Findings
& Recommendations for the Remediation of Historic Pesticide Contamination
- Final Report March 1999
Table
of Contents
I.
Introduction
Farmers, orchardists, homeowners,
turf growers, local governments and others have used a wide variety of
pesticides over the last 100 years in an effort to control pests and increase
crop yield. Many pesticides were used in limited circumstances, others
became widely used, and some became the "pesticide of choice"
for entire crops or industries. Some of these pesticides are persistent
in the environment, and thus may be present in the soil long after they
have been applied. As a result, residues of a number of pesticides (including
arsenical pesticides, DDT and dieldrin) can be found in soils at levels
that may pose a human health risk. The New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection ("the Department") estimates that up to 5 percent
of the state’s acreage may be impacted by the historical use of arsenical
pesticides alone. The primary concern with historical pesticide residues
is human health risk from inadvertent ingestion of contaminated soil,
particularly by children.
As more and more agricultural land
is developed, developers, municipal officials, homebuyers and others are
becoming increasingly aware of the possible presence of pesticide residues
in soils. Some municipalities now require environmental assessments of
land as part of their site approval process. Banking institutions take
environmental risk factors into consideration in their lending decisions.
Developers and builders sample soil more frequently to determine whether
or not to purchase land or how to develop land they already own. Homebuyers
are also considering pesticide residues along with a myriad of other environmental
factors such as indoor air radon levels, the presence of lead paint in
the home, and the quality of potable water. The presence of pesticide
residues is also a consideration in non-residential property uses including
day care centers, schools, parks and general commercial and municipal
usage.
A.
Creation of the Task Force
Increased numbers of people have
been requesting technical and remedial advice from the Department. Numerous
questions regarding historic pesticide impacts and the appropriate course
of action have been raised. At the request of Department Commissioner
Robert Shinn, an informal, interagency task force started meeting in July
1996 to address these questions. It was determined that additional expertise
and a more formal structure would facilitate a thorough review of these
questions. Commissioner Shinn then memorialized the Historic Pesticide
Contamination Task Force ("the Task Force") by Administrative
Order 1997-09 (April 1997).
The mission of the Task Force was
to develop strategies and recommend implementation plans that will assist
the Department in establishing and achieving an environmental course of
action for sites with contamination due to historical use of certain pesticides.
Nine task force members were chosen with appropriate backgrounds from
the stakeholder groups listed below. (See Addendum
1).
|
New Jersey Bankers Association
New Jersey Association of Realtors
New Jersey Farm Bureau
New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station at Rutgers
New Jersey Agriculture Community
New Jersey Environmental Federation
University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ)
New Jersey Builders Association
New Jersey State League of Municipalities |
The Task Force developed a number
of specific goals. These included:
- Evaluation of potential adverse human health effects and environmental
impacts from historic pesticide contamination.
- Identification of technically and economically viable alternatives
and strategies to limit human and environmental exposure to contamination
from historic pesticide use at sites that have been developed and that
will be developed in the future.
- Identification of any barriers to the implementation of these options
including cultural, institutional and legal barriers, and recommendations
regarding removal of those barriers.
The Task Force met under the direction
of Richard J. Gimello, Assistant Commissioner for the Department’s Site
Remediation Program. Other individuals who attended meetings and served
in an advisory role were representatives from various state agencies (exofficio
members) and members of the public. Representatives from the following
groups served as exofficio members of the Task Force as needed:
|
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
New Jersey Division of Law
New Jersey Department of Agriculture
New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services
United States Geological Survey
New Jersey State Soil Conservation Committee |
In addition, the Department has comments
made by Task Force members on file regarding historic pesticide contamination
and the findings and recommendations contained in this report.
B.
Selection of the Pesticides of Concern
In early 1996, a developer approached
the Department with soil sampling data that showed that homes in two Burlington
County developments were built on soil containing pesticide residues with
concentrations of arsenic, DDT and its metabolites, and dieldrin above
the Department’s residential soil cleanup criteria. About the same time,
the Department was conducting an investigation of a Superfund site in
Monmouth County and identified several areas with similar levels of arsenic,
first thought to be related to the Superfund site. Further analysis indicated
a significant contribution of arsenic contamination due to pesticides
used in the former apple orchards adjacent to the site (Barringer, et
al. 1998). Investigations were complicated by the fact that some soils
(glauconitic soils) in the region of the sites being investigated contained
elevated concentrations of naturally-occurring arsenic (Barringer, et
al. 1998). This information, along with additional analytical data from
other sites, led the Task Force to initially focus on these pesticides
as the pesticides of concern.
After additional discussion, these
pesticides were kept as the pesticides of concern based on several factors
including their extensive agricultural use over a number of years in New
Jersey, their persistence in the environment and the fact that they have
been detected at levels that exceed the Department’s residential soil
cleanup criteria at various sites.
The amount of analytical data upon
which this report is based is very limited. The Task Force and the Department
decided that it was important to proceed with this report and to develop
recommendations to address the health risks associated with historic pesticide
contamination to assist developers and others to make appropriate decisions
concerning properties with pesticide residues. The Task Force decided
it could meet its goals by focusing on select pesticides of concern.
The chemical analysis for the organochlorine
pesticides of concern (DDT and its metabolites, aldrin and dieldrin) is
accomplished with what is referred to as a pesticide scan. The pesticide
scan (USEPA method SW 846-8081A) detects twenty-one pesticides including
the pesticides noted above. A list of all of the compounds detected by
this analytical method is provided in Addendum
2. It is possible that concentrations of other commonly
used pesticides, such as chlordane, BHC, endrin and others will be detected
in soil when additional properties are investigated. Therefore, pesticide
use and human health risk information for these additional pesticides
identified by the pesticide scan are provided in Addendum
3 of this report.
The guidance and recommendations
contained in this report are intended to be applicable to the historical
pesticide contamination resulting from routine agricultural applications.
Because site conditions will vary, individual sites must be evaluated
and remediated on a site specific basis.
|