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 1
CONNECTICUT MAINE MASSACHUSETTS
NEW HAMPSHIRE RHODE ISLAND
VERMONT
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
farm -ps'cved
OVS NO 0"4.Qiaa
* .c : c 'c*'
•«vt -J v-2 •; i. #•' i
tj'j ***<•<¦% *-"3 :c-o ?» «3 »-2 :;
,• '*' ..*•* •••* r•:
-y* :f >¦ '.ia"«c
*c •:
r>.' ;«fr '¦ioc"rM» :«e ! -it *;r *<*•. -:*1 »*•»*¦ :*-"3 *« 2*"<»
¦ Of 3< -I'-t' — IT CI *r * *>' ***« l~r 55!*#f iSiXC, ;• :*-%
"*f §C«3 - J*".*'* ?'*** :?' " '*rl»j f " t#*** £*<• **-.j ' i ' S
»-• %rs 3.r;e* ^»e<" •>.:.•< J?c.r ;-r ?:r:Z: 3
PB93-163723
4 TITLE -ND S„3*ITLS
2 REPORT DATE
August 1992
I. REPORT ty?e and oatis COVESEQ
final report 1971 - 1991
i 5 FU-SC SG Nw% 3£h5
Pesticides In Ground Water Database
A Compilation Of Monitoring Studies: 1971 - 1991
Region 1
none
6. AUTHORS)
Constance Hoheisel Leslie Davies-Hilliard
Joan Xarrie Patrick Harmon
Susan Lees
7. .-HfCrVNQ CO A.N ZA'.Ci NAMitS) AN" 3 A2DseS5;IS»
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticide Programs
Environmental Fate & Effects Division (1I7507C)
401 M. St.
Washington, DC 20-60
1. =r.::?v -i-j . r.rcN
ii 'C*T V/. 3-.X
EPA 734-R-92-002 j
1
•) iPCSW.SG MCNTC-. N5 ag-ncy sa.VE.SS and AOOflESS.ES)
same as above
J. SrONSC N<3 VrNi'CiNCi
AC-t'lCV ' i . . .'cE*
same as abcvc
t "« '. A ; M t N T
publically available, no limitations
«2S CIS"? 3- : CH CCD?
* 3 A3S7hACT Vj.
-------
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.
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database • 1992 Report
Pesticides in Ground Water Database
A Compilation of Monitoring Studies; 1971 - 1991
Region 1
Office of Pesticide Programs
Environmental Fate and Effects Division
Environmental Fate and Ground Water Branch
Henry Jacoby, Chief
Pesticide Monitoring Program Section
Constance Hoheisel
Joan Karrie Susan Lees
Leslie Davies-Hilliard Patrick Hannon
Roy Bingham
Ground Water Technology Section
Elizabeth Behl
David Wells Estella Waldman
August 1992
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report, Region 1
CONTENTS
OVERVIEW OV-1
REGIONAL MAP . ; OV-14
GRAPH: WELLS BY STATE OV-15
STATE SUMMARIES:
CONNECTICUT
State Map 1-CT-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-CT-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-CT-4
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Connecticut 1-CT-ll
Table: State of Connecticut - Wells by County l-CT-39
MAINE
State Map 1-ME-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-ME-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-ME-3
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Maine l-ME-7
Table: State of Maine - Wells by County l-ME-21
MASSACHUSETTS
State Map 1-MA-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-MA-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-MA-4
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Massachusetts 1-MA-l 1
Table: State of Massachusetts - Wells by County l-MA-19
NEW HAMPSHIRE
State Map 1-NH-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-NH-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-NH-4
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of New Hampshire I-NH-9
Table: State of New Hampshire - Wells by County l-NH-13
W
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report, Region 1
CONTENTS
RHODE ISLAND
State Map . 1-RI-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-RI-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-RI-4
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Rhode Island 1-RI-ll
Table: State of Rhode Island - Wells by County l-RI-17
VERMONT
State Map 1-VT-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-VT-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-VT-4
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Vermont 1-VT-l 1
Table: State of Vermont - Wells by County l-VT-21
APPENDICES
Pesticide Cross-Reference Table Appendix 1-1
National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells Appendix II-1
n|
-------
\
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? This type of monitoring is intended to provide information on
a national level involving large numbers of pesticides. It does not provide information
concerning localized problems or long-term trends. This method of data gathering is also
extremely resource-intensive. An alternative approach for OPP is to support and gather
information from monitoring studies performed by others. Since the responsibility for
protecting the nation's ground water is shared by federal and state governments, OPP's data-
handling responsibilities not only include procuring the most current information for its own
needs, but also sharing this information with its partners in state and federal agencies. The
development of the Pesticides in Ground Water Database is a step in this direction.
OV-2
-------
III. BACKGROUND
OPP began collecting ground-water studies for the PGWDB in the early 1980s, In 1988,
an effort was made to review and catalog these data. Summary results of this effort were
computerized and then published in the Pesticides in Ground Water Database: 1988 Interim
Report.4
Since the 1988 Interim Report was issued, many things have changed. State-sponsored
projects, initiated in the late 1980s, have been completed and digitized, monitoring
methodologies and computer technology have improved, and the quality and quantity of data
have increased. Based on extensive use of the 1988 database by OPP's Ground Water
Technology Section and the comments received from other users, both within and outside
of OPP, the computerized database and the hard-copy report were restructured. The new
computerized structure is more appropriate for the quality and quantity of the information
currently available, as well as for that expected in the future. The new structure is both well
and sample specific; that is, it contains description and location information for each well
sampled and the results of each analysis. This structure allows ground-water monitoring
data to be sorted in a variety of ways, such as by well depth, well location, and sampling
date. The new report structure provides national, regional, state and county summaries so
that readers can select the resolution appropriate for their needs.
Most of the data in the PGWDB have been produced directly by state agencies or by
private institutions that are sponsored by federal or state agencies. Some pesticide industry-
sponsored studies have also been included in the PGWDB. These studies were conducted
to support the registration status of a particular pesticide and were generally conducted in
areas that are vulnerable to ground-water contamination by pesticides.
The database is a compilation of data submitted in several different formats, including
computerized and hard-copy sampling results as well as hard-copy reports containing study
descriptions and summary information. Many states are now routinely storing their data in
computerized form and have shared their data with OPP. Some of the hard-copy data are
from older studies that were never computerized. Some are from studies that have been
computerized, but OPP has not yet been able to obtain the data. OPP is also retaining
hard-copy final reports for as many studies as possible. These reports provide vital
information such as study design, well design, analytical methods, quality control and
environmental conditions.
The focus of the PGWDB is quite narrow. It contains only ground-water monitoring
data in which pesticides were included as analytes. Therefore, the PGWDB does not
replicate STORET5 or WATSTORE6. While these large databases contain some pesticide
monitoring data and some ground-water data, their primary focus is general water quality.
As a result, these databases contain a great deal more information about water quality, but
lack many of the pesticide focused studies that are included in the PGWDB. Many states
have used STORET to store water-quality data, including analyses for pesticides. STORET
data were downloaded and added to the PGWDB when the data could be directly
OV-3
-------
associated with specific study summaries or reports sent to OPP by state agencies. These
state agencies provided their agency code, station codes, parameter codes, sampling dates
and other pertinent information so that the correct data could be extracted from STORET.
Data from the National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells (NPS)3 have not
been included in PGWDB, since these data have been recently and extensively presented
elsewhere. We are currently working on electronically transferring the results of the NPS
pesticide analyses so they will be available when the PGWDB becomes part of the PIN.
IV. THE COMPUTERIZED DATABASE
The computerized database consists of three files related to each other by study
identification and unique well number. The first file contains information describing the
study, the second contains information describing each well and the third contains sample
information. Data elements stored in these files are presented in Figure 1. These data
elements are based on EPA's recommended minimum set of data elements for ground-water
monitoring published in Definitions for the Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground-Water
Quality, July 22, 1990?
FIGURE 1. Data Elements for the Pesticides in Ground Water Database
STUDT HIE
[ W£U fltt
| 5
I PO Address(es)
depth to Water Table (m)
Limit of Detection (ug/L)
PO Telephones)
1
Welt Depth (m)
Sample date
USEPA Region
Depth to Top and Sotton of Screen
Interval (m)
Analytical Method8
Starting and Ending Dates
Well Type*
a
Origin of Contamination
Publication Date
Well Los 8 Other Information*
Abstract
Attitude6
1. This is a unique identifier assigned to each well in the well file. Many states have assigned a unique
identifier to wells sampled. In these cases, the number was retained, and used in the PGWDB as that well's
unique well number.
2. The Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) alphabetic or numeric codes for states (example MI
is the alphabetic code for Michigan, 26 in the numeric code for Michigan). County codes are three digit
numeric codes.
OV-4
-------
3. Coordinate representations thai 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 13 service
connections or serves at least 25 permanent residents.
Drinking water public non-community - wells serving public facilities such as Ere 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 mil 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 "Pesticides" table is illustrated in Figure 2. In this table, information is organized
by pesticide. The monitoring locations, sampling frequencies, number of wells
monitored, sampling results and concentration ranges are provided. In the National
Summary, this table details the monitoring location to the state level and also includes
the regulatory status for each pesticide. In the regional volumes, monitoring location
is provided to the county level for each state and the table is expanded to include
monitoring data for samples taken from each well.
FIGURE 2. Pesticides Table
PESTICIDE SMCttHS II THE STATE OF
VEU RESULTS
SAMPU RESULTS I
tuuice of I
I resTictoe
ccunTt
*
DATE
3
TOTAL
VEILS
SAMPLED
*
i OF
POSITIVE
ItlU
3
total #
SAMPLES
6
NUMBER of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
r
tONCEtf- J
TRATtOH J
(W/O
«
m
a
Ma
<
MCI
«CL
•*
MCt
Patticlde A
County *
1989/
1.3
1990/6
County S
1987/
1-5
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS Oft SAMPLES
9
10
10
11
12
12
Prolicide ft
County A
1989
1990
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
County 9
1987
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
I
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 pesticide by the USEFA 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.
1 Well sampling dates are 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.
£ 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 tabte. If neither
of these values were established, the well was classified as less than the MCL. Wells were classified based upon
their highest analytical result. Therefore, any well with at least one positive analysis equal to or greater than the
MCL or HA during the time period listed in the date column (3) was classified as > MCL. Any well with at least
one positive analysis but all analyses less than the MCL or HA was classified as < MCL.
£ The total number nf sample* analyzed for that pesticide within the time period recorded in the date column.
7 Samples with pesticide detections were counted based upon whether the results were above or below the MCL
or lifetime HA as stated in 5 above.
1 The range of positive results in ug/L (ppb) for the time period specified in the date column.
2 The total number of discrete wells that were sampled at least once and analyzed for the pesticide listed in
column 1. *See Note
JO The total number of discrete wells in which the pesticide was detected based upon whether the results were
above or below the MCL. Wells were classified as explained in 5 above, based upon the highest analytical result.
11 Total number of samples analyzed for a particular pesticide.
12 The total number of samples in which the pesticide was detected that are > MCL or < MCL as explained
in 5 above.
13 The grand total of discrete wells sampled in the state for any pesticide. * See Note
14 The grand total of discrete wells with at least one detection of any pesticide. Wells are classified above or
below MCL or HA as explained in 5 above. 'See Note
15 Grand total of samples taken in the state. 'See Note
16 The grand total of samples with any pesticide detection for the state. Samples were classified as > or < the
MCL based upon their highest analytical result as explained in 5 above. *See Note
•Note: Some wells were sampled more than once, (i.e., during several successive years) and some wells were
sampled for more than one pesticide. Therefore, the total number of discrete wells is not necessarily the
arithmetic sum of the wells listed. Similarly some samples were analyzed for more than one pesticide, therefore,
the total number of discrete samples for the state will not be, in all cases, the arithmetic sum for the column.
OV-8
-------
Figure 3 illustrates the "Wells" table. In this table, ground-water monitoring information
is organized by well type, or use, and source of contamination. In the National
Summary, the information is summarized by state. In the regional volumes, the
information is summarized by county for each state in the region.
FIGURE 3. Wells Table
STMt Of
ICLLS BY amTY
SOUKTf
TYPES or 1*U5
SOUftCE OF
Of WCLLt}
fifitlKIK Mm
1
MOttirtXlKS
2
J
TOTAk 1 * <
SNPLD 1 *a NCL
* 1 5 I 5
TOT At 1 *
S#>L& { MCL
t 1 *
<
«a
5
SMPtd
4
i I « :
BCL *a
* I 5
*N I P%
* 1 7
W*
8
County A
1 1
1
1
1
County 8
1 1
1
1
1
tOTAt 9
I |
I
1
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.
2 Other wells include; irrigation wells, stock watering wells, springs, and tile drains.
4 Total number of each type of well sampled in each county.
J The number of wells per county in which a pesticide was detected. Wells were classified based upon whether
the results were above or below an MCL for any of the pesticides detected. If a pesticide did not have an
established MCL, the lifetime HA level was used. If neither of these values were applicable, the well was
classified as less than the MCL and it was so noted at the end of the table. Wells were classified based upon
their highest analytical result. Therefore, any well with at least one positive analysis greater than or equal to the
MCL or HA was classified as > MCL. Any well with at least one positive analysis but all analyses less than the
MCL or HA was classified as < MCL.
Contaminated wells were placed in one of the following categories based on the opinion of the study director:
1 NFU = Known or Suspected Normal Field Use.
2 PS = Known or Suspected Point Source.
J 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
-------
VL 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-1Q
-------
2) Monitoring for pesticides in ground water has not been performed in a uniform
manner throughout the United States. Some states have extensive monitoring
programs for pesticide residues, while others have more limited monitoring
programs. In general, more extensive ground-water monitoring programs tend to
be found in the states where pesticide use is heavy. This creates a picture that does
not necessarily represent the overall impact of pesticides on ground-water quality
nationwide.
3) Differences in ground-water monitoring study design can radically affect the results.
Many monitoring efforts were initiated in response to suspected problems, and
therefore yielded a disproportionately high number of positive samples. These
results cannot be extrapolated to represent a larger region or state. Other efforts
sampled a small number of wells or sampled under conditions in which
contamination was unlikely. Still others were statistically designed studies, intended
to be extrapolated to a specific population of wells. Each of these scenarios
presents a vastly different view of the condition of the ground-water resource
sampled.
4) Analytical methods and limits of detection have changed over time, and also vary
from laboratory to laboratory. Therefore, comparisons between the results of
different studies and across several years must be performed carefully to avoid
errors in interpretation.
5) Differences in construction, depth, location and intended use can greatly affect the
likelihood that a particular well will become contaminated by pesticides. Some of
these issues were addressed in the individual study summaries when such details
were available. However, this information was not always provided and tends to
be obscured when large amounts of data are summarized. The reader is cautioned
to read the study summaries carefully and interpret the resulting data summaries
conservatively.
VIII. THE FUTURE
The vulnerability of ground water to contamination by pesticides depends upon a variety
of factors including depth, topography, soil, climate, pesticide use and pesticide application
practices. In some cases, ground water is shallow or closely connected with surface water
and the results of surface activities can be observed within months. More often,
contamination is not observed for many years, allowing cause-and-effect relationships to
become obscured. This report, for the most part, is a retrospective examination of the
agricultural practices of the 1960s and 1970s, the results of which were observed through
monitoring performed 20 years later. The condition of our ground-water resources for the
next 20 years will be greatly affected by how we are handling our chemicals now. Our
challenge today is clearly prospective.
OV-11
-------
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is planning to publish a summaiy 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)
Region I
ME
192/490
VT
13/29
247/571
157/1826
Total Wells Sampled,
per State
m > 1800
501 10 1000
101 10 503
m si to 100
E3 1 10 50
D No wells sampled
OV-14
-------
REGION 1
WELL STATUS BY STATE
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
CT
MA
28
ME
IXXXXXjl
192
58
157
j | 490
571
VT
NH
200 400 600
WELL COUNTS
800
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL ^ WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
OV-15
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
STATE SUMMARIES
SSH
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Connecticut
10/50
::l/32
Total Wells Sampled
per County
Esa
m
E3
~
> 1000
501 to 1000
101 to 500
to 100
to 50
51
i
No wells sampled
Pesticides Detected
1, 2-Dichloropropane
2, 4-D
2, 4, 5—T
2, 4,5-TP
Alachlor
Atrazine
Chlordane
Cyanazine
DDE
Dichlorprop
EDB
Diazinon
Dlcamba
Dieldrln
lindane
Metolachlor
Metribuzin
Proroeton
Prometryu
Propazine
Simaztne
Trichloroethylene
1-CT-l
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
CONNECTICUT
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUNDWATER
In 1986, the Connecticut General Assembly passed Special Act 86-44, spurred by the
discovery of numerous cases of ground water contamination, in the north-central part of the
state, with ethylene dibromide (EDB), a soil fumigant used by Connecticut's tobacco
growers. An ongoing testing program conducted by the State Department of Health
Services (DOHS) has found that 54 public-supply and 276 private wells have been
contaminated in excess of the maximum allowable drinking water level of 0.1 ppb. EDB is
no longer applied and contaminated wells have either been supplied with treatment, or
alternated water supplies have been provided to affected individuals. The widespread
contamination by EDB raised concerns about other pesticides still in use in Connecticut.
Thus, Special Act 86-44 required the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in
cooperation with the US Geological Survey and the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment
Station (CAES) to investigate the occurrence of pesticides in ground water. The key
objectives of the Act were to:
1. inventory the usage of pesticides with the potential to contaminate ground
water,
2. identify soil and subsurface conditions that affect the susceptibility of ground
water to pesticide contamination, and
3. collect and analyze ground water samples in areas thought to be susceptible
to contamination.
The goal of the State of Connecticut is, wherever feasible, to restore of maintain all ground
waters to a quality consistent with its use for drinking without treatment. (Connecticut's
Water Quality Standards, September 1986).
Preceding page blank
l-CT-3
-------
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUNDWATER
Bradford R. Robinson, Report on Findings of 1,2 Dichloropropane in Ground Water,
Pesticide Control Section, Department of Environmental Protection, State of Connecticut,
Tel.: 203-566-5148. Study conducted in 1984. (Reported 1986, 2 pp.)
Primary Objective
This sampling was initiated to survey wells for contamination by Vorlex*, 1,2-
dichloropropane (1,2-D) and 1,3-dichloropropene (13-D) in the counties of New Haven
(towns of Branford, Cheshire, and Guilford), Middlesex (towns of Cromwell and
Middlefield), Hartford (towns of East Windsor, Farmington, Manchester, Simsbury, Bristol,
Rocky Hill, West Suffield, and South Windsor), and Tolland (towns of Ellington and
Bolton).
Design
Eighty-four (84) samples were collected from 78 private drinking water wells, and 11
samples were collected from 4 public drinking water wells. The samples were analyzed for
1,2-dichloropropane by gas chromatography and confirmed by gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry (GC/MS). The detection level for 1,2-D is 0.015 ppb.
Results and Conclusions
Eleven of the private wells (15 samples) were positive, with ranges from 0.05 to 290 ppb.
Two of the public wells were positive (4.7-14.8 ppb). Eight of these wells were
contaminated at levels above the Maximum Contaminant Level of 5 ug/L (ppb). In the
town of Bristol, Hartford County, two wells were positive at 290 ppb and 14 ppb. The well
with 290 ppb was retested and yielded 220 ppb. A source for public water is located near
this site. The 14-ppb well was not retested. In the town of Bolton, Tolland County, four
wells were contaminated. Resampling was performed with the following results: the well
with 51 ppb yielded 9.5 ppb, the well with 12.4 ppb yielded 8.9 ppb, and the well with 0.96
ppb yielded 0.66 ppb. A sample taken from a well in Cromwell (Middlesex County)
contained 14.8 ppb. However, this appears to indicate either veiy transient contamination
or is a false positive finding, since four subsequent samples were all negative.
Since the original sampling and testing were reported (1984), subsequent sampling showed
approximately 25 to 30 additional wells contaminated with 1,2-D. Investigations have shown
that this contamination is most likely due to the use of Vorlex soil fumigant on strawberries
and tobacco. No evidence of misuse and no dump sites that might have led to the
contamination were found. In 1984 four (4) wells showed 1,3-D at levels below 1 ppb,
subsequent sampling in 1985 detected no contamination. Whether the positive results were
a laboratory error or transitory contamination is not known.
l-CT-4
-------
Paul Ritsick, Principal Sanitary Engineer, Water Supplies Section, DHS, State of
Connecticut. Tel, Number: 203-566-1256, Study conducted 1984-1987. (Reported 12/31/87,
126 pp.)
Primary Objective
In February, 1984, EDB was found as residues in cereal grains. Concern for the possible
contamination of ground water by EDB a monitoring program of locations known to be
EDB application sites.
Pesigp
The Pesticides Compliance Section of the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection provided a list of EDB application sites, primarily for tobacco crops. The records
were incomplete, so sites were selected not only based on those records, but also by locating
existing wells near tobacco and corn fields, with abandoned tobacco bams on the property,
indicating that EDB was once applied to tobacco fields there. Initial sampling showed a
modestly high incidence of low-level contamination. Therefore, the monitoring program was
expanded in late 1984 and 1985 to take up to 125 samples/month. All positive wells were
resampled. The analysis methodology was gas chromatography, using electron capture
detection. The detection level for EDB in these analyses was 0.05 ppb.
Over a three year period 3477 samples were taken from 2080 private drinking water wells.
Multipe samples were often taken at various well depths. Seven hundred twenty-two
samples were also taken from 278 public drinking water wells. Samples were taken from
16 towns in Hartford County, two towns in Middlesex County, and three towns in Tolland
County. Towns were choosen which had a history of current practice of tobacco farming.
Results
Seven-hyndred eighty-four of the wells sampled had measurable residues of EDB, Four-
hundred sixty-eight had concentrations which exceeded the MCL of 0.05ug/L.
M.A. Cervione, Jr., L.A. Weiss, J.R Bohr, and J.W. Bingham, Water Resources Data,
Connecticut Water Year 1987, US Geological Survey (USGS);
MA Cervione, Jr., B.S. Davies III, J.R Bohr, and J.W. Bingham, Water Resources Data,
Connecticut Water Year 1988, US Geological Survey;
MA. Cervione, Jr., B.S. Davies III, J.R. Bohr, and B.W. Hunter, Water Resources Data,
Connecticut Water Year 1989, US Geological Survey;
Primary Objective
These volumes of the annual hydrologic data report for Connecticut are a part of a series
of annual reports that document hydrologic data gathered from the US Geological Survey's
surface and ground-water data-collection networks in each State. These records of
streamflow, ground-water levels, and quality of water provide the hydrologic information
needed by State, local and federal agencies and the private sector for developing and
managing our Nation's land and water resources.
l-CT-5
-------
BfiSign
Ground water samples from 187 monitoring wells were analyzed for the presence of 45
pesticides over a three year period. Wells were located in 8 counties and are part of the
national and state network of observation wells. Each well monitored is described in detail
including location by latitude and longitude, aquifer identification, well characteristics, water
levels, etc. Samples for water quality analysis were generally collected once per year.
Occasionally more that one sample was collected if conditions warranted additional
investigation. Some of the wells reported in these studies are also included in the Study of
Pesticide Contamination in Connecticut's Ground Water, Interim Report 1988 described
below.
Results
Fifty-seven (57) of the 187 wells sampled contained measurable amounts of pesticides. Five
(5) of these wells contained pesticides above the federal MCL or lifetime health advisory
(HA) level. Pesticides found above these levels were atrazine, alachlor, simazine, and
trichloroethylene. These were also the most frequently found pesticides.
Thomas R.E. Keeney, Commissioner of Environmental Protection, Study of Pesticide
Contamination in Connecticut's Ground Water, Interim Report 1988, Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
Primary Objective
This study was performed in response to Special Act 86-84 by DEP in cooperation with US
Geological Survey and Connecticut Agricultural Experimental Station (CAES).
Design
Agricultural and nonagricultural uses of pesticides in Connecticut were inventoried, and a
list of pesticides having the potential to contaminate ground water due to their physical and
chemical properties was prepared at the beginning of the study. The selection of field sites
for monitoring reported in the 1988 Interim Report focused on stratified drift aquifers.
These aquifers, found in most of the State's river valleys and generally composed of sand
and gravel, are important sources of public water supply. Because they are composed of
permeable sand and gravel and have relatively shallow depth (5-15 ft.) to the water table,
stratified drift aquifers are very productive. However, they are also highly susceptible to
contamination from land application or disposal of chemicals.
The University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension Service sent over 3000 letters
requesting cooperation from farmers, nurseries and golf courses. Only 130 responses were
received, of which 30 agreed to participate. However, only one site was located on stratified
drift. The principal concern of potential participants was the issue of liability should
contaminants be found. Additional sites were located on state and municipally-owned land,
with 19 selected for drilling and sampling. Sixteen sites were agricultural fields and one
each was located on residential, nursery, and golf course property. Soil cores were analyzed
from all sites. Thirty-one (31) monitoring wells were installed on 17 of the sites. Two of
the sites were dry and no wells were installed.
l-CT-6
-------
Results and Conclusions
Wells sampled for this study were also a part of the USGS report: Water Resources Data,
Connecticut Water Year 1988. Water quality sampling was conducted during the late
summer. Results of analyses were reported for 15 pesticides. Detectable concentrations of
pesticides were found at seven sites (9 wells). The pesticides detected, range of
concentration and current EPA Health Advisory Levels are presented in the table below.
All compounds detected in water were herbicides, except for EDB and 1,2-D which are soil
fumigants. All sites where monitoring occurred, except one were associated with com fields.
SUMMARY OP PESTICIDE DETECTIONS
Pesticide
Detections
wills/samples
Cooeeatratioo
Rangtfug/L)
MCL
(»g/L)
lifetime
HA (ug/L)
AJachlor
1/2
0.10-13.08
2.0
Atmzinc
5/6
0.40*9.7
3.0
Dicamba
1/1
0.01
200.0
EDB
3/5
0.14-030
0.05
Metolachlor
3/5
0,20-32.32
100.0
lJ-Dichloio-
ptopane
1/1
13
5.0
5.0
Simazinc
1/1
9,1
1.0
4.0
2,4-D
2/2
0.01
70.0
TOO
Thomas R.E. Keeney, Commissioner of Environmental Protection, Report to the Legislature
on Pesticides in Ground Water, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Primary Objective
This study was performed in response to Special Act 86-84 by DEP in cooperation with US
Geological Survey and Connecticut Agricultural Experimental Station (CAES). This study
is a continuation of the interim report cited above.
Design
The study tested 188 ground water samples taken from 89 wells at 59 sites over a three year
period. Samples were taken from monitoring wells located beneath or next to areas of
pesticide use, thus pesticides found in the samples are presumably due to normal
application, not spills during tank filling or leaks during pesticide storage. Sampling sites
included agricultural use land, golf courses, residential, commercial and recreations use.
Most sites were located on State and municipally-owned land. Sites were located on
stratified drift or till/bedrock.
l-CT-7
-------
Results and Conclusions
Pesticides were detected in ground water at 39 sites (66%) and the concentrations of
pesticides exceeded the April 1990 federal health advisories at 7 sites (12%). The results
indicate that pesticides can and do migrate to ground water after normal application. One
pesticide in common use, atrazine, was detected in ground water at 76% of the sites where
it had been applied. Other pesticides screened in the study were detected less frequently,
and some were not found at all. Twenty-four (24) pesticides were detected in the study,
most at low concentrations.
SUMMARY OF PESTICIDES DETECTED IN GROUND WATER
Pesticide
Detect ions
No. of Wells
Concentration
Range (ug/L)
MCL
Lifetime HA
(«g/L)
AJactilor
2
0.1-110
2,0
Alraiine
25
01-9 7
30
Chlordanc
2
0.1
2.0
Chlorpyrifos
1
001
20.0
Cyanazine
2
0.01
1.0
1,2-Dichloro-
propane
2
0.4-1.3
5.0
2,4-D
3
0.01
70.0
70.0
DCPA &
metabolites
15
0.01-124
4000
DDE
2
0.001
DDT
1
0.002
Dicamba
1
0.01
200
Dieldrin
3
0.001-0.10
Diuron
3
0.02-0.07
10
EDB
2
0.2-0 S
0.05
Lindane
1
0001-0004
0.2
0.2
Metolachlor
8
0.1-26
100
Mctfibuiin
2
0.1-1.3
200
Oxamyl
4
0.42-2-5
2000
60
Pictoram
1
0.1
500
500
Promtton
1
0.01
100
Prometiyne
1
0.9-1.1
Propazine
1
0.1
10
Simazine
9
0.1-10
1
4
Terbacil
J
0.1-2.1
90
l-CT-8
-------
This study confirms that certain pesticides can and do move down through the soil and into
ground water. Concentrations in ground water detected in this study are generally low, but
about 12 percent of the sites studied had pesticides in ground water above federal health
advisories. Management strategies for these chemicals should balance the dependence of
contemporary agricultural practices on pesticides against the threats they pose to human
health. Although most agriculture currently depends heavily on the use of herbicides, there
are techniques for reducing or eliminating pesticide use while maintaining adequate
production. At the same time, more information is needed on the effect of current and
projected levels of pesticides in ground water will have on human health and the
environment. It is recommended that the State undertake activities that will help fanners
and homeowners voluntarily reduce the use of pesticides at minimal cost, and collect needed
information on pesticides and ground water, particularly information on whether pesticides
are reaching drinking water supplies.
Note: Data from this report are not included in the summary tables for Connecticut. The
information presented in this report was not detailed enough and the analytical data, which
will be published by USGS, was not yet available.
l-CT-9
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
PESTICIDE &AWH.IMS IN THE STATE Of CONNECT I OUT
1,2-Dlchloropropane to Heptachlor apoxid*
WELL RESULTS
SAWLE 8fSUITS
*MSE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING ]M THE STATE OF CONNECTiCUT
1,2-Dichloropropane to Meptachlor epoxide
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
WUHS Of
COKCE#-
rsAiiais
usm
psmcu* j
CCUH17
wrc
TOTAL
«=us
SAMPIE&
# OP
posww
WELLE
T6IAI f
SAMPLES
Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
year/
NOMTH
5
KCL
MtL
I
act
-net -'
(2.4.51)
KMTFORO
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/6-8
74
0
1
80
0
1
0.06
1989/6-8
22
0
0
22
0
0
UTOtfiilO
1988/6-8
5
0
1
5
0
1
0.40
1989/6,8
3
0
0
3
0
0
HIDOLESEX
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1989/6,7
7
0
0
7
0
0
NEW *AVE«
1988/6.8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
NEW tCMDOtf
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/B
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/7.8
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOLLAMO
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/5-8
15
0
0
17
0
0
1989/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
a
^wiotha*
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SANPLES
124
0
2
169
0
2
0.06-0.40
Z.O-TP
(Sffvex>
FAiRFIElO
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
WS8TFW0 •'-)
1987/8.9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3-8
74
0
1
80
0
1
0.02
1989/6-8
22
0
0
22
0
0
tTTCHFJELfl
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6.7
3
0
0
3
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
;
1989/6,7
7
0
0
7
0
0
NEW KAVEM
1988
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
NEW IOKOOM
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/7,8
3
0
0
3
0
0
l-CT-12
-------
PESTICIDE SAWLIKG IN THE STATE OF COIMECTICUT
1,2-Dichloropropanc to Meptachlor epoxide
WELl '¦««£«
"m-v- saw>ie sesults
SAUGf Of
eotfCEH-
THAI IONS
ijia/n
PfSTJCJO?
CO*n
SATS
10TAL
WE Li.S
SAMPLED
# Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
¦ tatAt:*7
:: SAHPtfr
KSlTlVfc
SAMPLE'S
it*.ft/
MONTH
2
mcl
%
MCL
I
*Cl
.. Mt
(2,4,5-TP)
tolland
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/S-B
15
0
0
17
0
0
1989/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
tfWDKAH
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
124
0
1
169
0
1
0.02
fAlRPlELD
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
HARTWRO
1987/6-9
53
1
1
55
1
1
0.10-11.0
1989/6-8
26
0
1
26
0
1
0.10
tITCHFIEtO
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1989/6-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
BtMLEsEX
1987/8,9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1989/6.7
9
0
0
9
0
0
Nltf >w*Ek ¦ -
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
NEW tONDOH ¦
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1989/7,8
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOllAND
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1989/6-8
7
0
0
7
0
0
WJIIDHSA
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/7,
8,11
8
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
136
1
1
140
1
2
0.10-11.0
Atdirfh
HARTFORD '
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6,7
14
0
0
14
0
0
VlTCHHEW
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
HtDBLESEX
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6,7
2
0
0
2
0
0
l-CT-13
-------
PESTICIDE SWUNG IK THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
1,2-OlchIoropropant to Htptichlor epoxide
WELL RESULTS
SAW IS KESUtTS
ftttltt Of
COKCM-
riAHGNS
Ufl/n
«ST|Cl«
cown
DATE
10TAL
*LLS
SAMPLED
# OF
POSITIVE
UELlS
TOTAL »
SAMPLES
KMSE* Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
re«/
MONTH
S
MCL
. •*'
net
I
*U
NCI
(Atdrin)
MEW HAVEN
1983/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
.
1989/6.7
i
0
0
6
0
0
-i^fw'twrowr:'
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5.8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLLADD
1988/6,7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
v'WMDKMt
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
129
0
0
'Awetryn V "
FAttRELD
1987/6-
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/6.8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
HARTFORO
1987/6-9
53
0
0
53
0
0
1988/6-8
25
0
0
39
0
0
1989/6-8
26
0
0
26
0
0
LITCHFIELD
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1988/6-8
4
0
0
7
0
0
1989/6-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/8.9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1988/5-8
6
0
0
12
0
0
1989/6,7
9
0
0
9
0
0
NEW HAVEN
1987/6.8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6.8
2
0
0
2
0
0
NEW IOHDON
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/5-8
7
0
0
8
0
0
1989/7,8
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOLLAND
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1988/5,7
6
0
0
9
0
0
1989/6,8
7
0
0
7
0
0
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/6-8
6
0
0
a
0
0
l-CT-14
-------
PESTICIDE SANPLIIG IH THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
1,2-Dichloropropane to Heptachlor epoxide
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS '
ftAMtt Of
COKCLH-
TRAT IONS
Ufl/U
PESTICIDE
oxmn
MTE
TOTAL * OF
«US | POSITIVE
SAMN.EO { UEUS
TOTAL t
SAHPJ.ES
KM8ES OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLE*
YEAR/
KONTM
! *
| KCl
MCI
I I *
act J net
(Ametryn)
1989/7,
8,11
8 | 0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
o
o
0
198
0
0
Airazine
1987/6-9
5
0
o
0
0
1988/6.8
2
0
2
2
0
2
0.20
1989/8
2
0
2
2
0
2
0.20
1987/6-9
53
2
3
53
2
3
0.10-9.7
1988/6-8
25
1
4
39
1
8
0.10-3,2
1989/6-8
26
0
5
26
0
5
0.10-1.5
UTCKFIEID
1987/6-9
19
0
3
19
0
3
0.10-0.50
1988/6-8
4
0
1
7
0
2
0.20-0.30
1989/6-8
4
0
2
4
0
2
0.10
HJDM.ESEX
1987/6-9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1988/5-8
6
0
0
12
0
0
1989/6,7
9
0
0
9
0
0
NEW HA.VE*i
1987/6,
8.9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6-8
2
0
0
2
0
0
NEW LOMDOM
1987/8
3
0
1
3
0
1
0.40
1988/5,
7,8
7
1
4
8
1
5
0.20-4.1
1989/7.8
9
0
5
9
0
5
0,10-1.3
toluto
1987/6-9
17
0
4
17
0
4
0.10-2.0
1988/S.7
6
0
4
9
0
5
0.10-0.30
1989/6-8
7
1
3
7
1
3
0.10-3.4
W1NDHAH
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/6-8
6
0
3
8
0
4
0.10-0.30
1989/7,
8,11
8
0
5
28 ||
9
0
5
0.10-0.80
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
139
4
264
5
59
0.10-9.7
Carbarvl J'-v'";.-'
fAIRFlfelP
1987/6-9
5
0
• 1 '
0
« IB
1989/8
2
0
o 1 ,
0
0 III
l-CT-15
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLIB6 II THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
1,2-Dichloropropane to Heptochlor epoxide
IE LI RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
*AM3£ »
«*C£N-
rUTiCHS
Uu/t)
PEstrciM
COUHTt
WTt
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
« or
POSITfVE
WELLS
TOtAl $
SAMPLES
: BUW8E8 OF
•w-NBITlWE
' SAMPLES
VEAR/
MONTH
t
*a
KB.
Z
MCI
(Carbaryt)
MMiTfOfiO
1987/6-9
51
0
0
51
0
0
1989/6-8
17
0
0
17
0
0
ttTOiriElA
1987/6-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
-
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MIDM.ESEX
1987/6-9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1989/6,7
6
0
0
6
D
0
XEU HAVE*
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
IIEW LOHOON
1987/8
3
0
0
3
D
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOtLAW
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1989/6,7
I
0
0
5
0
0
W1K0KAK
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
1989/8
1
0
=JL=
0
1
0
0
68
0
K7
0
0
Carboplieno
: thion
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
-
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6-8
K
0
0
14
0
0
ItTOtFIELO
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
NEW HAVEN !
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
i.
0
0
MEW LONDON
1987/8
2
0
0
1
0
0
1988/5.8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLLAND :
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
' '
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WINDHAM
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
101
0
0
126
0
0
l-CT-16
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE Of CONNECTICUT
1,2-Dichloroprop»r>e to Meptachlor epoxide
WE Li RESULT*
SAMPLE RESULTS
Milts Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
wo
PESTICiOe
coum
OATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
# or
posmve
WELLS
TOfAt #
samples
**8E* Of
^POSITIVE
-:'i*:S«0»LIS
*EAft/
: HONTN
i
MCL
Ma
I
wu
no.
Xarbophtfto-
tMon.aetJnrl
HASTFOCC
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
UtCTfflW
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
19B9/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
¦ *EV NAVEN
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6.7
4
0
0
4
0
0
nEW luNDON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLLAND
1988/6*8
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WINDHAM
1989/7
==2—r=
101
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL OtSCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
0
0
126
0
0
• Chlordane- "
HARTFORD'1
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/J,
6-8
72
0
3
79
0
3
0,01-0,30
1989/6,7
U
0
0
14
0
0
UTCNHEIO
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
NEW HAVEN
1988/6.8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
. #EW tOKDOW
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOtlAND
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
utmnM ': -
1987-89
10
0
0
11
0
0
1989/7
1
D
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
3
129
0
3
0.10-0.30
l-CT-17
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING lit THE STATE Of CONNECTICUT
1,2-Di ehloroproper* to Heptachlor epoxide
WELL BESULTS
"SAMPLE RESULTS
SAKGt Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
ptsTftioE
CCO«TY
PATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
« Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL f
SAMPLES
KMBES OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES':"
ITEM/
fcONTJt
i
net
: v
na
I
*a
¦ -M -
"CL
Cyan»rfn*
*Ai*Fl6U>
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
-HARTfORU
1987/6-9
53
0
0
53
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
25
0
0
39
0
0
1989/6-8
26
0
0
26
0
0
IITCHHELO
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1988/6-8
4
0
0
7
0
0
1989/6-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
MIDI LESEX
1987/8.9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1988/5-8
6
0
0
12
0
0
1989/6,7
9
0
0
9
0
0
KEW KAVtH v •
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
#EW lONDOS
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/5-8
7
0
1
8
0
1
0.10
1989/6-8
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOLLAND
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1988/5-7
6
0
0
9
0
0
1989/6-8
7
0
0
7
0
0
W1NBNA8
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/6-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
1989/7,
8,11
8
0
0
9
0
0
0.10
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
139
0
1
245
0
1
DDT '
HARTFORD :. •
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
a
79
0
0
1989/6,7
14
0
0
14
0
0
LITCUflELP
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-CT-18
-------
PESTICIDE SMCH.1KS IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
1,2-Diehloroprop«ri» to Hcptschlor epoxide
VEIL RESULTS
:"SA}^iLi-iRESULTS' "
I
PESTJCiM
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL
UEUS
SAMPLED
# OF
POSITIVE
)£LU
IOTM. f
SAMPLES
MMBI OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
RAfcSE Of I
COtfCEN- I
rBATiONS
'
*EAR/
NfiMTH
i
*CL
*
na
I
MU
<
KCL
-------
PESTICIDE SMTLING IN THE STATE Of CONNECTICUT
1,2-Oichloropropar* to Htptachlor •poxide
WE 11 RESULT*
ttHPtr RESULTS
SAUGE Qf
COKCEN-
TfcATlOUS
Us/n
PESTfCiM
ZOUHVl
DATE
"TOTAL
WELLS
SAHM-ID
t or
wsinvr;
lOTAl f
SAflPtFS
8U*8£R OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
XM/
MONTH
i
«L
<
KCL
t
*a
<
act
(DOE)
MIDDLESEX
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6,7
2
0
0
2
0
0
NEV HAVEN
1988/6.8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
: miand:: -
1988/5*7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
tftNOHAX
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
2
129
0
2
0.001
Oi^tlnen
HASTFORD
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
1
79
0
1
0.07
1989/6,7
U
0
0
14
0
0
tlTCMFIEtD
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
NEU HAVEH
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
MEW LOHMW
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5.8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLlANO
1988/5-7
11
0
a
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WINDHAM ; :
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
117
0
1
124
0
1
0.07
Dlcwrtss
FAIRFIELD - .
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
HAATFOftfi
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/8
18
0
0
23
0
0
1989/6-8
22
0
0
22
0
0
tilCKMn»
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6-8
3
0
0
3
0
0
'H'ODtfSEX
1987/8
3
0
1
3
0
1
0.01
1989/6,7
7
0
0
7
0
0
l-CT-20
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE Of CONNECTICUT
1,2-0iehlDroprop«n« to Meptachlor •poxide
i£U RESULTS
*ESOlTS
ftAi&E Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
Oig/n
P£STJC1«
COUNTY
DATE
WAL
WELLS
SAKH.ED
tf OF
posirrvt
«EILS
¦ TOfAi f
l&MEfi Of
positive
SAMPLES
-
YEAR/
*QNT«
£
MCL
<
*a
i
*U
<
NCI
(Oicarfce)
NEW HAVEN
1988/a
1
0
0
1
0
a
1989/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
NEW IONDO*
1987/8
2
0
D
2
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/7,8
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOUANO
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/5,7
5
0
0
7
0
0
1989/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
HELLS/SAMPLES
iflttSHAH
1989/8
_=L=
55
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
97
0
1
0.01
¦#1>:fchlt>rpraj3
' FAIRFIELD^
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
XA8TFCSD
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
74
0
1
79
0
1
0.09
1989/6-8
22
0
0
22
0
0
L1TCHMEL&
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6-8
3
0
0
3
0
0
mOBLESEX
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1989/6,7
7
0
0
7
0
0
NEW HAVEN
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
Q
1989/6-8
5
0
0
I
0
0
-NEW LONDON '
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/7,8
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOILAMD
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/5-8
15
0
0
17
0
0
1989/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
uiwjitAj*
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
125
0
1
168
0
1
0.09
l-CT-21
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE Of CONNECTICUT
1,2-Diehloropropane to Heptachlor epoxide
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE ftFSULTS
HAKSE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
ttASTFOBD
1987/12
1904
282
249
3099
770
304
0.03-7.1
MIDDLESEX ;
1987/12
41
3
1
65
7
7
0.02-0.09
TOLLAND
1987/12
447
184
65
931
424
94
0.03-8.0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
2392
469
315
4095
1201
405
0.02-8.0
..{ndMutfaiv
nastford:
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6.7
14
0
0
14
0
0
UTCHMEL©
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MfDDLESEX
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
NEW HAVEN
1988/5.8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
NEW tfiwbdn
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
l-CT-22
-------
PESTICIDE SMVH.IM6 IN THE STATE OF CQKNECTICUT
1,2-Dlchloropropine to HepUchlor epoxide
VEL1 RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS = :
RAtt&E Of
COMCEK-'
muoHS
<«/*)
•PESTICIDE
COUNTY
MTE
Total
WELLS
SAMPLED
4 Of
POSITIVE
WU.S
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
MUNSEfi Of r
POSITIVE !
SAMPLES *
TEAS/
MOUTH
£
MCI
<
MO.
t
net:
(Endosulfan)
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WINDttAM :
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
129
0
0
HAfiTFOBD
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6.7
14
0
0
14
0
0
UTCHH6U)
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
NEW HAVE*
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6.7
4
0
0
6
0
0
HEW IOXDOW
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
Q
0
4
0
0
i TOLLAHD
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
'UtUo'tUtM
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL discrete
wells/sanples
122
0
0
129
0
0
CtMen
KAftTFOfcO
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6,7
14
0
0
14
0
0
LITCXfJElO
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
NEW HAVEN
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
MEW LONDON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLLAND
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-CT-23
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
1,2-Diehleropropan# to xcptachtor epoxide
VIEU RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
KANGE OF
O-tSQKCBI*:-:-
TRATiOHS
f
COUttY
OATt
TOTAL
WELLS
- SAMPLED
Iff
POSITIVE
«US
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
NUMSR or
POSITIVE::;:-;
SAMPLES
TEAR/
MOUTH
t
HCL
¦net
CEtMon)
wiubhAh
1989/7
1
0 I 0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS'****! PS
117
0 | 0
124
0
0
fOiytan
HARTFOKO
1987/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3,
6-B
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6.7
14
0
0
14
0
0
LITCHFIELD
1987/7-9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
HIODlESEX •
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
NEW HAVEIi
1988/6.8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6.7
4
0
0
4
0
0
NEW IQKDO*
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/6,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
rOHAKO
1988/5-7
11
D
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
W'nDHAM; .
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
MELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
129
0
0
XARTFORO
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6,7
14
0
0
14
0
0
LITCxnElO
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
v
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
HIDDlESOt i:
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
; :• ¦
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
-• -•-
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6.7
4
0
0
4
0
0
liEW LONDON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,3
2
0
0
4
0
0
: tolland:'-7
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-CT-24
-------
PESTICIDE SAWLIHC IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
1,2-Diehloropropane to Heptschlor epoxide
WELL ftES&TS
5AWLE RESULTS
8AMSE Of
COUCEM-
tRATIONS
<«/0
PESTICIDE
i COUNT*
&ATE
TOTAL 0 OF
UELiS POSITIVE
SANPiED ! WELLS
TOTAL •
SAMPLES
MUHBEft Of
POSITIVE
SAKPLES
YEAR/
MONTH
1 fc
I KCl
<
•HO.'
e
«CL
<
net
(Heotachlor) il tftWWAH
1989/7
1 I 0
0
1 ,
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE 1
WELLS/SAMPLES II
122 | 0
0
129
0
0
#ept«eMor
;EpO*id*
HARTWM
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6,7
14
0
0
14
0
0
UTCHHEU)
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MIODIESEX
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
«fW HAVEN
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
:KE« iONDON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
Q
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLLAHD
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
19B9/6
1
0
0
1
_ 0
0
* .
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
1 WELIS/SAMPIES
122
0
0
129
0
0
l-CT-25
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN TIE STATE Of COKIIECT1CUT
lindane to Trifluralin
VEIL RESUTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAM6C OF
COtfCEN-
TXATIOKS
CM/l)
PESTICIDE
camiV
BATE
WAt
WELLS
SAKPtEO
* m
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL •
SAMPLES
KUMBE* Of
POSITIVE
SAMPtfS
YiAfi/
MONT})
t
HCL
<
wa
I
HCL
<
«CL
t inc5»f»
-------
PESTICIDE SAWLIKG III THE STATE Of COHiECTICUT
Lindane to Trifluraiin
WEU RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
*AKfiE OP
COKCQi-
7XATIOKS
1987/8,9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
RAKTFORD
1987/8,9
51
0
0
51
0
D
1989/6-8
17
0
0
17
0
0
LITCHFIELD
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
D
D
XIDOLESEX
1987/8.9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1989/6.7
6
0
0
6
0
0
KElt KAVtH
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6,7
5
0
0
5
0
0
KEU LOHOO#
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOIL MO
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1989/6.7
5
0
0
5
0
0
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
HELLS/SAMPLES
129
0
0
147
0
0
ifcthoxychlw*
HARTFORD
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3,
6-B
72
0
0
79
0
a
1989/6-8
14
0
0
U
0
0
litchficlo
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5 •
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
N1WHESEX
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
MEU HAVEN
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
4
0
0
4
0
0
kew twooti:
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOLLAMffP:
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
D
0
s
l-CT-27
-------
PESTICIDE SWUNG IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Lindane to Trifluralin
WELL RESUITS
'.;S«fflf'-«SkTs
ttAKGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
CM/l)
PESTICIDE
comrrr
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
» Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
total #
SAKPLES
•-iliOMBIl Of
¦^'POSITIVE i":'!
"SAHPtfS
TEAR/
HOUTtf
I
KCL
<
MCI
2
MCL
<
act
(Methoxychlor)
U! W) MAX
1969/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
II
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
122
0
0
129
0
•1
WlftFrEUT:
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
KARTfGRD
1987/6-9
53
0
2
53
0
2
2.0-26.0
1989/6-8
26
0
2
26
0
2
0.7
tITCWJEW
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1989/6-8
i,
0
0
4
0
0
NrODlESfiX
1987/8,9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1989/6,7
9
0
0
9
0
0
1987/6.8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6.8
2
0
0
2
0
0
'#Ey:.toNoos:"
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1989/7,8
9
0
1
9
0
1
2.1
iiTOLLAHO'^'
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1989/6-8
7
0
1
7
0
1
3.8
ylW>HA» :
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/7,
8.11
8
0
1
9
0
1
0.3
0.2-26.0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
137
0
5
178
0
7
ultetrTiljurSn V.;
: fAtRFIELO :';:v
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
: toTfdwr'-:,
1987/6-9
53
0
1
53
0
1
0.1
1989/6-8
26
0
2
26
0
2
0.5-1.3
UTOfFrfUj ••
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1989/6-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
HJBOtESEX
1987/8.9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1989/6,7
9
0
0
9
0
0
•¦NEW "HAVEN
1987/6,8
5
0
0
5
D
0
1989/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
l-CT-28
-------
PESTICIDE SAWLIN& !¦ THE STATE OF COWECT1CUT
Lindane to Triflyralin
SAMPLE SESUtTS
*A«S£ W
OMZEM- 1
TRATICMS
(M/l)
PESTICIDE
COURT*
DATE
- TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
* OF
»osmvE
WEILS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
JUMBEft ttf
POSITIVE
SAW>tE3
YEAR/
MONT*
t
NO.
<
HCL
t
KCL
<
HCL
(Netribuzin)
stu tOMDci:
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
-
1939/7,8
9
D
0
9
0
0
TOLLAND
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
Y;-
1989/6-8
7
0
0
7
C
0
VIWIttN
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/7,
8,11
8
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
137
0
2
178
0
3
0.1-1.3
HARTFOftO
1987/8.9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
Q
a
79
0
0
1989/6-8
14
a
a
14
0
0
LITCHFIELD
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
moots SEX
1987/8
1
Q
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
REtf SAVEtl
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6,7
U
0
0
6
0
0
NEW LOHDON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/5.8
2
0
0
4
0
0
TOltAMC
1988/5-7
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
:-uj'nohah':'-:::".
1989/7
1
D
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
129
0
0
i Paratlilan,
¦ ethyl ¦ ¦ ••
HAKTfOltO
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/3,
6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
LITCHFIELD
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-CT-29
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE Of COUECTiaJT
Lindane to Trifturtlin
WELL HESATS
sample results
RAWS or
cottcai'
1 RAT10*3
PESTICIDE
COUSTY
PATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
POSITIVE
WELLS
":4fOT*t t
SAMPLES
NUNSElt
pesm*
SAXPLE
w
It
s
TEAS/
KOUTX
I
MO.
"<
Ma
£
HCl
<
na
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING I* THE STATE Of CONNECTICUT
Lindane to THfluralin
UFLL ttSOLTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
SAKfiE Of
COKCEH-
TRAT10KS
PESTICIDE
COURT*
£>ATE
TOTAL
WEILS
SAMPLE t>
m or
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
HUME* Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
MONTH
i
MCL
MCI
t
HCL
<
net
(Piclorim)
*i»tfsex:£
1987/8
s
0
0
3
0
0
1989/6,7
7
0
0
7
0
0
KEU SAVER
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WW LOW) ON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/B
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOLLAWO
1987/8,9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/5-7
5
0
0
7
0
0
1989/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
WliBKAM
1989/8
1
0
0
92
0
0
54
0
0
0
0
: dinle*bii-': =; ?::;
FAISFIEIO
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
HARTFORD
1987/6-9
53
0
1
53
0
1
2.0
1988/6-8
25
0
1
39
0
1
0.10
1989/6-8
26
0
0
26
0
0
LITCHFIELD
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1988/6-8
6
0
0
7
0
0
1989/6-8
6
0
0
4
0
0
HlBOUiSEX
1987/8,9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1988/S-8
6
0
0
12
0
0
1989/6,7
9
0
0
9
0
0
HEW HAVES
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6.8
2
0
0
2
0
0
KEW LOSDDH
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
........ .
1988/8
7
0
0
8
0
0
1989/7,8
9
0
0
9
0
0
l-CT-31
-------
PESTICIDE SMVIIMB IN THE STATE Of CONNECTICUT
Lindane to Triflur«l1n
'
WELL RESULTS
wwLr ttsw^s
SAKE Of
COttCBI ¦
TKATIOKS
<»m
PESTICIQE
COURT f
WTE
JOT At
WELLS
SAMPLED
#01"
POSITIVE
WELLS
total #
GA*m$
*LH8EK Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
nw
MONTH
t
NCt
<
Ma
E
*£L
<
net
(Prometon)
: 1011**0
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1988/5-7
6
0
0
9
0
0
1989/6-8
7
0
0
7
0
0
WIWIRAM
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/6-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
1989/7,
JSJ1
8
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
139
0
2
264
0
2
0.1-2.0
-~"PfMBetfyn'"'"' -
FAiSFIElO
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/5-8
2
0
0
9
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
':KARTfO«> ;
1987/6-9
53
0
0
53
0
0
1988/6-8
25
0
1
39
0
2
0.9-1.1
1989/6-8
26
0
0
26
0
0
incHfteto
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1988/6-8
4
0
0
7
0
0
1989/6-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/8,9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1988/5-8
6
0
0
12
0
0
1989/6.7
9
0
0
9
0
0
HEU HAVEti
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6.8
2
0
0
2
0
0
MEU IOK50W
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/5-8
7
0
0
8
0
0
1989/7,8
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOLLED
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
D
1988/5-7
6
0
0
9
D
0
1989/6-8
7
0
0
7
0
0
l-CT-32
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF COfMECTiQfT
Lindane to Triflur»lin
WELL
RE9ILTS
SAMPLE RERH.TS
RAM6E «¦
COMCEM-
TRAT10K3
C*9/0
PESTICIDE
COURTY
SATE
total
WELLS
SAMPLED
M Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
NUMBER Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAS/
NQI1TK
fc | « '
Ma } MCI
C
«£L
<
{Prometryri)
U1N0MM
1987/8
2
0 0
2
0
0
1988/6-8
6
0 0
8
0
0
I
1989/7,
8.11
9
0 0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
I WELLS/SAMPLES
139
0 | 1
264
0
2
0.9-1.1
: fAWf 1EL0
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/6-B
2
0
0
2
0
0
•
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
D
HA*TR*0
1987/6-9
53
0
0
53
0
0
1988/5-8
25
0
1
39
0
2
0.10
1989/6-8
26
0
0
26
0
0
ItTCHFIEU)
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1988/6-8
4
0
0
7
0
0
1989/6-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
'iniDMlSEX..--:
1987/8,9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1988/5-8
6
0
0
12
0
0
1989/6,7
9
0
0
9
0
0
HEW HAVE#
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
MEU tONODM
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/5-8
7
0
0
8
0
0
1989/7.8
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOLL AW -
1987/6-9
17
0
1
17
0
1
0.10
1988/5-8
6
0
0
9
0
0
1989/6*8
7
0
0
7
0
0
W1WHAM
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/6-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
1989/7,
8.11
8
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
139
0
2 I
264
0
3
0.10
l-CT-33
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF COMCCTICUT
Lindane to Trifluralin
I
:::^«ELl'wES*.73
SAMPLE RESULTS
•
PtSTlCIOE
COUUT*
DATE
;IOTAI
-'"HELLS
SAMPLCD
M CP
POSITIVE
WELL?
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
MJH8E* Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
*AK6t Of
COMCE*-
TftATIOKS
TEAR/
NDHTH
i
NO.
*ct
Z
JCL
#a
Proptaa
rmsfino
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
KAJttJKttO
1987/6-9
51
0
0
51
0
0
1989/6-6
17
0
0
17
0
0
LITCHFXELO
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1989/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/8,9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1989/6.7
6
0
0
6
0
0
WM BAVtH
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6-8
5
0
0
5
a
a
NEW LOMDOM -
1987/8
3
0
a
3
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
:TOiU»© ¦¦¦::¦:
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1989/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
UIKJSAM
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/5AKPlES
129
0
0
147
0
0
-Siaaiifw
MISfJELD
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
MARTfORO ¦¦¦¦
1987/6-9
51
1
1
53
1
1
0.20-9.1
1988/5-8
25
1
1
21
1
6
0.10-10.0
1989/6-8
26
1
0
26
1
0
1.8
tlTCHFIEtO
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1988/6-8
6
0
0
7
0
0
1989/6-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
M1DOLESEX
1987/8.9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1988/5-8
6
0
0
12
0
0
1989/6,7
9
0
3
9
0
3
0,10-0.30
l-CT-34
-------
PESTICIDE SAWL1WG II THE STATE OF COttECIICUT
Lindane to Trifluralin
Utlt RESULTS
SAXPLE RESULTS
XAM6E OF
COKCt*-
1JUTIOKS
cw/t;
PE£T1CXDE
COUNTY
DATE '
: rOTAL
WELLS '
SAmtO
* OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
total #
; SAMPLES
SUMBEft OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
MOHTM '
t
na
*
HCl
t
#cl
<
net
(Sfmzlrw)
K£W &AVEH
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
REM LWOO*
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/5*8
7
0
1
8
0
1
0.10
1989/7,8
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOtlANB I-:-'-:
1987/6-9
17
0
1
17
0
1
0.10
1988/5,7
6
0
1
9
0
1
0.40
1989/6-8
7
0
0
7
0
0
W1N0KAM
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/6-8
6
0
1
8
0
1
0.01
1989/7,
8,11
8
0
a
9
0
0
12
0.10-10.0
total discrete
WEltS/SAMPtES
139
1
9
264
3
:Simetrvn
fAHtflELB
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
8ARTF0KD
1987/6-9
53
0
0
53
0
0
1988/6-8
25
0
0
39
0
0
1989/6-8
26
0
0
26
0
0
lITCHfI£t0
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1988/6-8
4
0
0
7
0
0
1989/6-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
MIDCIESEX
1987/8,9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1988/5-8
6
0
0
12
0
0
1989/6-B
9
0
0
9
0
0
NEW HAVEN
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
l-CT-35
-------
PESTICIDE SUPLIHG li THE STATE OF C0KMECTICU7
lindane to Trifluralfn
WEIL MSUU8
SAMPLE
ftAKGE. Of
COMCEM-
TKATIOKS
(K8/l>
PESTICIDE
canny
PATE
TOTAL
mi*
SAMPLED
« Of
posmre
WELLS
10TA1. *
SAMPLES
MLM9E1 Of
POSITIVE
SAMM.ES
TEAS/
MONTH
t ¦
NO.
MCL '¦
e
MCL
« : 1
HCi.
{Simetryn)
K£W LOWJCM
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/5-8
7
0
0
8
0
0
1989/7,8
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOUAKD
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1988/5-8
6
0
0
9
0
a
1989/6-8
7
0
0
7
0
0
U1K) HAM
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/6-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
1989/7,
8,11
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
139
0
0
264
0
0
'ToittfAer*;---
8ARTFOJ®
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1968/6-8
72
0
0
79
0
0
1989/6-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
tlTCHflElD
1988/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
-MIDDLESEX'':
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
sew haven
1988/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/6.7
4
0
0
4
0
0
MSU LMffiO* '
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/8
2
0
0
4
0
0
10LLAHD
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
windham -
1989/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
129
0
0
Tffehlpr&
€thy\ene
1987/6-9
13
0
1
13
0
1
3.3
1988/6-8
44
1
2
47
1
2
0.40-14.0
l-CT-3 6
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Lindane to Trifluralin
WELL RESULTS
. SAMPLE RfSULTS
SAtfSE OF
COMCBt*
TXATiOHS
<*B/U
WSTICIOE
COUKTY
DATE
torn
WELU
SAMPLED
# OF
POSITIVE
WEILS
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
HUME* Of
POSITIVE
SAHH.ES »
*6AR/
HONT*
I
Ma
<
MCL
2
MCL
<
*CL
(Triehloro*
ethylene)
LircafiEUs
1987/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/7
1
1
0
1
1
0
20.0
1987/6,8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1987/6-9
15
0
1
15
0
1
0.5
1988/4,7
3
0
1
3
0
1
1.1
TOTAL DISCRETE
wells/samples
75
2
5
83
2
5
0.4-20
"tr'if tvnaljri:
rASSFTELO
1987/6-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
HARTfORO i
1987/6-9
53
0
0
53
0
0
1989/6-8
26
0
0
26
0
0
LITCHHEU)
1987/7-9
19
0
0
19
0
0
1989/6*8
4
0
0
4
0
0
NJODLESEX
1987/8,9
6
0
0
6
0
0
1989/6-8
9
0
0
9
0
0
k€w HAVEN
1987/6,8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1989/6,8
2
0
0
2
0
0
«EU VMM
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1989/7,8
9
0
0
9
0
0
TOLLAND
1987/6-9
17
0
0
17
0
0
1989/6-8
7
0
0
7
0
0
U1W5HAH
1987/8
2
D
0
2
0
0
1989/7,
8.11
8
0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
137
0
0
178
0
0
CRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
2661
481
373 |
4570
1213
493
» No MCl or Lifetime HA Is available.
N.B. The reader is referred to the EDS totals mMcH account for more
than 99X of the walls and samples having values » MCL.
l-CT-37
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
UELLS BY COUNTY
COUNT*
types of mis
SOUKCE Of
: COKtAMlMATIOtt
(HUMBE8 OF WEU.5)
Mi NX IMG WATER
HONI TWINS
OTHER
TOTAL
SHM.0
6
net
«r
ML
TOTAL
WLP
t
*ct
<
HO.
TOTAL
SNPLD
I
act
<
MCI
PS*
wk'
0
0
0
12
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
Hartford
1945
286
251
100
2
23
0
0
0
56
1
0
tStefiffetd
0
0
0
20
1
5
0
0
0
6
0
0
Hiddlesex
48
4
2
10
0
4
0
0
0
10
0
0
He* Haven
22
0
1
10
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
."ileit-London
0
0
0
9
1
4
0
0
0
5
0
0
ToOscxi
459
186
67
1?
1
8
0
0
0
262
0
0
Windham'"'"
0
0
0
.
0
6
0
0
0
6
0
0
' TOTAL v
2474
476
321
187
5
52
0
0
0
853
1
0
NfU>Knowrt or Suspected Normal field Use
PS sKnoun or Suspected Point Source
UNK=Unknowr>
Preceding page blank
l-CT-39
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Maine
Pesticides Detected
Alachlor Endosulfan
Aldicarb
Chlorothalonil
Dieamba
Dinoseb
Methamidophos
Metribuziii
Picloraun
Total Wells Sampled
per County
m > 1000
m 501 to 1800
Q 101 to 506
ea si to 100
E2 i to 50
~ No wells sampled
1-ME-l
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
MAINE
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUNDWATER
The Ground Water Policy Review Committee of the Land and Water Resources Council
recommended to Governor Brennan in December of 1984, that a state-wide screen of the
impact of agricultural practices on ground-water quality be conducted. Detections of
pesticides in Maine and Connecticut had already been made. Governor Brennan and the
Legislature accepted the recommendation and directed the Maine Geological Survey,
Department of Conservation, to coordinate an inter-agency, three-year, screening study with
annual progress reports to the Legislature's Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUNDWATER
Neil, CD; Williams, JS; and Weddle, TK; Second Annual Report • Pesticides in Ground
Water Study; Maine Geological Survey, Department of Conservation; 1987 (207-289-2801)
Neil, CD; Williams, JS; and Weddle, TK Pilot Study: Pesticides in Ground Water - Final
Report; Maine Geological Survey, Department of Conservation; 1989.
Primary Objective of Studies
To determine the concentrations of certain pesticides and nitrates in selected wells which
were considered as "worst case" possibilities.
Design
To determine which pesticides should be considered, a matrix was developed which included
the quantity of each one sold, the application method used for it, and its leaching
characteristics. Aldicarb was specifically excluded from these studies since its use in Maine
had been restricted previously.
Sampling locations were chosen to provide information on pesticide concentrations in
various types of aquifers, as well as different agricultural areas of the State. Only wells
adjacent to fields where pesticides are used were selected. Based on results from the 1985
Pesticide Program, 1986 and 1987 sampling was concentrated in potato growing areas in
Aroostook County where agricultural chemical use is the highest.
Preceding page blank
l-ME-3
-------
Whenever possible, monitoring wells installed by the Maine Geological Survey, Maine
Department of Environmental Protection, and U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Aquifer
Mapping Project were sampled, as were similar wells from the USGS-MGS Saco River
Valley study. Use of these wells minimized logistical sampling problems and uncertainty
about well construction. In areas where monitoring wells were not available, private
household wells were used, mostly in Aroostook County. Private wells were used in orchard
sampling in central Maine. Eight monitoring wells, installed in Aroostook County as part
of the Aquifer Mapping Project, were sampled to supplement the private well Aroostook
County data base. Wells in Androscoggin, Hancock, Kennebec, Oxford, Penobscot,
Somerset and Washington counties were sampled also.
The studies were designed to explore the "worst case" scenario. It was assumed that ground
water in sand and gravel deposits would be most vulnerable to contamination, and the threat
to ground water from till and bedrock would be less pronounced.
Sampling of wells was conducted during the growing season, from mid-June to early
November, with most wells sampled more than once during this period. All wells that tested
positive for pesticides in one year were re-sampled the following year.
Analyses were not attempted for every pesticide in every sample taken. Included in one
screening procedure, for example, were 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-TP, dicamba, dinoseb, picloram,
and triclopyr. In another screening procedure, analyses were made for 27 other pesticides.
Methamidophos required a specific test. For a given well, there may have been samples
taken at different times, and with different combinations of analyses performed on each.
Methamidophos was the most prominent pesticide, being detected 4 times in 34 wells
(11.8%).
Samples from monitoring wells were filtered through 1.6 micron fiberglass filters to remove
sediment. Samples from private wells were not filtered since they were sediment-free. All
samples were refrigerated and delivered to the Maine Public Health Laboratory as soon as
possible after collection.
pesticides included in three-year study
COMPOUND
PETECTJP^ MM""
Mg/L
AJacblor
1,25
Atrazine
3.00
Arinphos methyl
5,00
Butylate
230
Capian
1,25
CarbaryJ
50.00
CirtKifuran
6.00
Chlorotfcalonil
1.25
COMPOVM?
PETPCTJON J-IMT
#»g/L
ErnJnn
JO
Ejttam [EPTC]
1.25
ETU
5.00
Hcxaiinonc
MOO
lmidan
(phosmei)
1230
Lindane
JO
| Linuron
12.00
Malathion
1.25
l-ME-4
-------
1*6/1-
DETECTION l.IMTT
0i/L
Chlorpyrifos
12$
II McthoxycUor
ISO
Cyanazine
19.00
Methyl parathion
.60
2,4-D
125
MetharakfopbcK
10.00
2,4,5-T
125
Mctribuzia
25
2,4,5-TF
25
PCNB
1J0
Dtaztaon
1.25
Pick) ram
1.25
Dieamba
125
Simazine
800
Difoiittti [captafol]
125
Trictopyr
JO
Disulfotoo
6.00
Tnfluralin
.60
I DNBP [dinoseb]
125
Bndosulfari
1.00
Results
The wells sampled in these studies were classified according to whether they were sand and
gravel, till, or bedrock. The unexpected result was the greater incidence of bedrock wells
containing pesticides, from potato and orchard/tree farms, compared to sand and gravel
types which had been thought most prone to the problem. Table 2 contains a breakdown
of the wells having detectable levels of pesticides in at least one sampling period, according
to the crop type and well type:
PERCENTAGE OF WELLS HAVING DETECTABLE LEVELS OF PESTICIDES*
CROP TTPi
WELL TYPE
Sard t Gravel
fill
Bedrock
Potato
15
20
42
Orchard
a
0
33
| Blueberry
18
a
a
Market garden/ forage
22
a
0
* Taken from "Pesticides In Ground Water, Final Report, 1989", by Creis 0. Weil,
John S. Willi sins, and Thomas K. Waddle (Maine Geological Survey},
a No nells fall into this category
l-ME-5
-------
Davis, WLA. to B. Kapner, 19 July 1988. Letter from Rhone-Poulenc with Office
Memorandum and data reporting well monitoring for aldicarb in Maine, EPA
Correspondence No. 88-255; USEPA, OPP/EFED, Washington, D.C,
, 6 November 1989. Letter from Rhone-Poulenc with attached
data reporting well monitoring for aldicarb during 1989 in Maine. EPA Correspondence
No. 89-368; USEPA, OPP/EFED, Washington, D.C.
Love/4 J.S. to M. Branagan, 27 August 1985. Letter from Union Carbide with attached data
titled Summary of Aldicarb Residues in Main Water Supplies, 1980-1985. EPA
Correspondence No. 391-85; USEPA OPP/EFED, Washington, D.C.
Rourke, R. and R. Jones (1990) Rhone-Poulenc and Maine Department of Agriculture 1990
Aldicarb Potable Wei! Sampling. Research Triangle Park, NC: Rhone-Poulence
Agricultural Company.
Objectives
These data are part of a long term monitoring program by Union Carbide (Rhone-Poulenc)
performed in support of registration requirements for Temik [aldicarb].
Method?
Sampling was performed on 440 drinking water wells in Aroostock, Penobscot, Kennebec
and Cumberland counties. Nine-hundred fifty-six (956) samples were analyzed for aldicarb
residues over a 9 year period.
Results
One-hundred sixty-six of these wells were positive for aldicarb, and 97 had residues above
the MCL of 3 ug/L. Aldicarb has not been used extensively on potato crops in Maine since
the early 1980's. In 1990 Rhone-Poulenc voluntarily stopped the sale of Temik (the trade
name for aldicarb) for use on potato crops in Maine because of reported residues in excess
of tolerances. Even though usage has been limited in Maine, residues are repeatedly being
found in potable wells in use areas, and concentrations increased at a significant number of
sites in 1990. In 1990, Rhone-Poulenc sampled 36 drinking water wells for aldicarb residues;
21 showed positive results and the concentration of aldicarb exceeded the EPA guideline
of 10 ppb in 7 of those wells.
l-ME-6
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE Of MIME
WEIL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
KANGE Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
PESTJClOg
cooxn
PATE
TOTAL
UELtC
SAMPLES
* OF
POSITIVE
VEILS
TOTAL #
SAWLES
NLJKSS* OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAS/
MOMTM
I
MCI
«ct
t
HCt
<
AHOOSTOOK -
1986
60
0
0
74
0
0
1987
14
0
0
19
0
0
OXFORD :
1986
2
0
0
2
0
«
PEN08SC0T
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
6
0
0
8
0
0
1987
3
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRITE
WEILS/SAMPLES
62
0
0
119
0
0
AB0OS70C*
1986
40
0
0
74
0
0
1987
14
0
0
19
0
0
OXFORD
1986
2
0
0
2
0
0
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
MASH JliGTON ;
1986
6
0
0
8
0
0
1987
3
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
62
0
0
119
0
0
2,4,5-TP
rsi iv«*)
i AROOSTOOK ^
1986
40
p
0
74
0
0
1987
14
0
0
19
0
0
•'okFow-'^
1986
2
0
0
2
0
0
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
yASMIIlQTOtt
1986
6
0
0
8
0
0
1987
3
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
62
0
0
119
0
0
Alectilor
SCOSGIBV :-•••¦' •:
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
ABOOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
¦HABCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
"'ttHNfBEC¦
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
'PEK08SC0T •'•¦¦¦
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
l-ME-7
-------
PESTICIDE SAW LING IN THE STATE Of MINE
WEUSESULTS
V-' SAMPLE RESULTS
•Micro#"':
'':«SKCfN-vi::
TRATIONS
<«n>
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
DATE
TO'AL
WELLS
SAMPLED
M OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAl #
SAMPLES
MUHBEft OF - :
¦ POSITIVE1
: SAMPLES
««/
KWTB
i
act
- HCL
teli:
ict.
(Mic+ilor)
-SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
- -UASHIIliSfO*
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
J
11
0
3
trace
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELIS/SAMPLES
71
0
3
140
0
3
trace
Aidksrb
AROOSTOOK
1980-
89
381
19
107
m
19
107
<3->10
CLtnBEfiLAKS
1980-
89
1
0
0
1
0
0
1980-
89
1
0
0
2
0
0
1980-
89
57
8
32
180
8
32
<3-»10
UNSPECIFIED
COUNTIES'"
1990
36
7
14
36
7
14
<3-»108
TOTAL DISCRETE
WILLS/SAMPLES
445
30
140
992
34
153
«3->10
Atraiine ' H\:-
AND80-:::i;
SCOCGIH
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
MOCSIOX
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEIEC :
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WKHffl
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PENOBSCOT
198?
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON :
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
; Azinphos-;
methyl
: ANDRO-
SCOGGIN
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
•aroostook'-
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK !
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-ME-8
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MAINE
WEIL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE Of
co«ce«-
TRATIONS
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
DATE
' TOTAL
?weixs:
. SAMPLED
:: -4 -op '
posmve
.¦ WEILS
TOTAL U
SAMPLES
NUMBER OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
fcOtftK
I
#CL
*
«CL
t
«CL
« «a
(Alinphos-
•ethyl)
KENNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORD
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
' SOMERSET''^ ^
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
VASHtMGTO#
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
wslls/samples
71
0
0
140
0
0
Eutylatc
¦ANDRO*r ^ -
scoGcm V-:-
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HAKCOCK v -
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KfNWEBEt
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OX fORO: ::
1986
&
0
0
4
0
0
pekobscot •
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHIHGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WE IIS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
Cftptftfot :
ANDRO-
SCOGGIN
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK" "..
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
a
0
1
0
0
KtiNESEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
^ OXFORD "-1
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PEMOSSCOT :--
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-ME-9
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN TIC STATE OF MINE
1
WEIL
RESULTS
SAXPtf-WSULTS
««•« Of ;l
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL
UEM.S
SAMPLED
* OF
POSITIVE
UELLS
TOTAL#
SAWLSS
DUMBER Of
POSITIVE
•>;-rSA«»tes
COfffilN-
TRATI0NS
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MAINE
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
COHCBM-
TRAirONS
mneiog
COUNTY
PATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
« OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
NUMBER Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
MONTH
I
MCL
<
MCL
X
«a
< Ma
Carbofuran
scoGCir
1986
3
0
'I
'
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
*
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KBWE8EC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXfOW
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
'• PESOBSCOT • -
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
''SOMERSET ;
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHUCTOU
1986
7
0
0
9
Q
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WILLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
fcrtloro-
thalonU
ANDRO-
SCOGGIN
1986
3
0
0
3
Q
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
\
74
0
1
trace
/ 1""" % :
1987
15
0
1
30
0
1
trace
fcAKCOCIC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
XEHNE8EC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
-tnicfORO ^:
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PENOBSCOT
1967
2
0
0
2
0
0
' SOMERSET' : :;-
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHIM&TON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
2
11
0
2
trace
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
4
140
0
3
trace
ChtorpyHfcs
ANDRO-
SCOGGIN
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KERNE8EC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
1-ME-ll
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING 11 THE STATE OF MAINE
WELL SESUITS
SAMPLE SESULT3
pivttzm
coum
PATE
"lOTAt
«6US
SAMPLED
* OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
If
¦¦•IIUK8ER Of
¦¦;->.fOSITJVf
SAMPLES
: COttCEW-
TMTIONS
<«/l>
- •
YEAS/
MOWTd
XCl
<
hcl
t
MCt
< *ta
(ChlorpvHfes)
OXfOTO
1986
*
0
0
4
0
0
1
PEWWSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
Cysnazin*
AHORO-
SCOCGJK '
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
ASOOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
MAKCOCK
1986
1
0
0
!
0
0
KENNEBEC—'
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
¦ OXFORD
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PEKdescor ;
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
' SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
'¦kwsHiticTiw :¦/;
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
&i«inori
/ANBRO-j:. ¦.
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
'SCOCCIS' . -
AROOSTOOK;-^-
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
VKEKNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
oxroao
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
"SOMERSET:
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-ME-12
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING 1« TH£ STATE OF MAINE
UEIL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAJiGE OF
COKCEM-
TMTfOIS
PESTICIDE
coiwn
DATE
TOTAL .
WELLS
SAMPLES
* OF
POSITIVE
WElLS
TOTAL tf
SAMPLES
JIUHSER OF
rosiTivt
SAMPLES
L
re A*/
HOJJT*
X
MCI
*CL
t
act
< net
| (Dfazlnon)
VASHt»GTOI ¦
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
1 WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
Dicatrtia
ATiOOSTOOC
1986
40
0
2
72
0
2
trace
1987
13
0
0
18
0
0
OXFORD
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
:>C*»SCOf'
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
UASHIWGTOU
1986
8
0
0
13
0
0
1987
3
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
62
0
2
119
0
2
trace
tHrwecV
ASOQST0CK ;;
1986
40
0
2
74
0
2
trace-
2.3
1987
14
0
1
19
0
1
trace
OX«*2J
1986
2
0
0
2
0
0
P£KC8SCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
UASHIBGTOM
1986
6
0
1
8
0
1
trace
1987
3
0
0
5
0
0
traee-
2.3
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
62
0
4
119
0
2
Disutfolon J
AtlORO* ¦
SCOGG1N
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK-
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KfMtlEStC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXfQfiD
1986
4
0
D
4
0
0
PENOBSCOT :
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
¦'somersetS-^
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-ME-13
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MINE
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
COttCEN-
TRATIONS
<«t/U
pttTrcioc
COUHTY
PATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
* Of
P0SI7JV5
WELLS
TOTAL «
SAMPLES
NUMBER OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
ttA*/
MONTH
*a
<
*CL
t
#Ct
< net
(Dfsulfoton)
WASHWfiTOM
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
198?
==mmLmm
71
o_
0
t>
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
140
0
0
•.Endoiulfwt
ANDRO
SCOGG1W
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
1
74
0
1
trace
198?
15
0
0
30
0
0
-• HASCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
axfwo""
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
" SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
"WASHINGTON':-
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
?1
0
1
140
0
1
trice
SrxJrin
SCOCSt* .
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK -
1986
42
0
0
?4
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEBEC'¦
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORD
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
WKoescer
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
¦ somerset
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
yASHJUGTOI
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
198?
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
l-ME-14
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLIHG IN THE STATE OF MIKE
WEIL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
it Ali&E Of
cotrcew-
tftweas
<«sA>
PESTfCiOE
COLHfTY
DATE'
TOTAL
: WELLS
SAMPLED
* OF
POSITIVE
¦ UELLS
T07AL #
SAMPLES
1IUKSER OF
H5S1T!V£
SAMPLES
WAR/
MOUTH
I
MCI
*
net. :
£
act
-< MO.
eptc
AXORO*
SCOSfilB
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
I
' /AROBSIOOC
1986
(2
0
0
74
0
0
198?
15
0
0
SO
0
0
MUCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
:KEHNE8EC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
mixm ¦¦¦¦¦¦"
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
P£WBiCW\--
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
;-$c«R5Fr-:j
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
maShjiistoh
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
198?
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRITE
WEILS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
,:A*DRQ» J'*--"
SCOGGJH
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
¦¦¦AROOSTOOK : r:
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
:««ME8£C::r;7;
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
: PEMOSSC0T
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
"SOHERSETii'?:7;
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
1986
?
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
VELLS/5AMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
AWHiO
SCOSQ1H
1986
3
0
D
3
0
0
• AROOSTOOK::
1986
42
0
0
?4
0
D
198?
15
0
0
30
0
0
- BAKCOC* :•'
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEBEC' ¦ :
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
•:'OXFORD
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
l-ME-15
-------
PESTICIDE SAILING IN THE STATE Of MIME
WELL RESULTS
SA*»l£ RESULTS
RAUtt Of
COKCEX-
TRATJQMS
PEtTieiW
couwn
DATE
TOTAt
US US
SAMPLED
a of
positive
WE LIS ¦-
TOTAL u
SAMPLES
HUMSEft OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
WAS/
momtm
Ma
n
t
HCL
« Ma
(Hexazinene)
WsoescoT v
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
I
^ijMEisrr
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UEllS/SANPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
tfndariR
;;(g«Wa 8HC)
- A#DTiO-
: SCOCGJN
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
BAHCOOC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
:-'-lCMNE8EC:.
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
m?o%>
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOHERStT
19B6
1
0
0
1
0
0
UASHIMSTOtl
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
tiouron
AMD80-
SCOCGIH
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK ¦:
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
¦HANCOCK"1 i
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
: KESNE8FC'' i;
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
r<>xr«®'
1986
4
D
0
4
0
0
pfsoescor
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
yASHttiGTOJI ; - :
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELtS/SAMHES
71
0
0
140
0
0
l-ME-16
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLIHS IN THE STATE OF HA I HE
URL RESULTS
SAKPLf RESULTS
RAKGE Of
""cobcih-:;
tratjohs
t«/t>
mrrciDE
county
PATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
# OP
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
MUNKIt 0^
POSITIVE
SAKtt.CS
t£AS/
*0N7»
1
act
HCL
t
«ia
< xa.
Kaiathien
AUOSO'
SCOQS1M
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
198?
15
0
0
30
0
0
HAKOOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KEHWEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXfQRD
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
P£HOBSCOT '
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
UASHtUGTOU
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
01
*«etbann'dophos
{ aroostook
1986
21
0
4
22
0
4
treee-10
1987
15
0
0
22
0
0
PEB08SC0I
1987
1
0
0
1
0
0
tMSHI«GT0«
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
35
0
4
55
0
4
trace-10
Hathoxychlo^ ;
AM0R0-. "1 ::-T:
¦ :SCOSG1W' "'1'
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
'^ItAMCbcK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KMWE8EC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
¦ OXfORO
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
I4K08SCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON :^
19B6
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
l-ME-17
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IM THE STATE OF MINE
WELL RESULTS
SAHPii RESULTS
*A*G£ Of
CQKCfW- •:
TJUtnONS
PWICU*
COUWTY
wu
TOTAL
«LLB
SAMPLED
* OF
POSITIVE
TOUL «
SA»8>L£K
KUK5M OP
fOS'lTIVE
SAMPtES
TEAR/
KOSTH
net
<
«CL
e
#CL
< K& :
Itetrfbuzfn
AXMO-
SCOGG1H
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
:AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
¦8AMC0CK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
1CERNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
CBtfORO
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PEW06SCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
D
2
9
0
2
trace
198?
6
0
1
11
0
1
0.49
TOTAL DISCRETE
VEILS/SAMPLES
71
0
3
140
0
3
trac#-
0.49
J>aratMon
• methyl
AN&80
SCOCGIW
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
BAXCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
tf 1TOS8K
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORD
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
PENOBSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
Washington
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
fCNB
MOKO
SC0G5IH
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
ASDOSTOOK
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
;BANCOCK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KNWE8EC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OXFORO
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
- PEKGfiSCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
l-ME-18
-------
PESTICIDE SWUNG IN THE STATE OF HA I HE
WEIL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
EK»5COT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
' HASH I S O TOM'
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
71
D
0
140
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
40
D
1
74
0
1
1.4
1987
14
0
0
19
0
0
¦ OXfORO
1986
2
0
0
2
0
0
: PEMOBSCOTi-:':--i
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
WSSHIKGTON
1986
6
0
0
8
0
0
1987
3
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
62
0
1
119
0
1
1.4
AHMO-
scoGcr#
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK-
1986
42
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
0
0
30
0
0
HANCOCK -
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
¦ kemhebec:-
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
1986
4
0
c
4
0
0
l-ME-19
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING II TME STATE OF KAINE
WELL
RESULTS
' V- SAHPLf ^i^SULTS
MJIGE ¦&>.
mrrciM
COUUTt
DATE
TOTAL
¦. WELLS
SAMPLED
i 01s
p«nive
UELL5
TOTAL *
SAtt>lES
NUMBER Of
POSITIVE .....
SAMPLES
cotrcf*-
TRATIONS
MOHTM
X
MCI
*a
e
t XCL
(Sinaiirw)
PES08SCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOMERSET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WSHiNCTQK
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
mr
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPlES
71
0
0
140
0
0
\frfctopyr-v:':;S
AROOSttX* i ^
1966
40
0
0
74
0
0
1987
14
0
0
19
0
0
OXfORD
1986
2
0
0
2
0
0
'
PES08SCOT
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
WASHINGTON .
1986
6
0
0
a
0
0
1987
3
0
0
5
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
62
0
0
119
0
0
IrSifiurilin
:iAHb80^:iN
SCOGGW
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
AROOSTOOK
1986
<2
0
0
74
0
0
1987
15
D
0
30
0
0
UAHCOCr
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KENNEBEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
'PEtmsmT.'-- -
1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
'stmiRs if';
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987
6
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UILLS/SAMPLES
71
0
0
140
0
0
GRAND TOTAL
I DISCRETE
1 WELLS/SAMPLES
490
30
162
1165
34
172*
* This mmber represents the total individual detections of pesticides;
the actual nuitoer of sarncles conta'ning pesticides would probably be slightly lower.
This number represents the nunber of welIs over |0 ppb since the summary data did not
separate concentrations at the present HCl of 3 ppb.
l-ME-20
-------
STATE OF MAINE
WELLS BY COUNTY
Bounty
TYPES OF WILIS
CIMTMIIfjtriOit SOURM
(HUMHER OF veils)
WINK IRC WATER
~KWJTOR1BG
OtHEfi
TOTAL
SHPLD
t
H&
«
t!CL
TOTAL
SHPLC
£
HCL
<
HCL
TOTAL
SHPIB
i
HCL
¦c
net
UFO*
PE*
UNIC*
Androscoggin
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
Aroostook
402
19
120
0
0
0
0
0
0
139
0
0
;:C«i>eriand \-
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hancock
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
l-ME-21
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Massachusetts
164/264
26/122
DCPA acic metabolites
Pesticides Detected
1,2-Dichloropropane
2. 4—D
Alachlor
Aldicarb
Atrazine
Carbofuran
Chlordane
Chlorothedonil
Chlorpyrifos
DCBA
Dicamba
Dinoseb
EDB
Heptachlor Epoxide
Isofenphos
Metolechlor
Oxamyl
Trichloropyridinol
Total Wells Sampled
per County
E
Q
m
~
501
101
51
1
>
to
to
to
to
1000
1000
500
100
50
No weiis sampled
1-MA-l
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts developed a monitoring program designed to test for
the presence of eight agricultural chemicals in Massachusetts' waters in order that the
Commonwealth may take appropriate action in further regulating these chemicals.
The 1985 monitoring program represents a coordination of efforts among Massachusetts
agencies involved in the protection and regulation of water supplies and the regulation of
pesticides. This monitoring information, together with data generated by previous
monitoring programs which were undertaken independently by the Department of Environ-
mental Quality Engineering (DEQE), the Department of Public Health (DPH) and the
Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA) is beginning to provide an initial definition of
the relationship between land application of agricultural chemicals and the quality of
Massachusetts' waters.
Massachusetts Interim Drinking Water Guidelines
Pesticide
Guideline (ug/1)
Alachlor
2.0
EDB
0.04 to 0.10 (supply monitored
for up to 2 years)
0.10 (water supply closed)
1,2-D
1.0
1,3-D
1.0
Dinoseb
5.0
Carbofuran
10.0
Aldicarb
10.0
. Oxamyl
50.0
NOTE: When water supplies contained a mixture of the
above chemicals at levels below guidelines, the health effects
posed by the mixture were evaluated by DEQE, and the
appropriate actions were recommended.
Preceding page blank
l-MA-3
-------
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Massachusetts Interagency Task Force; the Massachusetts Departments of Environmental
Quality Engineering, Food and Agriculture and Public Health, and the Massachusetts Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs (December 1986 revision) 1985 Summary Report:
Interagency Pesticide Monitoring Program, Publication # 14,653-15-200- 12-86-CR.
Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture. Data sheets for the Massachusetts
Pesticide Monitoring Program 1983-1985.
Contact persons: Steve Ellis, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, Tel (413) 784-1100,
: Lee Corte-Real, Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture, Boston,
MA Tel (617) 727-3020.
MASSACHUSETTS MONITORING PROGRAM: 1983-1984
As a result of [a labeling-change request by the manufacturers of Temik™ (aldicarb)] the
DFA initiated a preliminary ground-water monitoring program in May 1983. This survey
was designed to determine if aldicarb was entering ground water and contaminating wells
near potato fields in Franklin and Hampshire counties. Samples were taken from public
water supplies by DEQE, and from private water supplies by DPH and DFA. Analyses
were performed by the DFA laboratory.
The aldicarb survey was expanded after obtaining the following information: 1) aldicarb use
information, 2) the location of all private and public wells within 1500 feet of at least one
aldicarb treated potato field, and 3) an assesment of the EPA and other drinking water
guidelines to protect public health.
INTERAGENCY COOPERATIVE EFFORT AND MONITORING PROGRAM: 1985
Primary Objective
In the summer and fall of 1985, and Interagency Task Force was formed to carry out a
ground-water monitoring program for the following agricultural chemicals: aldicarb,
alachlor, carbofuran, 1,2-dichloropropane (1,2-D), 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), dinoseb,
ethylene dibromide (EDB), and oxamyl.
l-MA-4
-------
The purpose of the program was to determine the extent of pesticide contamination of
waters near potato and tobacco fields in order that the State [might] take appropriate action
in further regulating these chemicals. All the34 agricultural chemicals tested in this
sampling round are known or expected to have been used on potato and/or tobacco fields.
Design
The program involved the following steps; (1) development of strategy for sample site
selection; (2) development of interim drinking water guidelines for the pesticides; (3) sample
collection and analysis; and (4) notification of results.
A total of 341 water resources in 27 communities was sampled for the presence of at least
one pesticide. Approximately 86 percent of the sites were private wells.
Sample site selection was based on residue history, hydrogeologic conditions, and location
based on previous surveys. The DEQE laboratory in Lawrence performed EDB, 1,2-D, and
1,3-D analyses, while the DFA laboratory in Amherst analyzed samples for aldicarb,
alachlor, carbofuran, dinoseb, and oxamyl.
The following detection limits were reported:
Limit of
Pesticide Detection
EDB 0.03
1.2-D 0.03
1.3-D 1.0
Aldicarb 1.0
Carbofuran 1.0
Oxamyl 1.0
Alachlor 0.16
Dinoseb 1.0
Results and Conclusions: 1985
The three pesticides detected most often were 1,2-D, EDB, and aldicarb. For 1,2-D, 82 of
239 sources had detectable levels, with 31 of the 82 above the [Massachusetts] interim
[drinking water] guideline level. For EDB, 36 of the 239 sources tested were positive, 25
of which were over the interim guideline level. For aldicarb, 59 of 146 sources had
detectable levels, with 20 of those above the interim guideline level.
Of the other pesticides, 1,3-D was not detected in any sample. Oxamyl was detected in only
one sample, but was well below the interim guideline level. Alachlor was detected in 5 of
147 samples, but only 1 was above the interim guideline level. Dinoseb was detected in 10
of 147 samples, with 2 above the interim guideline level. Finally, carbofuran was detected
in 23 of 146 samples, with only 1 sample above the interim guideline level.
l-MA-5
-------
Results and Conclusions: Comparison of 1984 and 1985
Almost half of the sources which were sampled in both years did not contain detectable
levels of aldicarb (49%). Aldicarb levels for most of the remaining sources either decreased
(53%) or increased (38%), and a small percentage remained the same (9%). This small but
detectable trend in dressing aidiearb concentration is expected since the use of aldicarb was
severely restricted by the Pesticide Bureau of the Massachusetts Department of Food and
Agriculture in 1984 and 1985.
This monitoring program was limited to areas engaged in potato and tobacco production
only and should not be interpreted as indicative of possible pesticide contamination in other
agricultural areas.
Cape Cod Commission, Water Resources Offices, The Cape Cod Golf Course Monitoring
Project. Study conducted April 1986 through November 1987. (June 1990, pp. 64)
Contact Person: Tom Cambareri, Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development
Commission, Tel: (508) 362-3828.
Primary Objective
The purpose of the study was to assess the impacts of golf course management on Cape
Cod's sole source aquifer. Through monitoring of pesticide and nitrate concentrations in
the ground water beneath trees, greens, and fairways, the project established a baseline data
set for use in making future development decisions.
Design
Four golf courses were included in the study: Bass River Golf Course, Hyannisport Golf
Course, Eastward Ho Golf Course, and Falmouth Country Club, all located in Barnstable
County. Each course is characterized by permeable soil above the aquifer, 30 or more years
of turf management, and intense chemical application practices. A total of 19 monitoring
wells was installed between 1984 and 1987.
Pesticides were selected for monitoring based on a use survey of the operators of the
courses. The ground-water samples were analyzed for the following pesticides using a
GC/ECD method and the identities were confirmed by GC/MS.
l-MA-6
-------
Pesticide
Detection Limit
<09/1)
Pesticide
Detection Unit
Anilaiirw
•4
2,4-0 i eh I orotoemoi c
Acid (DCBA)
0.20
Chlordane
0.125
Heptachlor epoxide
0.3
Chlorothalonil
0.15
Iprodione
0.50
Chlorpyrifos
0.05
laofenphos
0.75
2,4-0
0.30
Necoprop
30.0
Dacthal diacid
0.025
Pemach I oropbano l
(PCP)
0.5
Oiazinon
0.20
Siduron
20.0
Dfcasta
0.05
Trichloropyridinol
0.10
Dacthal
Not included
Results and Conclusions
Ten of the 17 compounds tested for were detected in the ground-water analyses. DCBA was
not initially included among the tested compounds, but the high detected levels in the initial
sampling round forced its inclusion. Because the initial analyses were not geared for the
detection of DCBA, the initial sampling results were regarded as qualitative, rather than
quantitative results. Iprodione was not analyzed for after the first round due to the labor-
intensive nature of the extraction process and the total lack of detections for this pesticide
in the first round.
Generally, the highest concentrations found were DCBA, followed by chlordane, and the
remaining pesticides. Positive detections in 5 well sites located at the Bass River Golf
Course were found for DCBA, 2,4-D, chlorothalonil, chlordane, dacthal diacid, and/or
heptachlor epoxide. Positive detections in 4 well sites located at the Hyannisport Golf
Course were found for DCBA, chlordane, heptachlor epoxide, trichloropyridinol, and/or
isofenphos. Positive detections in 4 well sites located at the Eastward Ho! Golf Course were
found for DCBA, dacthal diacid, and/or dicamba. Positive detections in 2 well sites located
at the Falmouth Country Club were found for chlorothalonil, chlordane, chlorpyrifos, dacthal
diacid, and/or isofenphos. Chlordane was the only chemical present at levels exceeding the
MCL (2.0 ppb). Chlordane was banned from turf use in 1987 by USEPA.
DCBA (2,4-Dichlorobenzoic Acid) was the most commonly detected compound,
showing up in 11 out of the 19 wells. USEPA records indicate that DCBA has never been
a registered pesticide. Its source in this study is unkown. DCBA's structure is similar to
many pesticides. It has been suggested that DCBA may have been an impurity in the
chemicals applied to the golf courses. Other possibilities, considering the similarity of its
structure to many pesticides and its detection in the background wells, may be that it is a
breakdown product of a commonly used household compound or the by-product of natural
humic processes.
l-MA-7
-------
Jenkins, J., Massachusetts Pesticide Coordinator, University of Massachusetts, Tel: 413-545-
2004, C.T. Stone, and J. Bowes, The Johnson Company. Alachlor Monitoring of Soil and
Ground Water in Two Corn Fields in Western Massachusetts. Study conducted in 1987.
(24 pp.)
Primary Objective
The study objective was to obtain a better understanding of the impact of alachlor usage on
ground water under normal farming conditions.
.Design
Water sampling from monitoring wells placed into unconfined aquifers began in late July
1987 at two sites in western Massachusetts: Hatfield (Hampshire County) and Deerfield
(Franklin County). Alachlor had been applied over the previous 17 years in Franklin
County and for the previous 8 years in Hampshire County. Eight wells were sampled six
times in Franklin County and five wells were sampled five times in Hampshire County.
Samples were analyzed using a GC method for alachlor, atrazine, and metolachlor.
The sampling procedure consisted of determining the purge volume. Then the well was
purged of three times the volume of standing water measured. After the initial purging, the
physical parameters of the water, pH, conductivity, temperature, and oxidation reduction
potential (ORP) were monitored until stabilization occurred indicating representative
natural ground-water conditions. Generally, temperature and conductivity stabilized after
5 minutes, pH in 5 to 15 minutes, and ORP in 15 to 30 minutes.
Samples were collected with splits taken for analysis at Environmental Research and
Technology (ERT) of Wilmington, MA, and Massachusetts Pesticide Analytical Laboratories
in Amherst, MA. A total of four splits from each well was taken at both sites for the first
two sampling events. After that, two splits were taken at each well. One of the wells was
selected at each sampling event for four splits. This method ensured that a sufficient sample
for laboratory duplicate analyses was provided to each lab without having to accumulate
large numbers of bottles.
Results and Conclusions
No confirmed detections of herbicides were found in any of the ground-water samples.
There were detections of metolachlor and atrazine by gas chromatography; however, none
of these detections was confirmed by GC/MS.
Alachlor was not detected by either lab in any of the water samples, which is noteworthy
because it had been applied regularly in Hampshire and Franklin Counties. Metolachlor
was found in some samples ranging from 1 to 7 ppb; however, these detections were not
confirmed by GC/MS. Atrazine was detected in both counties at relatively high
concentrations; these were also not confirmed by GC/MS. ERT did identify 2-chloroethanol
phosphate (a flame retardant and plasticizer) which is most commonly used with rigid and
flexible urethane foams. This compound may have been responsible for the false positives.
It has a gas chromatographic retention time similar to that of atrazine and appears to have
been introduced to the well during the installation of the sampling equipment.
l-MA-8
-------
Corte-Real, Lee, Department of Food and Agriculture, Tel: 617-727-3020. Letter to the
Pesticide Board, dated March 1,1989, Private Well Sampling Program for Corn Herbicides
in Massachusetts: 1987-1988 Results. Study was conducted 1987-88. (Presented in 1989,
5 pp.).
Primary Objective
A directed site-specific study was needed to assess the potential contamination of private
wells from corn herbicides used in Massachusetts.
Design
The study sampled vulnerable wells to determine if drinking water was being contaminated
by the com herbicides alachlor, atrazine, and metolachlor. Samples were taken from wells
surrounding several cornfields to obtain a distribution of soil, hydrogeologic, and well
conditions. The following criteria were used in selecting well sites:
Field Criteria
Corn production for a minimum of 3 of the past 5 years
Common agricultural practices (i.e., conservation tillage)
Average to above average herbicide application rates
Hydrology Criteria
High permeability soils
Low organic matter in the top and sub soils
Shallow depth to the water table (aquifer)
Level land area
Private Well Criteria
Wells within 500 feet of a treated field
Wells downgradient from field
Shallow drilled or driven wells or dug wells
Wells used for human consumption
Sixty well sites in Berkshire, Bristol, Franklin, Plymouth, and Hampden Counties were
sampled and analyzed for alachlor, atrazine, and metolachlor using a GC method with a
limit of detection for all three chemicals of 0.1 ppb. All positive results were confirmed by
GC/MS at a maximum detection limit of 0.2 ug/L.
Results and Conclusions
Of the 82 samples taken, atrazine was positive 5 times (3 times in Bristol County ranging
0.3 to 1.4 ppb and 2 times in Berkshire County at 0.6 and 0.8 ppb), alachlor was positive in
a single sample/well in Bristol County at 0.22 ppb, and metolachlor was positive in a single
sample/well in Bristol County at 0.24 ppb. All positive responses were less than the
respective MCL, and the suspected source of contamination was normal field use.
l-MA-9
-------
The atrazine residues and the one metolachlor residue detected in Bristol County were
collected from wells located adjacent to the same com field. Two of the positive atrazine
samples were collected from the same well. On July 16, the well had an atrazine residue
of 1.4 ppb, and on October 15 the atrazine residue level dropped to 0.70 ppb. The two
remaining wells containing atrazine residues, the one well containing the metolachlor
residue, and the one well containing the alachlor residue, were sampled only once.
Jones, Russell L., Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company, Progress Report; Measurement of Aldicarb
Degradation and Movement in a Massachusetts Potato Field. Study was conducted 5/86-
9/87. (Completed October, 1987, 34 pp.).
primary Objective
The objective of this study was to measure the degradation and movement of aldicarb
residues in soil and ground water beneath a potato field near Deerfield, Massachusetts
(Franklin County).
The site chosen for the study was selected to represent a worst-case situation in the
Connecticut River Valley, which is the major potato growing area in Massachusetts. Normal
growing practices were followed in all respects during the study. To monitor shallow
groundwater at the test site, three shallow well clusters were installed before application of
aldicarb, five well clusters were installed 5 to 6 months after application, two well clusters
were installed 10 months after application, and one well cluster was installed 12 months
after application. Each cluster contains two wells, one just below the water table and the
other -1.5 meters below the water table.
Aldicarb carbamate residue concentrations were measured in soil and water samples by an
HPLC procedure (sensitivity of 1 ppb) using post-column reactions and fluorescence
detection.
Results and Conclusions
A precise estimate of the degradation rate cannot be obtained from the data. Aldicarb
residues from an emergence application to a Massachusetts potato field degraded at an
average rate corresponding to a half-life of about 1.1 month. Aldicarb was detected in 20
samples at levels greater than the MCL (3 ppb), and in 14 samples at levels less than the
MCL. No residues were found in wells 70 meters or more from the pesticide treated areas.
The samples collected in 1987 show declining residue levels with time.
Aldicarb residues appeared to reach groundwater approximately 4 months after application.
Although 3 ppb was detected in one well about 2 months after application, the absence of
residues in the subsequent sample suggests that these residues may be the result of soil
potentially introduced into the well during the uncovering and burying process. Aldicarb
residues were generally highest in the wells screened at the water table and did not exceed
10 ppb in wells screened 1.5 m below the water table.
l-MA-10
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IH TIC STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
WELL
RESULTS
MKPLE RE SATS
RA#6E 0*
COttCEN-
TSATiQSS
in/if
PESTICIDE
OOLWTT
0AT6
TOTAL
VEILS
SAKPiED
#0f
POSITIVE
WEILS
TOTAL «
SAMPLES
• Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
' ,
YEAR/
JWBTfc
I
HCL
«
HCL
t
net.
<
«a
i,2-Dfeht«-o-
prapww
fRAWKLl*
1985
161
26®
33
161
26®
33
0.03-51.0C
WWDSR
1985
44
4»
8
44
4»
8
0.03-51.0C
UmHlSE
1985
54
0
11
34
0
11
0.3-1.0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SANRLES |
239
30
52
239
30
52
0.03-51.0
2.'-» 1
BAKNSTABLE
1986/4
15
0
1
18
0
1
0.34
1986/8
11
0
0
11
0
0
1986/11
18
0
0
18
0
0
I
1987/8
10
0
0
10
0
0
0.34
TOTAL DISCRETE I
UELLS/SAMPLES |
19
0
1
57
0
1
~2,4-Diclilo'V-
benzofc Acid
(MM)
SAJOISTA6LE
1986/4
15
0
8
18
0
10
0.08-298.0
1986/8
15
0
6
16
0
6
0.21-7.09
1986/11
18
0
4
18
0
4
0.21-1.49
1987/8
15
0
2
15
0
2
1.31-7.33
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPtES
19
0
11
67
0
22
0.08-298.0
Alariilor
Ki&SNIRE
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
11
0
0
21
0
0
BRISTOL
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
20
0
1
32
0
1
0.22
1985/7-11
31
0
1
32
0
1
0.53
mm in
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
17
0
0
17
0
0
1985/7-11
92
0
2
106
0
2
0.2-0.42
1987/7-10
8
0
0
48
0
0
HAWDEH
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
9
0
0
9
0
0
HAMPSHIRE
1985/7-11
22
0
1
22
0
1
0.82
1987/7-10
5
0
0
30
0
0
1-MA-ll
-------
PESTICIDE SAWtlNG IN THE STATE Of MASSACHUSETTS
WELL
RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
MKCE OP
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
-------
KSTICIK SAMPLING IN TK STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
WELL RESULTS I
SAMPit RESULTS
ptmwz
COUitT
BATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
« OF |
POSITIVE ]
WEILS 1
TOTAL f
SAMPLES
# OF
POSITJVE
SAMPLES
mwe or
CONCEK-
TftATtONS
YEAR/
MONTH -
t
net.
* * 1
*CL 1
£
*CL
«
no.
(#S/t)
AnTl#*!#*
MMiSTASLf
1986/4
15
0
0
17
0
0
1986/8
15
0
0
16
0
0
1986/11
18
0
0
18
0
0
1987/8
15
0
0
15
0
0
1987/11
11
0
.
«
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
19
0
0
77
0
0
Atr«zlne
KSKSHlfiE '
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
11
0
2
21
0
2
0.6-0.8
88ISTCX.
1987/4-10;
1988/7.10
20
0
3
32
0
3
0.3-1.4
fKAKKLt*
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
17
0
0
17
0
0
1987/7-10
8
0
0
48
0
0
RAKPOEH
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
9
0
0
9
0
0
HAKPSHJSE
1987/7-10
5
0
0
30
0
0
PLYMOUTH
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
73
0
5
160
0
5
0.3-1.4
C«rbofgr«n,
Totat
MISTOL
1985/8
21
0
4
21
0
4
3.0-4.6
FRANKLIN
1985/7-11
95
0
15
104
0
17
1.0-36.6
HAHPSkl*E
1985/8,11
22
0
1
22
0
1
6.6
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAKPLES
138
0
20
147
0
22
1.0-36.6
Chlordane
SARNSTASIS
1986/4
15
1
4
18
1
5
0.20-3.63 8
1986/8
15
0
3
16
0
3
0.13-1.13 I
1986/11
18
0
4
18
0
0.21-1.39 1
1987/4
7
1
4
7
1
< I
0.23-7.2 1
«L» 3*
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
ueli results
sample reaats
SA*Sf OF
CQMCEH-
THATJONS
VW/i>
PEsricipe
COUNTY
SATE
TOT At
«EHS
SAMPLED
# OF
POSITIVE
mis
total f
SAMPLES
¦ * OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YtUt/
MONTH
at
m.
«
MO.
t
XCt
*
m.
(Chlordane) HI
1987/8
15
0
2
15
0
2
0,43-0.87
1
1W7/11
= in =
19
0
5
11
0
5
0.12-7.2
TOTAL DISCRETE M
WELLS/SAWIES |||
2
9
85
2
23
~Ch lar&thsl om J
6AMlSTA8l£
1966/4
15
0
0
18
0
0
1986/8
15
0
1
16
0
1
0.22
1986/11
18
0
1
18
0
1
0.38
1987/4
7
0
0
7
0
0
1987/8
15
0
0
15
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
1987/11
11
0
0
11
0
0
19
0
2
85
0
2
0.22*0.38
Chiorpyrifos
BAKUSTADIE
1986/4
15
0
0
18
0
0
1986/8
15
0
1
16
0
1
0.10
.
1986/11
18
0
0
18
0
0
1987/4
7
0
0
7
0
0
1987/8
15
0
0
15
0
0
1987/11
11
0
1
11
0
1
0.05
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES |
19
0
2
85
0
2
0.05-0.1
6AJWSTAM.E .
1986/4
15
0
0
18
0
0
1986/8
15
0
0
16
0
0
1986/11
18
0
0
18
0
0
1987/4
7
0
0
7
0
a
1987/8
15
0
0
15
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
1987/11
11
0
0
11
0
0
19
0
0
85
0
0
l-MA-14
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLIIIG IN THE STATE Of MASSACHUSETTS
VELl RESULTS
SAHPIE RESULTS
RAJtCE OF
cones ti-
TCATIQHS
u
-------
PESTICIDE SANPIIIU li THE STATE OF MSSAOKJSETTS
WLt ttSUlTS I
SAMPLE RESULTS
KiTJClM
COUNTY
DATE .
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
«or |
POSITIVE
WtLLS
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
* OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
BARGE Or
COHCEM*
THAT108S
YEAR/
BCMTM
* '
NCI.
<
net
<
ttCi.
l#«A>
£08 <£tHyifrw .
dibr«Md»r
fHAttlHI
1985
161
20®
11
161
CD
O
CM
11
0.03-6.9C
HMVO&H
1985
44
5
0
44
5
0
0,1-6.9C
SAW^KI^
1985
34
0
0
34
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
239
25
11
239
25
11
0.03-6.9
HeptaeMof
epoxide
BARHSTABU
1986/4
15
0
3
18
0
4
0.04-0.12
1986/8
15
0
2
16
0
2
0.04-0.06
1986/11
18
0
2
18
0
2
0.03-0.08
1987/4
7
0
3
7
0
3
0.05-0.16
1987/8
15
0
1
15
0
1
0.03
1987/11
11
0
2
11
0
2
0.03-0.08
I TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
19
0
4
85
0
14
0.04-0.16
1 predion*
mrnstabu
1986/4
15
0
0
18
0
0 ]
TOTAL DISCRETE
1 MEILS/SAHPLES
15
0
0
18
0
'I
lw>f«f*pho«
1986/4
15
0
0
18
0
0
1986/8
15
0
1
16
0
1
1.17
1986/11
18
0
0
18
0
0
1987/4
7
0
0
7
0
0
1987/8
15
0
0
15
0
0
1987/11
11
0
1
11
0
1
2.12
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
19
0
2
85
0
2
1.17-2.12
Nccoprop
BABUSTABLE
1986/4
15
0
0
18
0
0
1986/8
15
0
0
16
0
0
1986/11
18
0
0
18
0
0
-
1987/8
15
0
0
15
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
19
0
0
67
0
0
l-HA-16
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLMG IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
WELI RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
(usee 6f
COKCEM-
TAATJ08S
WO
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
DATE
fOIAl
WEUS
SAMPLED
« OF
POSITIVE
WELU
TOTAL i
SAMPLES
I Of
mirivt
SAKPLfS
*€«/
HGmTH
t
XCL
<
XL
*
net.
<
*Cl
Ketsltcfelef1
«£RKSHIS£
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
11
D
0
21
0
0
vtmoL
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
20
0
1
32
0
1
0.24
fSAtfCL!#
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
17
0
0
17
0
0
1987/7-10
8
0
0
48
0
0
MMtPOER
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
9
0
0
9
0
0
:-SA*f>SH!8E:^:
1987/7-10
5
D
0
30
0
0
1987/4-10;
1988/7,10
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/5AMPLES
73
0
1
160
0
1
0.24
1 &K«piy i-: =; -::
^ jiusTQt--
1985/8,11
21
0
0
21
0
0
1985/7-11
95
0
1
104
0
1
0.1
HARPSHtSE 'v
1985/8,11
22
0
0
22
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
138
0
1
147
0
1
0.1
PCP tP*nt»-
chiorophenol)
: WRKSTA6LE
1986/4
15
0
0
18
0
0
1986/8
15
0
0
16
0
0
1986/11
18
0
0
19
0
0
1987/8
15
0
0
15
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
19
0
0
68
0
0
~PyHclor
-------
PEST I CI DC SMILING IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
WELL RESULTS
SAKPLE RESULTS
BANtf OF
COMCEN*
THAT IONS
Csg/l)
PESTICIDE
COUNT?
DATE
TOTAL
WELLE
SAMPLED
f Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
total »
SAMPLES
*0*
HBITIVE
SAMPLES
>
VfAR/
H0MTH
t
#a
<
MCI
z
*Ct
net
SfduCOr, I
SAMSTASLE
1986/4
15
0
0
18
0
0
1986/8
15
0
0
16
0
0
•
1986/11
18
0
0
18
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
1 WELLS/SAMPLES
18
0
0
52
0
0
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES*
571
138
109
3556
205D
205°
~ No MCL/MA available.
* the totals for detections of EDB and 1,2-Dichloroproparw In Franklin, Hampden and
Hampshire Counties (and therefore the TOTALS) are estimates. The TOTAL positive
is overestimated by at least 27 welts, however it is not possible to deteraine in
which MCL categories. Total detections were given by chemical, not by well, and it was not
impossible to determine how many wells had more than one chemical detected. Those wells
may have been counted *»re than once.
D
These data were reported in suimary form, with positive results grouped above or
below Interim Drinking Water Guidelines proposed by the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental duality Engineering (1,2-D 1.0 ppb; 1,3-0 1.0 ppb; EDB 0.04-0.10 ppb).
These guidelines were retained for these data, instead of the MCL/HA.
c Estimated ranges (data were not provided by individual breakdown).
D These are total nutters of ANALYSES not total lumber of actual samples.
l-MA-18
-------
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
WELLS BY OOUMTY
, TYPES W WELIS
' SOURCE OF
coum
MitHtrHG WAT EH
HONITOKIMC
.
OTHER
COHTAMlRATtOli
{IHXBSR OF WELLS)
70TAL
JHfiO
i
*ci
<
*CL
TOTAL
SMPIO
fc
XCL
« ,
net
TOTAL
S*PU>
KCL
<
MCI
#FU*
H*
UNK*
f
Bamstabte
0
0
0
19
1
14
0
0
0
15
0
0
Berkshite
13
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
Bristol
81
14
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
0
FrenklIrf*
233
91
61
30
9
2
1
1
0
164
0
0
Haspden*
61
9
B
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
Hatnp shire*
117
13
13
5
0
0
0
0
0
26
0
0
Plymouth
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
tforekester
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL*
516
127
93
54
ID
16
1
1
0
247
0
0
*
NFU * Known or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS * Known or Suspected Point Source
UNK * Unknown
The totals for detections of EDB arid 1,2-Dichloropropane in Franklin, Hanpden and
Hampshire Counties (and therefore the TOTALS) are estimates. The TOTAL positive
is overestimated by at least 27 wells, however it is not possible to determine in
which MCI categories. Total detections were given by chemical, not by well, and it was not
impossible to determine how many wells had more than one chemical detected. Those wells
My have been counted more than once.
l-MA-19
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
*0/2;!
New Hampshire
Pesticides Detected
None
>0/2 i:;
Total Wells Sampled
per County
m > 1000
m 501 TO 1000
S3 101 to 500
C2 SI to 100
m 1 to 50
~ No wells sampled
1-NH-l
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
In 1985, to initiate development of a statewide health-based ground-water strategy, the
New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services, in conjunction with the Pesticide
Control Division, and Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission undertook a two-
part project to address the potential for pesticide contamination in ground water in New
Hampshire. The first part of the project involved a literature review concerning the
environmental health implications of pesticide contamination in ground water throughout
the United States; there had been no reported incidence of pesticide contamination of
ground water in New Hampshire. The second part of the project involved sampling wells
adjacent to apple orchards with known pesticide use.
Recommendations for ground-water protection in New Hampshire have been made
based on the information developed in the literature review. It was recommended that
New Hampshire establish a statewide pesticide ground-water surveillance system, which
would study aquifers determined to be at risk for pesticide contamination, examine the
potential for pesticide contamination of soil in former agricultural areas which have
become residential, initiate an education outreach program concerning the potential for
pesticide contamination of ground water, and establish a chemical intoxication
surveillance system which would include pesticides.
In 1991, the New Hampshire Groundwater Protection Act was established which
specified that the Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control within the Department
of Environmental Services would be responsible for maintaining a statewide map
identifying the classes of ground water, assisting local and regional governments in the
development or administration of local wellhead protection programs, and cooperating
with the Office of State Planning in providing technical assistance for local ground water
and well head protection programs. A classification system for ground water and
ambient ground-water quality standards were also mandated under the act.
Preceding page blank
l-NH-3
-------
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services, Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission, Pesticide Control Division (March 28, 1986) A Survey and Preliminary
Health Assessment for Pesticide Contamination Problems Associated with Groundwater
Supplies In New Hampshire. Study conducted 1985. Contact; Amy Juchatz-Camanzo
Tel: 603-271-4664. Additional contacts: David Rousseau, Environmentalist III, New
Hampshire Department of Agriculture (Tel: 603-271-3551), and Sarah Pilsbury, New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (Tel: 603-271-3503).
Primary Objective
This study was initiated to determine the effects on ground water from pesticide use in
an area reflecting high, longterm pesticide use and where a significant increase in
population using ground water for drinking water had occurred.
Design
Apple orchard growing areas within Hollis in Hillsboro County and Londonderry and
Hampton Falls in Rockingham County were selected based on evidence of high pesticide
use and use over a relatively long period of time. Based on 20 years of data concerning
actual pesticide use, the kinds, amounts, and the extent of time of use for the pesticides
in various orchard growing areas of New Hampshire were tabulated. The project
involved 15 locations within nine basic sampling clusters. Wells to be sampled were
selected based on an evaluation of probable ground-water flow as determined by
available topographic information and on their proximity to the orchards. Samples were
scanned for 19 compounds (unspecified).
Resets anj Conclusions
No pesticide residues were detected in any of the well samples; however, in
consideration of the limitations of the sampling design of the study, including sample
size, sample location, percent of total application each chemical comprised, mode of
application, characteristics of pesticide studies, inadequacy of hydrogeological and soil
information, and periodicity of application, it was concluded that further studies of
pesticide contamination of ground water should be initiated.
[Note that only the summary portion of this study was available for review; insufficient
information was available to complete the state tables. Extensive reports concerned with
this monitoring project are available by contacting the State of New Hampshire, Office
of State Planning.]
l-NH-4
-------
New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services, Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission, Pesticide Control Division (December 19, 1986) Health Risks Associated
with the Potential for Ground water Contamination by Pesticides in New Hampshire.
Study conducted 1986, Contact: Amy Juchatz-Camanzo, Tel: 603-271-4664. Additional
contacts: David Rousseau, Environmentalist IH, New Hampshire Department of
Agriculture (Tel: 603-271-3551), and Sarah Filsbury, New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (Tel: 603-271-3503).
Primary Objective
Pesticides have been detected in ground-water wells in a number of states. Since this
discovery, efforts have been made at both the state and local levels to determine the
nature and extent of the problem. Because most pesticides are biologically active and
possess varying levels of toxicity, it was important to determine whether there was a
public health risk in New Hampshire from contaminated groundwater. This report is the
result of an interagency effort to evaluate the potential for contamination of ground
water by pesticides used in agriculture and golf course maintenance in New Hampshire,
to determine the possible health risks of such contamination, and to develop health
based ground-water protection strategies.
Design
The study involved sampling and analysis of twenty-five (25) existing shallow wells on or
immediately adjacent to, or downgradient of, pesticide use areas in fifteen (15) towns
throughout New Hampshire, undertaken during the growing season of 1986. The focus
was on a number of different crops including potatoes, forage crops (primarily field
corn), truck garden vegetables, berry crops and ornamentals. In addition, a number of
golf courses were sampled.
The agencies involved in this study were the Division of Public Health Services (DPHS),
the Division of Pesticide Control (DPC), Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission (WS&PCC) and the Office of State Planning (OSP).
Since the purpose of the study was to determine possible health risks by surveying
possible contamination in New Hampshire ground water, it was designed to maximize the
potential for detection of any pesticides which might be present rather than attempting
to perform a statistically valid sampling pattern.
Criteria for Selection of Sampling Locations
The objective of the 1986 study was to gather groundwater quality data for pesticides in
farm and golf course wells. The farms and golf courses identified by the DPC were
evaluated according to the following criteria:
1. At least 10 years of pesticide use information is available on the property;
2. The well is a readily accessible shallow water table aquifer well in close
(downgradient) proximity to locations of intense pesticide usage;
3. Adequate predictors of groundwater flow direction exist to indicate the probable
direction of flow so that wells are reasonably expected to reflect the groundwater
quality from the site in question;
l-NH-5
-------
4. Different geographic areas of the state are represented and the study sites are
clustered primarily in the more populated areas of the state in order to evaluate
and potential health hazards.
Compounds Selected for Study
The DCP has maintained records of pesticides applied in New Hampshire since 1966.
These records were compiled for specific agricultural areas of the state and golf courses
in this state. This list of compounds used, along with the quantities applied, were
compiled for each type of crop and for golf courses. The resultant list was evaluated
according to the following criteria:
1. The compound was detected in ground water in other states as a result of
normal agricultural usage;
2. The compound was detected in ground water in other states under any
conditions (including spills, applicator error or manufacturing);
3. The compound structurally resembles a compound which has been found in
ground water;
4. The compound has been used in more than minimal quantitiy on any of the
sites;
5. The WF&FCC laboratory has the capability to analyze the pesticide uithin
equipment, time and personnel constraints.
COMPOUNDS SELECTED FOft STUDY
Analyte
Detection Limit
(ppb)
Analyte
Detection Limit
-------
1. No pesticides were detected in twenty-five samples of ground water taken from
shallow wells onsite, immediately adjacent or directly downgradient from agricultural
pesticide application areas or golf courses in New Hampshire.
2. Although no pesticides were detected, the detection limits are such that some risk
may be present if drinking water were contaminated with some of the pesticides at levels
below the detection limits.
3. Although the likelihood of undetected contamination is reduced since the wells were
selected to maximize detection, this does not eliminate the possibility of pesticide
ground-water contamination in other areas of the state. The sample size was restricted
due to funding considerations and utilized existing wells rather than installing monitoring
wells which could be placed in locations which would further maximize the detection
potential.
4. The presence of inorganic compounds in the wells sampled could not be attributed to
pesticide use since they were not elevated above levels naturally present in ground water
in the area except for those wells which reflected landfill leachate.
As a result of the study, health-based ground-water protection strategies were proposed
including development of a formal process for health and environmental input into the
pesticide registration process, mechanisms by which monitoring of wells for pesticides
will be instituted, development of health-based drinking water standards for New
Hampshire, and establishment of a chemical and pesticide intoxication registry. To
further protect public health by preventing future contamination, it was recommended
that the differences between other states and New Hampshire's agricultural practices and
pesticide use be compared in order to identify factors which may have mitigated the
potential for pesticide contamination of ground water in the state.
l-NH-7
I
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF IDEM HAMPSHIRE
WELL RESULTS
SAWLf results
RANGE OF
COiCEK
TRATIONS
tmfii
PfSTJMBE
COUtETT
DATE
TOTAL
WEILS
SAMPLED
0 OF
posmvr
WELLS
TOTAL *
SWISS
# Of
wstrjvt
SAMPLES
««/
MOttTS
I
set
<
KCL
z
Ma
<
KCL
BELOU?
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
HILLSBOROUGH
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
«£RRI«AP(
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
ROCKINGHAM
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
STftAFfOfiD
1986/7-9
2
0
Q
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
20
0
0
20
0
0
¦ Atachtoi*
/ccoi'^
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
D
;«rilSB0l)0U6H
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
B0CK1K6KAK
1986/7-9
3
0
a
3
0
0
ST ftAFFORD
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
SW.LIVAH
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WILLS/SAMPLES
19
0
0
19
0
0
" - ik i
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE Of NEVI HAMPSHIRE
V*Ll RESULTS
SAKPtJE RESULTS
RAB&E OF
COKCE*
TIMTIWtt
<09/1)
awn
OATf
TOfW.
Wilts
tmvm
# Of
posmvE
WEILS
TOTAL «
SAMPLES
f Of ..
POSITIVE
tm> its
... WM/
M0HT8
t
MCL
<
fCL
*
m
<
net
chlordarat 1
coos
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
MUSBORCUG*
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
WRRIKM*
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
ROCttSSHA*
^986/7^9
3
17
0
0
0
17
_o
0
o
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
0
; Chtorpyrjfoa
BEUWAf
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
JUUSfflWOUGH
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
KE8RIMACK
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
SOCICllrtKAK
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
18
0
0
18
0
0
DO>A
SEllCHAP
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
*ULLS8Q*0UGH
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
HERRIKAOC
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
SOCKINGHAM
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELIS/SAKPLES
16
0
0
18
0
0
Ofaiirren
BELKNAP
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
HILISBORQUGK
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
HERRIHACK
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
ROCKINGHAM
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
STAFFORD
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
==£=.
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
20
0
0
20
0
Otcartw
9EIKHAP
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
HULSSOROUCK
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
ROCKINGHAM
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
STSAfFORD
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
17
0
0
17
0
0
l-NH-10
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IH THE STATE OF KEU HAMPSHIRE
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE 8ESU11S
MUX OF
CONCER-
TBATiare
«STKII3E
COUNTT
DATE
TCTA1
WU.LE
SAMPLED
* OF
wsmve
VEILS
TOTAL M
SAMPLES
C Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEH*/
MOHTfi
t
«ev
<
NCL
*
xet
<
ma. :
> Dfnwtb
COOS
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
HILLSBOROUGH :
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
*8R£*AOC
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
ROCKfRStU*
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
17
0
0
17
0
0
frxfesulfan
- coos
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
»US.L$BOftOIJGH
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
HBRftlHACK
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
¦80CK1NSKAM
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
-.SfjUMORO--.-
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
VELLS/SAMPLIS
19
0
0
19
0
0
iiiwtonel-Cgaefna* rr^
mjilsmrousk
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
.WERRllWtat:'
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
12
0
0
12
0
Netto*ytftlof
BELKNAP
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
HILLSBOROUCH
1986/7-9
9
0
0
9
0
0
":«bcKWGMM-r:'r:
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
tTRAPFORD
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
17
0
0
17
0
0
Oxamvl
KULSaORtXKK
1986/7-9
9
0
p
9
0
0
HERftjHACIf
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
ftOCKiKGHA*!
1986/7-9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1986/7-9
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
17
0
0
17
0
0
1-NH-ll
-------
PESTICIDE SMCH.IK6 li THE STATE Of KEU IIAWSIillE
WELL RESULTS
omt 8ESULTS
RANGE. Of
P£STJC1M
COJKTY
OATf
TOT At } § OP
veus I wsmw
sm>iM f «us
TOTAL *
SWLES
# Of
positive
CONCEK-
TXATIOMS
Cffff/l}
TEAS/
UMTS
f 1
J MCL
; act ;
» *:
*a
<
*0,
Oxy>d<*ulfocon
1 KILLSBORQUG#
1986/7-9
9 1 0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
1 UEILS/SAHPLES
1
9 0
0
9
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
25 0
0
25
0
0
l-NH-12
-------
STATE OF HCU MAW>SHIR£
UELLS IT COUNTY
cotarr
TYPES of ieus
*0U*CS QF
COKTJWlHATIOH
OJUMStR OF UELLS}
oemKJw imres
JttKirOftlKG
OtKER
tOTM.
S*>10
I
ICL
MCL
total
SHPL&
i
JCL
«
PCL
TOTAL
SKPUB
I
*cl
*
XL
HfU*
' * •
' PS :
if .
UK
B«lkn*p
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
C99»
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
ai Ucfeorougft
6
0
0
D
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
M«f r iracfc
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
.Rockineham ¦
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
Strafford
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Suti !v*n
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
13
0
o II .
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
KfU'Known or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS «KnoN»i or Suspected Point Source
UNK=Unkno*n
l-NH-13
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
57/320
91/1011
Rhode
Island.
Total Wells Sampled
per County
i
Q
El
E3
~
> 1000
501 to 1000
50 e
101 to
51 to
100
1 TO 50
No wells sampled
Pesticides Detected
Aldicarb
Aldicarb Sulfone
Aldicarb Sulfoxide
Atrazine
Butylate
Carbaryl
Carbafuran
Carbofuran, 3-Hydroxy
Dicamba
Dinoseb
Oxamyl
l-RI-l
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
1
-------
RHODE ISLAND
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
The Rhode Island Department of Health has provided private well testing services to the
citizens of Rhode Island for many years. Prior to 1979 these services primarily involved
analysis of samples, with interpretation of results, for sanitary quality of the water. In 1979
the DOH began a program of monitoring of private wells in the vicinity of sites where
hazardous materials were likely to have contaminated the groundwater. TTie program was
initiated in northern Rhode Island following an industrial trichloroethylene spill at a wool
processing facility which resulted in the contamination of a dozen private wells.
In 1980 an Executive Order was issued by the Governor directing the DOH to begin
monitoring of private wells around potentially contaminated sites. Initially, the program
concentrated on hazardous waste landfill sites but has since expanded to include other areas
of groundwater contamination such as leading underground storage tanks, industrial sites,
and, in 1984, agricultural areas where the pesticide Temik [aldicarb] had been used.
The Office of Environmental Health Risk Assessment was created within the DOH in 1987.
This office has provided assistance to the program in establishing health advisories and
standards for chemicals found in private well drinking water and has also assisted in
communicating information on health risks to city and town governments, citizens' groups,
the news media, and homeowners with contaminated well water supply.
The Office of Private Well Water Contamination was established within the DOH by the
General Assembly in the 1988 session. The primary purpose of the program is to coordinate
the response of all state agencies to instances of private well water contamination.
Preceding page blank
l-RI-3
-------
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Dickerman, David C Hydrogeology, Water Quality, and Ground-Water Development
Alternatives in the Lower Wood River Ground-Water Reservoir, Rhode Island. Water
Resources Division, United States Geological Survey, Tel: 401-528-5136. Study conducted
April 1984 through December 1985. (Reported via correspondence, July 1984 through
September 1988.)
Primary Objective
The objective of this study was to determine if aldicarb was present in ground water in a
study area down gradient of potato fields to which aldicarb had been applied.
Pesign
Ten wells installed by USGS and one domestic supply well were sampled around a potato
field near an area where earlier monitoring had shown high nitrate levels. One well was
located upgradient of the field, one well at the southwest edge, three at 100 feet
downgradient, three at 500 feet downgradient, two at 1500 feet downgradient and one at
1800 feet downgradient. A total of thirteen samples was taken, including replicate samples
from two of the downgradient (100 and 500 feet) wells. These replicates were assigned
different well numbers. The samples were analyzed by high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC) for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, aldicarb sulfone, carbofuran, 3-
hydroxy carbofuran, oxamyl, carbaryl, 1-napthol, and methomyl. The detection limit was 1
Ppb-
Subsequent sampling of the wells was performed in July 1984 and December 1985, although
the December data did not include replicate samples or samples from the domestic supply
well.
EfiSHJlS
Original sampling of the eleven wells yielded 13 samples. Of these, 7 wells/9 samples were
found to be positive for aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone with highest detected
concentrations of 94 ppb and 56 ppb, respectively. Carbofuran was detected in 6 wells/ 8
samples with the highest detected concentration at 7 ppb. Oxamyl was detected in 1 well/
1 sample at 2 ppb.
The second sampling in July 1984 showed the same number of wells positive for aldicarb
sulfone, aldicarb sulfoxide, and carbofuran. Of these wells, aldicarb sulfone and aldicarb
sulfoxide concentrations were higher for all but 1 well/2 samples which showed a slight
decrease in both constituents. Positive carbofuran levels decreased in 2 wells/3 samples,
increased in 2 wells/2 samples and were unchanged in 2 wells/3 samples. Oxamyl was
detected in 3 wells/4 samples with highest detected concentration at 2 ppb.
l-RI-4
-------
Sampling of the ten monitoring wells was repeated in December, 1985 with a total of 10
wells/10 samples tested. Of these, 7 wells/7 samples were positive for aldicarb sulfone and
aldicarb sulfoxide. Six of these showed decreased detected concentrations of both aldicarb
sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone from the previous sampling and 1 well/sample showed slightly
increased levels of both constituents. The number of wells positive for carbofuran decreased
to 4 wells/4 samples; 1 well/sample was positive for oxamyl at 1 ppb.
Rhode Island Department of Health, Office of Community Health Services/Health Engineering
Report of Private Well Testing Program for Pesticides. Study conducted 1984. (Reported
1985, 8 pp.)
Primary Objective
In response to detections of aldicarb during a USGS study, the Rhode Island Department
of Health began a program of private well water sampling in the areas of potato fields to
determine if aldicarb or any other pesticides had contaminated any private wells.
Design
On August 9, 1984, 474 drinking water wells in 9 towns in Washington County and 212
drinking water wells in 4 towns in Newport County were sampled for aldicarb, carbaryl,
carbofuran, and oxamyl. Analytical methods and limits of detection were not specified. The
numbers of wells with pesticide detections above and below the aldicarb health advisory
limit (at that time) of 10 ppb were tallied.
Results and Conclusions
A total of 100 of the 686 private wells sampled indicated the presence of aldicarb, with 75
wells below the 10-ppb health advisory limit, and 25 wells above. One well contained 4 ppb
carbaryl. Nine of the 25 wells above the health advisory limit also contained 1 to 19 ppb
carbofiiran, while only 2 of the 75 wells below the health advisory contained detectable
levels of carbofuran (1 ppb each). Oxamyl was detected in one well contaminated with
aldicarb below the health advisory level at 2 ppb. Detailed results of the testing are
presented below:
No. No. No. Pos Concentration
Pesticide
Town
w?ii§
Samples
Wells
fppM
Aldicarb
(Washing-
Woodville
36
38
2
8, 63
ton Co.)
Hton Ochd
40
41
5
2, 31-73
Usquepaug
48
55
4
19-53
Railroad
152
159
26
1-7, 11-21
Tuckertown
100
103
9
1-8, 12-24
100-Acre Pnd
29
29
3
3, 5, 13
Matunuck
28
28
2
4, 16
Exeter
26
29
1
9
N. Kingston
15
15
0
l-RI-5
-------
No.
No.
No. Pos
Concentrator
Pesticide
Town
Wells
Wells
fppb)
(Newport
Middletown
141
141
28
2-9, 12-17
Co.)
Tiverton
33
35
7
1-8, 12, 15
Ltl Compton
13
13
2
5, 6
Portsmouth
25
25
8
1-6, 13-17
CarbaryJ
(Newport
Portsmouth
25
25
1
4
Co.)
Carbofuran
(Washing-
Woodville
36
38
1
4
ton Co.)
Hton Ochd
40
41
3
2-19
Railroad
152
159
2
1
Tuckertown
100
103
2
1,2
100-Acre Pnd
29
29
1
1
Exeter
26
29
1
1
(Newport
Ltl Compton
13
13
1
1
Co.)
Oxamyl
(Washing-
Railroad
152
159
1
2
ton Co.)
Groundwater Section, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Rhode Island
Private Well Survey Final Report, 1990, Study conducted in 1986. (Reported 1990)
Primary Objective
The survey was intended to screen for contamination of ground water in different land use
settings. Those sites designated to the land use categories of agriculture, turf farming,
silviculture and nurseries were analyzed for pesticides as well as for other potential
contaminants.
Design
256 wells/261 samples were analyzed for pesticides.
Depending on the land use category of the site, the well samples were tested for different
pesticides. The pesticides and corresponding land use categories are given below.
Analytical methods and limits of detection were not specified.
l-RI-6
-------
Methyl parathion
Nursery
Malathion
Nursery
Simazine
Nursery
Phosmet
Fruit crops
Endosulfan
Fruit crops
Azinphos-methyl
Fruit crops
Captan
Fruit crops
Methomyl
Vegetable crops, Fruit crops
Terbufos
Vegetable crops
Atrazine
Vegetable crops
Aldicarb
Potato/turf farming, Nursery
Alachlor
Potato/turf fanning, Vegetable crops
Carbaryl
Potato/Turf fanning, Nursery
Carbofuran
Potato/turf farming, Nursery
Chlorothalonil
Potato/turf fanning
Eptam (EPTC)
Potato/turf farming
Metribuzin
Potato/turf farming
Oxamyl
Potato/turf farming
Permethrin
Potato/turf farming, Vegetable crops
Dinoseb
Potato/turf farming
Butylate
Potato/turf farming, Nursery,
Vegetable crops
Endosulfan
Potato/turf farming
Dicamba
Potato/turf farming
Mancozeb
Potato/turf farming
Diazinon
Potato/turf farming, Nursery
2,4-D
Potato/turf fanning
Dacthal
Potato/turf farming
Criteria for site selection included: land use; availability of wells to t<
available wells relative to land use of interest, e.g., downgradient of fields.
Results and Conclusions
Of the 256 wells/261 samples tested for pesticides, a total of 28 wells showed the presence
of pesticides. Of these, carbaryl was detected in 16 wells, carbofuran in 11 wells, atrazine
in 4 wells, dicamba and butylate each in 2 wells, and dinoseb and aldicarb each in one well.
Except for aldicarb, the concentrations at which the pesticides were detected were far below
established health advisory or maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Aldicarb was detected
in one well at 3 ppb, equal to the current MCL.
l-RI-7
-------
Lee, Ronald G. (1989) State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Department of
Health Office of Private Well Water Contamination 1989 Annual Report, Providence, RI,
Telephone (401)277-3336.
This report has been prepared in compliance with provisions of the establishment of the
Office of Well Water Contamination within the Department of Health by the Rhode Island
General Assembly in the 1988 session. It provides background on the testing program and
a summary of the results since the program began in 1979 and for 1989.
Prior to 1979 the DOH provided private well testing services for the sanitary quality of the
water. In 1979 the DOH began a program of monitoring of private wells in the vicinity of
sites where hazardous materials were likely to have contaminated the groundwater. Initially,
the program concentrated on hazardous waste landfill sites but has since expanded to
include other areas of ground-water contamination such as leaking underground storage
tanks, industrial sites, and, in 1984, agricultural areas where the pesticide Temik [aldicarb]
had been used.
Note: only the 1989 data was utilized for the Pesticides in Ground Water Database Report
since the other data was in summary form and could not be separated.
In 1989 seven wells were found to be positive for aldicarb with a concentration range of 4-11
ppb in Washington Co., seven well in Newport Co. were positive with aldicarb
concentrations of 3-13 ppb, and 1 well in Providence Co. was positive at 19 ppb. There was
also one well in Providence Co. found positive for carbofuran at 1 ppb concentration.
Summary of Private Well Monitoring Activities and Results-1990 Annual Report (Excerpts)
As of December 1990 a total of 3760 private wells have been monitored by DOH: 1135 of
these were tested for Temik [aldicarb]. During 1990 twenty-two new wells were tested for
Temik; fortunately none were found to be positive. Sampling activities for Temik ranged
from a low of 452 samples collected in 1989 to a high of 965 samples collected in 1987 with
an average of 693 samples collected per year (between 1984 and 1990).
No data was submitted with this report.
l-RI-8
-------
Rhode Island Departments of Health and Environmental Management (1984) Joint Press
Release: Testing for Aldicarb in Rhode Island Public Water System Wells, 4 pgs.
As a preliminary step in determining if drinking water supplies in Rhode Island were
affected by Temik [aldicarb], an identification of the location of potato fields was made by
the University of Rhode Island and the Department of Environmental Management using
pesticide applicator records and knowledge of the potato industry. Based on the information
furnished, the Department of Health selected for sampling and analyses the public water
system wells which were most likely to be impacted by chemical infiltration from a potato
field. Seventeen public drinking water wells were sampled on 31 July 1984 and transported
to a University of Massachusetts laboratory facility in Worcester, Massachusetts for total
Temik analysis. The detection level for Temik in 2 ppb.
All of the water systems sampled were located in Washington Co. Three of the wells had
positive results, with aldicarb levels ranging from 3 to 7 ppb.
l-RI-9
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
I
-------
PESTICIDE SMVLIMG IN THE STATE OF RHODE ISUUD
UEU RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEIt-
IRATJOHS
U*SA>
mtjcua.
CCUKTY '
CATE
TOTAL
WEliS
SMPLED
« or
POSITIVE
WEILS
TOTAL #
Of
SAMPLES
1 OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
MM IK
I
UCL
<
UCL
i
MCL
<
MCL
VASK1MTGN
1984/4
11
0
0
13
0
0
1984/7
11
0
O
13
0
0
1985/12
10
0
0
10
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAKPLES
11
0
0
36
0
0
2,4-0
WAStflBGTO*
1986
60
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
60
0
0
60
0
0
AUehlor
BRISTOL
1986
20
0
0
20
0
0
VASMIKGTO#
1986
64
0
0
64
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
84
0
0
84
0
0
Alctiearb
8RJST0L
1986
43
0
0
43
0
0
1989
13
0
0
13
0
0
KENT
1989
31
0
0
31
0
0
NEWPORT
1984/8
212
10
38*
212
10
38*
1-17
1986
17
1
0
17
1
0
3
1989
91
7
0
91
7
0
3-13
PROVIDfHCE
1986
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989
278
1
0
278
1
0
19
WASHINGTON
1984/4
11
0
0
13
0
0
-
1984/7
11
0
0
13
0
0
1984/8
44S
22
1
465
22
1
2-63
29
0
29*
29
0
29*
1-8
1985/12
10
0
0
10
0
0
1986
62
0
0
62
0
0
1989
443
7
0
443
7
0
4-11
TOTAL DISCRETE |
UELLS/SAMPIES |||
I 1724
51
68* 1 1750
51
68*
1-63
1-RI-ll
Preceding page blank
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IH THE STATE OF MODE ISLAM)
1
UELi Jtreutrs
SAM PIE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEIT
TRATiOKS
0<9/l>
roneu*
ctum
WTE
TOTAL
WILLI
¦ SAMPLED.-:
# OF
POSITIVE
WEILS
TOTAL *
W
SAMKES
+ t)f
POSIW*
SAMPLES
1
«**/
MONTH
i
ICL
<
Ma
* ;
Ma
MCI
Atdlcwb *ul for*
WASH]KGTDK
1984/4
11
7
0
13
9
0
14-56
1984/7
11
7
0
13
9
0
19*44
1985/12
10
7
0
10
7
0
3-33
TOTAL DISCRETE
1 VELIS/SANPLES
11
7
0
36
25
0
3-56
AtctleaHh
WASMlKCTOfi
1984/4
11
7
0
13
9
0
18-92
1984/7
11
7
0
13
9
0
32-69
19B5/12
10
7
0
10
7
0
6-47
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
11
7
0
36
25
0
6-92
Atdtctrb, tot#f
1984/7
17
3
0
17
3
0
3-6
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
17
3
0
17
3
0
3-6
i * ¦:
•ristol
1986
20
0
5
20
0
5
0.06-0.11
UASMINCTOS
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
TOTAL DISCRITE
WELLS/SAMPLES
24
0
5
24
0
5
0.06-0.11
Arfripho4-«ethyt :
PROV1DEWCE
1986
99
0
0
102
0
0
|
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SANPLES
99
0
0
102
0
0
|
8R1ST0L
1986
63
0
2
63
0
2
1.1, 1.2
' KEwforr
1986
17
0
0
19
0
0
PROVIDEBCE
1986
11
0
0
11
0
0
VASHJKCTOR
1986
66
0
0
66
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
157
0
2
159
0
2
1.1, 1.2
PROVIDEKCE
1986
99 1 0
0
102
0
0
|
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SANPLES
99 | 0
0
102
0
0
|
• -C» rlMfiry ¦ ='
SRISTOL
1986
43
0
0
43
0
0
NEWKST
1984/8
212
0
1
212
0
1
4
1986
17
0
0
19
0
0
l-RI-12
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE Of RHODE ISLAND
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAK6E OF
- •; CONCEft- :
RATIONS
mm
wesTJCitte
ttutftt
DATE
TOTAL
«us
* OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL f
OF
SAMPLES
* OF
wsinvt
SAMPLES
YEAR/
MONTK
HCL
<
MCL
a
Ma
«C1H:
CCarbtryl)
fROViOENCE
1986
11
0
0
11
0
0
WASHINGTON
1984/4
11
0
0
13
0
0
1984/7
11
0
0
13
0
0
1984/8
474
0
0
494
0
0
1985/12
10
0
0
10
0
0
1986
62
0
12
62
0
12
0.11*0.72
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
850
0
13
877
0
13
0.11-4
:Carbofurart •
BRISTOL
1986
43
0
0
43
0
0
HEWMRT
1984/8
212
0
1
212
0
1
1
1986
17
0
0
19
0
0
WKWJDEHCE
1986
11
0
0
11
0
0
1989
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
WASHINGTON
1984/4
11
0
6
13
0
8
2*7
1984/7
11
0
6
13
0
8
1-6
1984/8
474
0
10
494
0
10
1-19
1985/12
10
0
4
10
0
4
1*3
1986
62
0
11
62
0
11
trace*2.0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SANPIES
831
0
29
876
0
43
trace-19
• 3-HytJrcxy carbofuran
WASHINGTON
1984/4
11
0
0
13
0
0
1984/7
11
0
0
13
0
0
1985/.12
10
0
1
10
0
1
==_
-------
PESTICIDE SMPL1MG 11 THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAM)
VCLl RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAKCf or
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
P£$HCi«
awin
DATE
TOTAL
tcui
SAMPLED
« or
POSITIVE
WELLS
IOTA. *
OF
SAMPLES
• OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
MONTM
»
#CL
<
MCL
i
MCt
<
MCL
Otailnon
SfitSTQL
1986
43
0
0
43
0
0
NEWPORT
1986
17
0
0
19
0
0
WOVIOEHCE
1986
11
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
WASHTSGTCW
1986
62
0
0
62
0
0
«
0
0
135
0
0
Dicanba |
WASHIBCTON
1986
60
0
2
60
0
2
0.25-1.41
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES |
60
0
2
60
0
2
0.25-1.41
Olftoseb
WASKIRGTOS
1986
_60_
60
0
1
60
0
1
loi23=
0.23
TOTAL DISCRETE
WILLS/SAMPLES
0
1
60
0
1
: ErrJosut tan .• \
PROVIDENCE
1986
99
0
0
102
0
0
MASIfl RE TOR
1986
60
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
159
0
0
162
0
0
EPIC
1986
60
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
.
0
0
60
0
0
MkiatMan
6R1ST0L
1986
0
0
43
0
0
NEWPORT
1986
17
0
0
19
0
0
PROVIDENCE ri ¦;
1986
11
0
0
11
0
0
WASKJUGTON
1986
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WILLS/SAMPLES
73
0
0
75
0
0
'..Raneci* b
WASH1KGTOH
1986
60
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
60
0
0
60
0
0
¦ SRIStOt".-
1906
20
0
0
20
0
0
iwfeWDEKE^i"
1986
99
0
0
102
0
0
l-RI-14
-------
PESTICIDE SMPIIHG IM THE STATE Of RHODE ISLAND
UEli RESULTS
SAMPLE DESULTS
corny
WT£
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
i of
KSUIV6
VEILS
TOTAL I
or
SAWIES
# OF
K»mV£
SAMPLES
RAN5E OF
COKC£»-
T*ATI0M8
VEAIf/
MONTH
I
tCL
<
tttl .
£
MCt-
<
fcCl
Ore/1 >
(MethomyI)
mmmtm
1984/4
11
0
0
13
0
0
1984/7
11
0
0
13
0
0
1985/12
10
0
0
10
0
0
« * ^ ,
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
134
0
0
162
0
0
KetHbuiin
VAStOPIGTOB
1986
60
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELIS/SAMPLES
60
0
0
60
0
0
Ox wry I
NEWPORT
1984/8
212
0
0
212
0
0
WAS81RCT0N
1954/4
11
0
1
13
0
1
2
1984/7
11
0
3
13
0
4
1-2
1984/B
474
0
1
494
0
1
2
1985/12
10
0
1
10
0
1
1
1986
60
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
MELLS/SANPLES
757
0
5
802
0
7
1-2
Parathior., ncthyl
BRISTOL
1986
43
0
0
43
0
0
MEUPOItT
1986
17
0
0
19
0
0
PROVltKHCE
1966
11
0
0
11
0
0
tfASMWSTMf
1986
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
| WELLS/SAMPLES
73
0
0
75
0
0
Peraethrin
BRISTOL *
1986
20
0
0
20
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986
64
0
0
| 64
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELIS/SAMPLES
64
0
0
84
0
0
"fhesraet
>RdVIC€HCi'ii
1986
99
0
0
102
0
0
|
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
I
99
0
0
99
0
0
l-RI-15
-------
PESTICIDE SMVL1NG IN TK STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
•
icii «s«.rs
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAHCE or
£0NC£N-
TftATiOSS
{fiS/D
coum
ftATE
TOTAL
WUS
SAHPtEO
Of ,
wsinvs
WELLS
TOTAL t
SAMPtE*
* Of
; POSIT!**
SAMPLES
VEAR/
MONTO
i
'ICL-:-:
<
' - HCt-: J
Ma
¦¦«
*CL
StaMfoe
BRISTOL
1986
43
0
0
43
0
0
NEMXKT
1986
17
0
0
19
0
0
WTOVIWKCE
1986
11
0
0
11
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
1986 )
2
0
0
2
0
0
73
0
0
75
0
0
T«rbufo«
AR1STC1
1986
20
0
0
20
0
0
WAWmCTOl
1986
4
0
0
4
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
24
0
0
24
0
0
GRAND TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPIES8
1826
58
99*
1859
76
99*
The results given in the Resort of Private Well Testing Program for Pesticides were
given in summary form. The results for aldicarb were grouped as being above
or below the health advisory limit at that time (10 ppb). In some instances it
was inpossibte to separate the rubers of wells above or below the current aldicarb
NCI <3 ppb>. In these instances the entire block of positive wells were placed in
the 'less than MCI' category, assuntng a best case scenario. The total nuntoer of wells
affected by this iricertainty is approximately 67,
8 Every attempt was made to count each individual well only once. In the case of sunmary
reports the data may not allow this distinction. Also, if an individual well was sampled
in nor* than one study, and not given a wique identifier, it may be counted as a
different well in each study.
l-RI-16
-------
81 ATE Of RHODE 1SUUB
HELLS BY COUNTY
wes or wus
SOUSCE OF
9 COUNTY
mtnkikg i»t«
MONlTORUtt
OTHER
CORTANIMATION
(MUMKI Ar UELLSJ
TOTAL
SHPLD
t
MCL
<
MCL
TOTAL
SHPU>
*
KCL
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
V ermont
Pesticides Detected
Atrazine
Cyanazine
Metolachlor
Simazine
Total Wells Sampled
per County
m > 1090
ESS 501 to 10B0
ES 101 to 500
G) 51 to 108
E3 1 t o 50
~ No wells sampled
1-VT-l
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
VERMONT
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
The Vermont Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Monitoring Program was established
by the passage of Public Act No. 72, (Chapters 81 and 87 of Title 6, Vermont Statutes
Annotated, May 1985). The Governor signed it into law in May, 1985.
The Pesticide Monitoring Program was developed to:
1) provide Vermont's citizens, state agencies and the agricultural and industrial
communities with data on the extent and patterns of use and;
2) provide data on the environmental fate of pesticides under Vermont's unique
environmental conditions.
The primary objective of the Monitoring Program is to provide the information necessary
to continually evaluate the impact of pesticides on environmental quality, so that sound,
foresighted management decisions may be based upon those evaluations.
The activities of the program are funded by product registration fees paid by the
manufacturers and distributors of pesticide products offered for sale within the state.
The Commissioner of Agriculture is assigned the responsibility for implementing the
Pesticide Monitoring Program, but its administration and management is specifically the
responsibility of the Plant Industry Section within the Dept. of Agriculture.
The primary goals of the Pesticide Monitoring Program are:
1) to develop and maintain a pesticide monitoring library comprised of pesticide
registration standards and special review documents issued by US EPA, pesticide
monitoring studies conducted by other state and federal agencies and applicable
pesticide and groundwater monitoring publications;
2) to characterize the environmental fate of pesticides under conditions of use and
climate specific to Vermont;
3) to respond to requests from homeowners, businesses, agriculture producers and
other state agencies for sampling under routine or emergency situation; and
4) to provide the information necessary for the users of pesticides to evaluate
agricultural chemical management practices in Vermont.
Preceding page blank
l-VT-3
-------
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Vermont Department of Agriculture, Plant Industry Division, (July 1988) 1986-1987
Suininary Report: Vermont Pesticide Monitoring Program. Point of Contact: Jeffery
Comstock, Pesticide Monitoring Program, Vermont Department of Agriculture, 116 State
St/State Office Building, Montpelier, VT 05602, Tel. (802) 828-2431.
Comstock, Jeffery (August 1988) Telephone conversation with M. Lorber of
EPA/OPP/EFED/EFGWB concerning preliminary results of 1986-87 sampling.
Comstock, Jeffery (October 1991) Computer printouts of herbicide detections through
10/15/1991. Vermont Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Monitoring Program.
Hie Vermont Pesticide Monitoring Program conducts various pesticide monitoring
projects, several of which are discussed below.
THE CORN HERBICIDE SURVEY
Primary Objective
The sampling activities of the corn herbicide survey project are focused on existing
private drinking water supplies adjacent to cropland used for the production of silage or
sweet corn where crop production occurs on land with the potential to serve as the
recharge area for the drinking water supply. Although the primary focus of the corn
herbicide survey was to sample farm water supplies, ten public drinking water supplies
were included in the project at the request of the Department of Health.
Design
Products selected for analysis were the herbicides alachlor, atrazine, cyanazine,
metolachlor, and simazine and nitrate from fertilizers and manure. These corn
herbicides were selected as the priority for the initial pesticide monitoring project
because pesticide use on cornland represents the most extensive use pattern for
agricultural chemicals in Vermont. In 1988, analysis for carbamates and pendimethalin
was added to the program.
Sampling for the corn herbicide survey began in the spring of 1986 and has continued on
a year-round basis. Wells that test positive for herbicides at any level are resampled
approximately every second month to determine if the detections represent isolated
events or continued contamination. Sampling intervals have been established to attempt
to represent seasonal variation in pesticide usage.
l-VT-4
-------
In the 1986-87 sampling period a total of 250 drinking water wells was sampled.
Approximately 90% of the wells sampled were private domestic wells, while the
remaining 10% represented public water supplies. All wells were located within 500 feet
of corn production. Wells in which nitrate levels of 8 ppm or herbicides at any level
were detected were resampled within 1 to 2 months for initial confirmation, then about
every 6 months afterwards to determine if positive detections were indicative of isolated
events or continued contamination. If no herbicides or excessive nitrate levels were
detected in the first round of sampling, wells generally were not resampled. Additional
information was recorded including the distance from the wells to septic systems and
manure storage, the depth of the wells, and the well types (spring, dry well, driven point,
etc.). Samples were analyzed by GC using a double-column method for confirmation
with ECD and/or NP detectors. The limits of detection were 2 ppb for cyanazine and 1
ppb for the remaining four herbicides.
Results and Conclusions
Of the 250 wells sampled in 1986-87, only 10 wells ever tested positive for herbicide.
The twelve detections included one well positive for both atrazine and cyanazine and one
well positive for both atrazine and metolachlor. Eight wells were positive for atrazine,
one for cyanazine, one for simazine and two for metolachlor. No alachlor was found.
During resampling, of the eight wells that tested positive for atrazine, four wells
continued to show detectable levels. The four wells positive for cyanazine, metolachlor
and simazine showed no detectable levels of these compounds when resampled.
Although the majority of the contamination was determined or suspected to have
resulted from normal field use, atrazine contamination in one Orange County well at 24
ppb and the metolachlor detection at 3.2 ppb in Windham County were determined to
be point source incidences.
All well owners that participated in the survey sampling project were notified of their
results in writing.
The data concerning the Corn Survey Project after 1987 available for incorporation into
the Pesticides in Ground Water Database was incomplete. Sample statistics are shown
in the following table. It can be seen that as many wells have tested positive for any
corn herbicide since 1987 as had tested positive during the initial sampling. Atrazine
remains the primary herbicide found, followed by metolachlor.
i-VT-5
-------
Pesticide Monitoring Program
Weil and Sample Statistics for Corn Survey (CS) Hells
-including all eanples from 1986 through 1991-
CS Samples -
Analyzed for pesticides: MS
Analyzed for nitrates; 765
Analyzed for carbonates: 47
Total CS samples in database: 808
CS Wells •
Number of wells ever positive for -
Alachlor: 0
Atrazine: 16
Cyanazine: 1
Netolachlor; 6
Simazine: 1
Any Corn Herbicide: 20
Mmtwr of wells ever positive for -
Aldicarb Sulfoxide: 1
Aldicarb Sulfone: 1
Any Carbamate: 1
Total CS wells sampled: 424
(Detection limits - Herbicides and Carbamates: 1-2 ppb.)
All wells with detections of the five corn herbicides have been included in the State
tables. No specific information was available concerning the location of wells with no
detections; these wells are listed under UNSPECIFIED COUNTIES. No further
information was available concerning the chemicals added after 1988, therefore none of
these chemicals were added to the tables.
CHRISTMAS TREE SURVEY
Another project monitoring wells near Christmas tree farms in four counties has been
initiated. As of October of 1991, 15 samples from ten different wells were sampled for
the herbicides alachlor, atrazine, cyanazine, metolachlor and simazine. The locations
and dates of sampling were not provided. While two wells had low but detectable levels
of nitrates, no pesticides were found in any of the well samples (detection limits for the
tested pesticides varied from 1-2 ppb.).
l-VT-6
-------
CORN MONITORING PROGRAM
In addition to the above two monitoring projects, a long-term study involving a total of
29 monitoring wells located on three farms growing corn has been initiated. Data from
this study will be used to develop a modelling program for pesticides in ground water.
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE SURVEY
A survey of existing drinking water wells adjacent to small fruit and vegetable production
areas has sampled 11 wells in seven counties. Results were not available.
Broido, Thomas J. and Winslow H. Ladue (April 1985) Monitoring and Modeling of
Ground Water Quality Adjacent of Rights-of-Way Herbicide Application in Vermont-
Final Report, Vermont Department of Health, Division of Environmental Health, 60
Main Street, Burlington, VT 05401.
Primary Objective
The objective of this field study was to evaluate the impact of rights of way (ROW)
herbicide spraying on ground water quality. Three utility ROW sites were monitored:
an electric transmission, a state highway guardrail and a railroad site.
Design
The specific sites were selected because they were accessible, the landowner was
cooperative, a herbicide of interest was applied during the study period, the ground
water flow direction was relatively simple with a coarse grained overburden, there were
no conflicting land uses or chemical applications, and the depth to ground water was
relatively shallow.
Three test sites were established, an electric utility transmission corridor in Franklin Co.,
a railroad bed site in Washington Co. and a highway guardrail site in Chittenden Co.
Four wells were monitored at each site, one upgradient and three downgradient from the
spray site. The three downgradient wells were located at increasing distances from the
spray site: one as close as possible, one 50 feet downgradient and one 100 feet
downgradient. They were located to form a triangle so that the direction of ground
water flow could be determined.
The electric transmission and railroad sites were sampled prior to herbicide treatment in
order to check for background herbicide levels. The highway site was treated before the
monitoring wells could be installed so pretreatment samples could not be obtained.
l-VT-7
-------
Sampling Method
All samples of all sites were taken with a bailer made from 1 inch copper pipe and a
soldered end cap. Two or three well volumes were removed prior to sampling. All
sampling equipment was cleaned with acetone and rinsed with distilled water between
samples. Samples were taken at the upgradient well first, the farthest downgradient well
next, then the 50 foot downgradient well and finally the closest downgradient wells was
sampled. All samples were collected in silanized glass bottles with foil lined caps and
kept refrigerated until analyzed.
Analysis
All samples were analyzed by the Vermont Department of Agriculture Laboratory.
Picloram, 2,4-D and triclopyr were analyzed with a gas liquid chromatograph using the
electron capture detector. The detection limit for these compound was 30 ppb and spike
recoveries were 65 to 80 percent.
Bromacil, atrazine and diuron were analyzed with a gas liquid chromatograph using the
nitrogen phosphorus detector. The detection limit for these compounds was 1 ppb. The
spike recoveries for bromacil were 82 percent. The spike recoveries for atrazine and
diuron were 80 to 90%.
Electric Transmission Site
This site was treated on July 11, 1984. The application rates were:
picloram 0.405 lb. acid equivalent per acre
2,4-D 1.5 lb. acid equivalent per acre
triclopyr 0.75 lb. acid equivalent per acre.
All herbicides were dissolved in water and applied with sprayers. Samples were collected
from all wells at this site on the following dates: July 3, 1984 (pretreatment), August 21,
1984 and November 20, 1984.
Highway Site
This site was treated on May 18, 1984. The application rate was 4.9 lb/ac bromacil
(active ingredient). The herbicide was mixed with water and applied with a sprayer.
Samples were collected from all wells at this site on the following dates: June 26, 1984,
September 4, 1984 and November 15, 1984.
Railroad Site
This site was treated on June 12, 1984. The application rates were 3.42 lb/ac atrazine
and 3.20 lb/ac diuron (active ingredients). The herbicides were mixed with water and
applied with a sprayer from a hyrail truck. Herbicides were applied to the track and
ballast portion of the right-of-way (15 foot width). Samples were collected from all wells
on this site on the following dates: May 30, 1984 (pre-treatment), July 11, 1984, August
7, 1984 and October 31, 1984.
l-VT-8
-------
Results and Conclusions
Herbicides were not detected in any of the samples collected. This could be due to may
reasons including:
a. The herbicide did not leach into the ground water because of various reasons
(adsorption, decay, volatilization, insufficient infiltration for movement).
b. The herbicide did not travel as fast horizontally as estimated.
c Hie herbicide that reached the ground water was diluted below detection limits,
d. The herbicide migrated vertically to a portion of the aquifer which was not
monitored.
l-VT-9
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLING li THE STATE OF VERMONT
tEU RESULTS
SANPLE RESULTS
SAUCE or
COSCEtf-
THATIOHS
c«/l>
mrjciM
mm*
OAtf
Total
wells
sampled
~ Of
POSITIVE
UELLE
total *
fiAMPiES*
# Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YEAR/
KOHTH
'¦ X
MCI
< "
MCI
t
Ma
<
*a
FUIKUH
1984/7,8,11
4
0
0
12
0
0
1966/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1987/3
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
4
0
0
18
0
0
AtBChtor *
ADOISON ^
1986/4-1987/12
34
0
0
34
0
0
1988/4.9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3,6,9
1
0
0
3
0
0
1990/2,5,9
1
0
0
3
0
0
1991/1,4
1
0
0
2
0
0
SEWN 1 liGTOW
1986/4-1987/12
13
0
0
13
0
0
1988/3,10
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/1
1
0
0
1
0
0
tALEDONIA
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
18
0
0
1988/2,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3,5,8
2
0
0
5
0
0
1990/1
1
0
0
1
0
0
::CHiTIEN3ftf. :-
1986/4-1987/12
23
0
0
23
0
0
• ESSEX -; ¦
1986/4-1987/12
21
0
0
2
0
0
1988/3,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3,8
1
0
0
2
0
0
fRAMiCUK
1986/4-1987/12
21
0
0
21
0
0
1988/3,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3,5.7
2
0
0
3
0
0
1990/1,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1991/3
1
0
0
1
0
0
GRAND ISLE
1986/4-1987/12
1
0
0
1
0
0
iamoille
1986/4-1987/12
7
0
0
7
0
0
: ORAMEM*-'
1986/4-1987/12
15
0
0
21
0
0
1988/2.5.9
3
0
0
4
0
0
1989/4,7,11
4
0
0
4
0
0
1990/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1-VT-ll
Preceding page blank
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VERMONT
t£ll SESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE Of
coHtm-
T HAT ID*S
(jig/l >
WstJCiM
coatrrr
DATE
TOTAL
VELIS
SAKPi-EO
# OF .
KflStTiVE
WELLS
JOTAI, *
SAHPLiS
# of
^ POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAS/
#OWJH
I
- act, - -
¦ ¦ ¦* .
KCl
1
MCI
< ;
HCL :
(Atachlor)
ORLEANS
1986/4-1987/12
15
0
(1
15
0
0
1988/2.9
2
0
0
3
0
0
1989/3,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
KUTLAKD
1986/4-1987/12
22
0
0
22
0
0
WASHINGTON
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
17
0
0
WINDHAM
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
21
0
0
1988/3
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/12
2
0
0
2
0
0
1990/1,2,12
1
0
0
3
0
0
1991/3
1
0
0
1
0
0
UJKCSOfi
1986/4-1987/12
27
0
0
33
0
0
1988/3,6,9.11
4
0
0
13
0
0
1989/2,5,9
2
0
0
4
0
0
1990/1,5,9.12
2
0
0
8
0
0
1991/4
2
0
0
2
0
0
UHSPEC1HED
couwi£sc::-
1988-1991
177
D
0
497
0
0
Tom DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
438
0
0
827
0
0
Mraxlne ;-i'.
: AODlSCtt
1986/4-1987/12
34
0
0
34
0
0
1988/4.9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3,6,9
1
0
0
3
0
0
1990/2,5,9
1
0
0
3
0
0
1991/1,4
1
0
0
2
0
0
8INN1HGT0M'
1986/4-1987/12
13
0
0
13
0
0
1988/3,10
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/1
1
0
0
1
0
0
CALEDONIA
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
1
18
0
2
1.10-2.20
1988/2,9
1
1
0
2
2
0
4,2-7.00
1989/3,5,8
2
0
1
5
0
1
2.40
1990/1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1.70
CHITTENDEK "•
1986/4-1987/12
23
0
0
23
0
0
l-VT-12
-------
PESTICIDE SMPUMS IN THE STATE OF VEXMQNT
WELL SESlATt
SAMPLE RESULTS
-(uuke or
COHCEK-
TSATXCMS
tM/l)
PtSTICU*
couw
MTf ~
row.
UCLLS
SAMPLED
* OF
POSITIVE
• - VEILS :
tqtai. *
SAMPLES
» Of
POSITIVE
SAW PIES
««/
¦: mcwtb ¦
I
*Cl
<
Htt
*Cl
¦<
*CL
(Atraitne)
..-ESSEX
1986/4-1987/12
21
0
1
2
0
1
1.10
1988/3.9
1
0
1
2
0
1
1.20
1989/3.8
1
0
0
2
0
0
FSANKLIK
1986/4-1987/12
21
0
0
21
0
0
1988/5,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/5.5.7
2
0
2
3
0
2
1.10-2.10
1990/1.9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1991/3
1
0
0
1
0
0
' BRAND ! St E ''
1986/4-1987/12
1
0
0
1
0
0
U*0illE
1986/4-1987/12
7
0
0
7
0
0
ORANGE.
1986/4-1987/12
15
1
1
21
1
1
1.20-
24.30
1988/2,5,9
3
0
2
4
0
2
1.30-2.30
1989/4,7,11
4
1
0
4
1
0
5.80
1990/9
1
0
1
1
0
1
1.30
OfilEAMS
1986/4-1987/12
15
0
0
15
0
0
1988/2,9
2
0
2
3
0
3
1.00-1.20
1989/3,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
RlfTtAHO : ; : '
1986/4-1987/12
22
0
0
22
0
0
' WftSHtHGTOW :"
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
17
0
0
1984/5,7.8,10
4
0
0
16
0
0
1986/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
iftNOHAK
1986/4-1987/12
17
1
0
21
2
1
1.4-5.0
1988/3
2
0
1
2
0
1
2.40
1989/12
2
1
0
2
1
0
5.40
1990/1,2.12
1
1
0
3
1
0
3.20
1991/3
1
0
0
1
0
0
:MlHBSOR
1986/4-1987/12
27
1
1
33
1
3
1.60-3,90
1988/3,6,9,11
4
1
2
13
2
4
1.10-6.00
1989/2.5,9
2
0
1
4
0
2
1.00-1.80
1990/1,5,9,12
2
1
1
8
1
4
1.60-3.10
1991/4
2
0
0
2
0
0
l-VT-13
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF VERMONT
UELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
SAKCE or
CORCE#-
TRATIOHS
{*g/t>
. nsrrcua
COUtfTT
OATE
Total
WELLS
sampled
# Of
POSITIVE
WELLS -
rum *
SAMPLES
0 Of
POSITIVE
SAXPiES
**A*/
mttin
i
*U
net
I
*a
MCL
(Atrazine)
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
UKSPCCmED
count?ES
1988-1991
177
0
2»
497
0
2
31
UNKNOWN
1.00-24.3
438
5
11
827
12
4ra»cH
CHltTENDE*
1984/6,
9.11
4
0
0
12
0
0
1984/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELIS/SAHPLES
4
0
0
15
0
0
Cvanaz irm
ADDfSON
1986/4-1987/12
34
0
0
34
0
0
1988/4,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3,6,9
1
0
0
3
0
0
1990/2,5,9
1
0
0
3
0
0
1991/1.4
1
0
0
2
0
0
BE WINSTON '
1986/4-1987/12
13
0
0
13
0
0
1988/3.10
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/1
1
0
0
1
0
0
CALEDONIA
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
18
0
0
1988/2,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3,5,8
2
0
0
5
0
0
1990/1
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHtTTENDM
1986/4-1987/12
23
0
0
23
Q
0
ESSEX
1986/4-1987/12
21
0
0
2
0
0
1988/3,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3,8
1
0
0
2
0
0
fMKKUW
1986/4-1987/12
21
0
0
21
0
0
1988/3.9
1
0
0
2
0
0
:
1989/3,5,7
2
0
0
3
0
0
1990/1,9
1
D
0
2
0
0
1991/3
1
0
0
1
0
0
GRASD ISLE
1986/4-1987/12
1
0
0
1
0
0
iAMOIl'lE';:-'.-'
1986/4-1987/12
7
0
0
7
0
0
l-VT-14
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING III THE STATE OF VERMONT
UEM. RESULT'S
SAMPLE RESULTS
HANGE Of
. CORCE*-
TtATfOtfS
ftsncif*
COOWTT
DATE
total
WELLS
4AM PI. ED
• or
POSITIVE
neus
total *
SAMPLES
$ Of
POSITIVE
EAMPt?S
MOWTB
i
MCI
MCI
£
MCI
<
MCL
(Cyanaifne)
ORANGE
1986/4-1987/12
15
0
0
21
O
0
1988/2.5.9
3
0
0
4
0
0
1989/4,7,11
4
0
0
4
0
0
1990/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
ORLEANS
1986/4-1987/12
15
0
0
15
0
0
1988/2.9
2
0
0
3
0
0
1989/3,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
RUTLAND
1986/4-1987/12
22
0
0
22
0
0
«fiSHi*GTOH
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
17
0
0
:Mindha«!v;::;-'::
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
21
0
0
1988/3
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/12
2
0
0
2
0
0
1990/1,2,12
1
0
0
3
0
0
1991/3
1
0
0
V
0
0
^WINDSOR
1986/4-1987/12
27
1
0
33
1
0
7.00
1988/3,6.9,11
4
0
0
13
0
0
1989/2,5,9
2
0
0
4
0
0
1990/1,5.9.12
2
0
0
8
0
0
1991/4
2
0
0
2
0
0
UNSPECIFIED .
"COUNTIES"
1988-1991
177
0
0
497
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
438
1
0
827
1
0
7.00
01 lire**:
WASHIMSTOH
1984/5,
7,8,10
4
0
0
16
0
0
|
1986/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
I WELLS/SAMPLES
4
0
0
18
0
0
Hetolacfilcr '¦
ADOtSQN
1986/4-1987/12
34
0
0
34
0
0
1988/4,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3,6.9
1
0
0
3
0
0
1990/2,5.9
1
0
1
3
0
2
3.20-3,40
1991/1,4
1
0
1
2
0
2
2.60-7.20
l-VT-15
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IK THE STATE OF VEMOMT
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE HE SATS
ULWE OF
CORCEN-
TRATIONS
(*g/t>
PESirClM
camr
wrr
toiai
UELLS
SAM PUD
# OF
POSITIVE
UELLS
TOTAL-#?.
SM4PIES*
. t Of
*os mvt
>;SM«PLES
WAR/
MONTH
-:v
KCI
I
• HCl
<
MCL
(Metolachlor)
StENKltretOH
1986/4-1987/12
13
0
0
13
0
0
1988/3.10
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/1
1
0
0
1
0
0
CALEDONIA
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
18
0
0
1988/2,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3.5,8
2
0
2
5
0
2
1.30-2.40
1990/1
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHimuCE#
1986/4-1987/12
23
0
0
23
0
0
"'ESSEX
1986/4-1987/12
21
0
1
2
0
1
2.80
1988/3.9
1
0
1
2
0
1
2.50
1989/3,8
1
0
1
2
0
1
1.10
fRAIrtllK
1986/4-1987/12
21
0
0
21
0
0
1988/3,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3.5.7
2
0
0
3
0
0
1990/1,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1991/3
1
0
0
0
0
GRAND ISIE
1986/4-1987/12
1
0
0
0
0
LAMOILLE
1986/4-1987/12
7
0
0
7
0
0
OftANSf
1986/4*1987/12
15
0
0
21
0
0
1988/2,5,9
3
0
0
4
0
0
1989/4,7,11
4
0
0
4
0
0
1990/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
ORLEANS
1986/4-1987/12
15
0
0
15
0
0
1988/2.9
2
0
0
3
0
0
1989/3,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
miTLAM0'=:':C:"
1986/4-1987/12
22
0
0
22
0
0
WSKJNSTOK
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
17
0
0
UIKDHAW
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
1
21
0
1
3.20
1988/3
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/12
2
0
1
2
0
1
1,70
1990/1,2,12
1
0
1
3
0
1
5,50
1991/3
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-VT-16
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE Of VERMONT
VEU. RESULTS
SAMPLE RSSULTS
ftAKCi Of
mTttlt*
CftWTt
MTf
¦TDTAl
:«e:h.s
SAMPLED
* OF
POSITIVE ;
was
tOlAt *
SAMPLES
» Qf
POSITIVE
SAHKES
•: CXWCEN
T&ATJOKS
--
-
re**/
MONTH
£
*a
<
no.
t
mu
MCL
(Hetotschlor)
WINDSOR
1986/4-1987/12
27
0
0
33
0
0
1988/3,6.9,11
4
0
0
13
0
0
1989/2,5.9
2
0
0
4
0
0
1990/1.5,9.12
2
0
0
8
0
0
1991/4
2
0
0
2
0
0
UHSreCiflED !
CCUtiTlES :
1988-1991
177
0
0
497
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
438
0
6
827
0
12
1.10-7.20
;>icl;er«s
¦¦fRAmcLiirf
1984/7
08,11
4
0
0
12
0
0
1986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
1987/3
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
4
0
0
18
0
0
addison
1966/4-1987/12
34
0
0
34
0
0
1988/4,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3.6,9
1
0
0
3
0
0
1990/2,5,9
1
0
0
3
0
0
1991/1,4
1
0
0
2
0
0
86KNISGTOK ..
1986/4-1987/12
13
1
0
13
1
0
3.40
1988/3,10
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/1
1
0
0
1
0
0
CALEDONIA
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
18
0
0
1988/2,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3,5,8
2
0
0
5
0
0
1990/1
1
0
0
1
0
0
cKimwiM ::
1986/4-1987/12
23
0
0
23
0
0
"ESSE*
1986/4-1987/12
21
0
0
2
0
0
1988/3.9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1989/3,8
1
0
0
1
0
0
l-VT-17
-------
PESTICIDE SM9UNC II THE STATE OF VERMONT
t£U RESUITS
SAMPLE RESULTS
CAKE Of
OQHCEN"
1RATIONS
Otfl/U
mriciM
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL
VEILS
SAMPLED
* Of
POSITIVE
VSLtS
TOTAL #
SAAHES*
0 Of
wsmre
SAMf>L£$
YEW/
Hearts
I
MCI
<
act
%
act
«
ML
(Simaztne)
TRANtCLIH
1986/4-1987/12
21
0
0
21
0
0
1988/3.9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1989/3,5,7
2
0
0
3
0
0
1990/1,9
1
0
0
2
0
0
1991/3
1
0
0
1
0
0
CRAW) !SLF
1986/4-1987/12
1
0
0
1
0
0
LWOJLtE : ¦
1986/4-1987/12
7
0
0
7
0
0
ORANGE
1986/4-1987/12
15
0
0
21
0
0
1988/2,5,9
3
0
0
4
0
0
1989/4,7,11
4
0
0
4
0
0
1990/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1986/4-1987/12
15
0
0
15
0
0
1988/2,9
2
0
0
3
0
0
1989/3,8
2
0
0
4
0
0
RUTLAND
1986/4-1987/12
22
0
0
22
0
0
WASH!HCTOH
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
17
0
0
i'WIKDMA*^
1986/4-1987/12
17
0
0
21
0
0
1988/3
2
0
0
2
0
0
1989/12
2
0
0
2
0
0
1990/1.2,12
1
0
0
3
0
0
1991/3
1
0
0
1
0
0
WINDSOR
1986/4-1987/12
27
0
0
33
0
0
1988/3.6,9,11
4
0
0
13
0
0
1989/2,5,9
2
0
0
4
0
0
1990/1,5,9,12
2
0
0
8
0
0
1991/4
2
0
0
2
0
0
UNSPECIFIED
eou«nes
1988-1991
177
0
0
497
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
438
1
0
827
1
0
3.40
l-VT-18
-------
PESTICIDE UNPLUG IN THE STATE OF VEWONT
«LL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
SAME Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
Ctfl/O
PESTfCiOE
COURT*
DATE
TOTAL
VELtS
SAMPLED
i or
wsirive
¦ WELLS
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
' : ; # Of
positive
SAMPLES
TEAR/
MOM1K
I
*Cl
<
net
%
*a
« .
*tl
THelopyr
FRANKLIN
1986/7,8.11 I
4
0
0
12
0
0
1986/9 |
3
0
0
3
0
0
1987/3 1
3
0
0
3
0
0
1
TOTAL DISCRETE
WILLS/SAMPLES
|
4
0
0
18
0
0
1
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
446
8
12
874
17
39
* Data provided did not list the nmber of samples taken by covxvty.
8 Data provided does not list concentrations for some of the detections. All positives
thusty reported art placed in the «HCL colmn, aisuning a best case scenario.
c Sumury data provided for 1988-1991 did not list wells sampled by county. Only Mel Is
with positive results are located to the county level.
l-VT-19
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
STATE OF VERMONT
VEILS BT COUNT?
t*p€s of mis
SOUSCS OF
COUKTY
CRtNUUC VATER
KOWlTORtNG
OTHER
CONTAMINATION
(WBEI W WELLS)
TOTAL.
WHO:
net
" ¦
act
TOTAL
SHPLC
4
ftCL
c
TOTAL
SHPL0
I
KCL
<
HCL
HFU'
wk'
Addfaon
56
0
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Semfngtm
13
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Catedom*
18
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
D
0
ChittmJen
23
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•:Cssex
21
0
i
0
0
a
0
0
0
1
0
0
: f rank Un
22
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
Urand isle
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
lamcsfl le
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
:• Orange
1?
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
Or tains
16
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
Jutland
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Washington
17
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Vs>*jhaai
17
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
tfindsor-'"
29
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
D
5
0
0
Unspecified; iv-.
1 Counties ""
167
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
424
s
12
12
0
0
10
0
0
IS
2
0
HFU=Known or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS sKrtoMn or Suspected Paint Source
UKK=Unfcnown
l-VT-21
Preceding page blank
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
APPENDIX I - PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
*v
{Vi¦
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
I CHttlCAt SMC
REFERENCE
«ct
(PB/U
SEGUUTORT
; ¦*;'SIftTUS.v';l-'
1 1-Napnthot
tnsectieide
c
9
9
Herbicide
u,c
1 1,2-0
1,2-0ichioroproper*:: -
t,3f-0 otthane
5
Funigant
s
1,2-D ichioroprppane
5
Funigant
C
1,3-D
Dicht Driflpropene
1,3-Dichtoropreper>e
Oi ch? Droproparte
2-Cbloroallyl-
diethyldi thi ocarbamate
CEEC
2(2,4-0ichI orophenoxy)
propionic acid
Dichlorprop
2(2,4-DPJDiethylamine salt
Oicbloroprop
2,4-0
70
Herbicide
S,SRPre
2,4-08
Herbicide
s,ssPre
2,4-DUhlorobenxoie acid
Possible
degradate or
impuri ty
2,4-Dich1orophenoxyacetic
acid
2,4-0
2,4-DJrrttrophenot
Acaricfde
insecticide
U.C
2,4-OP
Dichlorprop
2,4,5-f
70
Herbicide
C,SRC
2,4,5•Trich1orophersoxy-
acetic acid
2,4,5-T
Z.*,S'W
50
Herbicide
C,SRC
2,4,6-Triehlorophenol
: t r i ch l<)«ph«f»l.: '
Alachtor
Oegradate
S-Hydrwcycarbofuren .•.
Carbofuran
Oegradate
S-Ketocarbofuran I
3-Ketocarbofuran (phenol)
Carbofuran
Oeflradate
33-BlchtePc>b€fi2oic add
Pronamide
Oegradate
4-Nftrophenol
Parathion, methyl
60
Oegradate
Fungicide
s
4(2,4-0i chloropiienoxy)
butyric acid
2,4-DB
4(2,4-0B), Butoxyethansl
ester
2,4-PS
APPENDIX 1-1
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
¦ •
CKEKICAL *««
.... ftEf.E£EXC£ .
KCl
;;
PESTICIDE :
CATEGOR*
mmMmr
-STATUS
4(2,4-01), DlMthylanin*
Hit
2,4-DB
S*>ydr«xy dfe«t»
Dicanba
Degradate
Acanapbttanr
Insecticide
fungicide
s
Acephate
Insecticide
s
Aclf toorfert ..
Herbicide
s
*£<¦«!« Jfl
Fwigicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
M
Acrytonitrfl*
Funigant
C,R,SRC
*tacMor
i
Herbicide
S,R,SRP
AUf(C»rt>
3
1
Insecticide
Acaricide
Fixigi cide
Nematicide
S,R,SRP
Aldicarb Sulfooe
Aldicarb
2
1
Degradate
AXdfearb Sut#o*f
Insecticide
u.c
A»itf*i
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R,SRC
Artitrote
Herbicide
P
5,R
Anilarine
Fungicide
s
ArseMc
50
Arsenates, Arsenites
Arsenic
Insecticide
Fingicide
Herbicide
c
SRC
Arsenic acid
Arsenica Is
•:Ar»enic
Defoliant
Insecticide
s,|
SR
Atraton
expertmental
discontinued triaiine
Herbicide
C
Atrazlrte
3
Herbicide
S,R
1 At rat line, d»a Ikylated
Atraiine
Degradate
ethyl
Insecticide
C
AzInjshos-TOthyl
Insecticide
S,R
Banvel
' Oicantoe ."
APPENDIX 1-2
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL WME
REFERENCE
MCt
J. HA
C«/U
pEsricioe
CATEGORY
SECULATOftr
STATUS
Srbtn
Herbicide
C
Bayson
fropoxur
Btndtocerfe
Insecticide
$.*
Benflural in
Insecticide
Herbicide
s
Benfluralin
8*n*f Sh
Berwreyt
Fungicide
S,SRC
Bensul 5de
Herbicide
s
Bentazon
20
20
Herbicide
s
Bsntaioh, :sodtw *alt
Bentazon
Degradate
: i • if i;
Insecticide
C,SRC
BHC
-------
BircTTririi: roACC DcrcDrwrc tadtc
"to 1 ILIUEi i .Ki nVKhrhKhlNLc IAdLc
tttHlCAl #ahs
«eF6*E«C€
m.
lka
tt8/l>
«sricioe
CA?€«B*
mmum
ST*tuS
Carboxin • •
700
Fungicide
s
'¦ MFM ¦
.Vw£w.
Herbicide
c
Cfctorwfcon
100
Herbicide
u,c
Chtordane
2
Insecticide
Termiticide
C,SRc
CMordtcont
Insecticide
C,S*C
ChV«r4iu»fon»
Insecticide
Acaritide
Ovacide
C,SRc
fihlorfenae
Herbicide
U,C
! Chlorf«m<*>
Acsricide
U,C
thlcroaltyl fttcatiot :
Insecticide
c
Ehtorob«r»*U®t©
Insecticide
Acaricide
C,SRc
p-Chlora-*»«r«dt
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
S
©•CMorO-O'CrWOf
CMorofor#
100
Furnigant
C,SRP
CKIoroneb
Fungicide
S
Chloropfen'n
Funigant
Marning agent
S,R
CM orotha lonit
Fungicide
S
Chi oroxuron
c
CM«rproptw»
Herbicide
s
CMorpyfifo*
20
Insecticide
s
Chlorpyrifos, Methyl
Insecticide
s
Chlersulfuron
Herbicide
s
Chlorthal dimethyl
Copoer
Copper salts
Copper
Insecticide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
Fungicide
some S
some U
Copper oxides
Copper
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
S
: CouMphdt
Insecticide
S
trufoMte
Insecticide
Cyanaiine
1
Herbicide
S,R,SRC
APPENDIX 1-4
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
I C8EXJCM.
REFERENCE
NCL
ImA)
J. HA
t«/i>
PESTICIDE
CATESOM j
REGULATOST
-'"ITATt*"-
Cyanide
200
200
Cyanide, calcium or
potassium
Cyan* id*
Rodent icicle
U
Cyanatde, aodiun
Cyanide
Rodenticide
S,R
Cycl««w
Herbicide
S
Cyperawthrfn
Insecticide
M
C^iln*
Herbicide
c
Oacthal
DCP«
Daethal diacld
OCPA acid metabolites :
Oatapon
200
200
Herbicide
U.c
OBCf*
0.2
Funigant
C,R,SRC
DC8A
* j2#;'4.*:D fchl orofaenia it ¦ ^ '
;'acid;
DCP
¦1,2-0 i ch i ©ropropane
©CPA >
4000
Herbicide
s
OCPA octd metabolites
OCPA
Degradate
D-D Nix
';1:r2'0ichtoropropane:
•and Dichloroproper*
DOT
Insecticide
c
ODD
DDT
Degradate
SRC
DDE
DDT
Oegradate
DDYP
0ich!orvo6
OEF
Trllxifos
Insecticide
Acarieide
C,R
Deneton
Insecticide
Aceric idt
C
bemetorr aethyl
Insecticide
Acarieide
c
DemetOrrS
Degradate
DeflwtoivS sutfen*
Demetan*S
Degradate
Des»ethyl atrarlne :
Atrazine
Degradate
Des-j*opropyt atrattne
Atratine
Herbicide
C,R
ftfallate
Herbicide
C,8,SRC
Diaiinon
0.6
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S,SRC
D i bromochIoroproparw
DHCP
APPENDIX 1-5
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
8EFEKKC6
HCl
I, HA
;*:
Dfefttorvos
Insecticide
P
s,sr
OJcofol
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,SRC
DJef&tophos
Insecticide
S,K
Meldrin
Insecticide
r
C,$fT
Oiethylhexyl phthatate
Dioctyf phthalste
Dinwttoate
insecticide
Acaricide
S,SRC
Dfwraeto
7
7
Herbicide
£
c,srl
Oinitrocresol
0KOC
Dactyl ^tMata
Acaricide
c
c
Oioxathion
Insecticide
C,R
:::0fpW«na«t1d -
200
Herbicide
C
Oiquit
20
20
Herbicide
5
Diquat dfbromide and
various salts
Diquat .
Disulfoton
0.3
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R
Dlsutfotory
Disulfoton
Degradata
D5suS«ron
10
Herbicide
S
Fly larvicide
c
APPENDIX 1-6
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
1 CK&NICAL
6EFE£ENC£
*ci
tw
CH/lJ
PESTICIDE
CATESWT
RECVuioar
tTATUS
0*QC
Insecticide
Herbicide
Filicide
| Antimicrobial
u,e
DNOC, lodiui salt
BUOC
IDS
fthylar* ¦dlbromida
EBOC compounds
Hawrtij Maneotab,
¦ ¦
SRC
Endosutfan
Ftnsi cide
Antimicrobial
s
Endosuffart I
Endosg1, far,
Isomer
Endotutfan 11
Endosulfari
Isomer
Endosutfan auWate
Ertdosylfari
Degradate
Endothall
100
100
Herbicide
s
Enefrin
2
1
Insecticide
U,C,R,SRC
EndrSn atdehyde
Endr i n
Degradate
m
Insecticide
Aearicide
C,R
fPTt
Herbicide
s
Ethalfluralm
Herbicide
S,SRC
Ethioo
Insecticide
Acaricide
S.R
Ethoprop
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S,R
Ethyl alcohol
Disinfectant
s
fthylwi:
Insecticide
U,C,SltC
Ethylene
bi self th I ocarbamate
compounds
Hsneb, Hancoi*i>,
Zineb .
: ttHyl ene dibramcfe •'
0.05
Insecticide
C,R,StC
Ethylene dichloride
:1,2-Mchloroethane
Ethylene thiourea
-itU :¦
Ethyl parathion
Parathion, ethyl
Etrldiaiole
Fungicide
s
tTU
Naneb
Degradate
Fenac
Chlorfenac
Fenaroiphoa
2
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S.R
APPENDIX 1-7
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHBHCAt SAW
REFERENCE
KCl
<*g/l>
KtrtciM
CATttWT..
ftEGUUTOftr
STATUS
1 fenanrfptos tuiferw
Fanamfphos
Degradate
fenMntpfaw sulfoxide
Fenamiphos
Degradate
hmriisl
Fwgicidt
S
fcofcwtatJrv-wlclB
Insecticide
Aearicide
s
t ansul fothico
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide
C.R
fenthion
Insecticide
C
f*fturor»
Herbicide
C
ferwalerate
Insecticide
S,*
flow! fop-butyl
Herbicide
s
Fluchlorat in
Herbicide
s
Fliaetrailr
Herbicide
s
f(uometuron
90
Herbicide
s
Fiuridorw
Aquatic
herbicide
s
fonofos
10
Insecticide
S,R
forwaidefcytte
1000
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
U
«lypfioe»t«
700
700
Herbicide
s
Glyphosate isopropylamirte
salt
: Glyphosate .
Guth ion
^*fnphos*siethyl
HCH
8HC
HCH (D
: Uridine
Jtepi*ci)to«*
0.4
Insecticide
C,S8C
epoxide
Heptachlor
0.2
Degradate
»e\achloroberjM>g
1
Seed
protectant
*ex»ifrwoft
ZOO
Herbicide
s
! ilysfcexyat acht op
Alachlar
Degradate
fjpredfane1
Fungicide
s
I soborny( : t M ocyanoac erat e
Insecticide
c
Ifrofcnphos
Insecticide
Herbicide
S,R
isopropalin
Herbicide
c
APPENDIX 1-8
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
C&X1CAL MAKE
REfEREWS
'-¦?
. ¦ : g.a=a»ts=
."•••:•PESTI'Ctbe
REGULATORY
'^STATUS
8 Kepone
Cfcierdeeofie
i
lindane
0.2
0.2
Insecticide
S,R,SRC
llnurcn.
Herbicide
S,$RP |
Nalathiat ^
200
Insecticide
S
- Nstaaaon
Melathion
Degradate
Hartcoieb
Fingicide
s
Haneb
Fingicide
s
HCPA
10
Herbicide
sane C,
some S
KCP* acids, salts, esters
NCPA ;
MCPK
Insecticide
S
MCPB salts, esters
KCPB
NCPP salts, esters
- Hecoprop .¦¦••¦¦¦ —
KCPPA
Keeoprcp
^Netsbpt'op
Herbicide
S
Mercury
2
2
SRC
flerpho*
fLngicid*
Herbicide
u,c
Metalaxy!
Fungicide
s
Methaoridophe*
insecticide
Atarieide
s,n
NtthaioU
Herbicide
s
Hethidathien
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R
Metbieearb
Insecticide
Acaricide
HoUuscicide
Rodent icide
Bird repel I ant
s,«
Hethooryl
200
Insecticide
S,R
MethAXyehlof
40
40
insecticide
Acaricide
s
Methyl bromide
Insecticide
Antimicrobial
S,R
Methyl carbophenothion
CsrbophenotMwv ,
'•methyl-;'-r..':
Hethyl IsotMocyanate
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
S,R
Hethyl peraoKDn
Parathion, methyl
Oegradete
APPENDIX 1-9
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
1—
I
8fFESE«C£
HCl
OU
(M/O
: ftecutAT£*r ¦
' :-STATUS.:?¦"
| NathyI parathiort
ParatKlon; aethyl .
Methyl trlthien
Carbophenotbico,
aethyl
He thylane chloride
Insecticide
u
Metotaefctef
100
Herbicide
s
Matribuifn
200
Insecticide
s
Hatrfbutln BA
Netribuiin
Oegradate
Mafibuzin OADJf
Netribuiin
Degradate
Metribuzfn §X
Netribuzin
Degradate
M*vtnp#io»
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R
Nexacarhate
Insect icide
u,c
Hire*
Insecticide
c,s«c
Holfnate
Herbicide
s
MoHnate Mrt-f oxide
Ho! inate
Oegradate
Honocrotophc*
Insecticide
Acaricide
c,t
Honuron
Herbicide
C,SRC
Mated
Insecticide
Acaricide
s
Naphthalene
20
Insecticide
5
Napropaoide
Insecticide
S
ttaptalaa
Herbicide
S
Meburon
Herbicide
c
Nmagon
Wftrofan
Herbicide
c
p*Hi trophenol
: 4-NltPophenoli
iloraeMor
Chlordane
Impurity in
formulation
Morfluraion
Herbicide
s
Oetyl bScyclob^ptene-
aiearboxiwide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
s
Orthe-diehlorobeniene
a-Of chi orabeniana'
Oryialin
Herbicide
s
Ovex
Chlorferison
APPENDIX 1-10
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
1 -
REFERENCE
PESTICIDE
CATEGORY
KFGUUTOftr
- STATUS :
Oxanjrt
200
Insecticide
Acaricide
fungicide
Heraticibe
S.R
Oxycfeloftfane
Ohlordane
Anient
metabolite
Oxyd«»eton-»etfcy i
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R,SRP
Oxydl u»lf oton
Insecticide
Acaricide
C
Oxyfluerfen
Herbieide
S,SRC
Para-chlorometacresol
p-CHtoro-«n-eresoi
para-Dichlorcbertzene see
p-Dichlorobenzene, listed
at dichlorobenzene
; p-Chtoro-o-cresofc
30
Herbicide
S,R
Paraquat dichloride
-Paraquat-;}-:
Parath ion
ParatMon, ethyl
P Srathi on, -ethyl-
Insecticide
S,*,SRC
Parathion, methyl
2
Insecticide
S,R
PCNB ¦
Fungicide
S,SRC
PCP
Pemachlorophenol
Pebulate
Insecticide
Herbicide
S
Pendinethalta
Herbicide
S
Pemachlorophenci
1
Insecticide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
S,R,$RP
Pertaethrin
Insecticide
S,R
Perthan#
Phorata
Insecticide
S.R
Phorate tulfone
Phorate
Degradate
Phorate sulfoxide
Prorate
Oegradate
Phoratoxon
Phorate
Degradate
Phoratonon lulfeoe
Phorate
Degradate
Pheratoxort sulfoxide
Phorate
Degradate
Phctalone
Insecticide
Acaricide
U,R
-\)>.hx»inev -
Insecticide
S
APPENDIX 1-11
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
tHSHlCftl
8£FE8EKC£
HCt
PESTICIDE
CATfcSOR*
ftfCUUTORT
STATUS
Photnrt oxygen analog
Phostnet
Degradate
tttoagfumldon
Insecticide
c.n
flctwwo
50Q
500
Herbicide
s.i
HHaicarfe
Aphidicide
c
Pirinfcarb aulfone
Pirimicarb
Degradate
Preferiofci
Insecticide
S.«
Proflural fr»
Herbicide
c
Proawcarb
Insecticide
NR (in US)
pfoocton
100
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
S
Proaeti'yrt
Herbicide
5
Proriaai'de
50
Herbicide
S,R,S#C
Propacfilor
90
Herbicide
S
PropanU
Herbicide
s
Propargitr
Insecticide
Acaricide
s
Propazin#
10
Herbicide
c
Prophan
100
Herbicide
c
Propoxyr
3
Insecticide
p
S, SR
Propylamide
:;Prona»ide!:/'^
Prothiofes
Prothlophes }
-•ProthScphbs
Insecticide
NR
Pyratfvrin*
Insecticide
fungicide
Antimicrobial
U
1 Pyricioi"
Herbicide
C
Ronnal
Insecticide
U,C,SRC
Soteftotor*
Rotenone
Degradate
Sotenone
Insecticide
Acaricide
Piscicide
s
Secbunetcn
Herbicide
c
Sethoxydia
Herbicide
s
Siduron
Herbicide
s
SI Ivex
Simai tne::: '¦
1
4
Herbicide
s
APPENDIX 1-12
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CKOtjCAL JUNE
kci
REFERENCE | <*9/I)
: LKA
PESTICIDE
CATEGORY
SECULATOftr
STATUS
SiMCone
Herbicide
NR
frtaatryn
Herbicide
NR
Sodlia breaide
Brooide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
S
Sodiun cyanide
Cyanide
SOiprcfos
Insecticide
S,R
Herbicide
C
TCA and salts
::Tr»ehlichlorvfnphi»
insecticide
s
Tetfadi fon
u.c
Thanitc
Uaboryl
thi oeyaroace tate
thidbencart>
Herbicide
s
TlUofeencarb sulfoxide
Degradate
TMophanata
fungicide
c
Thi ephar»T«*!DeChy I
insecticide
Fungicide
S,SRC
torden
''tMaphar*
3
Insecticide
U,R,SRC
Trelonethrin ;'
Insecticide
S,R
trans-nooaeMor
chlordane
Impurity in
formulation
Trladitnefof* :
Fungicide
s
APPENDIX 1-13
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
•
CtSKICAi WW£
BFFESENCE
net ::
PESTICIDE ::
catesort
REGULATORY '
-;::.STATys:;:!;-'
TrJbufo*
Herbicide
s
Trfchlorf on
Insecticide
s
Trf«i)lef©#c«tic acid
Herbicide
u
T r I ch I orobanurw
1,2,4-
Trichlorobenzci
TricMoroethene
TrIchI or©ethylene
' Trichloroettisne
5
Fmigant
c
TricMororiat (a)
Insecticide
c
Trichiofopfienot
fingicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
u,c
Trichlorophon
TfIctopyr
Insecticide
Herbicide
s
TrleyclMole
Fungicide
NR
TrJffuraHn
5
Herbicide
S,SR,C
Trithion
Carbophenothion:
Tunic
. Mtthazole ::l: -
Uracii/yrea
Antimicrobial
U
Vernalate
Herbicide
s
Vorlex
: l^-Dichtoropropane, . ;
rDichtoropropene,. •?
i'Methyl 1sothiocyanate
1 Xylene
10000
10000
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
u
Zinofa
Insecticide
Fungicide
c
Z iraa
Insecticide
Fungicide
u
SRPrePresently In Pre-Speciat R*vl*y
p
Sft Special Rtvifn progress
»•
SR Special Review completed
S Supported: The producers) of the pesticide has made canraitments to conduct
the studies and pay the fees required for ^registration, and is meeting
those cormitments in a timely manner.
APPENDIX 1-14
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
U Unsupported; The producerts) of the pesticide has not made or honored ¦
ccmitment to imI rtregistration, conduct the necessary studies, or pay
the requisite fees for reregistretion 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 wider 40 CFR Part 1, Subpart 1. It is therefore restricted to
use by a certified applicator, or by or under the direct supervision of •
certified applicator.
* In Hawaii both dichloroproparw and 1,2-dichloropreparte appear in the date.
APPENDIX 1-15
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
APPENDIX II - 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
------- |
|