide
c
BmscMor
Herbicide
c
Butylete
350
Herbicide
s
Ceptafot
Fungicide
c
Ceptan
Fungicide
S,SRC
tarbsryt
700
Insecticide
S
Carbendaii#
Fungicide
C
Cirbofurar*
40
40
Insecticide
Acaracide
Fungicide
Nematicfde
S,R,SRC
Carbofuran phenol
Carbofuran
Oegradate
Cerbofurafvr to-taL
Carbofuran
Parent ~
degradates
SRC
Carbon disulfide
Fumigant
Fungicide
U
Carbon tetrachloride
5
Fire retardant
in funigant
formulations
SRC
Carfeophenathiaft
Insecticide
Acaricide
C
torbophcnotbion, methyl
Insecticide
Acaricide
u
APPENDIX 1-3
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
MCL ;
. (tg/D
': uii
liiii
CATEGORY :
REGULATOR/
STATUS
Carboxin " , "
700
Fungicide
S
CDEC
Herbicide
c
Chlorsmben
100
Herbicide
u,c
ciHorctarw
2
Insecticide
Termiticide
C,SIC
cmocctet-orre
Insecticide
C,SRc
£htordiffl$f-arty
Insecticide
Acaricide
Ovacide
C,SRC
Chlorfenae
Herbicide
U,G
Chlopfensim t> >
Acaricide
u.c
ChtGroaUyl alcohol
Insecticide
c
ChlqrobemHate
Insecticide
Acaricide
C,SRc
p-CMora-fli-eresol
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
s
p-GMoro-o-eresel
Chloroform
100
Fumigant
C,SRP
Ch«oronei>
Fungicide
S
Cfc'.oropicMn
Funigant
yarning agent
S,R
ChlorothaloM 1
Fungicide
S
•-CfHorexuron , •
C
. CRtoppre^^m-
Herbicide
S
Chlcrpyrifas 1 t , .. . ,
20
Insecticide
S
Shtorpyj-ifos, rr»thyl
Insecticide
S
CfHorsulfuron , '
Herbicide
s
Chlorthal dimethyl
DCPft
' -
Copper salts
Copper
-
Insecticide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
Fungicide
some S
some U
Copper oxides
Coppep
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
S
Cotan'phos
Insecticide
s
Crufcmate
. Insecticide
Cyanazlrw
1
Herbicide
S,R,SRC |
APPENDIX 1-4
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL tMHE
ft£r£R£HCE
Htt
Or$m
IH*.
PESTICIDE:
CATE60R5T
¦REGULATORY
status
Cyanide
200
200
Cyanide, calcium or
potassium
Cyaralde
Rodent icide
u
Cyanaide, sodiun
:: Cyamds
Rodenticide
S,R
Cycloate
Herbicide
s
typerttetftHft ' -
Insecticide
S,R
Cypraitne
Herbicide
c
Decthai
OC PA
Dacthal diacid
DCPA acid tnetabo-lites
Catapon
200
200
Herbicide
U,c
oecf
0.2
Funigant
C,R,SRC
DCBA
2,4-Ci rh lorobc nioi c
acid
DCP
1,2-Oidiloropropane ;:¦ ¦: ¦
SCP-ft
4000
Herbicide
s
OCPA acid metabolites
DCPA
Degradate
D-D Mix
_ 1,?-IHcfel
Degradate
Cenetcn-S Eutfone
Demeton-S
Degradate
Sea-ethyl atrazine
Atrazine
Degradate
£>es-Jsopropyl airazirte
Atrazine
Herbicide
C,R
6fat Late
Herbicide
C,R,SRC
Die?inert
0.6
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S,SRC
0 i bronoch I oropropane
03 Cf
APPENDIX 1-5
-------
PF^TTPTTYF r,T?n<5^-RPFFRFNPF TART F
X -1 ' & 1 % -¦ 1 1 .j/ p V J| v I " | -*fX. l jIH .1 a l t j l ¦«» j
OiEMCAt MAKE.
Jt£FE!t£H£E
MCt
ug/O
L#A ¦
PESTICIDE
CATEGOR*
REGULATOR
STATUS
^tb«tyl jAthalate
,Insect
repellent
u,c
&i casiba
200
Herbicide
s
frichlobenU
Herbicide
s
o-C i ch Iorobcnzcne
600
600
Antimicrobial
u
p-fl i ch I orobeniccne
75
75
Insecticide
Fungicide
Rodentieide
Antimicrobial
s
*
0ich toropropafte
01chloropropeoe
Nematicide
Fiftiigant
S,R,SRP
WcfiLorprop
Herbicide
S,SRPre
Dichlorprop, butoxyethanol
ester
filchlorprop
1H chlorvos
Insecticide
S,SRP
dicafoi
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,SRC
Oicrotophos
Insecticide
S,R
^ _&i 9-lcfr In
Insecticide
C,SRC
Diethylhexyl phthalate
Oioctyl pht1a»?te
fliwetfteat*
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,SRC
fiinoseh
7
7
Herbicide
C,SRC
Oinitrocresol
iwoc
01 octyl phtfiifHlfc
Acaricide
C
Oioxacarb ,
C
Otoxathion
Insecticide
C,R
oipfteftamftf
200
Herbicide
C
Picpjat
20
20
Herbicide
s
Dfquat dibromide arid
various salts
Disulfoton
0.3
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R
Oisulfoton sutfane
Disulfotori
Degradate
Olsulfoton sulfoxide
Disulfoton
Degradate
01 Uf Ofl
10
Herbicide
S
DHPA
Fly larvicide
c
APPENDIX 1-6
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL NSXE
SEFESEUCE
MCL
L«A
(#8/1)
PESTJC1DE
CATEGORY
REGULATORY
STATUS
D#OC
insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
0,C
ONOC, sodiiin salt
DNOC
ED8
EthyLene dibfotfiide
EBDC compounds
Uarwb, Mancozeb,
£i neb
SRC
Endosulfan
Fingicide
Antimicrobial
S
Endostflfen 3
Endosulfan
Isomer
Endosulfan Jf
Endosulfan
Isomer
Sndosvtfw sulfate
Endosulfan
Degradate
Endotha?1
100
100
Herbicide
s
Endrrrt
2
2
Insecticide
U,C,R,SRC
ErtdrtfV aldehyde
Endrfrt
Degradate
EPK
Insecticide
Acaricide
C,R
EPTC
Herbicide
S
Eth-aUluralin
Herbicide
S,SRC
EtMor*
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R
Ethoprop
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S,R
Ethyl alcohol
Disinfectant
S
Ethyl^n
, Insecticide
U,C,SRC
Ethylene
bisdithiocarbamate
corrpourids
Harieb, Hancoieb,
Zirwb
Ethylene dibrwr
0.05
Insecticide
C,R,SRC
Ethylene dichloride
1,2-DicMoroethane
,
Ethylene thiourea
ETU
Ethyl parathion
Parathion, ethyl
Etndiazcite
Fungicide
S
ejo .:' •
Maneb
Degradate
Fenac
: •;:: •;:: •;:: •;:: •; :• •:•: :• •: := •: := •. := •:.
Chlorfenac'• ' :
::::::
¦'ivivi'ffi'vWivrivWv
2
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S,R
: *: ¦
im , 1
APPENDIX 1-7
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL NAME
ttFEfcEHCE.
MCt
0«a/O
LHA
WU'
PEVFTCIBE
CATEGGfit
REGULATORY
STATUS
Fenaaiphos sutfona
Fenamiphos
Depredate
Fenaniphos sulfoxide
Fenamiphos
Degradate 1
fenaHftfrl
Fungicide
S
Ferfeutatin- oxide
Insecticide ,
Acarieide
S
Fensutfothian
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide 1
C,R
FerttMon
Insecticide
C
Fenuron
Herbicide
C
Fenvaterate
Insecticide
S,R
ftuazifop-butyl
Herbicide
s
FtucMora* in
Herbicide 1
s
flunetraLIn
Herbicide
s
Ft uonetufon
90
Herbicide
s
FlurJdortt
Aquatic
herbicide
s
fonof<54
10
Insecticide
S,R
formaldehyde
1000
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
U
Siypfasate
700
700
Herbicide
s
Gtyphosate isopropylamine
salt
Guthiori
Aiir.phcs-methyl . i V i
HCH «l,M>
mmwmmmm
HCH CD
.v.,•!-:v;::: ,
?i:ternor>e
•••, *>:•> •: <:¦<;•:
0.4
Insecticide
C,SRC
IllPlliliilillW
Heptachlor
0.2
Degradate
¦ :• ¦:;• *:<}::¦ ¦: :• •: :¦ -
HcxacMorobenzene '
¦¦
1
Seed
protectant
200
Herbicide
s
Alachlor
Degradate
i:• •.:•
ii: S-5 i-iii W:'":i i W ':->i 5 >; > i 4%l 5:::?: 'K'K'«
XljSfSKH m«:T-i gf ^ i i > i f
Fungicide
s
lliiipflplili
Insecticide
c
• - sii« s y y y ^ siiSiisi Hi
mrmmmmrnmmhmmfM
Insecticide
Herbicide
s'*>
Herbicide
c
APPENDIX 1-8
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
KCt
lllilffiicteil;
:regulatqry
: STATUS ; =
Kepone
CMordecone s
Lindane
0.2
0.2
Insecticide
S,S,SftC
LSftttfofi
Herbicide
S,SRP
Haiat&faft -
200
Insecticide
S
Jtotaexen- \"
Halathion
Degradete
Harwozete
Fungicide
s
Ha neb
Fungicide
s
new ; , , - ' "
10
Herbicide
some C,
some S
MCpA acids, salts, esters
,wcp*
*KPi' ' ^ ....
Insecticide
S
HCPB salts, esters
HCPS
MCPP salts, esters
. Mecoprop '
MCPPA
fecaprop *
Itecoprep
Herbicide
S
Mercury
2
2
SRC
Herphos
Fungicide
Herbicide
U,C
Utt-alixyl ,
Fungicide
S
~tetftarcudophos
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R
ttethazofe
Herbicide
S
Hethidathi bn
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R
Hethiocarb
Insecticide
Acaricide
Motluscicide
Rodenticide
Bird repellent
S,R
Wethcuryt
200
Insecticide
S.R
WethoxycKlor
40
40
Insecticide
Acaricide
S
Methyl brotslde
Insecticide
Antimicrobial
S,R
Methyl carbophenothion
Ca rfeopfienathiort,
«Kthyl
t
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
GtEXlCAL DAME
R£fER£HCE '
KCt
0*9/1 >
L«A
?ESTTC1DE
CATECORt
.REGULATORY
STATUS
Methyl parathion
Parathion, methyl
Utthyl trithion
taricphertotih ? On,
wjtJty*
Methylene chloride
Insecticide
U
ttetoLschlor
100
Herbicide
s
~tetrfbuzFn
200
Insecticide
s
Hetr f biiz'rn DA
Metribuzin
Degradate
Hetrfbuztn Dm
Metribuziri
Degradate
wetrtbuzfn dk .
Metribuzin
Degradate
Hevlrphos -
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R
Wexaoafbste
Insecticide
U,C
Kir*x
Insecticide
C,SRC
JfeUrwte - -
Herbicide
s
Holinete suboxide
Holinate
Degradate
ftonaerDtophos
¦ Insecticide
Acaricide
C,R
. Wongron
Herbicide
C,SRC
Hated
Insecticide
Acaricide
s
Naffhthatene
' 20
Insecticide
s
Napropamide
Insecticide
s
Naptalam
Herbicide
s
Neburon *
Herbicide
c
Netnagon
SBCP " '
fcitrofen
Herbicide
c
p-Nitrophenol
4-Hitrophenol
tfonacfc lor
Chlordane
Impurity In
formulation
¦ dorl lufaton
Herbicide
s
-Octyt bicyclofieptene*
dicarboxiiwde
Insecticide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
s
Ortho-dichlorobenzene
o-t> i c+i I orobenz ene ¦.
oryzal, In
Herbicide
s
OVBX
Cf) torfepson
APPENDIX 1-10
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CftEME/fcL KAME
REFERENCE
HO.
C«/U
i«A
PE5TIC1W
CATECOPT
REGULATORY
STATUS
flocamyt
2D0
Insecticide
Acarieide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S,R
Chtordane
Animal
metabolite
©xydemetprrraethyt;
Insecticide
Acarieide
S,R,SRP
:Oxydi6ulfoton
Insecticide
Acarieide
C
«?#§;Si5 W-(% i':i
Herbicide
S,SRC
Para-chlorometacresol
p~Ch loro-wcresoI
para-D i chI orobenzene see
p-Dichlorobenzerte, listed
at dichlorobenzene
p-chloro-o-cfcsoL
Paraquat „
30
Herbicide
S,R
Paraquat dichloride
Paraquat - -
Parathion
¦ Parath*or>, ethyt
Nrath jon, ethyl -
Insecticide
S,R,SRC
Paratfifon, methyl
2
Insecticide
S,R
pcnb " :: 11 • X 1
Fungicide
S,SRC
PCP
Ferrtachlcrcpfienol
Pebwlats ¦.
Insecticide
Herbicide
S
PendfmfrthaLIn
Herbicide
s
PentacM orophsrwl
1
Insecticide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
p
SfR,SR
Permethrin
Insecticide
S,R
Perthane
Ethyl-an
Phorate
Insecticide
S,R
Phorate sulfone
Phorate
Degradate
Phorate sulfoxide
Phorate
Degradate
Phoratoxon
Phorate
Degradate
Phoratoxon sutfone
Phorate
Degradate
Phoratoxon sulfoxide
Phorate
Degradate
Ph os a I one
Insecticide
Acarieide
U,R
Phospet
Insecticide
S
APPENDIX 1-11
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
t#EKIC£L *AME
«EFER£KCE
HO.
. <(tg/U .
L«A
PESTICIDE
CATEGOft*
REGULATORY
STATU4
Phc&atet oxygen analog
Phosraet
Degradate
Wiiisphanrtctofv
Insecticide
C,R
500
500
Herbicide
S,R
MfUrtearb - -
Aphidicide
C
«ulfora
Pirimicarb
Degradate
Profeoofos
Insecticide
S,R
Prof lurahn
Herbicide
C
Promecarb
Insecticide
HR (in US)
PrcroerHft
100
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
S
PToraetryn
Herbicide
s
Pronamide
50
Herbicide
SrR,SRC
Preach tor
90
Herbicide
S
PropanH
Herbicide
5
Propargita
Insecticide
Aearicide
S
Prcpa2ine
10
Herbicide
c
Prepham
100"
Herbicide
c
Prop6*Uf
3
Insecticide
S,5RP
' Propyzamide
Pronwitde
Prothiofos
ProtMophos
ProtMophos
Insecticide
NR
Pyretriri ns
Insecticide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
U
Pyrielor •• * '
Herbicide
C
Rome? s -
Insecticide
U,C,SRC
Rsteno-lfir* "- - -
Rotenone
Degradate
Roterone
Insecticide
Aearicide
Piscicide
S
Secfeunfitwi " "
Herbicide
C
Sethoxydire \
Herbicide
s
Sicfuron I
Herbicide
s
Si I vex
2,4,5'TP
Simaiine
1
4
Herbicide
s
APPENDIX 1-12
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CKENICAL #A*E
REFERENCE
HCL .
US/i>
LW
fESTtCl&S
CATEGORY
SEGULATORY
Herbicide
NR
iSiawtryn :j\ i? r.-:'
Herbicide
NR
Sodius bromide
ftrorti«fe
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
5
Sodiun cyanide
Cyanide
Sutprofos .
Insecticide
S,R
Svep
Herbicide
C
TCA and salts
. Trichloroacetic acid .
TCE
TricMoroethane
Tehuthiuron
500
Herbicide
s
Tel one
&i rfi taropropene
fsriiatil
90
Herbicide
s
rsrixifos
0.9
Insecticide
Fungicide
Mematicide
S,R
Terbu'os suHone
Terbufos
Degradate
Tereuthyl«ir»
Herbicide
Algaecide
S
' Terfeutrvn
Herbicide
C
Terrazole
5
Funigant
C
iiiiiissiiiiiii
Insecticide
S
u.e
Thanite
tsoboryt
thiocysnoaeetate
-
Th iobencarb
Herbicide
s
fhiabencsrb su I fox fete
Degradate
T&iophanate
Fungicide
c
ThiophBr-ate-methy* -
Insecticide
Fungicide
S,SRC
Tordori
McEoram
'
I lillllliplf IllWllilllli !l|
3
Insecticide
U,R#SRC
Insecticide
S,R
IflillllBlilllllllill
chlordane
Impurity in
formulation
Fungicide
S
APPENDIX 1-13
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
: CMEMlCAt tlAME
*£FER€HCE
HCL .
: US/D
Hid
<«/l>
PtSIIClBS
"CATEGORY
REGUIATOSY :
srAtys
tribufos
Herbicide
s
*Trfthierfon
Insecticide
s
iHehlbroatetit Bcid
Herbicide
u
Trichlerobenzene
11SHIllSfi
Trichtorbethene
Trichloroethylene
: Trichtaroethene
5
Funigant
c
Insecticide
c
asFvH;-:
¦ ¦
¦
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
u,c
Trichlorophon
trichtorfon
Triclopyr
Insecticide
Herbicide
s
Tricyclazole
Fungicide
NR
Trifluralin
5
Herbicide
S,SR,C
Trithion
Carbophenoth von
Tunic
Methaiole
OracilAlrea
Antimicrobial
u
Vernotate
Herbicide
s
Vorlex
1,2-0i eft loropropane*
5ichIoroprepene,
HethyJ isothiocysnate .
Xylene
10000
10000
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
u
£ineb
Insecticide
Fungicide
c
ZKafa
Insecticide
Fungicide
u
SRPre Presently in Pre-Special Review
p
SR Special Review in progress
p
SR Special Review completed
S Supported: The producer(s) of the pesticide has made cormitments to conduct
the studies arid pay the fees required for reregistration, arid is meeting
those eomtiitments in a timely manner.
APPENDIX 1-14
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
U Unsupported: The producer(s) of the pesticide has not made or honored a
courcitment 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 utder 40 CFR Part 1, Subpart 1. It is therefore restricted to
use by a certified applicator, or by or irtder the direct supervision of a
certified applicator.
* In Hawaii both dichloropropane and 1,2-dichloropropane appear in the data.
APPENDIX 1-15
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
APPENDIX n - 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
------- |