[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69236-69237]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28375]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3373-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002]

South Carolina; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of South Carolina (FEMA-3373-EM), dated October 3, 2015, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 23, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective October 23, 2015.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals

and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance
to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster
Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters);
97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-28375 Filed 11-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


electrical conductivity, capacitance and resistance, neutron
thermalization, and gamma ray and neutron attenuation.  Of these
methods, the three that appear to have the greatest use and utility are:
gravimetric soil-water content; Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR), an
electrical capacitance method; and neutron probe (neutron
thermalization).  Techniques such as TDR or frequency domain capacitors
have the advantage of real-time readouts and no radioactive source.

Tensiometers or other suitable methods should be used to determine the
availability of soil water for sample collection (Cassel and Klute,
1986; Rawlins and Campbell, 1986).  Stannard (1990) provides a summary
of the theory, design, installation, and use of vacuum-gauge, manometer,
and pressure-transducer tensiometers in field investigations.  The types
of tensiometers used at each study site, and their locations, should be
documented and reported in the first quarterly report.

4.43  Location and Frequency of Sampling tc \l4 "Location and Frequency
of Sampling

Soil water content measurements should be collected near the suction
lysimeters and wells.  Soil water content should be measured when
lysimeters are sampled to at least a depth of one meter.

4.44  Soil water Sampling tc \l3 "Pore water Sampling

Because water in the vadose zone is held at negative matric potentials,
water will not flow freely into sampling devices.  Suction, in excess of
the soil matric potential, should be applied  to induce the flow of
water into sampling devices.  Therefore, suction lysimeters or other
pore-liquid samplers are required.   There is an extensive body of
literature on the function and limitations of different devices and
techniques for extracting water from soil using a pressure differential.
 Reliable, documented methods should be used to collect samples of soil
water for analysis of the applied chemical, degradation products,
tracers and other species of interest.

4.45  Instrumentation tc \l4 "Instrumentation

The operation and effectiveness of suction lysimeters have been
described by Morrison (1983); Everett, Wilson and Hoylman (1984); and
Everett and McMillon (1985).  The function and limitations of various
suction sampler designs are presented in Wilson (1990).  Vacuum samplers
can be used to obtain soil-liquid samples from up to 6 feet below the
ground surface.  Pressure-vacuum lysimeters are recommended for water
sample collection to a depth of 50 feet (Parizek and Lane, 1970).
Limitations are discussed by Litaor (1988).

The porous sampling membrane of suction lysimeters can be constructed
from a number of materials.  Testing has shown that sampling membranes
constructed of PTFE (Teflon) cannot sustain a sufficient vacuum to
collect samples under high matric potentials.  Prior to installation,
however, laboratory studies should be conducted to assess the degree of
sorption exhibited by the compounds of interest onto the ceramic
membranes.

4.46   Depth and Number of Lysimeters tc \l4 "Depth and Number of
Lysimeters

A minimum of eight clusters of four lysimeters each should be installed
within the boundaries of the treated study site.  The lysimeters at each
cluster should be installed at four different depths (e.g. 3, 6, 10 and
15 feet) to provide the greatest coverage of the vadose zone.  If the
study is conducted at a site with a ground water table less than 15 feet
below grade, fewer lysimeters will be required per cluster.

4.47  Time of Emplacement tc \l4 "Time of Emplacement

Lysimeters should be in place a minimum of 2 weeks, and preferably one
month, prior to the application of the test pesticide to the study site.
 In most cases, this will allow materials in the lysimeter to seal the
annular space and to equilibrate with soil-moisture conditions.  In some
instances, a longer period of time may be necessary to achieve reliable
and consistent samples from suction lysimeters.  It should be noted that
Litaor (1988) generally recommended that solution sampler systems be
installed one year before sampling begins so that the samplers can
equilibrate with the surrounding soil.  Suction lysimeters should
therefore be tested for operational effectiveness prior to the field
application of the compounds of interest.

4.48  Sampling Frequency tc \l4 "Sampling Frequency

Tensiometers should be regularly monitored to assess the availability of
soil water for collection, and to determine the level of suction
required to draw water from soil pores.  Samples should be collected
from lysimeters prior to pesticide application and frequently in the
early part of the study.  Soil pore water sampling activities should be
coordinated with the collection of ground-water samples.  A typical
sampling scheme is as follows:

ROUND

TIMING

DEPTH

Sample 1

Pre-application

3, 6, 9, 15 feet (ALL DEPTHS)

Sample 2

7 days after application

3, 6 feet

Sample 3

14 days after application

3, 6, 9 feet

Sample 4

1 month after application

3, 6, 9 feet

Sample 5

2 months after application

3, 6, 9 feet

Sample 6

3 months after application

3, 6, 9, 15 feet

Sample 7 - ?

continue monthly sampling

3, 6, 9, 15 feet (ALL DEPTHS)

Samples should be drawn from lysimeters at each sampling period and
analyzed individually.  In the event that an insufficient volume of
water is collected from a lysimeter, samples from two lysimeters located
at the same depth increment may be composited.  Criteria for termination
of sampling are presented in Chapter 6.  Approval for termination of
monitoring should be received from EPA in writing.

4.5  GROUND-WATER MONITORING PLAN tc \l2 "4.  GROUND-WATER MONITORING
PLAN

The purpose of monitoring tracer and pesticide residues in ground water
is to provide an indication of the movement of water, the test pesticide
and its degradates through the vadose zone to ground water.
Ground-water samples should be collected and analyzed for all compounds
of interest (Chapter 2).

4.51  Monitoring Well Design tc \l3 "Monitoring Well Design

The success of a ground-water monitoring program for a prospective
monitoring study depends in part on the proper installation of
monitoring wells.  Installation of these wells by licensed professional
monitoring well installers, according to published standards
specifically related to the construction of monitoring wells, should
ensure that the wells will provide representative ground-water samples.
Auger, direct push and other acceptable methods of well installation may
be used provided the wells are installed and constructed to ensure
reliable sampling of ground water, and that well materials do not affect
sample quality.  Local and state monitoring well construction,
installation and location requirements should be taken into account in
planning well design.  Studies have recommended against using existing
drinking water wells for monitoring pesticide concentrations, finding a
significant difference in detections between existing wells and
stainless steel monitoring wells (Smith et al., 1998). Well abandonment
at the completion of the study should be done in accordance with local
and state regulations.  To minimize site disturbance, borings completed
for site characterization should be used to install monitoring wells.

4.52  Number, Emplacement, and Screen Lengths of Wells Within a Cluster
tc \l3 "Number, Emplacement, and Screen Lengths of Wells Within a
Cluster

Ground-water monitoring wells should be installed as clusters.  At each
ground-water sampling location at least two depths should be sampled.
The magnitude of seasonal fluctuations in the water table should be
determined prior to monitoring well installation.  The shallowest well
at each location should be placed to intercept the shallowest occurrence
of ground water.  This generally means that it will be screened across
the water table.  The top of the screen for the second well should be
placed at the depth of the bottom of the shallow well screen.

In order to avoid excessive dilution of a pesticide residue or tracer
and to focus on a discrete portion of the aquifer, screen lengths should
be no longer than 1.5 meters; generally a smaller screen is preferable.
If the depth to the water table does not fluctuate drastically, each
cluster should monitor the top 3 meters of the aquifer.  Where the water
table fluctuates due to seasonal or other influences a greater thickness
of the aquifer should be screened.

4.53  Number and Location of Monitoring Well Clusters tc \l3 "Number and
Location of Monitoring Well Clusters

Monitoring wells should be located up gradient of the treated field in
the control plot, within the treated field and down gradient of the
treated field.  A minimum of eight monitoring well locations should be
spatially distributed within the treated field.  State and local
requirements for ground-water monitoring should be included in planning.

The locations of wells should be randomly distributed within the field.
They may be placed at randomly chosen nodes on a regular grid to
simplify data analysis and to reduce interference with agronomic
practices such as planting, pesticide applications, and irrigation.
Alternatively, the field may be divided into sectors and more wells
located in selected sectors based upon the site characterization data
and the conceptual model.  Factors that might induce differential rates
of infiltration and solute transport through the soil and subsoil
include soil texture and structure, surface topography (shape and
gradient), and hydraulic conductivity.  Monitoring wells should not be
placed in areas susceptible to runoff.

4.54  Time of Emplacement   tc \l3 "Time of Emplacement

Wells should be installed a minimum of 2 weeks prior to pesticide
application.  Time should be allowed for development and stabilization
of the wells prior to use.   They should be in place to allow background
sampling of ground water for site characterization prior to pesticide
application.

4.55  Sampling Frequency tc \l3 "Sampling Frequency

Ground-water samples should be collected more frequently in the early
part of the study and coordinated with the collection of soil and soil
water samples and irrigation events.  One pre-application sample should
also be collected from all wells.  Ground-water samples should be
collected 14 days after the initial application, and at least once a
month after that time from all monitoring wells.  Additional samples
should be collected before 14 days if there is reason to believe the
compounds of interest may move rapidly (for example, following a large
rainfall or irrigation event).  Some researchers have indicated that
pesticides may leach to very shallow ground water beneath agricultural
fields shortly after major recharge events.  Based on analytical results
of soil and soil water sampling, additional ground-water sampling events
may be scheduled.  Criteria for termination of sampling are presented in
Chapter 6.  Approval for termination of monitoring should be received
from EPA in writing.  A typical sampling scheme is:

ROUND

TIMING

Sample 1

Pre-application

Sample 2

14 days after application

Sample 3

1 month after application

Sample 4

2 months after application

Sample 5

3 months after application

Sample 6 - ?

continue monthly sampling

4.56  Instrumentation  tc \l3 "Instrumentation

The study director should ensure that all sample collection equipment
will not alter the quality of ground-water samples during transfer or
collection activities.  A wide range of sampling devices suitable for
sampling nonvolatile organic chemicals in ground water is available, but
only a few are suitable for volatile organic compounds.  For instance,
most pumps and bailers are not suitable for the collection of volatiles.
 Also, certain types of sampling equipment may not be appropriate in any
situation: i.e., peristaltic pumps generally cannot sample as deep as 30
feet.  Sampler parts should be constructed of materials that will not
contaminate or alter sample integrity.  Typically teflon or stainless
steel sampling equipment is preferred (USEPA, 1986b).  In addition,
pesticides may adsorb to certain types of tubing such as silicone
rubber, Nalgene 180, Tygon R-3603, and low-density polyethylene.  Teflon
or stainless steel bailers should alleviate this problem in most
situations.  Dedicated sampling pumps are recommended to avoid
cross-contamination.  If these will not be used, then decontamination
procedures which are appropriate for the situation should be used.

4.57  Sampling Methods tc \l3 "Sampling Methods

Before any well is sampled, the static water levels should be obtained.
Water levels should also be measured in each piezometer during the
sampling round.  This information will be used to construct a water
table map for each sampling period.  Wells should be purged before
sampling.  Samples should be drawn from each monitoring well during each
sampling period and analyzed individually.  The first ground-water
samples from each round should be drawn from the furthest up gradient
well clusters.  Sampling should then progress down gradient.  Sampling
for subsequent events should remain in the same order unless analytical
results indicate contamination of up gradient wells.  In this case,
sampling should progress from the well displaying the lowest pesticide
residues to the well displaying the greatest pesticide residues.

4.58  Integrated Sampling Schedule tc \l3 "Integrated Sampling Schedule

Once design decisions have been made about how and when to sample soil,
soil water, and ground water, these decisions should be integrated into
one monitoring plan for the ground-water monitoring study.  An example
of a coordinated monitoring schedule is given below:

ROUND

TIMING

MEDIA SAMPLED

Sample 1

Pre-application

Soil (0 - 3 inches), ALL Soil Water, ALL Monitoring Wells.

Sample 2

Immediately post-application

Soil (0 - 3 inches)

Sample 3

1 day after application

Soil (0 - 1 foot),

Sample 4

3 days after application, (irrigate)

Soil (0 - 1 foot),

Sample 5

7 days after application

Soil (0 - 1 foot), Soil Water (3, 6 feet)

Sample 6

14 days after application

Soil (0 - 1 foot), Soil Water (3, 6, 9 feet), ALL Monitoring Wells

Sample 7

1 month after application (irrigate)

Soil (0 - 2 feet), Soil Water (3, 6, 9 feet), ALL Monitoring Wells

Sample 8

2 months after application (irrigate)

ALL Soil Water, ALL Monitoring Wells

Samples 9 - ?

3 months after application - study termination (irrigate)

ALL Soil Water, ALL Monitoring Wells

Sampling of soil water and ground water should continue until the
patterns of transport and decline have been established for the test
pesticide and associated degradates.  No study will be terminated before
the questions for which the study was designed have been reasonably
answered.  The registrant may suspend sample analysis with EPA approval
(but not continued sample collection) if they believe these criteria
have been met while awaiting formal response from EPA as to whether the
Agency agrees that the criteria for study termination have been met.

CHAPTER 5 - SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND MONITORING PLAN DESIGN REPORTS tc
\l1 "CHAPTER 5 - SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND MONITORING PLAN DESIGN
REPORTS

Reports summarizing the site characterization process and the
development of monitoring plans for each study site should be submitted
to EPA for approval prior to the installation of the monitoring system.
The Monitoring Plan Design Report should be prepared simultaneously with
the Site Characterization Report.  Although both reports should be
submitted before the implementation phase of the study can begin, they
do not have to be submitted together.  Final approval of monitoring
plans will be provided after review.  Required elements of both of these
reports are described below.  All reports and supporting data should be
submitted in an editable electronic format and as many hard copies as
required by Registration Division or Special Review and Reregistration
Division.

5.1  SITE CHARACTERIZATION REPORT tc \l2 "1.  SITE CHARACTERIZATION
REPORT

The Site Characterization Report should be completed after the site
characterization process.  The required elements of this report have
been described in detail in Chapter 3.  They will be briefly summarized
here and include:

A summary of regional conditions,

A site base map,

Description of surficial soil characteristics,

Description of field testing methods and results in the vadose zone
(saturated and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, soil water content)

Description of historical water needs of crop and net recharge at the
site,

Descriptions and results of test pit excavations,

Description of the design, implementation, and results of the
exploratory boring program,

Results of shallow saturated zone investigations,

Description of the irrigation, ground water and precipitation water
quality,

Development of a conceptual model of the site, and

Any additional information that may impact the design, performance, or
conclusions of the study.

Summary of Regional Conditions tc \l3 "Summary of Regional Conditions

Regional hydrogeology and agriculture should be described to provide a
framework for interpreting the site-specific data collected during the
site characterization process.  A description and map depicting the site
location with respect to geographic features, regional topography,
dominant soil types, major aquifers (including those used for drinking
water), regional water table depths and direction of ground-water flow,
regional irrigation trends, and other regional agricultural practices
should be included.  Maps and figures to illustrate the regional
conditions are encouraged.

5.11  Site Base Map tc \l3 "Site Base Map

An accurate base map of each study site displaying the information
collected during the site characterization process should be included in
the Site Characterization Report.  The required elements of a site base
map are listed in Chapter 3, Section 1.

5.12  Surficial Soil Characteristics tc \l3 "Surficial Soil
Characteristics

The results of detailed soil investigations conducted by a qualified
soil scientist should be presented.  A map depicting the soil series
present at each study site should accompany a description of the
characteristics of the soils present on each site.  A site-specific soil
profile describing the various soil horizons typical at each study site
should be included.  Soil profile descriptions should follow the
conventions established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

5.13  Field Testing Methods and Results tc \l3 "Field Testing Methods
and Results

The procedures used to determine the hydraulic conductivity, matric
potential head and soil water content of each test site should be
reported.  A map indicating the locations of test sites should be
presented along with the results of the tests.

5.14  Historical Water Needs and Net Recharge tc \l3 "Historical Water
Needs and Net Recharge

The data used to establish a baseline value for the average historical
water needs of the crop and net recharge at the site should be
summarized.  If historical weather data is derived from readily
available sources, such as the nearest NOAA weather station, the average
of the monthly precipitation and evaporation data should be summarized
in a concise table, and the data source cited.  If these data were
derived from a local source near the study site, the summary table
should be accompanied by a more detailed description of the data source,
as well as the name of a contact that is willing to discuss and verify
the data.  If historical irrigation records are available, these should
be described in text and summary tables.  If such data are not
available, the method used to estimate irrigation requirements should be
described in detail.  Copies of the historical irrigation records or
calculations used to estimate irrigation needs should be included as an
appendix to the Site Characterization Report.

5.15  Test Pit Excavation tc \l3 "Test Pit Excavation

Test pit investigation results should be reported.  All excavations
should be located on a site map, and sketches and descriptions of
significant features in the test pit walls should be included in the
report.

5.16  Exploratory Boring Program tc \l3 "Exploratory Boring Program

The design of an exploratory boring program is described in Chapter 3,
Section 2.  Documentation of all exploratory borings is critical to the
characterization of subsurface conditions at each study site.  This
documentation should include a reference to the boring methods and
subsurface sample collection methods used, copies of all drilling logs,
reference to the preservation and transportation procedures for soil
samples, a summary of the methods used to analyze soil sample
properties, and the physical and chemical characteristics of all soil
samples.  Quality assurance procedures ensuring the integrity of soil
samples and the data derived from those samples should also be reported.

5.17  Saturated Zone Investigations tc \l3 "Saturated Zone
Investigations

The procedures used to gather information on the hydraulic
characteristics of the shallow saturated zone should be reported.
Contour maps illustrating the potentiometric surface of the shallow
aquifer at each study site should be constructed, and estimates of the
hydraulic gradient at each site should be reported.  Any information on
water-table fluctuations associated with each study site should be
reported, along with estimates of the magnitude and potential impacts of
the fluctuations on the study.  Hydraulic conductivity estimates
obtained at each study site should be reported, and the methods used to
determine these estimates should be described.  The range of hydraulic
conductivity values obtained from different locations across the site,
the results of pump testing, if used, and the results of laboratory
permeability tests should be compared to obtain an estimate of the
variability in hydraulic conductivity at the site.

5.18  Background Water Quality tc \l3 "Background Water Quality

Basic data should be collected to establish the background quality of
ground water, irrigation water and precipitation at the study site.
Analyses should include major ions, major nutrients, temperature,
electrical conductivity and pH.  Additionally, water should be analyzed
for the test compound (to ensure that there are no residues, and to
check the analytical method) and the tracer compound (typically
bromide).

5.19  Conceptual Model tc \l3 "Conceptual Model

Information required for each study site is presented in Chapter 3,
Section 4 and includes:

A topographic map of the site,

A detailed map of surface soils (1:100 to 1:1,000),

Graphs or tables of particle-size distribution vs. depth,

Graphs or tables of matric potential head vs. depth and soil water
content,

Graphs or tables of hydraulic conductivity vs. soil water content,

Graphs or tables of organic matter content vs. depth for each core,

An estimate of the amount of water needed for the tracer to reach ground
water in two years

An estimate of travel time needed for the tracer and/or pesticide to
reach ground water.

Graphs or tables of infiltration rates and saturated and unsaturated
hydraulic conductivity measured across each study site, and

Contour maps of site hydraulic conductivity, soil water content, matric
potential head and hydraulic head.  The latter map should illustrate the
direction of ground-water flow and give estimates of the hydraulic
gradient.

Geologic cross-sections should be constructed from soil core information
collected during site characterization.  At least two cross-sections
should be prepared for each study site that depicts significant
stratigraphic and hydrogeologic features.  One cross-section should be
oriented parallel to the direction of ground-water flow; the other
should be perpendicular to the flow direction.  The following
information should be included on each cross-section:

Orientation of the section across the site,

Description of all stratigraphic units,

Structural features,

Zones of high and low hydraulic conductivity,

Location of each borehole intersecting or projected into the section,
with the total depth of the borehole and the depth to the water table
indicated,

Indication of the rate and direction of ground-water flow.

5.2  MONITORING PLAN DESIGN REPORT (PROTOCOL) tc \l2 "2.  MONITORING
PLAN DESIGN REPORT (PROTOCOL)

In contrast to the level of site-specific detail required in a Site
Characterization Report, extensive detail in the Monitoring Plan Design
Report should only be provided for chemical-specific information, or
when elements of the proposed study design vary from the recommendations
provided in the remaining chapters of this Guidance Document.  Study
directors are discouraged from submitting "draft protocols."  If the
design requirements spelled out in this guidance document are met, then
timely approval of the Monitoring Plan Design Report will allow the
experimental phase of the study to begin on schedule.  Most subsequent
changes to the study design can be addressed in a series of memoranda,
rather than by submitting a series of draft reports.

If the study director believes that some aspect of the Monitoring Plan
Design cannot be consistent with the guidelines in this document, a
detailed description and justification should be submitted.   This
situation may be caused by the conditions of the study site or chemical
characteristics of the pesticide or degradates.

The Monitoring Plan Design Report should clearly detail how the
pesticide application, sampling, and analysis will provide the data
necessary to evaluate the leaching potential of the pesticide and its
degradates under the site-specific study conditions.  The following
chemical-specific data should be provided:

Application rates,

Compounds to be analyzed, including degradates and tracer,

Analytical methods,

Application method,

Equipment calibration methods, and

Method used to confirm the application rate.

The above information should be provided in summary form, with reference
to readily available standard operating procedures.  Field personnel
should document referenced procedures in official field notebooks to
comply with Good Laboratory Practice requirements.

The design of the proposed monitoring program for each study site
should also be fully described in the Monitoring Plan Design Report.
The following information, detailed in Chapter 4, should be provided in
the Monitoring Plan Design Report:

The number of monitoring wells and suction lysimeters that will be
installed,

A diagram showing proposed well and lysimeter locations,

A description of the proposed soil water sampler design,

A schematic diagram of the proposed well construction details,

Intended method, rate, schedule, and duration of irrigation,

Proposed experimental start and finish dates, and

Soil, soil water, soil water content, matric potential and ground-water
sampling schedules.

The Monitoring Plan Design Report should also detail the field
procedures that will be used to instrument the site, conduct the
sampling, and abandon the site at the conclusion of the study.  These
required elements are described in Chapter 4.  These procedures should
be described in summary form, with reference to readily available
standard operating procedures.

CHAPTER 6 - MONITORING PLAN IMPLEMENTATION tc \l1 "CHAPTER 6 -
MONITORING PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Once the Monitoring Plan Design has been approved, work on
instrumentation can begin.  At this stage all design decisions have been
made.  What remains is to install monitoring devices, apply the
pesticide and tracer, to collect samples, and to send them off for
analysis.  This chapter describes factors to be considered in the field
during instrumentation, application, sample collection, and sample
handling.

EPA anticipates that field-scale ground-water monitoring studies will be
conducted over a minimum of a 3-year period.  This period includes 1
year for site selection, site characterization, the development of a
monitoring plan, and the installation of the monitoring system, and at
least 2 years for post-application monitoring.  Additional time will
likely be required for the preparation of the final study report.  The
duration of these studies may vary depending on the results obtained.
Termination of monitoring at study sites requires EPA approval.
Generally, conditions appropriate for termination of the study include:

The tracer has peaked in concentration in all monitoring wells at the
site, and has shown a marked decline for at least three months and

Residues of the pesticide (parent and degradates of concern) have
completely degraded and dissipated in the entire profile (vadose and, if
applicable, saturated zone).  This is generally defined as no detections
for three consecutive sampling times over an interval of at least two
months, or

Pesticide residues have clearly peaked (parent and degradates of
concern) in ground water beneath the treated field (for each of the well
clusters) or concentrations have leveled off for an extended period
(usually about 4 to 8 months) while significant  pesticide residues and
tracer substance no longer remain in the vadose zone.

Sampling of soil water and ground water should continue until the
patterns of transport and decline have been established for the test
pesticide and associated degradates.  No study will be terminated before
the questions for which the study was designed have been reasonably
answered.  The registrant may suspend sample analysis with EPA approval
(but not continued sample collection) if they believe these criteria
have been met while awaiting formal response from EPA as to whether the
Agency agrees that the criteria for study termination have been met.

This chapter is divided into the following sections:

Application of Pesticide and Tracer

Irrigation

Soil Monitoring

Soil Water Monitoring

Ground-Water Monitoring

Sample Handling and Tracking

6.1  APPLICATION OF PESTICIDE AND TRACER tc \l2 "1.  APPLICATION OF
PESTICIDE AND TRACER

The field crew should document that the application of the test
pesticide and tracer corresponds to the rates and methods defined in the
Monitoring Plan Design Report.  Background concentrations of the tracer
in the vadose and saturated zones need to be established ahead of time
and the application rate should be sufficient that breakthrough of the
tracer into shallow ground water can be clearly detected with the
analytical method used.  Application methods, calibration procedures,
amount applied, and the date and time of each application should be
documented carefully in the field notebook and reported in the First
Quarterly and Final Report.  The tracer identified in the Monitoring
Plan Design Report should be applied the same day as the test pesticide.

Field notes should record the climatic conditions on the day of
application, including wind speed, temperature and precipitation.  It is
particularly important to document in detail soil water content and
temperature conditions on the day of application and for following days.
 The field crew should take detailed notes (supported by photographs
when appropriate) on the amount, type, and positioning of plant residues
or organic amendments relative to the planting rows (if applicable),
surface roughness, row spacing, ridge height and depth and method of
plowing, crop stage and vigor, weed composition and cover, and other
factors which may significantly influence pesticide dissipation
especially in the critical first few hours and days after application.
Application should not take place on a day when conditions could cause
pesticide loss due to spray drift or runoff, or if conditions are
inconsistent with label directions.  All entries to the field notebook
throughout the study should be consistent with FIFRA Good Laboratory
Practices (GLP).

6.2  IRRIGATION

Detailed guidance on how to determine the amount of irrigation water
needed throughout the course of the study is provided in Chapter 4.  The
cooperating farmer tending the study field should be familiarized with
the schedule and method of irrigation identified in Monitoring Plan
Design.  With the exception of the irrigation event during the first
week after pesticide application, times when irrigation is needed will
not necessarily correspond to days field personnel are scheduled to
conduct sampling.  Soil water content determinations up to a one meter
depth should always be made prior to any irrigation event as well as for
all sampling events (normally several in the first month after
application and once a month thereafter).  The Study Director should
keep in close communication with the cooperating farmer to ensure that
monthly irrigation targets are being met, and that records of the dates
and amounts of irrigation are being kept.

6.3  SOIL MONITORING tc \l2 "3.  SOIL MONITORING

Soil sampling is important for verification of field application rate.
For at least the month after application (normally including samples
taken 0, 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30 days post-treatment) samples should not be
composited before analysis in order to establish spatial variability of
the application.  Analysis of soil samples for pesticide and tracer
residues should be continued until at least three consecutive (normally
monthly) samples show no residues above the minimum detection (not
quantitation) limit.

For soil monitoring, permanent equipment will not be installed in the
field.  Therefore, the first step in the field procedure is
decontamination of sampling equipment, followed by sample collection and
handling.  Careful attention to avoid cross contamination of samples is
important, especially in the early sampling intervals when pesticide
residues on the field are highest.  The field crew should carefully
document procedures in the field notebook, noting any problems or
deviations from the Monitoring Plan Design.

6.31  Decontamination of Sampling Equipment tc \l3 "Decontamination of
Sampling Equipment

Decontamination minimizes the likelihood that pesticide or tracer
residues will be introduced into deeper soil horizons during sampling.
A decontamination area should be designated in a location downgradient
of the study plot.  Soil-sampling equipment should be cleaned prior to
sample collection at each sampling interval.  Field-blank water samples
should be taken with each sampling round to test the effectiveness of
the soil-equipment decontamination methods.  All rinsate used in the
decontamination process should be disposed of away from the study site.
 Additionally, rinsate should not be disposed of in “ecologically
sensitive” areas, such as wetlands or down other wells.

Field personnel can take additional precautions beyond equipment
decontamination to prevent sample cross-contamination.  For example,
each person collecting samples should wear a clean pair of gloves during
collection of each soil core.  Decontaminated sampling equipment should
never come in contact with the ground until the actual sample
collection.  Decontaminated sampling equipment should be placed in a
clean plastic bag between uses to avoid accidental contact with
contaminated soil or water.

6.32  Soil Sample Collection and Handling  tc \l3 "Soil Sample
Collection and Handling

The primary concern at the time of soil sampling is that representative
samples be collected, being careful not to cross-contaminate samples
from different depths or cores.  Surface plant residue should be
included with shallow soil samples to account for pesticide residues
clinging to this material.  When collecting successive samples for a
deeper core, the top portion of each core should be carefully scraped to
remove soil from the previous depth increment.  The locations of
sampling cores should be carefully measured and recorded in the field
notebook, to avoid re-sampling in a location previously disturbed by
coring.  After sampling, core holes should be refilled with
pesticide-residue free soil according to State and local regulations.

6.4  PORE-WATER MONITORING tc \l2 "4.  PORE-LIQUID MONITORING

The primary purpose of soil water monitoring is to track the movement of
dissolved pesticide and tracer toward the water table.  Detection of
tracer in the soil column indicates that downward movement is occurring;
detection of tracer in the ground water indicates that recharge has
occurred.  Monitoring pesticide residues gives an indication of the
relative rate of transport of the pesticide.

6.41  Instrumentation tc \l3 "Instrumentation

The proper installation of soil water content monitoring devices is
described in manufacturer's materials and in USEPA (1986b), ASTM (1994),
Nielsen and Johnson (1990), Everett, Wilson, and Hoylman (1984), and
Morrison (1983).  All lysimeters should be cleaned and leak tested
before installation in the field to ensure that they will be able to
hold sufficient vacuum to draw a soil-water sample.  Testing of
lysimeters prior to installation is of special practical importance,
since any lysimeter that does not function properly during the study
will require that a replacement be installed.  Recommended methods for
pre-installation cleaning and leak testing of pore-water samplers are
described in US EPA (1986b).  In some instances, the manufacturer of the
sampling device may recommend other cleaning procedures that are
appropriate for the specific device.

The maximum suction that can be applied to a lysimeter before contact
with soil-water is broken is the bubbling pressure (or air entry
pressure).  If a suction greater than the bubbling pressure is applied
to a lysimeter, only air will be drawn into the collection cup.  If the
bubbling pressure for a lysimeter is not provided by the manufacturer,
this value should be determined before lysimeters are installed in the
field.  This can be done by saturating the collection cup with water,
immersing the cup in water, and applying pressure to the lysimeter.  The
bubbling pressure is the pressure at which air escapes from the ceramic
cup into the surrounding water.

Pressure-vacuum lysimeters offer some advantages over suction
lysimeters.  For example, the maximum operating depth of pressure-vacuum
lysimeters is 15 meters, as opposed to 6 meters for suction lysimeters.
 Also, pressure-vacuum lysimeters collected samples through tubing which
is part of the sample equipment, thus tubing is not reused eliminating
this as a potential source of contamination.  Good hydraulic contact
between the porous segment of the sampler and the unsaturated media is
needed to minimize leakage along the annulus of the borehole.  This may
be accomplished by packing silica flour around and beneath the porous
segment of suction samplers.  The use of other materials, such as sand
or soil backfill will not provide as strong a hydraulic connection and
may necessitate equipment replacement.  Bentonite powder should be used
to form a tight seal in the annular space immediately above the porous
component of the sampler to prevent contamination from the surface.  The
supervising scientist should record problems encountered during
installation or deviations from procedures and describe them in the
First Quarterly Report and in the Final Report.

6.42  Decontamination tc \l3 "Decontamination

Sample collection tubing in a pressure-vacuum lysimeter is a dedicated
part of the sampling device, and need not be decontaminated.  Other
types of lysimeters, for example suction lysimeters, have sampling
tubing that is attached at the time of sampling and should be
decontaminated if it is used for multiple lysimeters.  In all cases,
sampling tubing should not be allowed to come in contact with the ground
and should be handled with clean gloves during sample collection.  Any
rinsate should be disposed of away from the study area. Additionally,
rinsate should not be disposed of in “ecologically sensitive” areas,
such as wetlands or down other wells.

6.43  Sample Collection  tc \l3 "Sample Collection

The following procedures pertain to the collection of samples from
pressure-vacuum lysimeters.  Methods for the collection of pore-water
samples are generally provided by the equipment manufacturer and are
summarized in ASTM (1994), Nielsen and Johnson (1990), and USEPA
(1986a).

Pore-water samples should be collected from suction lysimeters by
maintaining a constant level of suction on the porous cup of the
lysimeter for at least 24 hours.  The suction induces the flow of water
from the surrounding unsaturated media into the sampler.  To collect a
sample, pressure is applied to the second line and water is forced from
the porous cup through the discharge tubing into the collection bottle.

The appropriate amount of suction for each lysimeter depends upon the
type of soil and the ambient soil moisture at the time of sampling.  The
suction placed on the lysimeter should be greater than the suction
naturally occurring in the soil in order to induce flow into the
collection container and to prevent backflow from the porous sampling
cup to the soil matrix.  The pressure applied to the lysimeter to force
sample water from the collection cup to the surface should not exceed
the bubbling pressure of the lysimeter, or the collected sample will be
forced from the ceramic cup back into the surrounding soil.

The following should be included in the field notes for each lysimeter
sampled:

Amount of suction applied,

Date and time that suction was applied,

Remaining suction at time of sampling,

Date and time of sampling,

Pressure applied for sampling and

Volume of sample collected

If the volume of available pore water or ground water is not sufficient
for both pesticide and tracer analyses, pesticide analyses should be
given first priority.  If sample volume allows, duplicate and
field-spike samples should be collected.  A trip blank sample should be
included to ensure cross-contamination of samples does not occur during
shipment to the laboratory.

Any problems or variations in procedures in the Monitoring Plan Design
Report should be described in the Quarterly Reports and in the Final
Report.  Reasonable effort should be made to follow the prescribed
sampling program.  Adjustments may have to be made during periods of bad
weather but samples should still be collected according to the
prescribed intensity (i.e., still at an average frequency of once every
month unless a deviation from the protocol is approved by the Agency)
and at times closest to the scheduled date that are feasible.

6.5  GROUND-WATER MONITORING tc \l2 "5.  GROUND-WATER MONITORING

As with the soil pore-water sampling devices, monitoring well design
decisions have been made and described in the Monitoring Plan Design
Report.  Problems or variances from these procedures should be
documented and discussed as they arise in each Quarterly Report and in
the Final Report.

6.51  Instrumentation  tc \l3 "Instrumentation

The ability to collect representative ground-water samples depends on
the proper installation of monitoring wells.  Most states require that a
permit be filed prior to the installation of monitoring wells and that
well construction records are returned to the state within a specific
time following the emplacement of monitoring wells.  States may also
have specific monitoring-well construction requirements that should be
followed.  Wells should be installed by licensed drillers familiar with
all relevant state and local requirements and supervised by an
experienced geologist, professional engineer or environmental scientist.
 In addition, before initiation of the monitoring well installation
program, an effort should be made to identify and locate utilities,
irrigation systems, tile drains, etc. to avoid damage and costly
repairs.

All information pertaining to work performed during the well
construction should be recorded in detail in a bound project notebook
using waterproof ink.  Field-book entries for each monitoring well
should be sufficiently detailed to allow the preparation of a detailed
well log.  The following minimum information should be provided on every
well log:

Well number and permit number,

Well location,

Well depth,

Elevation of the top of the casing,

Depth to the water table,

Well construction details including: materials; length and diameter of
the casing, screen, and surface casing,

Well annulus construction details including:  depth, thickness, and
materials selected for the filter pack, plug, and surface pad,

Geologist's field observations of soil characteristics from continuous
split-spoon samples including: soil texture, color, moisture, and
structure,

Geotechnical information, such as blow counts necessary to advance the
split spoon and sample recovery and

Names of the drilling contractor and supervising geologist and,

Weather conditions during the drilling activities.

Any deviations should be recorded and described in the First Quarterly
Report and in the Final Report.

6.52  Well Development tc \l3 "Well Development

Well development procedures should be undertaken once a monitoring well
has been installed and sufficient time has passed to allow the annular
seal to cure.  The purpose of developing a monitoring well is to improve
the hydraulic characteristics of the filter pack by removing
fine-grained materials from the pack, and causing coarser materials to
settle around and stabilize the screen.  Once this is accomplished, the
monitoring well can be used to collect representative ground-water
samples.

Removal of fine materials may be more difficult if the surrounding soil
itself is fine-textured, or if the soil water is naturally turbid.  In
these cases, indicator parameters such as pH and conductivity should be
monitored during development (Driscoll, 1986).  Development should
continue until parameters stabilize or the turbidity of the discharge
water is less than 5 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU), as recommended
in USEPA (1986b).  If the parameters do not stabilize, this is an
indication that the development method is not effective and an alternate
method is needed.  Information recorded during the development of each
well should include:  date of development and development method, volume
of water removed, and a log of parameters monitored.

6.53  Decontamination  tc \l3 "Decontamination

Unless dedicated pumps are used for sampling, all ground-water sampling
equipment should be cleaned before use, and between wells.
Non-dedicated sampling equipment should be washed with a nonphosphate
detergent, rinsed with tap water then distilled water, and finally
rinsed with a pesticide-grade acetone (or hexane or methyl alcohol) to
aid in drying and to remove any organic residue (Barcelona at al.,
1985).  Other options are given in Driscoll (1986).  All solvents used
in decontamination activities should be disposed of in accordance with
State or local regulations.

If a single pump will be used to purge multiple wells or collect
ground-water samples, tubing should be dedicated to individual
monitoring wells.  Any non-dedicated equipment should be designed so
that it can be disassembled for cleaning at the decontamination area
before a different well is sampled.  Tubing removed from a well after
each purging or sampling event should be rinsed with deionized water
before placing in a clean storage container and sealed.  Field blanks
should be collected from sampling equipment between wells to test the
effectiveness of decontamination.  Bailers should be filled once and
then decanted into sample collection bottles.  If non-dedicated pumps
are used for sample collection, spectrographic-grade water should be
pumped through equipment after decontamination and a sample collected
for analysis.

Some States have developed guidelines for decontamination protocols
(Mickam et al., 1989).  State regulatory agencies should be consulted to
obtain current information on standard decontamination practices for
saturated and vadose zone monitoring programs.  These standards should
be used to supplement the guidelines outlined in this document.

The water purged from the wells should be discharged away from all well
clusters.  Additionally, purge water should not be disposed of in
“ecologically sensitive” areas, such as wetlands or down other
wells.  Field personnel can take precautions beyond decontamination of
sampling equipment to ensure that cross-contamination between wells does
not occur.  Decontaminated equipment should be handled using rubber
laboratory gloves, and should not be placed directly on the ground.  It
is best to store equipment in clean sealed containers after
decontamination (e.g., plastic bags or coolers) for relocation to the
well site.  If bailers are used for purging and sampling wells, bailer
cords should be discarded after a single use.

6.54  Sample Collection tc \l3 "Sample Collection

Prior to sampling any of the monitoring wells at a study site, field
conditions should be described in the field notebook.  This includes
observations of weather and soil surface conditions, and the height of
the water table in all wells and piezometers.

In order to collect a ground-water sample from a monitoring well that is
representative of the water in the surrounding aquifer, standing water
should be removed from the well casing, screen, and surrounding filter
pack.  This procedure is called purging.  The volume of water purged,
the rate at which it is withdrawn, and the location of the sampling
intake all determine how representative the sample is to the water in
the aquifer.  Typically parameters such as dissolved oxygen, specific
conductivity, oxidation-reduction potential, turbidity and pH are
continuously monitored throughout purging.  When these parameters
stabilize, the well is considered purged (Driscoll, 1986).
Alternatively, a specific number of well casing volumes can be removed.
Meters used to monitor pH, temperature, and specific conductance should
be calibrated before each use.

Bailers should be gently lowered into the water column to a measured
depth just below the water table.  Samples for volatile pesticides
should be headspace-free.  Only a bladder pump is suitable for sampling
for volatile pesticides.

Ground-water samples should be collected in containers that will not
interact with the sample.  Consult with the laboratory that the samples
will be analyzed at to determine if preservation methods beyond the use
of ice will be necessary to prevent additional degradation of the target
compounds.  Ensure that use of chemical preservatives will not interfere
with analysis of target compounds.  Ground-water samples should not be
composited, but placed directly into sample collection bottles.  The
techniques used need to be validated for providing a representative
sample in which the analytes are stable under the conditions of
transport and subsequent storage before analysis.  A trip blank sample
should be included to ensure cross-contamination of samples does not
occur during shipment to the laboratory.

If the volume of available pore water or ground water is not sufficient
for both pesticide and tracer analyses the pesticide analyses should be
given first priority.  The analytical procedures described in the
Monitoring Plan Design should be used and documented.  Duplicate samples
and field spike samples should be collected.

6.6  SAMPLE HANDLING AND TRACKING tc \l2 "6.  SAMPLE HANDLING AND
TRACKING

Water and soil samples should be placed directly into coolers after
collection.  To ensure against breakage and temperature fluctuations in
the samples, the following sample packing and shipping procedures should
be followed:

Samples should be shipped in insulated boxes or coolers.  Devices are
available to automatically monitor and record temperature while the
samples are in transit.

Individual glass sample containers should be wrapped either in plastic
bubble wrap, placed in Styrofoam holders, or somehow packaged to
separate the sample bottles   during shipping.

Gel-Cold packs or other materials to maintain stable temperatures can be
placed in each cooler, but should not be in direct contact with any of
the glass sample containers.  To help maintain the Gel-Cold pack
temperature and keep the temperature of the coolers around 4 (C,  ice
sealed in plastic bags may be added.  The ice should be bagged to
prevent seepage during transport.  Soil samples should   be packed in a
container at or below 0 (C as soon as possible after collection.  If
dry ice is used to preserve soil samples during shipment, field
personnel should follow all hazardous material labeling requirements.

It is important that all sample tracking paperwork (i.e.
chain-of-custody) be included with the shipment and that the chest be
sealed according to chain-of-custody procedures.

All samples should be stored after collection according to GLP-compliant
procedures and the stability should be validated by a storage stability
study.  Coordination with the laboratory concerning frequency and number
of samples is important for sample preservation and to ensure that
sample holding times are not exceeded.  The laboratory should therefore
be notified prior to sample collection to ensure that samples will be
processed and analyzed quickly.

The sample tracking procedure described in the Monitoring Plan Design
portion of the Study Protocol should be followed.  A number should be
assigned to each sample collected.  That number should be marked on the
sample container and recorded on the tracking form and in the project
notebook.  Weather conditions or field comments should also be recorded
on the tracking form or in the field notebook.  A three-part label
should be used that includes numbered descriptive information to be
placed on the sample container.  In general, sample labels should be
placed in duplicate on the sample container and should include:

Date and time of collection,

pH, temperature, and specific conductance,

Identification of sample location,

Analytes, and

Signature of field technician.

If samples are shipped to a laboratory, samples should be shipped in
such a way as to avoid breakage of sample containers and maintain sample
integrity.

CHAPTER 7 - REPORTING tc \l1 "CHAPTER 7 - REPORTING

Quarterly status reports for each prospective ground-water monitoring
study should be submitted following the application of the compounds of
interest.  Required elements of these status reports are described in
Section 7.1.  These status reports are required to allow adjustment to
the study design, if necessary, and for the determination of when the
stated goals of the study have been fulfilled.  However, in the interest
of efficiency, quarterly reports will not be formally reviewed (i.e. no
formal write-up of review will be submitted to registrant from the US
EPA) unless the results presented warrant further action.

The monitoring plan implementation phase of a prospective ground-water
study may end once the EPA approves a Study Termination Report submitted
by the registrant.  While ground-water sampling in a prospective study
would ideally be completed two years after the application of the test
chemical, the appropriate termination point of a study is a function of
site-specific and chemical-specific characteristics.  Section 7.2
describes milestones in the ground-water study that should occur before
the Study Director considers submitting a Study Termination Report.

At the conclusion of each study, a Final Study Report should also be
submitted to EPA.  Required elements of this report are described in
Section 7.3.  As this document should be able to stand alone as a full
report on the small-scale prospective study, it will include information
already presented in previous submissions.  This report is the vehicle
in which the registrant can provide interpretation of the study results,
suggest further mitigation measures, and extrapolate the results through
modeling, or comparison to other available data.   All information
referenced to sampling locations should conform to EPA's minimum data
elements standards which can be found at the US EPAs’ Water Quality
Data Submissions: OPP Standard Operating Procedure home page (
HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/water_quality_sop.htm%2
3appendix_a%20"
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/water_quality_sop.htm#ap
pendix_a ).  All reports and supporting data should be submitted in an
editable electronic format and as one hard copy.

7.1  QUARTERLY REPORTS tc \l2 "1.  QUARTERLY REPORTS

Quarterly status reports should be submitted to EPA beginning with the
first quarter following the application of the compounds of interest to
each study site.  The required elements of these reports include:

A summary of the activities at the site during the quarter,

Concentrations or mass accounting for the conservative tracer and total
pesticide residues at each cluster,

Protocol deviations from the approved monitoring plan, and

Results of all chemical analyses for samples (including quality control
samples)      collected during the quarter.  Individual results should
be reported.  Results should not be averaged over samples or time.

Provide graphical representation of chemical analysis

These report elements are described further in the following sections.
The submittal of additional information that may impact the design,
conduct, or findings of the study is encouraged.

7.11  Summary of Site Activities tc \l3 "Summary of Site Activities

The summary of site activities should include all activities related to
agronomic practices, monitoring, and irrigation.  The application dates
for fertilizers or other compounds applied to the study area should be
reported along with information on other agronomic practices conducted
during the quarter.  Similarly, the dates of sample collection should be
reported along with information on weather conditions during the
quarter.  If irrigation water was applied to the study site during the
quarter, then the dates and amounts of water applied should be reported,
and compared to the targets set in the Irrigation Plan.  The results of
field measurements such as soil water content and matric potential
should be reported along with a water budget indicating the amount of
net recharge to the site.

7.12  Mass Balance tc \l3 "Mass Balance

A mass balance for the conservative tracer and total pesticide residues
should be reported for each cluster.  The mass balance at each lysimeter
and monitoring well should be approximated.

7.13  Protocol Deviations tc \l3 "Protocol Deviations

Any deviations from the protocol established and approved as part of the
Monitoring Plan Design should be reported for each quarter.  Reporting
of deviations should include a discussion of the proposed and approved
procedures, a description of the revised procedures that were
implemented during the quarter, the reasons for the revisions, and the
anticipated effects on the study.

7.14  Analytical Results tc \l3 "Analytical Results

The results of all chemical analyses (i.e., analyses for the test
pesticide, degradates, and tracer) conducted on samples should be
reported in tabular format.  MDLs and the results of quality control
analyses should also be reported.  Comments and a brief discussion of
the analytical results for the quarter may be included.

7.2  STUDY TERMINATION REPORT tc \l2 "2.  STUDY TERMINATION REPORT

The sampling program of a prospective ground-water monitoring study
would ideally last two years.  However, in reality the duration of a
successful study is a function of how long it takes for applied water to
recharge to ground water and of how long it takes for the pesticide and
its degradates to leave the vadose zone by degradation and/or
dissipation.  This time frame is a function of the soil type, properties
of the pesticide, and the amount of net recharge at the site.

In order to consider proposing an end to the sampling phase of a
prospective study, the study director should assess whether the
following criteria have been met:

The tracer has peaked in concentration in all monitoring wells at the
site, and has shown a marked decline for at least three months, and

Residues of the pesticide (parent and degradates of concern) have
completely degraded and dissipated in the entire profile (vadose and, if
applicable, saturated zone).  This is generally defined as no detections
for three consecutive sampling times over an interval of at least two
months, or

Pesticide residues have clearly peaked (parent and degradates of
concern) in ground water beneath the treated field (for each of the well
clusters) or concentrations have  leveled off for an extended period
(usually about 4 to 8 months) while significant  pesticide residues and
tracer substance no longer remain in the vadose zone.

The Study Termination Report should detail the fact that the above
conditions have been met, give a brief summary of study results, and
propose a date for the termination of the sampling phase of the
monitoring study.  Sample collection should continue until EPA reviews
the Study Termination Report and concurs that sampling can end.  EPA
will review the Study Termination Report within sixty days of receipt of
the report.  No study will be terminated before the questions for which
the study was designed have been reasonably answered.

7.3  FINAL REPORT tc \l2 "3.  FINAL REPORT

A  Final Report should be submitted to EPA at the conclusion of each
study.  This report should include

Documentation of the application of the compounds of interest, climatic
monitoring, and irrigation practices;

Documentation of all sampling and sample analyses activities;

Results of all chemical analyses and discussion of findings.  Individual
results should be reported.  Results should not be averaged over samples
or time; and

Documentation of quality assurance activities.

These report elements are described in more detail in the following
sections.  The submittal of additional information that may impact the
interpretation of study results is encouraged.

7.31  Field Practices tc \l3 "Field Practices

The agricultural practices conducted during the course of the study
should be summarized in the Final Report.  Information on the
application methods, rates, and dates for the compounds of interest
should be reported.  The results of climatic monitoring at each study
site should be reported along with information on the irrigation methods
used, and irrigation rates, dates, and duration.

7.32  Sampling Activities  tc \l3 "Sampling Activities

Information collected during each sampling episode should be reported,
including

Static water levels in monitoring wells and piezometers,

Weather conditions and field comments,

Tensiometer readings and the amount of suction used to collect lysimeter
samples, and

Soil moisture content at the time of sample collection.

7.33  Analytical Results and Discussion of Findings tc \l3 "Analytical
Results and Discussion of Findings

The results of all chemical analyses should be presented.  Analytical
results for all compounds of interest should be presented along with
information on analytical detection limits that were achieved.  The
study findings should be summarized, and the significance of the
findings with respect to the demonstrated environmental fate of the test
pesticide and degradates should be discussed.  The use of graphics
and/or computer models to illustrate this discussion is encouraged.

7.34  Quality Assurance tc \l3 "Quality Assurance

Compliance with good laboratory practices (GLPs) should be documented.
For field activities, a description of the system for sample numbering
and/or identification should be presented

For laboratory operations, the following should be reported:

Identification of responsible party who acted as sample custodian,

Copies of laboratory sample custody logs consisting of serially numbered
standard lab-tracking report sheets, and

Description of laboratory sample custody procedures for sample handling,
storage, and dispersion for analysis.

7.4  ELECTRONIC DATA REPORTING GUIDELINES  tc \l2 "4.  ELECTRONIC DATA
REPORTING GUIDELINES

Data generated from PGW studies have proven valuable to OPP scientists
and risk managers in better understanding the potential for a pesticide
to: (1) impact ground water quality, (2) contaminate drinking water, and
(3) reach ecologically important surface water systems, when used in
accordance with label directions.  As part of an effort to update the
Agency guidance for the PGW studies OPP has developed specific guidance
for data submissions to improve the reliability, completeness,
transparency, and consistency in the PGW reports and facilitate further
use of these data for complete assessments of exposure to pesticides
through ground water (e.g., using leaching models to explore the
potential for the pesticide of interest to leach under a variety of
conditions).  Specific requirements on the submission of electronic data
are a matter that will be addressed for each study by EPA when
Prospective Ground-Water study candidate site information is submitted
to the Agency for approval.  In general though, submission of this data
electronically is likely to be requested and will help the Agency not
only in the specific interpretation of the implications of the study
results for the overall potential to impact ground water of the test
pesticide but also to develop higher tier models and continue the
advancement of pesticide risk assessments.

The following guidelines have been developed to assist in reporting of
PGW monitoring information in electronic format.  Listed below are eight
major information fields which focus on the key areas for prospective
ground-water monitoring data collection and reporting.  These major
information fields are;

study area and conceptual site model;

application of pesticide and tracer;

crop information;

soil properties;

ground water data;

weather data;

irrigation application and

chemical monitoring results.

Each major information field lists specific data types and requested
data formats which serve as guidelines for submission of prospective
ground-water monitoring study data.

7.41  Study Area and Conceptual Site Model  tc \l3 "Study Area and
Conceptual Site Model

The following study area information is requested to provide background
information as well as to develop a study-site conceptual model.  The
conceptual model should include graphs, charts, maps and data collected
during site characterization.  Integration of site hydrogeology, surface
hydrology, and historical climatic data is acceptable.

Study Area Information

Base map in GIS readable format (E.g., Arc shape files, *.dxf files, a
format specifically approved by EPA);

NRCS soil surveys;

Other historical information and

Site Characterization Data of Study Area.

Sample locations identified and reported in consistent coordinate system
format (GPS; x,y coordinates; northing,easting; lat,long).

Soil cores (coordinates) see soil properties below for listing of data
to be reported, unsaturated and saturated hydraulic conductivity
measurements at a minimum of 6 locations (coordinates) and soil horizons
with depth (bgs, ft) and soil water content measurements at same 6
locations.

Piezometers - if not placed in soil core holes need coordinates,
measuring point surveyed with U.S.  Geodetic Vertical Datum, hydraulic
head measurements, hydraulic conductivity (slug tests and/or pumping
test results), potentiometric surface diagrams, background water quality
data from upgradient well and influence of existing irrigation wells in
the area on subsurface hydraulics.

7.42  Application of pesticide and tracer tc \l3 "Application of
pesticide and tracer

The following pesticide and tracer information is requested.

Pesticide information

Chemical properties of test substance;

molecular weight;

CAS number;

formulation and

verification of formulation (method and results).

Date(s) of pesticide application;

Incorporation depth;

method of application;

total amount applied;

rate;

area covered (coordinates of locations where pesticide applied and/or
boundary where pesticide applied) and

soil monitoring results after application (field dissipation data).

Topographic map detailing results of all surface soil samples collected
to confirm application rate of pesticide.  Determine if any hot spots of
pesticides were detected post-application.  This may be used to
determine if any detection of pesticides in monitoring wells,
lysimeters, etc. can be correlated to a “hot spot” detected in
surficial soil samples.

If determined, any site-specific measurements of degradation or soil
sorption should be reported

Tracer information

Chemical;

Formulation;

locations where tracer applied (coordinates);

method of application;

rate of application and

total amount applied.

7.43  Crop information  tc \l3 "Crop information

The following crop information is requested (include this for the entire
course of the study, not just the year in which the pesticide is
applied).

Type of crop;

planting dates;

emergence dates;

harvest date;

date when chemicals applied (pesticide, herbicide, fertilizer, etc.) and

other relevant crop maintenance activities and crop growth / land cover
information.

7.44  Soil properties tc \l3 "Soil properties

All data need to be separately reported for each depth increment of each
soil core analyzed.  Some soil characteristic data may have been
collected as part of the site characterization testing of the study
area.  If so, there is no need to repeat that information here.
Pesticide property data essential for modeling of leaching of the test
pesticide (KOC and other measures of soil sorption and measures of soil
degradation rate) for the specific test soil should be provided (along
with background data relevant to the determination of these properties)
if specifically collected in association with the prospective
ground-water monitoring data in electronic format.  In cases where
pesticide property data are not specifically collected for the test
soil, the extrapolated property data should be submitted along with the
methodology for their calculation and citations for the studies these
property data are derived from.

Soil core location (coordinates);

Minimum depth of the soil sample;

Maximum depth of the soil sample;

textural properties;

sand/silt/clay fractions (%);

CEC, or AEC;

Mineralogy;

bulk density;

KOC of the pesticide in the test soil or extrapolated from data for
other soils;

Kd of the pesticide in the test soil or extrapolated from data for other
soils;

Kf (Freundlich) adsorption constant of the pesticide in the test soil or
extrapolated from data for other soils;

degradation rate of the pesticide in the test soil or extrapolated from
data for other soils, organic matter content;

field capacity (1/3 bar);

1 bar soil water content;

5 bar soil water content;

wilting point (15 bar);

saturated hydraulic conductivity;

soil water content;

matrix potential;

Munsell color and

pH.

7.45  Ground-water data  tc \l3 "Groundwater data

Some of these data may have been collected as part of the site
characterization of the study area.  If so, there is no need to repeat
that information here.

Well location (coordinates);

total depth of well;

depth to water table;

screened interval;

background water chemistry;

hydraulic head;

flow;

subsurface geology,;

cross sections (descriptions, fence diagrams) and

location (in 3-dimensions) of known aquitards.

7.46  Weather data tc \l3 "Weather data

The following site-specific weather data collected during the PGW study
is requested;

location of monitoring station (coordinates);

rainfall, daily time step or shorter;

air temperature and

soil temperature (including depth measured at).

In addition, site-specific historical weather data for the previous
20-years (or as recent a 20+ year period that is available) should be
provided or referenced for analyses purposes.

7.47  Irrigation input tc \l3 "Irrigation input

The following site-specific irrigation information is requested;

irrigation method;

irrigation application date (days after treatment (DAT));

rate and

total amount applied.

7.48  Chemical monitoring results tc \l3 "Chemical monitoring results

The following chemical monitoring data for soil and ground water is
requested.  All headings should be clearly labeled and explanations
provided in an accompanying text file for clarity.  See attached
template for example.  All analyses above the minimum detection limit
should be reported as the nominal concentration.  If the nominal
concentration of a sample is below a Minimum Reporting Limit or Minimum
Quantification Limit is applicable (whether calculated as a uniform
limit or on a sample-by-sample basis) this information should be
captured in a separate data field.  Specific data fields are;

study identifier;

study type;

media sampled;

analytes (CAS numbers for parent compound and metabolites);

sample location (coordinates);

date of sample;

depth of sample;

analytical result  (not averaged over samples or time) and

analytical QA/QC data (method description, method quantification limit,
method reporting limit, sample quantification limit, data qualifiers).

At a minimum, provide analytical results for each monitoring well in
bar-graph format so a trend in increase and/or decrease will be easily
visualized.  Graph results for each monitoring well separately for
entire sampling period (i.e. 24 months).

All tabular data should be in either ASCII or MS Access format (or a
format specifically approved by EPA).

CHAPTER 8.0 - REFERENCES tc \l2 "5.  REFERENCES

Aller, L.T., T.W.  Bennett, G.  Hackett, R.J.  Petty, J.H.  Lehr, H.
Sedoris, D.M.  Nielsen and J.E.  Deene.  1990.  Handbook of suggested
practices for the design and installation of ground-water monitoring
wells.  National Water Well Association.  Dublin, OH.  p.  398.

American Water Works Association.  1984.  Appendix I: Abandonment of
test holes, partially completed wells and completed wells.  Standard for
Water Wells.  American Water Works Association.  Denver, CO.  p 45-47.

ASTM Committee D-18 on Soil and Rock.  1994.  ASTM standards on ground
water and vadose zone investigations.  2nd ed.  ASTM.  Philadelphia, PA
.  p.  432.

Barcelona, et al.  1985.  Sampling tubing effects on ground water
samples.  Analytical Chemistry, 57:  460-464.

Barcelona, M.J.  1989.  Overview of the sampling process.  In: Keith,
L.H.  (ed.).  Principles of environmental sampling.  American Chemical
Society.  Washington, DC.

Barth, D.S., B.J.  Mason, T.H.  Starks and K.  W.  Brown.  1989.  Soil
Sampling Quality Assurance Guide.  2nd ed.  EPA 600/8-89/046.  USEPA.
EMSL-LV.  Las Vegas, NV.

Boulding, J.  R.  1996.  Subsurface characterization and monitoring
techniques: A desk reference guide.  DIANE Publishing.  Upland.

Burkart, M.R., S.L.  Oberle, M.J.  Hewitt, and J.  Pickus.  1994.  A
framework for regional agroecosystems characterizations using the
National Resource Inventory.  J.  Environ.  Qual.  23:866-874.

Cambardella, C.A., T.B.  Moorman, T.B.  Parkin, and D.L.  Karlen.  1994.
 Field-scale variability of soil properties in Central Iowa soils.  Soil
Sci.  Soc.  Am.  J.  58:1501-1511.

Carsetl, et al.  1997.  R. Carsel, J. Imhoff, P. Hummel, J. Cheplick and
A. Donigan, PRZM 3.1 Users Manual, National Exposure Research Lab,
Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Athens, Georgia (1997).

Cassel, D.K.  and A.  Klute.  1986.  Intake Rate: Cylinder
Infiltrometer.  p.  825-844.  In: A.  Klute (ed.) Methods of Soil
Analysis, Part 1.  Physical and Mineralogical Methods.  Agronomy
Monograph No.  9 (2nd ed.).  ASA, Madison, WI.

Decoursey, D.G., Rojas, K.W., Ahuja, L.R., 1989. Potentials for
non-point source groundwater contamination analyzed using RZWQM. Paper
No. SW892562, presented at the International American Society of
Agricultural Engineers’ Winter Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Diaz-Diaz, R., J.E.  Garcia-Hernandez and K.  Loague.  1998.  Leaching
potentials of four pesticides used for bananas in the Canary Islands.
J.  Environ.  Qual.  27:562-572.

Dorrance, D.W., L.G.  Wilson, L.G.  Everett and  S.J.  Cullen.  1991.
Compendium of in situ pore-liquid samplers for vadose zone.  In: Nash,
R.G.  and Leslie, A.R.  (ed.) Groundwater-residue-sampling-design.  ACS
Symposium Series 465.  American Chemical Society.  Washington, DC.

Driscoll, F.G.  1986.  Groundwater and wells.  2nd ed.  Johnson
Division.  St.  Paul, MN.

Everett, L.G., E.W.  Hoylman and L.G.  Wilson.  1983.  Vadose zone
monitoring at hazardous waste sites.  EPA 600/X-83/064.  USEPA.  ORD.
Washington, DC.

Everett, L.G. and L.G.  McMillion.  1985.  Operational ranges for
suction lysimeters.  Ground Water Monitoring Review.  5:51.

Everett, L.G., L.G.  Wilson and E.W.  Hoylman.  1984.  Vadose Zone
Monitoring for hazardous waste sites.  Noyes Data Corporation.
Parkridge, NJ.

Fetter, C.W.  1988.  Applied Hydrogeology.  2nd ed.  Merrill Publishers.
 Columbus, OH.

Focazio, M.J., Reilly, T.E., Rupert, M.G., and Helsel, D.R., 2002.
Assessing Ground-Water Vulnerability to Contamination: Providing
Scientifically Defensible Information for Decision Makers. U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 1224, 33 p.

Freeze, R.A.  and J.  A.  Cherry.  1979.  Groundwater.  Prentice-Hall.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Gardner, W.  H.  1986.  Water content.  p.  493-544.  In: A.  Klute
(ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1.  Physical and Mineralogical
Methods.  Agronomy Monograph No.  9 (2nd ed.).  ASA, Madison, WI.

Gardner, W.  H.  1986.  Water Potential: Tensiometry.  p.  563-596.  In:
A.  Klute (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1.  Physical and
Mineralogical Methods.  Agronomy Monograph No.  9 (2nd ed.).  ASA,
Madison, WI.

Gibbons, R.  D.  1994.  Statistical methods for ground-water
monitoring.  John Wiley & Sons.  New York.  p.  286

Hershfield, D.N.  1961.  Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States.
U.S.  Weather Bureau Tech.  Paper 40.  Department of Commerce.
U.S.Govt.  Printing Office.  Washington, DC

Hutson, J.L., and R.J. Wagenet. 1992. LEACHM: Leaching Estimation and
Chemistry Model: A process-based model of water and solute movement,
transformation, plant uptake and chemical reactions in the unsaturated
zone. Water Resource Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

ILSI. 1998. Assessment of Methods to Estimate Pesticide Concentrations
in Drinking Water

Sources. Report of a workgroup on Aggregate Exposure Assessment,
International Life Science

Institute, Washington, DC.

Isensee et al., 1990. A.R. Isensee, R.G. Nash and C.S. Helling, Effect
of conventional vs. no-tillage on pesticide leaching to shallow
groundwater. Journal of Environmental Quality. 19 (1990), pp. 434–440.

Israelson, O.W.  and V.E.  Hansen.  1962.  Irrigation Principles and
Practices.  J.  Wiley and Sons, Inc.  New York, NY.

Jensen, M.E.  et al.  1973.  Consumptive Use of Water and Irrigation
Water Requirements.  Technical Committee on Irrigation Water
Requirements of the Irrigation and Drainage Division.  American  Society
of  Civil  Engineering.

Jury, W.A., W.R.  Gardner and W.H.  Gardner.  1991.  Soil Physics, 5th
ed.  John Wiley and Sons.  New York.  p.  328.

Kellog, R.L., M.S.  Maizel, and D.W.  Goss.  1992.  Agricultural
Chemical Use and Ground Water Quality: Where are the Potential Problem
Areas?  SCS/ERS/CSRS USDA.  Washington, DC

Klute et al.  1986.  Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1.  Physical and
Mineralogical Methods.  Agronomy Monograph No.  9.  2nd ed.  ASA,
Madison, WI.

Kolpin, D.W., M.R.  Burkhart, and E.  M.  Thurman.  1993.  Hydrologic,
water quality, and land-use data for the reconnaissance of herbicides
and nitrate in near-surface aquifer of the midcontinental United States.
 U.S.  Geol.  Surv.  Open File Rep., 93-114.

Leistra, M., A.M.A. van der Linden, J.J.T.I Boesten, A. Tiktak and F.
van den Berg. 2001. PEARL model for pesticide behaviour and emissions in
soil-plant systems. Description of processes. Alterra report 13, RIVM
report 711401009, Alterra, Wageningen, 107 pp.

Litaor, M.I.  1988.  Review of solution samplers.  Water Resour.  Res.
24:727-733.

Mason, B.J.  1983.  Preparation of soil sampling protocol: techniques
and strategies.  EPA 600/4-83-020.  USEPA.  EMSL-LV.  Las Vegas, NV.

McLay, C.D., K.C.  Cameron, and R.G.  McLaren.  1991.  Effect of time of
application and continuity of rainfall on leaching of surface applied
nutrients.  Aust.  J.  Soil Res.  29:1-9.

Mehnert, E., S.C.  Schock, M.L.  Marnhardt, M.E.  Caughey, S.F.J.  Chou,
W.S.  Dey, and G.B.  Dreher.  1995.  The occurrence of agricultural
chemicals in Illinois’ rural private wells: Results from the pilot
study.  Ground Water Monit.  Rem.  15:142-149.

Mickam, J.T., R.  Bellandi and E.C.  Tifft, Jr.  1989.  Equipment
decontamination procedures for ground water and vadose zone monitoring
programs: status and prospects.  Ground Water Monitoring Review.  9:2.
p 100-121.

Morrison, R.D.  1983.  Ground-water monitoring technology.  Timco
Manufacturing Co.  Prarie du Sac, WI.

Nash, R. G. and A.  R.  Leslie.  1991.  Groundwater residue sampling
design.  Washington: American Chemical Society.

National Ground Water Association.  1989.  Handbook of suggested
practices for the design and installation of ground water monitoring
wells.  National Ground Water Assoc.  Westerville, OH.

Nielsen, D.M.  1991.  Practical handbook of ground water monitoring.
Lewis Publishers.  Boca Raton, Fl.  p.  728

Nielsen, D.M.  and A.I.  Johnson.  1990.  Ground water and vadose zone
monitoring.  ASTM  special technical publication 1053.  ASTM.
Philadelphia, PA.  p.  313

Parizek, R.R.  and B.E.  Lane.  1970.  Soil-water sampling using pan and
deep pressure vacuum lysimeters.  J.  Hydrology.  11:1.

Rawlins, S. L., and G. S. Campbell.  1986. Water potential: Thermocouple
psychrometry, in Methods of Soil Analysis, part 1, Physical and
Mineralogical Methods, Agronomy, no. 9, 2nd ed., edited by A. Klute, pp.
597–617, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.

RCRA ground water monitoring: Draft technical guidance.  Government
Institutes Incorporated.

Schwab, G.O., R.K.  Frevert, T.W.  Edminster, and K.K.  Barnes.  1981.
Chapter 2.  Precipitation (pgs.  17-48).  Soil and Water Conservation
Engineering.  J.  Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Shipitalo, M.J., W.H.  Edwards, W.A.  Dick, and L.B.  Owens.  1990.
Initial storms effects on macropore transport of surface-applied
chemicals in no-till soil.  Soil Sci.  Soc.  Am.  J.  54:1530-1536.

Shirmohammadi, A.  1991.  Use of ground penetrating radar to improve
water quality monitoring in the vadose zone.  In: Kung, K.J.S., J.
Boll, J.S.  Selker, W.F.  Ritter, T.S.  Steenhuis and T.J.  Gish(ed.).
Preferential flow: proceedings of the National Symposium.  Chicago,
Illinois.  American Society of Agricultural Engineers.  St.  Joseph, MI.

Sigua, G.C., A.R.  Isensee, and A.  M.  Sadeghi.  1995.  Influence of
rainfall intensity and crop residue on leaching of atrazine through
intact no-till soil cores.  Soil Sci.  156:225-232.

Sigua, G.C., A.R.  Isensee, and A.  M.  Sadeghi.  1995.  Influence of
tillage, antecedent moisture, and rainfall timing on atrazine transport.
 Weed.  Sci.  43:134-139.

Smith, C.N., W.R. Payne,Jr., J.D. Pope,Jr., J.H. Winkie and R.S.
Parrish. 1998. A Field Study to Compare Performance of Stainless Steel
Research Monitoring Wells with Existing On-Farm Drinking Water Wells in
Measuring Pesticide and Nitrate Concentrations. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Athens, GA. Publication No. EPA/600/R-98/025.

Soil Survey Division Staff.  1993.  Soil Survey Manual.  USDA.
Agricultural Handbook 18.  U.S.  Government  Print Office.  Washington,
DC.

Soil Survey Staff.  1975.  Soil Taxonomy.  USDA.  Agricultural Handbook
436.  U.S.  Govt.  Print Office.  Washington, DC.

Soil Survey Staff.  1992.  Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 5th ed.  SMSS
Technical Monograph No.  19.  Pocahontas Press, Blacksburg, VA.

Soil Survey Staff, 1993.  Soil Survey Manual.  U.S.  Dept.  Of Agric.
Handbook No.  18.  U.S.  Govt.  Printing Office.  Washington, DC.

Soil Survey Staff.  1996.  National Soil Survey Handbook.  USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center.  Lincoln,
NE

Stannard, D.I.  1990.  Tensiometers–theory, construction and use.  In:
Ground Water and Vadose Zone Monitoring.  ASTM STP 1053.  p.  34-56.

Stephens, D.B.  1995.  Vadose zone hydrology.  CRC Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, FL.

Topp, G.C.  1993.  Soil Water Content.  p 541-557.  In: M.R.  Carter.
(ed.).  Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis.  Canadian Soc.  of Soil
Sci.  Lewis Publishers.  Boca Raton, FL.

United States Department of Agriculture.  1993.  Soil survey  manual.
[Rev.  ed.].  Agriculture handbook no. 18.  U.S.  Department  of
Agriculture.  Washington, D.C.  p.  437.

USEPA.  1986a.  Permit guidance manual on unsaturated zone monitoring
for hazardous waste land treatment units.  EPA 530-SW-86-040.  EMSL-LV.
Las Vegas, NV.  p.  111.

USEPA. 1986b. Permit guidance manual on unsaturated zone monitoring for
hazardous waste land treatment units.  EPA 530-SW-86-040.  Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.  Washington, DC.

USEPA.  1986c.  RCRA ground-water monitoring technical enforcement
guidance document.  OSWER 99501.1.  Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement.  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.  Washington,
DC.  p.  317.

USEPA.  1990.  Ground Water.  Volume 1: Ground Water and Contamination.
EPA 6256-90/016a.  USEPA.  ORD.  Cincinnati, OH.

USEPA.  1992a.  Glossary of Quality Assurance Terms.  USEPA Quality
Assurance Management Staff.  Washington, DC.

USEPA.  1992b.  Pesticides in Groundwater Database. Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2005a. N-Methyl Carbamate Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment:
Pilot Cumulative Analysis, Session 3:  Drinking Water Exposure
Assessment, February 15 – 18, 2007,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oscpmont/sap/meetings/2005/index.htm#feb22"
http://www.epa.gov/oscpmont/sap/meetings/2005/index.htm#feb22 , accessed
11/28/2007.

USEPA. 2005b. Preliminary N-Methyl Carbamate Cumulative Risk Assessment,
August 23 - 26, 2007
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2005/index.htm#august, accessed
11/28/2007.

␱愁̤摧汒í

舁#␱愁̤摧汒í

]

¿

;

-

:

;

<

V

W

X

Z

[

\

]

^

_

{

|

}

~

œ

ž

¸

¹

º

¼

½

¾

¿

À

À

Á

Ý

Þ

ß

à

4

5

5

6

8

9

:

;

<

=

Y

Z

[

\

l

m

n

ˆ

‰

Š

Œ

Ž

‘

®

¯

°

¾

¿

À

Ú

j¸

j;

Ú

Û

Ü

Þ

ß

à

á

â

ã

ÿ

j¬

j/

á

j

j

h

hþd

㄀Ĥ摧廡æ

㄀Ĥ摧帘0

N

O

㄀Ĥ摧帘0

R

㄀Ĥ摧帘0

ꐔx摧樁»

摧㱱f

ꐔx摧樁»Ѐ摧儩v

ꐔx摧樁»

ꐔx摧Ӱ

ꐔx摧㲩¯

ꐔx摧ⷭ&

ꐔx摧ՖÆ

ꐔx摧ՖÆ

㄀Ĥ摧帘0

@

$

@

@

@

@

؀Ĥ옍)

©

ª

@

C

E

d

f

$

@

@

@

@

$

@

@

@

@

š

š

@

š

š

š

@

$

@

š

@

$

@

@

@

š

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

h

h

h

@

@

$

@

@

$

@

@

1$gd

@

gd

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

$

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

㄀Ĥ摧帘0

摧❽w

㄀Ĥ摧帘0

ꐔx摧❽wЀ摧❽w

Q

ꐔx摧❽w

I

P

™

§

"Q

R

㄀Ĥ摧帘0

㄀Ĥ摧帘0

㄀Ĥ摧帘0

`ú0ý°

`ú0ý°

㄀Ĥ摧帘0

ꐔx摧敖

 h/

 h/

 h/

 h/

 h/

 h/

h/

 h/

 h/

 h/

 h/

h/

 h/

 h/

h/

 h/

 h/

 h/

Ḁhttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/common_mech_groups.htm#carba
mate , accessed 11/28/2007.

United States Soil Conservation Service.  1994.  Keys to soil taxonomy.
 6th ed.  Washington, D.C.: U.S.  Dept.  of Agriculture.  Soil
Conservation Service.  p.  524

United States Soil Management Support Services.  1990.  Keys to soil
taxonomy.  4th ed.  SMSS technical monograph ; no.  19.  Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University,  Blacksburg, VA.  p.  422.

Walton, W.C.  1987.  Ground Water Pumping Test Design and Analysis.
National Water Well Association.  Dublin, OH.  p.  160.

Webster, R.  1985.  Quantitative spatial of analysis of soil in the
field.  Adv.  Soil Sci.  3:1-70.

Weintraub et al.  1989.  Summary of state ground water quality
monitoring well regulations.  Westerville: National Ground Water Assoc.

Weiss, L.L.  1962.  A General Relationship between frequency and
duration of precipitation.  Monthly Weather Rev.  87-88.

Wilson, L.G.  1990.  Monitoring in the vadose zone: a review of
technical elements and methods.  EPA 600/7-80-134.  USEPA.  EMSL-LV.
Las Vegas, NV.  p.  168.

Wilson, Lorne G., L.G.  Everett, and S.J.  Cullen.  1994.  Handbook of
Vadose Zone Characterization and Monitoring.  Lewis Publishers.  Boca
Raton, FL.  p.  730.

Wilson, L.G., D.W. Dorrance, W.R. Bond, L.G. Everett, and S.J. Cullen.
1995. In situ pore-liquid sampling in the vadose zone. p. 477-521. In
L.G. Wilson, L.G. Everett, and S.J. Cullen (ed.) Handbook of Vadose Zone
Characterization and Monitoring. Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI.

  PAGE  6

 PAGE  19

 PAGE  83