text:
November 30, 1990
Members of the Legislature
State of Arizona
The Honorable Rose Mofford
Governor of the State of Arizona
Mr. Randolph Wood, Director
Department of Environmental Quality
Transmitted herewith i s a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of Pesticide Regulation: Department of Environmental Quality. This
report i s the t h i r d in a series of f i v e reports on Pesticide regulation
and i s in response to Chapter 162, Section 7, of the 1989 Session Laws.
The report addresses the Department of Environmental Quality's e f f o r t s to
establish programs to monitor for the presence of pesticides in water.
We found the statutory c r i t e r i a for determining which pesticides must be
monitored are too broad, and that DEQ w i l l not be able to monitor a l l of
the pesticides i d e n t i f i e d by t h i s c r i t e r i a . We also found that although
DEQ has yet to estimate how much additional funding w i l l be needed for
i t s monitoring programs, i t appears DEQ may need a s i g n i f i c a n t increase
in resources in the future.
My s t a f f and I w i l l be pleased to discuss or c l a r i f y items in the report.
D O U R~. N orton
Auditor General
DRN : lmn
STAFF: William Thomson
Peter N. Francis
Arthur E. Heikkila
Dennis B. Murphy
Shan D. Hays
Ned E. Parrish
The O f f i c e o f the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality's a c t i v i t i e s related to
a g r i c u l t u r a l pesticides. The audit was conducted i n response to Chapter
162, Section 7, of the 1989 Session Laws which directed us to review the
S t a t e ' s p e s t i c i d e regulatory program administered by four State agencies,
including the Department of Environmental Quality ( DEQ).
DEQ has r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r several functions involving a g r i c u l t u r a l
pesticides, including i d e n t i f y i n g and monitoring those pesticides that
have the p o t e n t i a l t o leach i n t o ground water; monitoring s o i l , surface
and ground water f o r p e s t i c i d e contamination; overseeing the cleanup of
sites contaminated by pesticides; and regulating the storage and disposal
of pesticide containers. Our review focused on the Pesticide
Contamination Prevention Program which was established by the
Environmental Quality Act of 1986. In addition, based on the
pesticide- related incidents and accidents handled by DEQ, we also
reviewed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) program as i t
relates to pesticide cases.
Statutes Governing The Pesticide Contamination
Prevention Program May Need Revision To Make
The Program More Manageable ( see pages 5 through 12 1
While DEO has made a commendable e f f o r t i n implementing the Pesticide
Contamination Prevention Program, unless adjustments are made, more
pesticides than can be monitored w i l l be included on the Ground Water
Protection L i s t . The 1986 Environmental Qua1 i ty Act established the
program t o i d e n t i f y those pesticides that have the p o t e n t i a l t o migrate
through s o i l into ground water. During the f i r s t phase of the program,
pesticide manufacturers and formulators are required to submit
information about the environmental persistence and m o b i l i t y of t h e i r
products. DEQ must then review t h i s information and determine i f the
pesticide f a l l s w i t h i n the statutory c r i t e r i a of those pesticides that
must be placed on the Ground Water Protection L i s t .
University of Arizona consultants hired by our Office to review DEQ's
technical analysis concluded that the Department should be commended for
i t s e f f o r t s i n evaluating the information submitted by pesticide
manufacturers. DEQ has made appropriate scient i f i c determinations, and
formed conclusions that appear v a l i d and defensible.
However, DEQ does not have the resources or the c a p a b i l i t y to monitor and
enforce the statutory requirements for a l l of the ingredients i n the
pesticides l i k e l y to be included on the Ground Water Protection L i s t . To
date, using the c r i t e r i a specified by statutes, 133 ( more than
two- thirds) of the 194 pesticide- active ingredients covered by the
program's requi rements w i l l be included on the Ground Water Protection
L i s t . A l l of these must then be monitored by the Department a f t e r the
l i s t i s formal ly adopted. However, not a l l of the active ingredients on
the l i s t pose a threat to ground water. Given limited resources, the
Department needs the statutory f l e x i b i l i t y to reduce and p r i o r i t i z e the
number of pesticides to be monitored. Our consultants recommend that
current statutory c r i t e r i a be used as a method of screening or as a
" flagging" t o o l , and that DEQ be allowed to use additional methods, such
as computer modeling, to determine those pesticides that should be placed
on the Ground Water Protection L i s t . A s c i e n t i f i c advisory panel could
also be established to assist DEQ i n making technical decisions.
DEQ Needs To Plan How It Will Meet Its Growing
Pesticide Monitoring Workload ( see pages 13 through 20
To comply with statutory requirements, DEQ w i l l be required to perform
considerably more monitoring of water for the presence of pesticides.
While Federal and State laws assign the Department broad r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
for monitoring both s o i l and water for contaminants, and several DEQ
units are involved i n water monitoring, to date very l i t t l e monitoring
has been done f o r p e s t i c i d e s . The Pesticide Unit, which administers the
Pesticide Contamination Prevention Program, i s not currently required to
perform monitoring. However, once the Ground Water Protection L i s t i s
adopted i n 1991, the Department w i l l need to inaugurate a substantial
s o i l and ground water monitoring program. As previously noted, the
number o f pesticides i d e n t i f i e d for inclusion on the Ground Water
Protection L i s t far exceeds the Department's current monitoring resources.
Other units w i l l also need to increase their pesticide monitoring
a c t i v i t i e s . State law requires DEQ to conduct ongoing monitoring of both
surface and ground water f o r a variety of contaminants, including
pesticides. Very l i t t l e monitoring of surface water for pesticides has
been done, and an ongoing program to monitor ground water Statewide has
yet to be implemented. Monitoring for pesticides i n p u b l i c d r i n k i n g
water systems has also been limited; however, new Federal regulations
w i l l require more extensive monitoring of p u b l i c d r i n k i n g water systems.
Because considerably more monitoring f o r pesticides w i l l be required i n
the future, DEQ needs to plan now how i t w i l l meet i t s increased
monitoring r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . DEQ needs to develop plans that establish
program p r i o r i t i e s , specify levels of a c t i v i t y , and estimate resource and
fund i ng needs.
DEQ's Enforcement Of Hazardous Waste Laws
Relating To Pesticides Could
Be Strengthened ( see pages 21 through 26)
DEQ could improve i t s enforcement of hazardous waste laws which requi re
responsible p a r t i e s t o clean up pesticide- contaminated s i t e s . We
performed a limited review of DEQ's actions, under the authority of the
Federal Resource Conse rvat i on and Recovery Act ( RCRA 1, on
pesticide- contaminated s i t e s , and found DEQ's actions on
pesticide- related cases have not always been timely. For example, a f t e r
numerous RCRA v i o l a t i o n s were i d e n t i f i e d , one pesticide formulator was
inspected annually from 1981 through 1989. However, neither DEQ nor the
Envi ronmental Protect ion Agency ( EPA) ever c i ted what act ions the company
should take to clean up the s i t e . Following these repeated v i o l a t i o n s ,
DEQ issued a Letter of Warning i n 1989, and a f t e r 13 months has not
received a response as required. Low p r i o r i t y assigned to pesticide
cases, inadequate s t a f f resources, and the lack o f administrative penalty
authority a l l impact DEQ's a b i l i t y to respond t o pesticide- related RCRA
cases i n a timely manner.
lNTROOUCTlON AND B A C K O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
RCOEVHITSAIOYlNN ATTOlO NMA PKER ETVHEEN TPIORNO (; PRRWO GYROARYE YMAYA NNAEGEEDA BLE . . . . . .
Ground Water Contaminat ion Hasoccurred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose Of The Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DEQ Has Made A Comnendab l e Effort In Implementing The Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Current Statutory Requirements W i l l Make
The Programunmanageable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINIING I f : DEQ NEEDs TO PLAN H( n IT WILL MEET ITS W I N G PESTICIDE YONlTORlNG UCMLOAD . . . . .
DEQts Monitoring Responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . .
Monitoring Is Important. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Increased Monitoring For Pesticides W i l l Be Required In The Future . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DEQ Needs To Plan More Effectively . . . . . . . . . . .
Recmendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIKlING Ill: DEQIS ENFORCEMENT OF HAZAROOUS
WASTE LAlS RELAT l NG TO PEST l Cl DES
Scope of Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DEQ Enforces Federal
Hazardous Waste Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DEQ Has Not Been Timely. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Severa I Factors Cause Slow Resolution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The O f f i c e o f the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
the Arizona Department of Environmental Q u a l i t y ' s a c t i v i t i e s related to
a g r i c u l t u r a l pesticides. This audit was conducted in response to Chapter
162, Section 7, of the 1989 Session Laws, which directed us to review the
S t a t e ' s p e s t i c i d e regulatory program administered by four State agencies,
including the Department of Environmental Quality ( DEQ).
DEQ has r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for several functions involving a g r i c u l t u r a l
pesticides including: reviewing technical data regarding leaching
potential of pesticides; monitoring pesticides with the potential to
leach into ground water; monitoring soi I , surface, and ground water for
pesticide contamination; overseeing the cleanup of s i t e s contaminated by
pesticides; and regulating the storage and disposal o f p e s t i c i d e
Pesticide Contamination Prevention Program - The 1986 Environmental
Quality Act directed DEQ to e s t a b l i s h a Pesticide Contamination
Prevention Program designed to i d e n t i f y those pesticides t h a t have
the potential to p o l l u t e ground water. The Pesticide Unit in the
Office of Water Quality, Water Assessment Section, i s responsible for
administering t h i s program, the only program i n the Department
dedicated exclusively to pesticides. The Pesticide Unit i s
developing a Ground Water Protection L i s t consisting of those
pesticide- active ingredients that have the potential to p o l l u t e
ground water. Manufacturers and formulators of agricultural- use
pesticides must submit s c i e n t i f i c data on the environmental
persistence and m o b i l i t y of pesticides to the Pesticide Unit for
Once the Ground Water Protection L i s t i s developed, the Pesticide
Unit w i l l then focus on monitoring s o i l and water i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l
areas of the State where these pesticides are p r i m a r i l y used, to
further assess the m o b i l i t y and persistence of active ingredients,
and determine i f these pesticides have migrated into ground water.
Under the program, DEQ has the authority to modify the i n s t r u c t i o n s
on pesticide labels, or cancel the r e g i s t r a t i o n o f a pesticide that
may be a threat to ground water and public health.
l a t e r Monitoring - Several other u n i t s w i t h i n DEQ are responsible for
monitoring the State's water resources for contaminants, including
pesticides. The Department i s required to perform routine,
background monitoring of both surface and ground water.
Responsibility for these water monitoring a c t i v i t i e s has been
assigned to the Point Source and Monitoring Unit w i t h i n the Water
Assessment Section, and the Groundwater Monitoring and Assessment
Unit i n the Groundwater Hydrology Section. However, most of these
u n i t s ' a c t i v i t i e s focus on pollutants other than pesticides.
The Drinking Water Compliance Unit in the Office of Water Quality,
Compliance Section i s responsible for overseeing monitoring of
drinking water q u a l i t y i n Arizona. This u n i t regulates approximately
1,700 public drinking water systems in the State. To ensure that
drinking water complies with Federal standards, a l l drinking water
systems that serve at least 15 service connections or 25 persons for
at least 60 days a year are required to submit the results of water
samples to the Department. In some cases, sample analyses must
include t e s t i n g f o r certain pesticides f o r which Federal standards
have been established.
S i t e Cleanup And Container Disposal - F i n a l l y , the Department i s
responsible for overseeing the cleanup of pesticide- contaminated
sites and the regulation of pesticide container disposal. Units in
both the O f f i c e o f Water Quality and the O f f i c e o f Waste Programs are
involved in s i t e remediation, although only a small number of the
sites included in these u n i t s ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s involve pesticides.
The Emergency and Remedial Section of the Office of Waste Programs
oversees Federal Superfund and State Water Quality Assurance
Revolving Fund ( WQARF) clean up e f f o r t s i n Arizona. The Hazardous
and Solid Waste Section in the Office of Waste Programs i s
responsible for enforcing the Federal Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act ( RCRA) requirements, and d i r e c t s the cleanup of
hazardous waste s i t e s . This section also inspects f a c i l i t i e s that
generate or store hazardous materials, including pesticide
Staffing And Budget
DEQ Fiscal Services s t a f f stated that because of the l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e i r
accounting system, they were unable to provide us with pesticide- related
expenditures and s t a f f i n g informat ion.
Audit Scope
While DEQ has a number of programs which at times may handle pesticide
related cases or incidents, our audit focused primarily on the Pesticide
Contamination Prevention Program. This program was established by the
EQA of 1986, and i s the Department's only program exclusively devoted to
pesticides. We also examined Department monitoring programs currently in
place since monitoring w i l l be a major emphasis of the Pesticide
Contamination Prevention Program i n the future. Final l y , i n accordance
with the requirements established i n the 1989 Session laws, we reviewed
pesticide- related incidents and accidents reported to or handled by DEQ
for the period August 13, 1986 through June 30,1989. ( See report # 90- 6,
page 31.) As a follow- up to t h i s work, we performed a l i m i t e d
examination of DEQ's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA)
program as i t relates to pesticide cases. S p e c i f i c a l l y , our audit
addresses three areas:
the problems DEQ w i I I encounter i n administering the future
monitoring requirements of the Pesticide Contamination Prevention
the Department's increasing water monitoring responsibi I i t i e s ,
the enforcement of hazardous waste laws, and the timeliness of
clean- up e f f o r t s .
Our audit was conducted i n accordance with generally accepted government
audi t ing standards.
The Auditor General and s t a f f express appreciation to the Director and
s t a f f of the Department of Environmental Q u a l i t y f o r t h e i r cooperation
and assistance during the audit.
The statutes governing the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Program may
need to be modified to allow the Department of Environmental Q u a l i t y to
carry out monitoring and enforcement requirements. DEQ has made a
comnendable e f f o r t i n implementing the i n i t i a l phase of the program.
However, current statutory requirements f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g the Ground Water
Protection L i s t w i l l render the monitoring and enforcement aspects of the
program unmanageab l e .
Ground Water Contamination
Has Occurred
Pesticides used i n a g r i c u l t u r e have been found i n Arizona's ground
water.(') Pesticide residues were f i r s t detected i n the State's ground
water i n 1979. A t that time, the Department of Health Services ( DHS)
sampled wells in Maricopa and Yuma Counties for the presence of the
pesticide DBCP, and found DBCP contamination i n 53 of the 159 wells
sampled. In 1984, DHS conducted two pesticide sampling programs, a
follow- up screening for DBCP and an i n i t i a l screening for the pesticide
EDB. The EDB screening project focused on the areas where t h i s pesticide
was believed to have been used, and detected contamination i n 18 of the
44 wells sampled. Although DBCP and EDB remain the only p e s t i c i d e s t h a t
have been confirmed by DEQ i n Arizona's ground water as a r e s u l t of
a g r i c u l t u r a l applications, sampling for other pesticides has been l i m i t e d .
( 1) Pesticides have also been found i n ground water i n a number of other states as a
r e s u l t o f a g r i c u l t u r a l use. I n 1988, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency
( EPA) reported that 46 pesticides had reached ground water i n 26 states.
The 1986 Ar i zona Envi ronmenta I Qua I i ty Act ( EQA) requ i red the
establishment of a Pesticide Contamination Prevention Program w i t h i n
DEQ. Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) $ 49- 301 et seq. govern the
Pesticide Contamination Prevention Program. This l e g i s l a t i o n , modeled
after a s i m i l a r statute enacted i n C a l i f o r n i a i n 1985, i s designed to
protect Arizona's ground water resources from pesticide contaminat ion.
DEQ's Pesticide Uni t has been assigned responsi b i l i t y for the program
that i s comprised of the following four major components.
Information submittal - A. R. S. $ 49- 302. A requires pesticide
r e g i s t r a n t s t o submit technical informat ion regarding the
environmental fate c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f thei r products to DEQcl). Data
are required for ten properties that a f f e c t pesticide mobi l i t y and
persistence.(*) Registrants of a g r i c u l t u r a l - u s e p e s t i c i d e s
registered i n the State p r i o r to the establishment of the Pesticide
Contamination Prevention Program, were required to submit information
on these ten properties to the Department by December 1, 1987.
However, the Department was authorized to grant extensions for the
submission o f d i s s i p a t i o n studies u n t i l December 1, 1990.
( 1 ) The envi ronmental fate characteristics of a pesticide are those properties that
influence pesticide mobility and degradation i n the environment. Mobility refers t o a
pesticide's a b i l i t y to migrate through s o i l to ground water. Degradation refers to a
pesticide's persistence i n the environment.
( 2) For each agricul tural- use pesticide registered i n Arizona, registrants are requi red to
submit the following information f o r each active ingredient:
A. Properties Influencing Pesticide Mobility
1. water sol ubi 1 i ty
2. vapor pressure
3. octanol- water p a r t i ti on coefficient
4. s o i l adsorption c o e f f i c i e n t
5. Henry's law constant
B. Properties I n f 1 uenci ng Pesticide Persistence
1. hydro1 ysis
2. photo1 ysi s
3. aerobic s o i l metabolism
4. anaerobic soi 1 metabol ism
5. f i e l d dissipation
a Establishment of a Ground Water Protection L i s t - DEQ must develop a
l i s t of pesticides registered i n Arizona that have the potential to
pollute ground water. A. R. S. 949- 303 requires DEQ to establish
specific numeric values or standards that can be used to measure the
tendency of a pesticide to leach into ground water. DEQ must place
those pesticides that exceed the standards for both m o b i l i t y and
persistence on the Ground Water Protection L i s t . Since July 1987,
the Pesticide Unit has focused i t s e f f o r t s on the review of data
provided by registrants and the development of the Ground Water
Protection L i s t .
Pesticide monitoring - Once the Ground Water Protection L i s t i s
formally established, DEQ must monitor s o i l and ground water for the
presence of the pest i c i des on the l i s t . Samp l i ng must be conducted
Statewide i n areas where these pesticides are p r i m a r i l y used.
Monitoring i s to begin w i t h i n one year a f t e r a pesticide i s placed on
the Ground Water Protection L i s t . DEQ i s also required to develop a
standard monitoring protocol and testing procedures for a l l
pesticides on the l i s t . DEQ has conducted a l i m i t e d amount of s o i l
and ground water monitoring, and has i n i t i a t e d development of
sampl ing methods and testing procedures.
a Enforcement - I f pesticides are found in soi l or ground water, DEQ
must take enforcement actions t o prevent further contamination. The
Department i s to determine i f the d i r e c t i o n s f o r use on the pesticide
label can be modified to ensure that continued use of the pesticide
would not pose a threat to ground water in the State. I f the
pesticide label can not be modified and the pesticide i s found to
cause cancer, mutations, b i r t h defects, or i s t o x i c , the Director i s
to n o t i f y the State Chemist to cancel the r e g i s t r a t i o n of the
DEQ Has Made A Commendable Effort
In lmpiementinq The Program
The Department's review of data submitted by pesticide r e g i s t r a n t s has
been basically sound. We asked a'panel o f experts to evaluate the data
c a l l - i n process.(') They found that the Pesticide U n i t ' s review of the
data on environmental f a t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s has been reasonable and
adequate. However, team members noted minor procedural problems that
have resulted from l e g i s l a t i v e requirements and s t a f f i n g levels.
Experts conmissioned to review the data c a l l - i n process - We contracted
for a team o f s c i e n t i s t s to assess the Department's implementation of the
Pesticide Contamination Prevention Program. A team of four faculty
members from the University of Arizona was selected to evaluate DEQ's
( 1 ) Data c a l l - i n refers to the submission and review of environmental f a t e data for the
purpose o f i d e n t i f y i n g pesticides that have the potential to leach into ground water.
review of the environmental fate data and comment on future program
requirements. Comments concerning the program were also obtained from a
n a t i o n a l l y recognized expert from the University of C a l i f o r n i a , Davis. A
l i s t i n g of these experts and t h e i r backgrounds i s contained i n the
Append i x .
The team evaluated both the legal and technical aspects of the Pesticide
Contaminat ion Prevent ion Program. Team members reviewed the statutes and
rules concerning the program. In addition, members from the University
of Arizona met with Pesticide Unit s t a f f to discuss the data c a l l - i n
process and obtain copies of applicable procedures. These team members
also reviewed two completed data submittal packages for pesticide- active
ingredients, the correspondence f i l e s for these pesticides, and the
Pesticide U n i t ' s review comments.( l) The purpose of t h i s review was to
determine i f DEQts conclusions have been v a l i d and defensible. A report
of the group's findings i s included i n the Appendix. A copy of t h i s
report was sent to an expert from the University of C a l i f o r n i a , Davis, to
obtain his comments about the team's findings. His comments are also
included as part of the Appendix.
DEOts review process i s basically sound - Team members found that the
Pesticide U n i t ' s review of data submittals has been reasonable and
adequate, and rev i ewers agreed that the procedures eventual l y deve loped
by DEQ were appropriate, adequate, and s c i e n t i f i c a l l y sound. In
addition, the University of Arizona s c i e n t i s t s report that DEQ's review
of the environmental fate data submitted by product r e g i s t r a n t s , appeared
to be extensive and generally consistent with DEQts requirements.
F i n a l l y , the team stated t h a t DEQ's decisions to reject or accept data
appeared to be v a l i d .
( 1) Team members reviewed the correspondence f i l e s for six pesticide- active ingredients.
These active ingredients were selected for review by team members and OEQ s t a f f
because they were considered to be representative of a l l active ingredients for which
complete data had been received and reviewed by DEQ. Team members also selected a t
random from this group two active ingredients, T r i f l u r a l i n and Sethoxydim, for more
detailed review.
Problems i d e n t i f i e d by s c i e n t i s t s - Team members i d e n t i f i e d a few
weaknesses i n the review process. F i r s t , the team indicated that relying
on only one person to review t h i s highly technical environmental fate
data, places the State at r i s k should turnover occur. Second, the team
noted that DEQ s t a f f have been inconsistent in documenting the rationale
for t h e i r decisions. F i n a l l y , f i l e s containing correspondence between
DEQ s t a f f and registrants were found to be incomplete, sometimes missing
l e t t e r s and summaries of telephone conversations.
Current Statutory Requirements Will Make
The Program Unmanageable
The monitoring and enforcement components of the program w i l l be
d i f f i c u l t to implement because of the large number of pesticides expected
to be placed on the Ground Water Protection L i s t . The s t a t u t o r i l y
mandated c r i t e r i a used to determine which pesticides w i l l be placed on
the l i s t , may result i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of an excessive number of
pesticides. Currently, the Department lacks the resources to e f f e c t i v e l y
monitor a l l pesticides expected to be included on the l i s t . Team members
recommend that the statutes be revised to allow the Department more
f l e x i b i l i t y i n determining which pesticides w i l l be placed on the l i s t .
Statutes specify pesticide review c r i t e r i a - The Environmental Quality
Act established the procedures to be used i n determining which pesticides
are placed on the Ground Water Protection L i s t . A. R. S. $ 49- 303. A
requires the Department to establish specific numeric values or standards
f o r c e r t a i n envi ronmental fate c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that a f f e c t pesticide
m o b i l i t y and persistence.(') These values are to be used to i d e n t i f y
pesticides t h a t have the potential to leach i n t o ground water.
( 1 ) A. R. S. 549- 303. A. requires DEQ to e s t a b l i s h s p e c i f i c numeric values f o r two indicators
of pesticide m o b i l i t y : water s o l u b i l i t y and the s o i l adsorption c o e f f i c i e n t . The
Department must a1 so establ i sh numeric values for several i n d i c a t o r s of p e s t i c i d e
persistence, including hydro1 ysis, aerobic s o i l metabolism, anaerobic s o i l metabol ism,
and f i e l d d i s s i p a t i o n .
Pesticides that exceed one or more of these specific numeric values, or
are less than the numeric value i n the area of s o i l adsorption
c o e f f i c i e n t s for both m o b i l i t y and persistence, are to be placed on the
Ground Water Protection L i s t by DEQ.
Statutory c r i t e r i a may r e s u l t i n overidenti f icat ion of pesticides - Use
of these procedures may result i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of too many
pesticides. The proposed Ground Water Protection L i s t contains 133
pesticide- active ingredients, more than two- thirds of the 194 active
ingredients for which data submittals were required. The supervisor of
the Pesticide Unit said the Ground Water Protection L i s t w i l l include a
number of pesticides t h a t have a low leaching p o t e n t i a l . For instance,
the pesticide Paraquat i s currently included on the proposed Ground Water
Protection L i s t because i t i s persistent and exceeds the specific numeric
value for water s o l u b i l i t y , an indicator o f p e s t i c i d e m o b i l i t y . However,
the Pesticide Unit supervisor believes i t i s extremely u n l i k e l y that
Paraquat w i l l migrate into ground water because i t adheres t i g h t l y to
s o i l ( high soi l adsorption c o e f f i c i e n t ) .
Regardless of whether the statutory c r i t e r i a unnecessarily places
pesticides on the Ground Water Protection L i s t , the Department does not
have adequate resources to conduct the monitoring required by the
Pesticide Contamination Prevention statutes ( see Finding 1 1 , page 13).
Given e x i s t i n g budget constraints, team members believe the proposed
Ground Water Protection L i s t i s too extensive to be adequately
monitored. The cost of monitoring for l i s t e d pesticides i n s o i l and
ground water i s expected to be extremely high. One team member estimates
that a monitoring program for 133 pesticides would cost between $ 500,000
and $ 1 m i l l ion annually.
DEO needs more f l e x i b i l i t y - The Department should be granted more
f l e x i b i l i t y in determining the specific pesticides t o be included on the
Ground Water Protection L i s t . According to team members, the current
l e g i s l a t i v e l y imposed methodology for evaluating pesticide leaching
potential i s inappropriate for developing the Ground Water Protection
L i s t , and they recommend including only the most mobile and persistent
compounds. Team members also suggest that specific numeric values not be
used as the sole determinant of a p e s t i c i d e ' s leaching p o t e n t i a l , but
should be used as a s t a r t i n g point for i d e n t i f y i n g p o t e n t i a l problem
compounds. Several team members recommend that a screening model be used
t o f u r t h e r assess the leaching p o t e n t i a l o f p e s t i c i d e s . ( Computer
modeling has been used i n F l o r i d a t o examine pesticide leaching
p o t e n t i a l . ) One team member said that a number of computer models are
currently available. Given the information provided by the team, we
believe selection of the models to be used and how they are to be used,
should be l e f t to the d i s c r e t i o n of the Department.
A s c i e n t i f i c advisory committee could also be established to provide
technical assistance to the Department i n determining which pesticides
are to be included on the Ground Water Protection L i s t . One team member
recommends that an advisory committee be established to review program
a c t i v i t i e s and s t a f f decisions. This committee should i n t e r a c t with
program s t a f f i n a supportive manner. A s c i e n t i f i c advisory committee
could also assist DEQ s t a f f i n determining which active ingredients
should be included on the l i s t . i n a d d i t i o n , another team member
suggested that an advisory committee could review the current s p e c i f i c
numeric values.
RECOMlENDAT l ONS
1. The Legislature should consider revising the Pesticide Contamination
Prevention statutes i n A. R. S. 549- 301 et seq. to provide DEQ with
more f l e x i b i l i t y i n determining which pesticides are placed on the
Ground Water Protection L i s t .
2. I f DEO i s given more program f l e x i b i l i t y , then the Legislature should
consider establishing a s c i e n t i f i c advisory committee to provide
technical assistance to DEQ i n determining which pesticides should be
included on the Ground Water Protection L i s t .
To comply with statutory requirements, the Department of Environmental
Quality w i l l need to increase i t s e f f o r t s to monitor for pesticides.
Although several u n i t s w i t h i n the Department have some monitoring
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , to date, very l i t t l e monitoring has been done for
pesticides. DEQ needs to plan more e f f e c t i v e l y , set p r i o r i t i e s , and
estimate the costs of meeting i t s future monitoring obligations.
DEQ's Monitoring
State and Federal laws assign DEQ three general r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r
monitoring both s o i l and water for contaminants, including pesticides.
The Pesticide Contamination Prevention Program established by the
Environmental Quality Act, mandates the Department to monitor s o i l and
ground water as part of the State's e f f o r t s to prevent pesticide
contamination of ground water. In addition, A. R. S. 549- 225 establishes a
statewide water q u a l i t y monitoring program for both the State's surface
and ground water. F i n a l l y , the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act requires
DEQ to oversee monitoring of public drinking water systems.
Is Important
Monitoring i s an essential component of environmental protection
programs. Information about the occurrence and d i s t r i b u t i o n of
contaminants i s necessary to support informed decision making and
e f f e c t i v e management of the State's natural resources. Monitoring i s also
an important part of programs designed to ensure compliance with water
q u a l i t y standards. Sampling data must be gathered for the assessment of
e x i s t i n g water q u a l i t y and the forecasting o f f u t u r e trends. Sampling i s
also necessary at known contamination s i t e s t o determine the extent of
the problem and the need for cleanup.
Monitoring by DEQ and other agencies have i d e n t i f i e d pesticide
contamination i n s o i l and water in a number of areas in the State. For
example, ground water in parts of Yuma and Maricopa Counties has been
found to be contaminated with DBCP and EDB, two agricul tural- use
pesticides t h a t have now been banned by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Pesticide contamination has also been documented i n surface
water and sediments along the middle Gila River between Phoenix and the
Painted Rock Reservo i r , and DDT residue has been found i n so i l in
portions of Maricopa County.
Increased Monitoring For Pesticides
Will Be Required In The Future
In the future, DEQ w i l l need to increase i t s pesticide monitoring
e f f o r t s s u b s t a n t i a l l y . Despite the involvement of a number of
Departmental u n i t s , limited monitoring f o r pesticides in s o i l and water
has been done. However, both current and anticipated Federal and State
regulations w i l l require much more extensive monitoring for pesticides in
the future.
Pesticide Contamination Prevention Program - DEQ's Pesticide Unit i s not
currently required to perform monitoring a c t i v i t i e s . However, a f t e r the
Ground Water Protection L i s t i s adopted in 1991, the unit w i l l need to
develop a substantial s o i l and ground water monitoring program.
The Pesticide Unit, responsible for administering the Pesticide
Contamination Prevention Program, to date, has not been required to
perform monitoring a c t i v i t i e s . The u n i t has instead concentrated i t s
e f f o r t s on reviewing data submitted on pesticides, and developing a
Ground Water Protection L i s t ( see Finding I , page 5.) Although not
required to do so, the u n i t has also conducted limited sampling for the
detection of a g r i c u l t u r a l pesticides. These monitoring a c t i v i t i e s were
exploratory i n nature, and designed to assess the extent of contamination
and develop sampling methods. For a three- year period from July 1987 to
July 1990, u n i t s t a f f collected 243 samples. Aside from sampling for
special projects ( e. q., the Maryvale cancer c l u s t e r study), sampling has
been confined to six areas of the State: Yuma, the lower Gila River basin
( near Yuma), the Phoenix Active Management Area ( AMA), the Tucson AMA,
the Gila River Basin, and Safford. Focusing i t s e f f o r t s on ground water,
the u n i t had collected only 29 s o i l samples at the time of our audit.
Once the Ground Water Protect ion L i s t i s formal ly adopted ( anticipated to
occur in mid- 1991), substantial ground water monitoring and s o i l sampling
w i l l be required. Ground water monitoring must be conducted i n the
agricultural areas of the State that have not been previously sampled.
The Pesticide Unit has not collected any samples i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l
areas surrounding Willcox, the Mojave Valley, Parker, Casa Grande,
Coolidge, and Eloy. According to the supervisor of the Ground Water
Monitoring and Assessment U n i t , a d d i t i o n a l sampling i s also needed i n the
areas previously sampled by Pesticide Unit s t a f f .
Soil sampling w i l l be needed i n a l l a g r i c u l t u r a l areas of the State t o
determine where pesticides have migrated below the root zone or eight
feet. Monitoring for pesticide residues in the s o i l w i l l allow u n i t
s t a f f to i d e n t i f y the areas i n which ground water contamination might
occur in the future. Extensive sampling i s needed to determine the level
of s o i l contamination in the State. An expert from the Soil and Water
Science Department at the U n i v e r s i t y o f Arizona believes, to accurately
assess chemical leaching in the soi I, i t may be necessary to sample ten
or more sites i n a 40- acre f i e l d . He also thinks six samples should be
collected at each s i t e to measure chemical concentrations at d i f f e r e n t
Statewide water q u a l i t y monitoring - Very l i t t l e ongoing monitoring for
the presence of pesticides i n surface or ground water has been done by
other DEO Units. To meet statutory requirements, more needs to be done.
The Department i s required by State and Federal laws to monitor water
quality in Arizona. A. R. S. 549- 225 requires DEQ to conduct ongoing
monitoring of surface and ground water and analyze samples c o l l e c t e d f o r
a variety of pollutants, including pesticides. Under the Federal Clean
Water Act, monitoring of surface and ground water q u a l i t y i s also
required i f states wish to receive certain Federal grants.
Although DEO has implemented a surface water q u a l i t y monitoring program,
very limited monitoring for the presence of pesticides has been done. In
conjunction with the U. S. Geological Survey, the Department operates a
Statewide network of 60 monitoring s i t e s that are sampled p e r i o d i c a l l y
for a variety of substances including microbiological organisms,
inorganic compounds, and metals. However, samples collected at these
s i t e s are not currently analyzed for pesticides. In addition, DEQ has
gathered samples as p a r t o f EPA's P r i o r i t y Pollutant monitoring p r o j e c t .
These samples were analyzed for a v a r i e t y o f contaminants, including some
In addition, the Department has not implemented a program to monitor
ground water qua1 i t y Statewide. The DEQ unit responsible for monitoring
of ground water q u a l i t y has focused i t s e f f o r t s on areas of known or
suspected contamination, rather than performing ongoing, routine
monitoring throughout the State. This type of sampling, known as target
monitoring, i s not designed to assess general water q u a l i t y . Only two
sampling projects undertaken by the u n i t were designed to assess general
q u a l i t y . In addition, few of the u n i t ' s target monitoring projects have
involved monitoring for pesticides. The u n i t ' s monitoring e f f o r t s are
extremely limited because s t a f f members have been assigned a number of
other r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . The u n i t supervisor estimates that h i s s t a f f
members each spend only f i v e to 15 days per year i n f i e l d - r e l a t e d
a c t i v i t i e s .
More monitoring of pesticides i s necessary to meet statutory
requirements. The supervisor of the DEQ u n i t responsible for ground
water monitoring said he would l i k e the Department to establish an
extensive system of regional monitoring networks for the c o l l e c t i o n of
ground water q u a l i t y data. Regional networks could then be established
for each ground water basin i n the State. Under t h i s proposal, regional
networks would be established i n i t i a l l y i n the State's four Active
Management Areas and also i n those areas with substantial population
Public drinking water supply monitoring - F i n a l l y , monitoring for
pesticides i n p u b l i c d r i n k i n g water supplies has been limited. However,
as a result of new Federal d i r e c t i v e s , more monitoring f o r p e s t i c i d e s
w i l l be required i n the future, and DEQ's r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s for
administering t h i s program w i l l increase.
DEQ has been designated r e s p o n s i b i l i t y by EPA for the administration of
the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act ( SDWA) i n Arizona. The act requires
that public drinking water suppliers p e r i o d i c a l l y monitor for the
presence of contaminants for which drinking water standards have been
establ ished.( l) Federal d r i n k i n g water standards, cal led Maximum
Contaminant Levels ( MCLs), have been established for six pesticides. To
ensure that the water they provide complies with established standards,
public drinking water systems must report monitoring results to DEQ.
At the present time, monitoring for pesticides i n pub1 i c drinking water
systems i s very l i m i t e d . DEQ requires those systems that u t i l i z e surface
water t o t e s t for Endrin, Lindane, Methoxychlor, Toxaphene, 2,4- 0, and
2,4,5- TP Silvex every three years.( 2) Systems using only ground water
are not presently required to r o u t i n e l y monitor for any pesticides.
Under current DEQ rules, the Department can require ground water- based
systems to monitor for these pesticides, i f they are found to be
vulnerable to contamination. However, DEQ has not performed
vulnerabi l i t y assessments of these drinking water systems.
DEQ's r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s are l i k e l y to increase as a r e s u l t o f new Federal
d i r e c t i v e s that w i l l mandate more pesticide monitoring. The 1986
amendments to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act require the EPA to
regulate 83 contaminants, including 20 a d d i t i o n a l p e s t i c i d e s . The EPA i s
also proposing monitoring requirements for another 29 unregulated
contaminants including at least 10 pesticides. Proposed Federal
regulations ( expected to go i n t o ' e f f e c t i n January 1991 would increase
the Department's workload. DEQ w i l l be required to conduct v u l n e r a b i l i t y
assessments to determine the requirements each drinking water system w i l l
need to meet. I n a d d i t i o n , Department s t a f f w i l l have more sampling data
to review.
( 1) To be c l a s s i f i e d as a public d r i n k i n g water system, a system must have a t l e a s t 15
service connections or serve an average of a t l e a s t 25 people f o r a t l e a s t 60 days per
( 2 ) The Department's Arizona Drinkina Water Svstem Com~ liance Status R e ~ o r tf o r July 1988
through August 1989 indicates t h a t 43 pub1 i c drinking water systems, serving 1,568,220
people, were required to sample f o r these pesticides.
DEQ Needs To Plan
More Effectively
DEQ has not adequately planned how it will meet its future pesticide
monitoring obligations. Given resource constraints, DEQ needs to set
priorities and specify the level of monitoring activity necessary to
satisfy basic program requirements. DEQ also needs to estimate the
amount of additional funding that will be necessary for pesticide
Better planning needed - Although DEQ has prepared general strategies to
di rect its future monitoring programs, detai led monitoring plans
prioritizing its program efforts still need to be developed. The
Department has developed general planning documents such as the Ground
Water Protection Strategy and the Ground Water Quality Monitoring
Strategy. However, these strategies do not relate resources to planned
monitoring activities, nor do the planning documents include criteria for
establishing monitoring priorities, procedures for selecting sampling
locations, or determining contaminants to be monitored.
By contrast, other states have developed plans for prioritizing what
areas will be monitored and for which pesticides. The California
Department of Food and Agriculture has developed a procedure for
monitoring pesticides on the Ground Water Protection List that recognizes
the Department's resource constraints. Cal i fornia plans to focus its
pesticide monitoring activities in areas adjacent to established
Pesticide Management Zones and also in those areas where pesticides are
heavily used or where soils are vulnerable to leaching. In selecting
sampling locations, the Florida Pesticide Review Council has also
established criteria that consider a number of hydrogeological factors
( the depth to ground water, soil permeability, and recharge capacity).
California and Florida have also developed procedures to prioritize the
pesticides they will monitor. California has limited the number of
pesticides on its ground water protection list to 16. The 16 include
pesticides that have been found in ground water in California, and those
pesticides that have been identified as potential leachers and are
applied to or injected into the soil by ground- based equipment,
chemigation, or in conjunction with floor or furrow irrigation.
C a l i f o r n i a has developed a procedure to further rank these pesticides.
Monitoring e f f o r t s focus on those pesticides with the most adverse health
effects and the highest volume o f a p p l i c a t i o n . F l o r i d a ' s Pesticide
Review Council also p r i o r i t i z e s pesticides for monitoring. Factors used
to determine which pesticides to test for include the p e s t i c i d e ' s level
of persistence and m o b i l i t y , the method of application, and those with
chronic and acute t o x i c i t y .
Future funding needs - The substantial amount of additional monitoring
required w i l l be c o s t l y . When the Ground Water Protection L i s t i s
established, the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Program w i l l require
the Department to conduct both ground water and s o i l monitoring in a l l
a g r i c u l t u r a l areas of the State. The costs of sample col l e c t i o n alone
are expected to be high, due to the limited number of samples that can be
collected each day and the travel costs involved. To date, the
Department has not estimated how much additional funding w i l l be needed
to implement t h i s program.
Additional funding w i l l also be needed to f u l l y implement a system for
Statewide monitoring of ground water q u a l i t y . With e x i s t i n g resources, a
regional network covering the e n t i r e State could not be established for
more than f i v e years, and the amount o f a d d i t i o n a l funding that would be
necessary for monitoring ground water q u a l i t y i s unknown. D e t a i l s of the
proposed network need to be specified so t h a t a d d i t i o n a l funding
requirements can be determined.
Because more sampling w i l l be done in the future, costs for sample
analysis w i l l also increase. The Department of Health Services ( DHS) has
developed methods o f t e s t i n g for the presence of most of the pesticides
on the proposed Ground Water Protection L i s t . The manager of the Office
of Environmental and Analytical Chemistry at DHS estimates i t w i l l cost
approximately $ 800 to analyze each sample for every pesticide on the
proposed Ground Water Protection L i s t . An expert from the University of
Arizona's Soil and Water Science Department believes t h i s estimate of
laboratory analysis costs i s very low. The cost to analyze samples i s
expected to be high because of the large number of pesticides on DEQfs
proposed Ground Water Protection L i s t and the technical d i f f i c u l t y of
analyzing samples drawn from a variety of media.
F i n a l l y , the cost of conducting v u l n e r a b i l i t y assessments o f p u b l i c
drinking water systems needs to be determined. No estimates of the cost
of such assessments have, to date, been developed.
RECOWENDAT l ONS
1. The Department should prepare detailed plans to d i r e c t a l l major
monitoring programs. These plans should speci fy the resources needed
t o implement programs, and should also establish procedures for
p r i o r i t i z i n g monitoring e f f o r t s .
2. The Department should determine the amount of additional funding that
w i l l be needed for sample c o l l e c t i o n and analysis to carry out the
monitoring requirements of the Pesticide Contaminat ion Prevent ion
Program ( A. R. S. 949- 3071.
3. The Department should also determine the amount of additional funding
that w i l l be necessary to implement a Statewide, ground water q u a l i t y
monitoring program as required i n A. R. S. 949- 225.
4. The Department should develop plans for conducting v u l n e r a b i l i t y
assessments o f p u b l i c drinking water systems, and determine the
amount of additional funding necessary to conduct these assessments.
FINDING Ill
DEQ could improve i t s enforcement of the hazardous waste laws that
require responsible p a r t i e s t o clean up pesticide contamination.
Although pesticides are often a lower p r i o r i t y than other hazardous
wastes, DEQ could improve the timeliness of i t s actions i n pesticide
cases. Providing DEQ with additional resources and administrative
authority could enhance the Department's a b i l i t y to take timely and
e f f e c t i v e action.
Of Review
DEQ has several departments and programs that are involved with
pesticides to some degree. For example, i t s Hazardous Waste Compliance
Uni t enforces the Federal Resource Conservat ion and Recovery Act ( RCRA)
which covers certain pesticides. The Site Assessment Unit performs s i t e
evaluations f o r possible inclusion on the Federal Superfund l i s t or for
cleanup by the State Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund. DEQ's
Emergency Response Unit responds to pesticide s p i l l s and other events
which present an imminent danger.
During our audit we focused on the pest icide- related RCRA cases handled
by DEQ's Hazardous Waste Compl iance Unit. We focused on t h i s u n i t
because the RCRA f i l e s we reviewed i n our compilation of Incidents and
Accidents ( see Report # 90- 6, page 311, indicated a possible problem with
timel iness, and because RCRA i s one of the few programs i n which DEQ has
enforcement a u t h o r i t y . Other programs had few pesticide- related cases or
focused on remediation instead of enforcement. Our analysis consisted of
a review of pesticide- related RCRA cases and of EPA evaluations regarding
overall RCRA program performance.
As directed by Arizona Revised Statutes 49- 922 and under an agreement
with EPA, DEQ enforces the 1976 Federal Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act ( RCRA) i n Arizona. RCRA regulates the management of
hazardous wastes, including c e r t a i n pesticides, i n order to protect human
health and the environment. In federal f i s c a l year 1990, Arizona
received $ 1,073,598 i n federal funds and the state authorized further
expenditures of $ 564,259 for the program. Pesticide- related cases are
only a small p o r t i o n of DEQ's RCRA enforcement a c t i v i t i e s : of 184 cases
closed i n 1989, we i d e n t i f i e d only 12 that appeared to involve pesticides.
In Arizona, commercial p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t o r s and pesticide formulators
( companies which d i l u t e and repackage pesticides) must comply with RCRA
requirements for disposing of containers, residue, and rinse solutions.
Farmers are exempt from RCRA regulations regarding pesticides used only
by them, as long as they dispose of containers and residues according to
the pesticide label i n s t r u c t i o n s .
Current laws do not address a l l hazardous waste threats to the
environment. RCRA provides only l i m i t e d authority over abandoned or
inactive s i t e s . The Federal Superfund enables the government to clean up
the worst of such s i t e s , but Arizona's sparse population and other
factors prevent most Arizona s i t e s from q u a l i f y i n g f o r Federal cleanup.
Arizona's Water Qual i ty Assurance Revolving Fund al lows DEQ to clean up
some s i t e s , but only i f thejl threaten to contaminate surface or ground
DEQ has not taken t ime l y act ion i n some RCRA cases i nvo l v i ng pest i c i des .
Our review of pesticide- related incidents and accidents indicated DEQ
lacked timeliness i n RCRA enforcement. Our analysis of EPA evaluations
also showed the overall RCRA program has had timeliness problems,
although DEQ has made progress i n resolving them.
Case resolution has been slow - A t the time of our review i n A p r i l 1990,
15 cases were s t i l l open out of the 21 pesticide- related RCRA eases
i d e n t i f i e d i n our compilation of incidents and accidents for the period
August 13, 1986 to June 30, 1989. These cases had been open an average
of 2 1/ 4 years as of A p r i l 1, 1990. Timeliness i s important to prevent
environmental damage from toxins dispersed by wind or migrating through
the s o i l towards ground water. Delays can cause problems for landowners
who cannot predict t h e i r ultimate cost or sel l t h e i r property unti l a
RCRA case i s resolved, and may damage DEQ's c r e d i b i l i t y and in turn
impair the Department's effectiveness. As the following examples
i l l u s t r a t e , the process could be accelerated.
Example 1 - In 1980, a pesticide formulator ( a company which d i l u t e s
and re- packages pest i c ides app I i ed for and rece i ved perm i ss i on to
generate hazardous wastes, although i t did not submit the required
financial r e s p o n s i b i l i t y information. In 1981, DHS(') inspected the
s i t e and i d e n t i f i e d numerous RCRA v i o l a t i o n s . S o i l at the s i t e was
badly contaminated, and the company had accumulated thousands of
barrels encrusted with pesticide residue. In addition, the company
did not comply with several regulations designed to protect employees
and the public from the hazardous wastes. That year, DEQ requested
the company to begin a s i t e assessment and cleanup process, and to
comply with other RCRA regulations. The owner elected not to comply
with DEQ1s request. Between 1981 and 1989, DEQ conducted annual
inspections and found similar v i o l a t i o n s a t every v i s i t . The company
owner appears to have l i m i t e d f i n a n c i a l resources, and has repeatedly
sought an inexpensive solution to h i s contamination problems, causing
delays and possibly adding to the t o t a l cost of cleanup.
F i n a l l y , in 1989, eight years a f t e r the f i r s t inspection, DEQ
conducted the l a t e s t of i t s annual inspections of the s i t e . DEQ
i d e n t i f i e d 16 RCRA v i o l a t i o n s , including f a i l u r e to control entry to
the s i t e , a l l of which were repeat v i o l a t i o n s . Furthermore, cleanup
of the s o i l contamination had not begun. DEQ issued a Letter of
Warning, but t h i r t e e n months l a t e r had received no response.
Although these l e t t e r s carry a response deadline of from 20 to 40
days a f t e r receipt, the Department has not followed up on the f a i l u r e
to respond.
Conment - DEQ has attempted to resolve t h i s problem but has achieved
only incremental improvements. The Department has consistently
i d e n t i f i e d the same v i o l a t i o n s , but has never taken any action more
serious than issuing a Letter of Warning, and has not followed up
promptly on the owner's f a i l u r e to meet deadlines. Consequently, the
( 1 ) I n 1987, the Environmental Health Services d i v i s i o n o f the Department of Health
Services ( DHS) was removed from DHS t o form DEQ. RCRA actions p r i o r t o 1987 were the
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of DHS.
owner has cont i nued gene rat i ng hazardous wastes and vio l a t i ng RCRA
statutes for nearly a decade since h i s f i r s t discovered v i o l a t i o n .
DEQ o f f i c i a l s explained that working p a t i e n t l y w i t h the owner i s
preferable to taking action that might close down the business and
leave cleanup r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the government.
Example 2 - In 1984, DEQ responded to an anonymous complaint by
inspecting the a i r p o r t location of an a e r i a l p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t o r ,
and found that parathion ( a highly toxic organophosphate pest i cide)
contaminated the s o i l . Although the company changed i t s practices t o
avoid further contamination, RCRA required i t to remediate the s i t e .
The owner cooperated in negotiating an agreement with DEQ, and
submitted a proposed s i t e assessment plan - the f i r s t step in
remediation - only nine months a f t e r the inspection. DEQ, however,
did not respond to the proposal u n t i l 15 months l a t e r . The company
moved quickly to revise and carry out the s i t e assessment plan, and
DEQ promptly gave instructions on preparing a cleanup plan.
However, the company did not submit a cleanup proposal u n t i l 15
months a f t e r receiving DEQ's instructions. DEQ rejected the proposal
for i n s i t u treatment, since i t would require a research permit and
an EPA- approved l'closure plan." The Department ordered the company
to choose between disposing of the s o i l i n a l a n d f i l l o r allowing DEQ
to write a remediation plan; the company had 20 days to respond.
Over a year l a t e r , the company submitted a proposal to use
waste- eating bacteria t o t r e a t the s i t e . DEQ received t h i s proposal
i n February, 1988, but had not responded by August, 1990, two and a
half years l a t e r .
Comnent - DEQ has not taken timely action i n t h i s case. Because the
s i t e i s enclosed and the company changed i t s procedures to avoid
further contamination, DEQ has assigned a low p r i o r i t y to t h i s
cleanup. As i n Example 1, the company's search for an inexpensive
cleanup technique has delayed progress.
EPA also found problems with timeliness - EPA's mid- 1989 evaluation of
DEQ's e n t i r e RCRA program noted that no action had been taken i n a large
backlog of cases. In 82 cases, the Department had taken no enforcement
action w i t h i n 100 days o f i d e n t i f y i n g a RCRA v i o l a t i o n ; and 135 cases
were pending at the time of the EPA review. EPA's mid- 1990 evaluation,
however, noted " s i g n i f i c a n t achievements" i n addressing the case backlog
c r i t i c i z e d i n the mid- 1989 evaluation. According to the mid- 1990 report,
DEQ had only 19 cases not addressed by enforcement action i n 100 days,
and the Department had taken action on al l but four of the 135 cases
which were pending at the time of the mid- 1989 evaluation. Our audit
work did not encompass DEQ s most recent pest i c i de- re lated cases, but
EPA's comments cover a l l RCRA cases including those related to pesticides.
Several Factors
Cause Slow Resolution
Low p r i o r i ty assigned to many pesticide cases, inadequate s t a f f
resources, and the lack of administrative penalty authority hamper DEQ's
a b i l i t y to resolve pesticide- related RCRA cases i n a timely manner.
Although p r i o r i t i e s appear appropriate, additional resources and a change
i n statute could improve DEQ's performance i n t h i s area.
Many pesticide- related cases receive low p r i o r i t y - DEQ p r i o r i t i z e s cases
based on potential harm, so the resolution of some pesticide waste
problems may be postponed i n favor of more dangerous cases involving
ignitable, corrosive, or explosive substances. According to DEQ, l i m i ted
resources require that cases be p r i o r i t i z e d . Pesticide r e l a t e d cases
closed i n 1989 included cleanup of contaminated s o i l a t the former
location of a p e s t i c i d e warehouse, and i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f a complaint that
a pest control company rinsed out i t s trucks i n a shared a l l e y . Although
important, these cases may be less urgent than cleaning up a s i t e where
industrial solvents could leach into p u b l i c d r i n k i n g water, for example.
DEQ has taken prompt act ion where pest icide- related cases have taken
higher p r i o r i t y due to the public health dangers they represented. For
e A young c h i l d was hospitalized a f t e r playing i n an area where torn
bags of pesticides had been i l l e g a l l y dumped. DEQ deferred to the
Arizona Commission on Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e i n penalizing the
responsible party, but worked with the landowner to have the s i t e
cleaned up and prevent further incidents.
A farmer accidentally contaminated a semi- public well and nearby s o i l
with a banned pesticide. DEQ pursued c r i m i n a l p e n a l t i e s against the
farmer and obtained s a t i s f a c t o r y cleanup of soi I and water w i t h i n 18
months of the incident.
Limited resources can affect case timeliness - In 1988, four of the
Hazardous Waste Comp I i ance Un i t ' s n i ne pos i t i ons were vacant , caus i ng a
backlog and a f f e c t i n g u n i t timeliness well i n t o 1989. ( Department
o f f i c i a l s report a continuing problem with retaining s t a f f , as the
private sector o f f e r s many opportunities for experienced environmental
specialists.) DEQ f i l l e d the vacancies and made s i g n i f i c a n t progress i n
addressing the backlog, but recent changes may again slow enforcement
actions. On July 1, 1990, DEQ transferred two RCRA compliance positions
to another section. This action w i l l probably result i n some slowdown i n
RCRA cases, as the remaining s t a f f w i l l have a greater workload than
Penalty authority needed - A statutory change giving DEQ administrative
penalty authority recommended by EPA could help expedite resolution of
RCRA cases. Under present law, the Attorney General must seek penalties
for RCRA v i o l a t i o n s through the courts. This i s both d i f f i c u l t and time
consuming. DEQ s t a f f report pursuing a case i n court can take as long as
three years and require considerable s t a f f time throughout. By contrast,
28 states can impose administrative penalties for RCRA v i o l a t i o n s without
going to court. Maximum penalties i n these states range from $ 1,000 per
day to $ 25,000 per day. Although s t a t u t o r y p e n a l t i e s for RCRA v i o l a t i o n s
are high - up to $ 10,000 per day per v i o l a t i o n i n Arizona - DEQ could
make use of smal Ier penalties a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y , f r e e i n g the Attorney
General to pursue larger penalties for the highest p r i o r i t y v i o l a t o r s i n
the courts.
EPA encourages RCRA- authorized s t a t e s t o use a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p e n a l t i e s .
The Agency i s considering making the a b i l i t y to impose administrative
penalties a prerequisite for RCRA authorization.
1. The Legislature should consider amending current statutes to give DEQ
the authority to impose administrative penalties on RCRA v i o l a t o r s .
2. DEQ should continue i t s e f f o r t s to improve i t s timeliness i n
reso l v i ng RCRA cases.
3. DEQ should request the additional resources necessary to implement an
e f f e c t i v e enforcement program.
November 29, 1990
Mr. Douglas R. Norton, Auditor General
Office of the Auditor General
2700 North Central Avenue, Suite 700
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Dear Mr. Norton:
Thank you for the opportunity to meet with your staff members on
November 20, 1990, regarding our review of performance audit
reports entitled Pesticide Regulation: Department of Environmental
Quality and Pesticide Regulation: Programwide Issues. We also
appreciate the receptivity of your office to our concerns about
these reports. The comments should be used as appendices to the
During our November 20 meeting we discussed the footnote to
Table 1, on page 2 of Pesticide Regulation: Programwide Issues.
Although the revised preliminary report draft contains a change in
the footnotes. I consider that a more accurate statement would be:
1. The Department's accounting system does not break out
expenditures that are specifically related to pesticides. This
is because of the many mandates that ADEQ must carry out,
and hazardous substances in addition to pesticides it must
regulate. However, estimates of the costs for handling
pesticide- related matters were provided by both ADEQ programs
covered by the audit.
To facilitate the review process, our specific comments are
provided as attachments to this letter.
Our most significant concern regarding the performance audit of the
Pesticide Contamination Prevention Program is the audit's reliance
on the report by J. P. Artiola, J. Chernicky, H. Brusseau and J.
Watson, which was commissioned by your office. After carefully
evaluating their report, we believe that the consultants were not
given all the information that they needed for the purpose of
performing an adequate review of the program. Members of my staff
disagree with several conclusions reached by the consultants.
Their rebuttal is attached to this letter.
As currently written, the performance audit of the pesticide
related cases managed by the hazardous waste program may give
readers the impression that the two example cases cited are
representative of all cases handled by the program. In fact,
members of your staff requested information on 107 cases managed
Tk Deponment of Environmental Qmlity u All Eqml Opportunity Affumotiv~ Action Employer.
Central Palm Plaza Building 2005 Nonh Central Avenue Phoenix. Arizona 85004
Mr. Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
November 29, 1990
Page Two
by the hazardous waste program. Of these cases, only 29 were still
active cases at the time of the audit. Eleven of the cases have
been open for three or more years. Most of the unresolved cases
involve long term monitoring ( post- closure care) or extensive
remedial work. Seventy- three percent of the audited cases have
been resolved by the efforts of my staff. The tremendous cost of
environmental contamination clean up forces small businesses into
considering alternatives that are rejected due to legal or
technical obstacles. c his results in " false startsn by the
responsible party that cause considerable delays. Where there is
no imminent or substantial endangerment to environment or human
health, the Arizona Department of ~ nvironmental ~ uality ( ADEQ)
affords the responsible party many opportunities to voluntarily
resolve the problem in an affordable manner.
The auditor's reports failed to acknowledge that ADEQ always takes
immediate actions to abate imminent hazards. For example, during
1987 - 1989, ADEQ secured immediate hazard abatement for 36 of 65
pesticide incident reports received during this period. Fifteen
of the remaining 29 cases were determined to pose no threat to
human health and the environment. The remainder were handled by
other agencies, including local authorities. Hazardous waste
program policy dictates that immediate hazards must be abated for
all cases received by the various units having responsibility.
Such interim protective measures include erection of fencing,
removal of abandoned drums, removal of grossly contaminated soil,
and placement of cap materials such as clay on top of contaminated
sites. Once a site has been stabilized, long term remedial measures
are scheduled with the responsible party.
It is also important to note that only 14 percent of ADEQ1s
hazardous waste caun involve pesticideu. In fact, only 41 of
approximately 350 commercial chuical products listed as hazardous
wastes are pesticides. The universe of hazardous substances that
ADEQ must respond to includes many immediately dangerous compounds
that are not pasticiden such as explosives, cyanides and
During the past two years, ADEQ has taken many significant
enforcement actions against violators. For example, we have
assessed grmater than $ 30,000 in civil penalties from four
facilities. These were the first civil actions ever taken in the
history of the State of Arizona for violation of environmental
protection laws. Seven additional cases were referred to the
Attorney General's Office for civil penalties during the past year.
Mr. Douglas R. Norton
Auditor Gonaral
November 29, 1990
Page Three
In summary, our pesticide related cases are managed by eliminating
the immediate hazards and then ranking them with all other pending
hazardous waste cases that must be resolved. The time required to
resolve each case often depends on the responsible party's
willingness to make the significant financial commitment that is
always necessary for rapid correction of problems. Our limited
manpower resources are used to address the most dangerous
environmental problems. Existing laws and rules afford responsible
parties the right to legal due process that is often used by them
to delay final problem resolution. Although we are always striving
to improve our performance, we believe the compliance progress made
and environmental protection afforded by the approximately 200
hazardous waste cases that we were able to close last year is a
respectable achievement.
Please call me directly at 257- 6917, if you wish to discuss this
letter or the enclosed materials.
Sincerely, a* Randolph ood, Director
General Comments
A factor affecting timeliness discussed with the auditors during
their staff interviews was laboratory turnaround time. ADEQ uses
the Arizona Department of Health Services State Laboratory for its
laboratory services because we are assured of good chain of custody
procedures and expert witnesses. However, the lab has its own
manpower problems which have resulted in 6 to 8 months between
sample submittal and sample result reporting for some samples. The
office of Waste Programs routinely collects split samples at sites
contaminated by hazardous waste to ensure that honest and accurate
results are reported by responsible parties. Remedial projects
often involve several phases of sampling and a report must be
submitted for each phase. ADEQ must wait for our lab results to
come in before completing the review of reports submitted by
facility owners.
The report makes no statements about the program's outreach and
education efforts. In fact, there are many examples of such
activity and services provided by the program. These include our
efforts to resolve the issue of pesticide container burning, public
presentations on pesticide container disposal, technical assistance
meetings and phone consultations.
The report neglects to acknowledge the program's attempts to
resolve pesticide clean up projects through the use of nationally
accepted technical and scientific standards. These include health
risk assessments, geohydrological investigations, statistically
sound sampling methods, and proper laboratory quality assurance/
quality control procedures. The application of these methods
ensures legally defensible clean up decision making which we
believe is important for preserving the Department's public
S~ ecific Comments
Executive Summary, page 3:
"... after numerous RCRA violations were identified, one
pesticide formulator was inspected annually from 1981
through 1989. However, neither DEQ nor the Environmental
Protection Agency ( EPA) ever cited what actions the
company should take to clean up the site. Following
these repeated violations, DEQ issued a Letter of Warning
in 1989, and after 13 months has not received a response
as required.
Response : EPA issued a compliance order to the facility
in question on February 8, 1983. The final order was issued on
April 18, 1983. A consent agreement was entered between EPA and
the facility owners on June 20, 1983. Following inspections in
1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987, EPA and the company co- signed another
consent agreement. Letters of warning were sent to the company by
ADEQ after the 1987 and 1989 inspections. A response to ADEQ1s last
letter of warning dated July 27, 1990, was received by ADEQ on
September 4, 1990. ADEQ responded to the facility's September 4,
1990 submittal on October 22, 1990, and received a new submittal
on November 12, 1990.
The wording of the auditor's report implies that nothing has been
done. However, ADEQ and the EPA have clearly responded to the
violations documented by the inspections. It should also be noted
that the EPA is the lead regulatory agency for this case.
Finding 111, Scope of Review, page 21:
The report states that the audit focused on the cases handled by
the Hazardous Waste Compliance Unit because other ADEQ programs
emphasize remediation instead of enforcement.
Responsa : ADEQ has identified 126 pesticide related casesthat
have been or are currently active in other ADEQ programs. All of
these cases are handled through some existing enforcement authority
( Solid Waste Management Act, Environmental Quality Act,
Environmental Nuisance Law or Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act). If corrective action is
immediately necessary to protect human health or the environment,
ADEQ eliminates the hazard immediately. Costs incurred by the
Department may be recovered through existing authorities. Cases
that are handled by the state and federal " Superfundw authorities
also include enforcement through orders that include site clean up
and cost recovery.
DEQ Enforcan Padoral Hazardous Want. Law, paga 22:
The second paragraph implies that all commercial applicators and
pesticide formulators must comply with RCRA and that farmers are
Response : Because only 41 of approximately 350 commercial
chemical products listed as hazardous wastes are pesticides, and
there are hundreds of pesticides used in Arizona, it is possible
that some applicators and formulators do not handle pesticides that
are regulated as hazardous waste when discarded. In addition to
following pesticide label instructions, farmers must also follow
specific RCRA and ADEQ Solid Waste rules in order to be exempt.
These rules include reuse of container rinsate as a pesticide
product, and application to ADEQ for a Solid Waste permit if
containers are disposed of on- site.
Case Resolution has been slow, page 23:
ADEQ identified 107 cases related to pesticides that were handled
by the Waste Compliance Unit during the past three years. Fifty-five
percent of the cases were remedial cases and several others
have been kept open because they involve post closure monitoring
of a stabilized disposal site. ADEQ has very high standards for
closure of a site that has been contaminated by pesticides. ADEQ
evaluates the potential for environmental or public harm and
immediately requests or orders interim corrective measures to
reduce risks posed by the site. These immediate control actions
include fencing, removal of " free productw, and capping the most
heavily contaminated areas with clay or other physical barriers.
In most cases, the land owner or responsible party must demonstrate
to ADEQ that the pesticides at the site have been removed to non-detectable
levels or to levels based on a health risk assessment
conducted by the Arizona Department of Health Services. Technical
guidance is provided to responsible parties as they attempt to
remediate their site and demonstrate that it has been adequately
remediated. The submittals undergo an internal review process by
ADEQ1s environmental scientists and engineers. When samples are
collected, both ADEQ and the facility obtain and analyze samples.
Delays are caused by poor quality submittals, technologically
unsound remediation proposals, laboratory turnaround time,
conflicting laboratory results, staffing limitations and the legal
due process. ADEQ believes that it is necessary to oversee these
projects to ensure that contaminated sites are restored to a safe
condition. Cases that do not involve site remediation or post
closure monitoring are usually resolved within one year of their
initiation as a new case.
specifia Bxamplea of cases, pages 22 and 23:
In example 1, the report states that ADEQ has never taken any
action more serious than issuing a Letter of warning.
Response : In addition to the responses previously stated, we
wish to point out that EPA and ADEQ have been working together on
this difficult project for years. EPA has taken formal enforcement
actions and ADEQ has issued several letters of warning. The
company is undertaking a clean up of the site through the EPA
consent agreement. ADEQ agrees that the compliance history for
this company justifies an additional enforcement action. However,
the office of Waste Programs has prioritized its cases to select
a few cases out of its caseload for escalated enforcement action.
Despite the problems we have documented, this company was not
identified as one of those cases that we feel can be referred to
the Attorney General's office at this time. If manpower resources
are increased, additional cases will be targeted for escalated
enforcement action.
Page 23 of the report states that ADEQ has not taken timely action
at an aerial pesticide applicator site contaminated with Parathion.
The report also states that the Department rejected a proposal from
the operator for Jn- situ treatment, since it would require a
research permit and an EPA- approved " closure plan."
Response : ADEQ has repeatedly attempted to obtain a reasonable
and scientifically based clean up plan from this operator with no
success. ADEQ has met with the responsible party on numerous
occasions to instruct him regarding the technical content of an
acceptable clean up plan. The research permit or closure plan have
always been options available to this operator. We have informed
him that he must submit these appropriate documents in their
entirety if he wishes to pursue either of those options. Following
the last meeting, ADEQ decided that the operator does not have the
financial or technical means to adequately close the site. Faced
with this problem, we considered performing the clean up work with
government money or attempting to compel a " deep pockets" to do the
clean up work. During the course of this decision making, ADEQ
visited the site in March, 1988, and conducted a record review in
July, 1989. The site visit and a preliminary Assessment done by
EPA for the site revealed that there is no imminent danger to human
health or the environment, including waters of the state, posed by
the site. The record review showed that the responsible party
cannot afford the clean up. In order for ADEQ to utilize State
money to clean up the site, we need to be able to demonstrate that
there are substantial risks to human health or the ground waters
or surface waters of the state. Our previous evaluations show that
the site does not qualify for either state or federal money. Under
these circumstances, the Office of Waste Programs decided to place
future attempts to have the site remediated on hold pending
additional staff resources or new legal authorities.
Many Pastiaide- p elated Cases Receive Low priority, page 25:
Two cases were given as examples of ADEQ's rapid response to
incidents that pose immediate threats to human health or the
environment. The second case states that ADEQ pursued criminal
penalties against the farmer.
R8SpOnSO: ADEQ cooperated with the Attorney General's Office
during case development, prosecution and sentencing of the
responsible individual. However, the Attorney General's Office
actually obtained the penalties. ADEQ did compel the farmer to
clean up the site using our administrative authorities.
RESPONSE TO SUMMARIES OF J. F. Artiola, J. Chernicky, M. Brusseau
and J. Watson in Appendix of Pesticide Regulation: Department of
Environmental Quality
The reviewers from the University of Arizona address several areas
in their summaries of comments, attached to the audit report. ADEQ,
through this response, wishes to address some of the issues raised.
These issues fall into the general categories of Guidelines for
Data Packages, Staffing Adequacy, Filing and Record keeping,
Organic Carbon and Organic Matter, Use of K, for Soil Adsorption
Coefficient, Monitoring and Testing, and Adequacy of Specific
Numeric Values. These are discussed below.
Guidelines for Data Packaaes
Guidelines are established by the USEPA for submittal of studies
to support federal registration of pesticides. These Pesticides
Assessment Guidelines ( Subdivisions D and N) are made available to
the registrants at any time through NTIS ( National Technical
Information Center). Since all pesticides registered in Arizona
and subject to the data call- in are federally registered, it is
assumed that the registrants of the pesticides are in possession
of or are familiar with the guidelines.
ADEQ acknowledges that the review protocol was not completely
developed prior to the Data Call- In. This was due to the extremely
short time frames established by the original legislation. Much
of the protocol was developed in close association and
communication ( and debate) with pesticide manufacturers.
Dr. Yu has not been solely responsible for the implementation of
the pesticide Contamination Prevention Program. Initial decisions
on how to handle various classes of compounds and particular
situations were made on a consensus basis involving members of the
Environmental Fate Analysis Team. There were several individuals
involved in data review during the first two years of the program,
and there are currently one and a half positions involved in the
data call- in process.
A person in the ADEQ staff has been designated as a " traineet1 in
the review process. A procedural manual has been developed to
document the process. The bulk of the work in " grandfathering"
pesticides during the data review process is complete, and
pesticide manufacturers are tying up loose ends in the data
submittal process. It should also be recognized that as the data
review work subsides, so does the criticality of a " staff limitedtt
operational framework. Staff efforts in the future will be more
oriented toward the monitoring aspects of the program.
Record- kee~ ina and Communication
ADEQ Pesticide Contamination Prevention Program files in the office
are highly organized into sub- categories including Review
Correspondence/ Rebuttals, Time Extensions, Data GapNotices/ Product
Status, Formulator/ Supplier Notices, Exemptions/ Cancellations, and
Miscellaneous Correspondence. This system of organization was lost
when the files were copied and mailed to the reviewers, making the
record less organized and more difficult to follow. The U of A
reviewers would have had fewer problems if the review had been
conducted at ADEQ.
Due to the very frequent contacts between registrants and ADEQ
staff, requests for decisions, and all decisions made by ADEQ
staff, are in writing. Whenever a request for a determination from
a registrant was made by telephone, ADEQ staff always require that
the request be made in writing. ADEQ responses are required to be
in writing.
Registrants do not always enter the correct information as
reflected in the submittals in the Data Summary Form; therefore,
ADEQ staff hgg been assurinu that data on the summarv sheets is
correct. All accepted data is properly documented on the forms
prior to entry into computer databases. Registrants are mailed a
letter indicating that all requirements have been met after such
determination is made. Registrants are also provided status update
reports on a regular basis to advise them of the status of their
Carbon and Oraanic Mattes
Registrants were informed of the Arizona agricultural soil
requirements during the mail out of the Data Call- In package ( July,
1987). At the same time, they were informed of these requirements
during each meeting between ADEQ staff and Western Agricultural
Chemical Association. ADEQ staff also stressed in these meetings
that the conversion factor of 1.724 would be used to convert %
organic matter to % organic carbon if there was no information
indicating how the latter was derived in the submittals. Given
the circumstances, ADEQ staff has done its best to convey this
information to the registrants.
Use of IL for 8011 Adsomtion Coefficient
ADEQ feels that Y, is the more appropriate measure of soil
absorption than %, given the typically low organic carbon content
of Arizona's soils. Whether K, or Kc should be used in the Data
Call- In has been given a great deal of consideration. Use of Kc
assumes that soil organic carbon is the sole component responsible
for the adsorption of a chemical on soil. In addition to pesticide
sorption by soil organic matter, clay minerals also adsorb a
certain amount of a chemical. This is a particularly important
consideration in Arizona where, because soil organic carbon is so
low, there is a greater potential for soil mineralogy to be a
dominant influence on pesticide sorption.
The role of soil organic carbon in chemical adsorption is not
clear. In contrast to the widely accepted belief that soil organic
carbon is the predominant component in chemical adsorption, many
scientists have indicated otherwise. Valverde- Garcia et a1 ( 1988),
Murray and Hall ( 1989), and Fernandez et a1 ( 1988) conclude that
there is an insignificant relationship between the adsorption of
certain pesticides and soil organic carbon and also indicate that,
in some cases, the soil clay type might have a significant
influence on adsorption.
ADEQ has attempted to make the requirement for analytical protocol
development more reasonable by proposing statutory revisions.
These efforts have not succeeded.
Several approaches to translating the GWPL into a feasible
monitoring strategy are currently being considered. Emphasis is
being placed on narrowing the scope of the GWPL from a practical
standpoint as well as limiting the areas of concern ( e. g. irrigated
agricultural) by focusing on representative areas in vulnerable
Ademaov of I ~ e c i f i aN umeric Value8
The Arizona Environmental Quality Act HB 2518 required that the
Specific Numeric Values ( SNV's) be set by ADEQ by December 1, 1987
in order to generate the Groundwater Protection List. The statute
also required that, at a minimum, these SNV's had to be as
stringent as those published by the USEPA. ADEQ was then faced
with the prospects of adopting the USEPA values, adopting values
derived by California or deriving it Is own set of values. Since
1) the USEPA values were compiled based on the experiences of a
number of prominent researchers, 2) the California values were
subjected to a great deal of controversy, 3) Arizona did not have
a suitable database, and ADEQ selected the USEPA values to be able
to meet the statutory time frames. The values selected were those
that were published in the Federal Register, Volume 50, No. 1283
on Friday, September 20, 1985.
The Specific Numeric Values ( SNV1s ) developed by California are
not suitable for Arizona because of the differences that exist
between these two states in terms of climate, geology, cultural
practices, agricultural soil conditions, cropping system and other
The Office of the Auditor General contracted with several experts to
evaluate DEQ's Water Contamination Program. Listed below are the names
and background of each expert.
Dr. Janick F. A r t i o l a , assistant research s c i e n t i s t and laboratory
manager in the Department of Soil and Water Science at the University
of Arizona, i s a s p e c i a l i s t in organic/ inorganic s o i l and
envi ronmental analyt i cal chemistry, waste management, and
environmental monitoring.
Dr. Mark L. Brusseau, assistant professor in the Department of Soi l
and Water Science at the University of Arizona, i s a s p e c i a l i s t in
environmental chemistry, s o i l physics, and contamination hydrology.
Dr. Jon P. Chernicky, assistant research s c i e n t i s t in the Department
of Plant Science at the U n i v e r s i t y o f Arizona, i s responsible for the
development of chemical and nonchemical weed control s t r a t e g i e s f o r
cotton. Dr. Chernicky's recent work includes the study of herbicide
transport in Arizona s o i l s .
Dr. James N. Seiber, professor in the Department of Environmental
Toxicology and associate dean for research for a g r i c u l t u r a l and
environmental sciences at the University of C a l i f o r n i a , Davis, has
also served as the c h a i r o f the American Chemical Society's D i v i s i o n
of Agrochemical s.
Dr. John E. ( Jack) Watson, associate extension s p e c i a l i s t i n the
Department of Soil and Water Science at the University of Arizona, i s
a ' specialist i n soi I environmental qua1 i t y , soi i physics, . and
modeling of bacterial colony growth. Dr. Watson's recent research
has focused on the modeling of water and agrichemical movement
through soi Is.
A copy of t h e i r report i s attached.
Submitted in fulfillment of work contracted by
the State of Arizona Oflice of Auditor General
Janick F. ~ rtiola', Mark Brusseaul, Jon hern nice, Jack watson2
' Soil and Water Science Department, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721,
2Maricopa Agricultural Center, University of Arizona, Tuaon, AZ 85721
Fi Report
July 13, 1990
A review of the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Program as implemented by the
Arizona Department of Environmental quality was conducted at the request of the Office
of Auditor General. This document contains a general summary of the consultants' findings,
an abbreviated listing of key points and the individual detailed reports submitted by each
( J. Watson)
The outstanding highlight of this program has been the commitment, technical
competency and responsiveness of the ADEQ staff assigned to conduct the data call- in.
Legislatively mandated, unreasonable deadlines and personnel limitations were effectively
managed by the department staff to establish a fairly sound program. The procedures and
protocois established were considered reasonable and adequate by each of the reviewers.
The decisions arrived at by ADEQ staff were deemed defensible and, basically valid, based
upon a review of two data submittal packages.
This is by no means an exemplary program, however. Problems existed, and some
continue, due to legislative requirements and staffing levels. Further, considering present
budget constraints, it is uncertain if enough well qualified staff can be obtained to effectively
conduct the program in the future. Because the ( state of the art) technology in
environmental testing is undergoing rapid changes and is a highly technical field, staff
recruited to conduct the program will need a strong technical background. This implies the
need for a well defined mission and legislative commitment to an adequate program budget.
The department was primarily limited to one full time technical staff person to
perform the data call- in and reviews. The dependence of the program on a single
individual is a situation that should not be permitted to continue. It places the state at risk
should the next staff person with similar responsibilities lacks the strong scientific and
technical background of the present individual. Further, to maintain an effective, ongoing
program an agency needs some " institutional memory". Depending upon a single individual
to maintain this memory with respect to a highly technical program is a dangerous precedent
at best and could result in a completely ineffective program.
The mast glaring technical problem was the lack of clarity regarding the soil
requirement for percent organic carbon. Whether the requirement is given for percent
organic matter or organic carbon is uncertain, althougb it likely refers to percent organic
matter. Since there is such a large difference between the two, and this difference is greatly
magnified and reflected in soil adsorption coefficients, the department must clarify the
Generally, all reviewen agreed that the procedures and protocols eventually
developed by ADEQ are appropriate, adequate and scientifically sound. However, the short
time lines imposed by the legislation created a situation in which procedures had to be
established during the data call- in process rather than preceding it. Some inconsistencies
were bound to occur under such conditions.
Two randomly selected data packages were reviewed. ADEQ review of the data
packages appeared extensive and generally consistent with protocols. Decisions by ADEQ
to accept or reject data appeared valid. Some problems occurred with incomplete
documentation by staff regarding reasons for actions taken/ decisions reached.
Reviewers gave different amounts of attention to these provisions and have different
responses. A general consensus exists that they are fairly reasonable, but there are concerns
regarding certain specific provisions. ( Soil adsorption coefficients, interpretation and use
of SNV's, monitoring provisions are examples of stated areas of concern.)
Reviewers most frequently mentioned the following points. The need to clarify the
soil organic matter/ organic carbon requirement. The selection of a value that is clearly
appropriate for Arizona conditions is crucial. A more effective approach would be to
change the legislation so that the organic carbon distribution coefficient is used to evaluate
mobility, rather than the site specific soil adsorption cafficient. Although soil organic
carbon content of test soils would still be important, the dependence of the program on the
soil adsorption coefficient value reported and the organic carbon content would not be so
Documentation of staff decisions and rationale is inconsistent. This area desperately
needs improvement so future staff and registrants have historical examples to which they can
Clearly, Arizona- like conditions are necessary for certain types of data. The need
exists for carefd evaluation of which data is necessary and the conditions under which the
data should be obtained. This type of review would best be conducted by an advisory
committee meeting frequently with ADEQ staff over a period of time. A more critical issue,
however, is the use of tbe supplied data to evaluate the potential for groundwater
contamination. Other approaches, such as computer modeling of different scenarios using
the supplied data would provide better insight about groundwater contamination potential.
The legislatively imposed methodology for evaluation of Specific Numeric Values creates
an unwieldy situation. Only the most mobile and persistent compounds should be included
on the Ground Water Protection List. The present list of approximately 130 products is too
extensive to be adequately monitored, given realistic budget constraints. Therefore, the
method used to establish the GWPL should be sensitive to environmental conditions and
product chemistry. The present SNV approach does not effectively handle either very well.
SUMMARIES OF J. F. Artiol8, J. Chemiclq, M. Brusseau, and J. Watson
it appears that DEQ provided a good approach for reviewing data submittals.
Poor job of requesting specific methodology, especially for older pesticide packages.
DEQ needs to have a comprehensive document listing all general and specific requirements
for data packages. AU criteria for evaluation of these packages must also be included in this
DEQ pesticide review program is a one man operation. This is dangerous and insufficient.
Better record keeping procedures for correspondence files should be implemented.
Given the personnel limitations good job done on the review of data packages.
Deadlines and p e n o ~ ealv ailable by DEQ unreasonable.
Dr. Yu is the only person in DEQ responsible for the data packages. DEQ will be in a
difficult position if he leaves.
K, not part of the numerical requirements. Maybe it should be dropped.
The use of AZ- like soil conditions is justified.
Recommend to use K, instead of K, as the latter is too specific.
All other procedures and protocols deemed acceptable
In general, procedures and protocols followed by DEQ were adequate and sound.
DEQ personnel were responsive to questions.
Files not complete, some data missing. All phone conversations should be included in files.
Data reports were messy. All acceptance of data and waivers should be fully documented
for consistency and even- handedness.
For acid pesticides the requirement that the pH should be lower than the p& will result in
an estimate of K,,,, that may be larger than would occur under natural Arizona soil
conditions. ( see also JFA's comments, page 1).
Some questions about soil metabolism study requirements.
Initially, a lack of clarity appears to have existed regarding data submittal requirements.
Presently available " Review Protocols" appear adequate.
Glaring inconsistency regarding percent organic carbon versus percent organic matter.
From the review of the Trifluralin ( Treflan EC) pesticide data package, chosen at random
born a pre- selection of six correspondence packages, the following conclusions can be made:
1. The pesticide manufacturer ( ELANCO) put forth a good effort in providing
comprehensive package of pesticide numerical data studies.
2. In general, upon review of these data packages the quality of the data provided and
conclusions derived were found to be in agreement with those of ADEQ.
3. ADEQ gave a waiver to the manufacturer for data that did not quite conform to the
requirements of an AZ soil. However, in this case the waiver was deemed acceptable.
Nonetheless, ADEQ should document the reason for the waiver either in the
correspondence file or in a section of the Data Summary Sheet.
4. In general, ADEQ reviewed extensively, reported and interpreted the data provided by
the manufacturer correctly. DEQ limited the summary of the data provided to the
minimum requirements as specified in the Data Summary Sheet. This approach is
acceptable. But if extra data are provided by the manufacturer, provisions should be made
to enter a summary of it in the correspondence and/ or data summary sheets for future
potential use/ reference.
Inconsistency in the use of O. C. and 0. M in form, notes without initials, and missing
( apparently) letters and phone conversations. DEQ may not have made clear the
requirement of usage of AZ- like soils.
Inconsistent enforcement of requirements. Sethoxydim package was found to be complete.
But, missing written statements and reasons for lowering of requirements and/ or waivers.
The data reports submitted for Mluralin seemed to be adequate and consistent with
protocols developed by DEQ. The decisions made by DEQ to accept the data appear to
be valid
Sethoxydim review. Staff made an effort to verify that data submitted by registrants were
supported by documents.
Correspondence fles indicate some inconsistencies in communication of data requirements,
and data evaluation.
Established detailed protocol lacking at initiation of program.
The program is very dependent upon professional judgements by one staff person Although
hit de& ionr were genetplly round, it is a difficult assignment for ar. y one individual, and
should not be permitted to continue.
D ~ ~ S ~ OgIoIvSew - ental fate testin- r . c u mD mn. s . lo ns
m v e - ucn ho- 9
The provisions governing environmental fate testing of pesticides are adequate and
Question: Does a mechanism or provision in the law exist that can prevent the registration
and thus use of a pesticide ( regardless of data call- ill compliance) if this pesticide has been
found the be present in GW of several states?
Statute 49- 301.
Statute 49- 302.
Statute 49- 303.
Statute 49- 304.
Statute 49- 305.
Statute 49- 306.
Statute 49- 307.
Statute 49- 308.
Statute 49- 309.
All definitions are in order
Replace K, with K, K, not specified in SNV's. so why must it be
reported? Summary data should be more than three pages long.
DEQ should not get EPA involved in review of formulation
ingredients. Redundant effort and not enough resouras available.
Suggest use of I(, instead of &, as CA does. DEQ should not be
evaluating the toxicological properties of either active ingredients or
degradation products.
Ok as stated.
Second sentence. Assumption that pesticides applied topically may not
present a danger to GW is false. AU applied pesticides eventually will
reach the soil.
Ok as stated
Suggest that given the cost and personnel requirements for pesticide
monitoring ( sampling and analysis) DEQ does not have the resources
to do an adequate job as this time.
Eight foot depth unreasonable for AZ due to average depth to GW of
> U) O ft. Suggest strengthening point source legislation ( loading,
mixing sites ... etc).
Ok as stated.
Use IK, rather than IC, Otherwise, in general, provisions appear appropriate.
Length of time to establish a standard protocol is generally unrealistically short.
Section 49- 303. B. 2 basically misuses the Specific Numeric Values listed in R184102.
The soil monitoring requirement for the department, as specified in the legislation, is not
scientifically sound.
A more appropriate approach for evaluation of GWPL chemicals would be modeling rather
than SNV's.
h for
The properties and specific numeric values used to evaluate pesticides are a subset of the
Flagging criteria listed in 40 CFR part 153. These criteria were developed to be
applicable to the whole of the US and nowhere specifically.
Solubility < 30 ppm. It is likely that this requirement will lowered in the future. This is
because soluble pesticides usually have low partition coefficients, thus making them more
mobile. However field data will have to be collected as CA has done ( see document on
setting revised numerical values by CA).
It is recommended that the K, parameter be also adopted in AZ as a means for comparing
The present regulation for K,, are 5 or more. This is equivalent to a minimum IC, of about
193, based on an 9loO. C. of 2.6. Again, it is likely that this partition coefficient minimum
will be raised in the future.
Hydrolysis is also a well correlated parameter with potential contamination. This
parameter, like the other two dLscussed will also be probably adjusted in the future.
However the mean depth to groundwater in AZ is likely much larger than that of Ck
Therefore, the CA revised values which suggest a half- life of 14 days or less may be
unnecessary for AZ conditions.
The present criteria for soil metabolism as listed in both the federal and AZ regulations are
very difficult to evaluate or express an opinion about.
However, it is the belief of this reviewer that parameters related to biological degradation
of pesticides in soils will likely turn out to be least sensitive in determining the potential of
a pesticide for GW contamination.
It is recommended that in time and with sufficient monitoring data, the numerical values
for pesticides be revised.
Most numerical values are unreasonable since they were adopted from CA, which has a
shallower vatbe zone. Solubility should be more than 30 ppm. Field dissipation studies
limitations render haIf the herbicides used in cotton as unacceptable. It would be more
appropriate t o- u1se models to evaluate pesticide fate.
There is no discussion given that specifies how the SNVs used by DEQ were determined.
Although thy apparently came from FIFlW the means by which they were determined
should k provided. Perhaps AZ should develop its own SNVs like CA, or use the same
values determined by CA.
The SNV's are appropriate for a " flagging" criteria if legislatively permitted to be used
correctly, but are not appropriate as presently used for developing a Ground Water
Protection List They do not provide the department with a reliable basis for determining
if residues discovered below 8 feet exist there due to " normal" agricultural practices.
The use of 2.6% organic carbon ( as listed in attachment Il) is an overestimate of the typical
organic carbon ( O. M.) content in the plow layer of AZ agricultural soils. While some AZ
soils may indeed have this much O. C., the typical O. C. content of AZ agricultural soils is
more like 05- 15% in the plow layer.
Note: The requirements stated for organic carbon content must not be confused with
organic matter ( O. M.) content.
It is recommended that all data be reported in 7&. C., not % O. M.. This is also necessary
to compute & which relates better to the partitioning of a pesticide between water and
given soil with a known Y5O. C.
The soil pH range criteria on ( 65- 85) is acceptable and within the acceptable range of soil
pH for most AZ agricultural soils. However, the median pH is likely above 75 in AZ.
Data from states such as CA that may have similar agricultural environments could be used.
I believed CA has a program which is further ahead than A& in development and
monitoring. It is very likely that some of the numerical values will have to be revised in the
Generic pesticide data should be compiled from publications, other states, and EPA and
compared with that gathered thus far by ADEQ for consistency. These data include:
solubility and Henry's Law constant, and K,
The requirement for the generation of these data could be waived if they had already been
filed in and accepted by a federal repository or agency such as EPA.
Pesticide data from the midwest should not be considered, as they were developed under
different soil conditions. Pesticide data from CA and NM desert areas should be
considered acceptable. The 26% O. C. is inappropriate. Typical O. M. content in AZ is 0.5
to 15%. There is an inconsistency in the data sheets in requiring O. M. rather than O. C.
Use O. C. since conversion to O. M. is controversial.
Use of specific AZ test conditions is in principle reasonable and neassary. Care should be
exercised when considering data from other states.
Some Arizona soil test conditions are necessary, but those descnid may not be the most
It is apparent that DEQ doe not have either the funding, personnel or resources to initiate
such a comprehensive soil and groundwater monitoring program as required by the program
implementation schedule ( figure 6 of the AZ pesticide contamination program description).
Funding for soil sample and pesticide residue analysis will have to increase several times
above its present level if DEQ is to begin monitoring key areas within the state for all or
subgroups of the listed pesticides.
At the same time DEQ should be developing a realistic yet comprehensive soil sampling
program to monitor potential pesticide residues and movement within the root zone. For
this soil core sampling techniques, number of samples and spatial and temporal locations
should be carefully considered.
The current groundwater protection list has over 130 active ingredients plus major
metabolites. Once the data call- in is complete active ingrediants: formulation ingredients
are to be reviewed
Monitoring active ingrediants as well as formulation ingredients is beyond the realm of
DEQs penomel and budget.
No information provided for review.
The cost of monitoring at the level prescnid in the legislation will be astronomical, and
cannot be accomplished as presently envisioned.
Sampling methodology should be reviewed for both technical and legal acceptability.
The ADHS Laboratory Method Reporting Limits may work to identify spill areas, for
example, but they will not be helpful in determining if a certain compound exists in the
vadose zone water at a concentration of concern to human health.
DEQ penomel for review and usessment of data call- in program should be expanded. Data
base for each pesticide should be organized and expanded to include all generic numeric
values when available from EPA, other state programs and the literature.
DEQ should foeus on developing a good monitoring plan for active ingredients only. This
must include expanding DEQ personnel and analytical capabilities
The inen ingredients and metabolites program should at this time be put on hold.
The state program is in its infancy and is a paper tiger. DEQ can enforce data call- in but
lacks resouras and personnel to implement the monitoring program.
The data call- in for inerts and metabolites due to start in 1- 91 should be dropped entirely.
The program is supposed to deal with prevention. TO that effect this program should deal
with more strict guidelines for potential point sources such as mixing and loading sites.
With the limited resources and rapid employee turnover that DEQ has been faced with it
is & g that they have done a respectable job in conducting the data call- in process.
The pesticide contamination prevention program is reactionary in the way it is designed.
The procedure for canceling a registration only after it has been found in the GW is not
prevention. True prevention, as the program implies would be accomplished by denying
registration for pesticides that fail the specified criteria of SNVs.
Develop an advisory committee for routine technical and legal reviews and advice.
Correct 9bOM/ Q/ oOC errors in data evaluation.
Determine a tentative monitoring methodology and soil concentrations needed to estimate
d o s e zone water concentrations.
Develop alternative strategies and cost estimates to accomplish legislative goals.
Fully fund the program
Develop a monitoring strategy that accurately reflects groundwater pollution potential rather
than " flags" water management techniques as creating a pollution hazard.
Base monitoring strategy and evaluation parameters on results of a modeling effort to
provide guidance to what will be an evolving effort.
trrV1VF. KSl'i'V 01; CLUlYORNlA, DAVIS
%% I 5 *.\ awn.\ . \ 4' i,, ' y, ,
CtM 1 F W of AGRICVLNMI Akl)
EWlUONMt n'l \ I Sl' lb. NCliC
Ar. iUt~' 1~ ll. ilH 4l. t. Xt'tRIMm n.% l'loN
( eI6t 752.1 I42
FAX plhl? f?. fW
July 16,19m
Mr. Pe~ er N. Francis
Performwnw Audit Manager
Sktc of Arizona
Offlcc of thc Auditor Gcncral
2700 Norib Ccatnl Avenue, Suiic 700
Phoenix, AZ 8 . W
h rMr . Fn~ u; ir;
As you rcqucstod in yow June 18, 1990 Icllcr, I miewed the dnCI rcpn on cbc Arismna data call- in
pmcc! u, from JcicnJsLs a1 tbe U h n i t y of Ariwnr. 1 will mrkc my conamnu on thc tuvjot itc111s that
wcrc in the scientist's & all rcpons. This list is not in my perdculrr ordcr, but 1 blicvc lhvt it cuvcls ~ hc
pnrnvry u~ ncernso f thc UA scientists:
1 Use of Arlwna r( r( cuItarr1 w)/ L
Sevenl carnmcnls wcre made on lhis pint, and the general fcciing was tbrr it is appmpriatc to
quirc kis,~) nr- likew ilr lor ( a) photolysis oa suil, ( b) Anaerobic soil mcuhoiism, ( c) Acrubic
soil meahlirmr, ( d) MI rbrorptfon ~ fficicn( t3 ryps arc quircd), and ( c) Tcnatri~ lf ield
dissiptim. Wht is mmnt by ' Arimnr- Like' should bc clrarly cornrnunimtd to the registran~ s,
which hu appncntfy nut bccn done cffectivcly in pa cammoair; rtionr.
Virtually all d the UA ~ cicnlirlsc ommented on ihc imrnnslstency in cbc ~ quircntenitn thc scnsc
that 16 b thc pnncur asked flu by A7. ( U we KJ and M.' s requirement ww not spcc~ iic
u ( I) wbclbu $ determinulion should be on a wil ku than 2.4% in orpeic matter or in urpnic
aha My opinion In that K, should k the pnwm rcquircd ( not Kd and it slrould be
delennind on 8 nngo of Molrrr- likc soils as sprdfkd in Ibe Protocol for Dau Submtttals.
A fcw of thc scientists quationcxl wllcihcr mil photolysis rhvuid be required of chcmicsls which
rrc . soil imrparatcd.
My @ dun is t& i i t should bu requird' for any chcmicalr because ( a) it is no1 onc ot he
W san d @) fidd disiprtion -- which is required - includcs phalnlysis u wall ; iy 0 t h ~ a
dirription moles.
f h c w~ c rc scveni comments on the lack of sample collection prouxols to dctcrmine pesticide
movement through thc . soil column. Without any additional infotmrlion available to me, 1 suggc. t
that such prolocob must be Jcvclvpcd and provided to the ngivtnnu in order to insurc
cornpnbility of data in tcrmt of type of sampling cquipmcnr, depth of sarnpling, rcplication of
mmpling, h6w sunpling sitc a: a . wiwtcd, use of controk etc.
5. Rok of modeb la pundwrtcr pmtcclba.
Scan1 comments were modc on the mIc of models IU predicting ur flagging polc~~ ial
groundwater conlaminanu, as r hrnher step which A% muid uke once the SNVr wcrc subrntltcd.
I 8- c rhal madels can bc w f u l , but it is difficult to write thcm into rcguladonrr given the vancty
of models ovoilrblc and disagreement among invcstipton on which moJcls arc movt uppti> prir~ c.
I sugg~ hta t tbe door k left opn for usc of models by AZ regulatvm, but with little specificity a
on which modclx and how they m to be &.
6. Kok of pH tn determfnhg & ,, K, and 14 d bafirbk compowndr,
Oat commcamr ( Bnus# e) corrcclly pinled wt that the Proloco1 fot h u Subminab requires ( I
that pH adjustrncnl hc made to ensure thvt the cornpund is ma ionized when thc dcrcrrn~ nut~ o~~
is made. For acids, this mans towering the pH to below thc pKa. ( For hrsu, it would rwuirc
niring thc pH). If this is done, tha K, and K, and H will be I a r p than rn~ ght occur undcr
cnvimnmcnul pH ( 5- 9) conditions.
My opinion is that both data arc nccdcd; one rest for each ponmcwr should bc run rt a pH that ( I
ensum the compwtd is mt ionized; a second wt should bc run rt pH 7. The SNV from thc pll
7 tort b thc one which should k: u s 4 in lhc cvalurtion criteria unlcss thc rcgistnnl can prov~ de
8 convincing argument that il b not appropriate to wa it.
Should K- d pWdy~ Hke nry's constant usd vapor p# wtcr be rtquhd slacc chcy arc
ld Lrttvkd u r o q the crkrfn to k wed by AZ b rwhurtlng potcnthl GW anurninants?
' M qwrdon clmc up in scvenl comments. It is my opinion that nothing should bc r a p i d that
will not be d by AZ in making r CIW conurmi~ tiond etermination. Howcvcr, if AZ is trying
to build r 3rta- b~ fm~ thc eventual use of computcr cnvimnmcnul fate modellin$, lhcx
p~ scknwi ll be d c da t wmc point. 4
Thir ir r brric quuhn which nee& to ttc rmwcrcd, Rquin only the essantirb vy ~ quirua ll
prrmeicn that might br, useful sorncwhcn along the Line ( I would favor the former, with
wrpnrion of data only u needed with additional rcgulrtionr).
II; Aga the SNVr by Arbom tk appmpdte o wO bdOmW, t h y ulr qt~ ftdt ifferent
ham tbnm being wrd Is CA ( SO bel~ w).
It would bc much sirnplcr Tor all conccmcd, if a common sct of critrriu bc used by AZ. a, an d
€ PA 11 Is, unfonunately, not possible to get a11 pnia to agree on wtut critcria should hc uxd
for each pnmctcr. The advalrunc or AZ'r and EPA's arc Uul k yit= lw stringent than CA
in most crscs ( cxccpt cccrubic ln) , w fithilt thcy retuIt in a shoner ( probably more rCa. wnahlc)
list of candidate chemicals for further rcgulatian.
-- .. . -.- 1-
Water solubility
Soil adwrpdon coclficicnt
Hydml ysis lIn
Aerobic tm
Perhaps AZ should set up a scientific advisory panel process 10 rddrcss this qucstion in dcui) -
nor la bc sweycd by a fcw off- hand commcau. Ihis list is in fact tbc crux of the prevention
strategy basal on phyricochcmical properties and should be u pxl rc it cm he h3. a on
availahlc infotmrtinn.
9. Doa AZ brvc suffkknt manpower la review . ad evaluate Ik data, and conduct n~ onitoring
for jwobkm chcmkxtb?
30 ppln
29 w b
3 w b
All of the scientists felt that UA was fonutlate 10 have a tingle pcrson who wa. s hadling thc
workload nw, but that many mom pcoplc would hc n& in lhc future if the regulations wele
a bc cxrndcd bcyonJ ' ppcr tiger' status. I agree; data review, field sampling, and lalmrati> ry
analysis am all time- consuming and cxpchsivc opcntionr whcn done properly. AZ must corn~ tlit
u, an apprnpriau: and rubk funding lcvcl to carry the load through. However, much of this could
be done through contnctt with commercial lak nthcr than m incwaw in thc statc payroll. In
my opmioa, CA rm) tsr tbo mistake of expanding iu agencies u, do all ~ hwco rk ' in hoksc' whcn
mntnca with nuuide lrhr might he mom rpprupriak.
3 PPm
2 w b
87 wks
10. 1Iow t# rd must the data be?
! hvd scieatlsrr commented on data quality nccds. I hclicvc that wmc Iotitudc should be given
w, the rcgisinnl, so lh811hc rcyistr~ ncl an usc; existing data as much u possible ( even wlrcn r t W B ~
not & 8e euctly 88 pcr AZ pmtocol), particularly when lh SBVr will br: clcrriy exceeded by
vutpo of 8 properly ( such as water soiubilhy) whch to thc CS~ C~ C0C1 gn> undwrlcr
This is mc prticulrdy with thc prujxrtics such as VP ,, , KH, cr. which arc no1 now nccdcd
for a determination of OW contamination ( scc pinu 3 and 7).
Along the same line, r few UA scicntisls wcrc conccmcd that thr! viffunlin hydrolysis test by
Elanco wr. fill camcd out beyond 30 days when litentun Cu indicates the tIn is 1 1 6 132 days.
Boause thc SNV for hydrolysis is set AI 29 wcckr ( 17.7 drys), it samn that chc rcgiurrnt thould
have bcca rrM w any out thc & st loagct ( up to 175 dap) b get a better characterization. ~ j d
the SNV ban 14 drys u in CA, r . UJday lest would haw bccn sul~ icicril.
1 bop cbrt these comments will be useful and rpabgive for Ibc dclay in gcuing thcrn to YOU.
Wt regards, ,-
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.