PROGRAMS AND PLANS - Pesticides February 16, 1965 QUALITY OF WATER BRANCH MEMORANDUM NO. 65.17 To: District Chiefs and Staff Officials Quality of Water Branch From: Chief, Quality of Water Branch Subject: PROGRAMS AND PLANS - Pesticides Attached is the second in a series of reports on methods for determination of pesticides, "Microcoulometric Gas Chromatographic Analysis of Selected Herbicides in Water." This is the time to review the present Division pesticide program. In his memorandum of August 21, 1964, on the use of pesticides by Interior agencies, Secretary Udall assigned certain tasks to the Geological Survey. These include: (1) Responsibility for surveillance and study of results for the phases dealing with effects of pesticides and herbicides on water resources; (2) In cooperation with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, to preview the pest control programs of Interior Department agencies prior to submission of these programs to the Federal Committee on Pest Control. By memorandum of November 5, 1964 Dr. Nolan confirmed participation in both of these activities as appropriate and to the extent possible under existing limitations in manpower and funds. At national level we have been active in developing interagency plans for pesticide monitoring, a Committee action coordinated by the parent Federal Committee on Pest Control. As part of the assigned responsibilities, the Water Resources Division also has developed certain laboratory capabilities and capacities at three centers--Menlo Park, Denver, and Sacramento-- plans for which were described in memorandum 64.18. Various tasks were assigned to the centers in order to meet objectives in both research and operational activities. (1) High priority to develop reliable methods that can be used in the operational program was assigned to the Menlo Park unit. This has resulted in the two open file papers, a part of a planned Water-Supply Paper series of short papers under title: Organic Substances in Water. Using electron capture gas chromatography, we now have satisfactory methods for measuring chlorinated hydrocarbons to sensitivities of less than 10 parts per trillion. The attached herbicide procedure is somewhat less advanced, but is reliable to about 500 parts per trillion (part per trillion is 10-9 gram per liter). These measurements can be made on a sample volume of 1 gallon, a substantial reduction in large volumes previously required. Additional studies at Menlo Park will hopefully lower volume requirements to 1 liter. In our present state of knowledge we can measure the following pesticides as parts per trillion level: Lindane, heptachlor, aldrin, heptachlor epoxide, o,p' DDT, dieldrin, endrin, and p,p'DDT. These compounds, in common use, do not constitute all the pesticides classified "primary" by FCPC. Pesticides that can be measured at the range of one-half part per billion (500 parts per trillion) include 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and Silvex. The latter measurements require a combination of gas chromatography and microcoulometry. We are not yet tooled up to determine the organophosphates but will be working with this class of compounds in the early future. Improvement in chromatographic techniques and extended coverage to other classes of organic compounds and the testing of new methods will continue to be the major responsibility of the Menlo Park unit. (2) The Denver unit will concentrate mainly on process studies, that is, the earth-water relations, uptake of pesticides on sediment, solubility of pesticides, and field techniques. (3) Sacramento will have the major responsibility for the analyses of pesticides in the national water quality network, State, and O.F.A. cooperative programs. Mr. Brown's staff is now geared to begin a very small amount of this work as an expansion of current water quality studies at key locations. We recommend that when pesticide programs are discussed, the first effort should be reconnaissance information. Samples should be collected from selected wells and streams in areas where pesticides are suspected of being in irrigation drainage waters or maybe infiltrating to the ground water. These programs should be in the nature of pilot studies in which the number of samples will be kept small, say 10 to 12 at the outset. The bulk of the analytical work in these studies will be directed to the Sacramento unit with advance arrangements to be made for containers, directions, and other matters. If a small amount of this work is requested, either from other federal agencies or as part of your cooperative program, you should try to arrange for local financing. If assistance is needed to get started in the remainder of the fiscal year but cannot be locally financed, please make this known to this office. An extensive series of pesticide measurements cannot be handled in fiscal year '65. Beyond this, it should be a part of project finances as discussed on the next page. If cooperative program funds are offered by the State, this is quite proper to give balance to other parts of the areal investigation. We are already funded for research on pesticide methods and we should not place the cooperative work as part of the research in our federal program. However, if the proposed sampling sites, whether surface water or ground waters, are eventually incorporated into a national network, then financing for such measurements might properly come under the federal program. Several inquiries from other federal agencies, mainly the Bureau of Reclamation, have already been received. These proposals are for observation of pesticides associated with either pest control on lands or in irrigation canals. The same criteria should apply in judging the acceptability of this work. To summarize, we now have capability and some capacity to analyze a limited number of ground and surface waters for pesticides and herbicides. The first step is to discuss this matter with your cooperators and to gradually broaden the scope of water-quality studies to include such measurements. If there are potential problem areas, that need to be considered for the remainder of fiscal year, let us know about this situation. However, we should plan to include additional costs in the cooperative program beginning in fiscal year '66. Unfortunately we have not yet worked out a realistic cost figure because extreme care is needed to prevent contamination of samples both during collection and analysis, and the meticulous attention to the analytical details in the laboratory, will tend to make costs substantially higher than for standard analysis. I suggest a curbstone figure of $100 per sample for use in first estimates. However, laboratory costs may be somewhat less if field collection and shipping costs are absorbed by the project. In the first samples, the variety of pesticides suggested above should be measured as they are part of the primary list prepared by Federal Pest Control Committee. Referring again to memorandum 64.18, plans are underway to increase our capacity in gas chromatography in the operational laboratories. Columbus already has purchased equipment as part of the cooperative program and is tooling up. Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. also have plans for a modest start toward assembly of gas chromatography equipment. It will be the policy to extend this capacity to the larger operational laboratories as the need develops and can be funded in the cooperative program. S. K. Love WRD Distribution: A, B, S4 (without attachment) FO4 (with attachment)