EPA 570-9-91-038
x>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(WH-550)
EPA 570/9-91-038
September 1991
Ground Water Indicator
Pilot Study
In The State Of New Jersey
p Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
GROUND-WATER INDICATOR PILOT STUDY
IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
September 1991
*T
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
BLANK
*
V
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW)
is investigating the use of indicators to track progress and trends in ground-water protection efforts. This
report presents the results of a pilot study in the State of New Jersey to identify the availability and
usefulness of existing ground-water data to support the use of these indicators. EPA chose New Jersey
for this pilot study for three reasons: 1) the state is considered to be-ground-water data 'rich,12) the state
has a high level of regulatory development, 3) and over one-half of the State population relies on ground
water for drinking water.
Five ground-water quality indicators were investigated in this pilot study:
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) exceedances in ground-water
based public drinking water supplies;
On-stte and Off-site contamination at hazardous waste sites;
Nitrate concentration in ground water;
Volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations in ground water; and
Pesticide use.
EPA conducted this pilot study to determine whether the criteria for reporting ground-water indicators, as
developed by a 1986 EPA workgroup, could be met with data collected for the State of New Jersey.
These criteria include the following:1
indicators should be based on actual data measurement;
indicators should lend themselves to graphic display to convey trends
and other information readily;
whenever possible, existing data should be used rather than requiring
new data collection;
data should be collected over time at the same locations; and
data can have limitations and still be useful as an 'indicator* of ground-
water problems or progress.
In general, this study found that data characterizing the five indicators are available and that these data
do lend themselves to graphic display, as depicted in this report. EPA used only existing data for this
analysis, although EPA noted the need for additional data collection to better characterize several of the
indicators. EPA also found that much of the ground-water monitoring data compiled for this study did not
fully support trend analyses because samples were not always taken from the same locations over time.
Nonetheless, EPA concluded that if the limitations are understood, data are available in New Jersey to .
at least partially characterize each of the five ground-water indicators.
Indicator Data Sources In New Jersey
One or more sources of data were identified to characterize the indicators. After reviewing these sources,
one principal data source was identified for each indicator, as follows:
1 U.S. EPA, Office of Ground-Water Protection, April 1989. "Indicators for Measuring Progress in Ground-Water
Protection." EPA 44016-99-006.
-------
IV
MCL and drinking water data were compiled from the U.S. EPA Federal
Reporting Data System (FRDS);
Waste site data were gathered from the New Jersey Ground-Water
Pollution Investigation Data Base (GWPIDB);
Nitrate data were retrieved from the U.S. Geological Survey National
Water Information System (NWIS);
VOC data were also drawn from the NWIS; and
Pesticide data were taken from data files maintained by the New Jersey
Bureau of Pesticide Operations.
Analysis of the Data
The data drawn from the above sources are summarized in this report in graphical format. The raw data
are also presented in tables in appendices to this report. Analysis of these data was complicated by
differences in data format and organization among the data bases. In addition, some of the agencies
maintaining data bases that participated in this pilot study did not have sufficient resources to support
the study fully. Therefore, the Pilot Study focused on the use of readily available data, although additional
relevant data sources are noted in this report.
Achievement of the National Objectives for the Indicators
In an April 1989 report, U.S.EPA identified specific national objectives for each of the five indicators
examined in this Pilot Study. EPA's ability to achieve the objectives for each of the indicators varied:
Maximum Contaminant Levels: Data from the FRDS-II data base are sufficient to support the national
objectives for this indicator. Although EPA limited the analysis presented in. this study to county-level
summaries of MCL violation information, the analysis could be organized at different geographic levels
and could include analyses of the populations potentially at risk from the violations. However, the
population data maintained in FRDS may not entirely reflect the actual size of the population exposed to
a particular MCL violation.
On-Stte and Off-Site Contamination at Hazardous Waste Sites: Automated data management systems
maintained by New Jersey do not contain sufficient information to support all of the national objectives
outlined for this indicator. EPA was able to retrieve data to assess the number of sites with ground-water
contamination in seven of New Jersey's counties. For those sites, EPA was also able to determine the
principal contaminants involved and the number of sites that have had their ground-water contaminant
plume dimensions fully characterized. However, New Jersey maintains information characterizing the
populations at risk from the contamination in paper files which were not readily available for this study.
Volatile Organic Compounds: EPA accessed data maintained in the USGS National Water Information
System to characterize this indicator. EPA was able to organize the data available from NWIS at the
county level and display trends in VOC levels graphically. However, EPA determined that the limited
geographic distribution of the VOC analyses and the lack of consistent repeat analyses at many of the
sampled wells limited the usefulness of the data to support a State analysis. A more thorough and
consistent VOC sampling and analysis program should be developed to better support analyses of trends
in VOC levels State-wide.
Nitrates: EPA accessed data maintained in the USGS National Water Information System to characterize
this indicator. EPA was able to organize these data at the county level and display trends in nitrate levels
graphically. However, EPA noted several limitations with the data, including limited geographic coverage
and inconsistent repeat sampling at well locations. Nonetheless, until a more thorough sampling program
-------
is developed for nitrate analyses in the State, EPA has concluded that the currently available nitrate data
can support the national objectives.
Pesticide Use: EPA compiled pesticide usage data collected by New Jersey Bureau of Pesticide
Operations in two State-wide surveys. EPA determined that these data can support the national objective
of identifying the relative intensity of pesticide use on a county-by-county basis. With time and after
completion of aquifer vulnerability analyses in the State, the pesticide data can also be used to support
analyses of potential ground-water problems by overlaying the geographic patterns of aquifer vulnerability
and pesticide use.
Additional Indicators: New Jersey personnel identified trends in sodium and chloride levels in ground
water as an additional indicator of salt water intrusion problems. This indicator may be of special interest
to coastal counties that are undergoing extensive coastal development and are experiencing increasing
ground-water withdrawals. Trends in sodium and chloride levels may also indicate problems resulting
from roadway salt applications.
Existing Practices
EPA encountered a number of technical and data management problems relating to the quality and
availability of the compiled data which limit their application to support the indicator objectives. In
particular, EPA identified the following technical issues:
data are limited in geographic coverage;
sampling is not consistent in geographic coverage;
sampling is not consistent over time;
securing and analyzing samples was not uniform;
limited repeat sampling is conducted at the same location; and
sampling depths vary.
EPA also identified problems with regard to the way in which the collected data were managed:
data bases were originally organized to support objectives that differ from
those the indicators were designed to address;
different agencies were responsible for data presented, leading to
potential inconsistencies; and
missing annual data or other data gaps were not explicitly identified.
While these problems were encountered in the automated files, EPA also noted that many other potential
data sources were either not automated or were automated in a format that could not be readily accessed
by the responsible agency. In those cases, EPA was not able to access the data for this study.
Suggested Revisions to Existing Practices to Support Indicator Reporting
EPA is strongly promoting the wider use of indicator data collection across all Federal and State
programs. An EPA Task Force, with State participation, developed concrete principles and objectives to
ensure effective and consistent decision-making in all Agency decisions affecting ground water, and will
-------
VI
also institute State Comprehensive Ground-Water Protection Programs.2 Monitoring and data collection
is one area that will be addressed.
As New Jersey continues its monitoring and data collection efforts and begins to develop its
comprehensive program, it is important to keep the issues noted in the pilot study in mind. For example,
sampling and analytical consistency may be promoted by establishing consistent scientific and data
collection protocols and by promoting the development of ground-water monitoring networks, as
appropriate, to provide trend data Data management activities that employ standard data collection
formats for each of the indicators are already underway in New Jersey to maintain standard data
management protocols between agencies. Cooperative efforts between EPA and New Jersey will ensure
that information collection activities support the objective of protecting the nation's ground-water
resources.
To begin moving toward data consistency, EPA, with States and other Federal agency work group
participants developed a set of the most critical data elements for ground-water quality information. These
data elements form the foundation upon which ground-water data users may build their own data base,
adding elements to meet their specific needs. The use of this minimum set of data elements (MSDE)3
will ensure that EPA and the State can share and manipulate ground-water data to support better
environmental decision-making, and facilitate cross-program integration.
Once adopted, these revisions will greatly assist in supporting the collection, management, and reporting
of indicator data needed for future 305(b) reports.
Resources For Implementing
Initially, the resources required at the State level to implement national indicator reporting may be
extensive. The State cannot significantly improve Jts data collection and reporting without expending the
necessary resources to correct deficiencies. As the State establishes monitoring networks and integrates
their information systems, data will become more accessible for use in indicator development.
Furthermore, after the information is collected and the data elements and data reporting formats for
including ground-water indicators in 305(b) reports are identified and applied, the effort expended for
completing the 305(b) report will be greatly reduced.
Next Steps
This pilot study is one of three studies EPA completed investigating the use of ground-water indicators
in 305(b) reports. A Findings Report has been prepared which outlines and summarizes the information
and knowledge gathered in Idaho, Minnesota, and New Jersey. The Findings Report also makes
recommendations regarding the implementation of indicators in future 305(b) reports. Based on these
recommendations, EPA is developing a Technical Assistance Document (TAD)4 to provide technical
guidance to the States on how to gather and use indicator data as part of their 1992 305(b) Reports. The
TAD is also intended to help set the stage for those States that are moving toward developing
comprehensive ground-water monitoring and information systems, particularly in relationship to ground-
water indicator reporting, and to assist those which are already in the process. The TAD is expected to
be completed by early 1992.
2 U.S. EPA, Office of the Administrator, 'Protecting the Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy for the 1990s; EPA
21Z-1020, (Washington, D.C.) July 1991.
3 U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, "Definitions for the Minimum Set of Data Elements for
Ground-Water Quality," (Washington, D.C.) July 1991 (draft final).
4 U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Technical Assistance Document," (Washington, D.C.)
September 1991 (draft).
-------
VII
Table of Contents
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Overview and Purpose of the Report 1
B. Description of the General Research Approach for the Study 3
C. Outline of the Report 3
II. SUMMARY OF NEW JERSEY HYDROGEOLOGY AND GROUND-WATER USE 7
A. Hydrogeologic Setting 7
B. Populations Relying on Ground-Water 9
III. GROUND-WATER INDICATORS 11
A. Maximum Contaminant Levels 11
B. On-Site and Off-Site Contamination from Hazardous Waste Sites 16
C. Volatile Organic Compounds 20
D. Nitrates 27
E. Extent of Agricultural Pesticide Use 33
F. Additional Indicators Identified by New Jersey Personnel 46
IV. STUDY CONCLUSIONS 49
A. Existing Practices 50
B. Suggested Revisions to Existing Practices to Support Indicator Reporting .. 51
C. Resources for Implementing 51
D. Next Steps 52.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 53
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
BLANK
-------
IX
Appendices
Page
Appendix A: Bureau of Safe Drinking Water, New Jersey Public Water File (NJPWF),
Sample Data Collection Forms A-1
Appendix B: Summary Data for MCL Violations for Selected Counties in New Jersey .... B-1
Appendix C: Bureau of Planning and Assessment, Major Remedial Action Tracking
System (MRATS) Data Form C-1
Appendix D: Bureau of Ground-Water Pollution Assessment, Ground-Water Pollution
Investigation Data Base (GWPIDB) Data Forms D-1
Appendix E: Bureau of Information System, New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NJPDES) Data Forms E-1
Appendix F: Bureau of Environmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment, Geographic
Information System Proposed Data Screens F-1
Appendix G: Summary Data for Ground-Water Pollution Investigations for Selected
Counties in New Jersey G-1
Appendix H: Summary of Volatile Organic Compound Detections for Selected Counties
in New Jersey H-1
Appendix I: Supplementary Material Describing Nitrate Indicator Information 1-1
Appendix J: Summary of Nitrate Detections for Selected Counties in New Jersey J-1
Appendix K: Supplementary Material Describing Agricultural Pesticide Usage in
New Jersey K-1
Appendix L: Summary Data of Agricultural Pesticide Usage by Private Registered
Applicators in New Jersey L-1
Appendix M: Supplementary Material on Additional Indicators M-1
Appendix N: Data Specification Form N-1
Appendix O; Summary of Ground-Water Indicator Data Sources in New Jersey O-1
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
BLANK
-------
X!
List of Tables
Page
Table B-1 :
Table B-2:
Table B-3:
Table B-4:
Table B-5:
Table B-6:
Table B-7:
Table B-8:
Table B-9:
Table G-1 :
Table G-2:
Table G-3:
Table G-4:
Table H-1:
Table H-2:
Table H-3:
Table H-4:
Table H-5:
Table H-6:
Table H-7:
Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Federal MCL Violations for
Barium
Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Federal MCL Violations for
Cadmium
Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Federal MCL Violations for
Nitrate
Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Federal MCL Violations for
Selenium
Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Federal MCL Violations for
Silver
Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Federal MCL Violations for
Trichloroethylene
Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Federal MCL Violations for
Fecal Coliform
Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Federal MCL Violations for
Trihalomethanes
Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Federal MCL Violations for
Tetrachloroethylene
Summary of Ground-Water Pollution Investigation Data Base
Summary of Ground-Water Pollution Investigation Data Base for Metals ....
Summary of Ground-Water Pollution Investigation Data Base for VOCs
Summary of Ground-Water Pollution Investigation Data Base for PCBs
Summary of VOC Detections for Camden County, New Jersey
Summary of VOC Detections for Hunterdon County, New Jersey
Summary of VOC Detections for Monmouth County, New Jersey
Summary of VOC Detections for Morris County, New Jersey
Summary of VOC Detections for Ocean County, New Jersey
Summary of VOC Detections for Passaic County, New Jersey
Summary of VOC Detections for Somerset County, New Jersey
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
H-2
H-6
H-10
H-14
H-1 8
H-22
H-26
-------
XII
List Of Tables (continued)
Table J-1: Summary of Nitrate Detections, New Jersey
Table L-1: Total Number of Registrants by County . ..
Table L-2: Fungicides
Table L-3: Growth Regulators
Table L-4: Herbicides
Table L-5: Insecticides
Table L-6: Fumigants
Table L-7: Rodenticides
Table L-8: Miscellaneous Pesticides
Table L-9: Chemicals by Pesticide Type
Page
J-2
L-2
L-3
L-4
L-5
L-6
L-7
L-8
L-9
L-10
-------
XIII
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 County Map of New Jersey
Exhibit 2 Principal Aquifers in New Jersey
Exhibit A-1 MCL Violations for Fecal Coliform for Selected Counties in New Jersey
Exhibit B-1 Waste Site Summary for Selected Counties in New Jersey
Exhibit C-1 Summary of VOC Detections for Selected Counties in New Jersey ....
Exhibit C-2 Frequency of Specific VOC Detections for Camden County, New Jersey
Exhibit C-3 Frequency of Specific VOC Detections for Morris County, New Jersey .
Exhibit C-4 Frequency of Specific VOC Detections for Ocean County, New Jersey .
Exhibit D-1 Nitrate Detections for Selected Counties in New Jersey
Exhibit D-2 Nitrate Analyses and Detections for Morris County, New Jersey
Exhibit E-1 Total Private Pesticide Applicator Registrants by County in New Jersey
Exhibit E-2 Fungicides Applied by County in New Jersey
Exhibit E-3 Growth Regulators Applied by County in New Jersey
Exhibit E-4 Herbicides Applied by County in New Jersey
Exhibit E-5 Insecticides Applied by County in New Jersey
Exhibit E-6 Fumigants Applied by County in New Jersey
Exhibit E-7 Rodenticides Applied by County in New Jersey
Exhibit E-8 Miscellaneous Pesticides Applied by County in New Jersey
Exhibit E-9 Total Pounds of Active Ingredients Applied by Pesticide Group
Page
4
8
15
19
23
24
25
26
31
32
36
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
BLANK
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
(OGWDW) is responsible for EPA ground-water policy coordination and planning for the Agency.
OGWDW is also responsible for working with the states to develop and implement state ground-water
policies and guidelines, enhancing ground-water data management, and initiating and conducting
special studies of ground-water contamination, among other tasks.1
As part of this overall ground-water effort, EPA has been investigating the use of indicators used to
track progress and trends in ground-water protection efforts. In April 1989, EPA published the Report,
Indicators for Measuring Progress in Ground-Water Protection, which presented the results of a three
phase process used to develop a set of ground-water indicators. The process stressed a number of
principles that should be considered when choosing and verifying potential indicators, including:
indicators should be based on actual data measurement;
indicators should lend themselves to graphic display to convey trends
and other information readily;
whenever possible, existing data should be used rather than requiring
new data collection;
ideally, data should be collected over time at the same locations; and
data can have limitations and still be useful as an 'indicator* of ground-
water problems or progress.
The indicators, which are described below, can be used by states as part of their biennial National
Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress under the Clean Water Act, Section 305(b).
EPA selected three states (New Jersey, Minnesota and Idaho) as part of a pilot study to investigate
the usefulness of these indicators to track progress in ground-water protection efforts. This report
presents the results of the investigation in the State of New Jersey to identify the availability and
usefulness of existing ground-water data EPA selected New Jersey because it was considered to be
'data rich* and would represent a high level of regulatory program development.
EPA collected data presented in this report with the assistance of New Jersey, U.S. Geological Survey,
and Ocean County, New Jersey personnel. While EPA discusses a number of data bases in this .
report, only selected data are presented due to problems in data acquisition and resource limitations.
Rationale for Ground-Water Indicators
EPA developed a set of indicators that States can use to track progress and set priorities in ground-
water protection efforts.2 The initial set of ground-water indicators includes:
1 U.S. EPA, Office of Ground-Water Protection, April 1989, "Indicators for Measuring Progress in Ground-Water
Protection', EPA 44016-88-006
2 U.S.EPA, February 1989, 'Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1990 State Water Quality Assessment (305(b)
Report)', page 23.
-------
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) - This indicator measures quality of ground-water used for
public drinking water supplies, the effectiveness of ground-water protection efforts, and the population
at risk from contaminated supplies.
On-Slte and Off-Site Contamination from Hazardous Waste Sites - This indicator tracks
contamination in and around hazardous waste sites as a measure of the effectiveness of ground-water
protection programs, potential risk to drinking water supplies, and the population served by those
supplies.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) - This indicator measures ground-water contamination from
industrial and non-industrial activity.
Nitrates - This indicator measures ground-water contamination from sources such as agricultural
activity and septic systems.
Extent of Agricultural Pesticide Use - This indicator measures pesticide usage in agricultural areas.
These indicators encompass existing data and data that can be collected by the state over time. The
indicators also lend themselves to graphic display to convey trends in ground-water quality and
vulnerability.
Reporting Indicators Under the 305(b) Process
An important application for the indicator data will be in developing State Water Quality Reports for
inclusion in the biennial National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress under Section 305(b) of
the Clean Water Act. Section 305(b) mandates that states develop and report information concerning
the quality of the nation's water resources to EPA and the U.S. Congress. The 305(b) process is an
essential aspect of the national water pollution control effort It is the principal means by which the
EPA, Congress, and the public evaluate water quality, the progress made in maintaining and restoring
water quality, and the extent to which water quality problems remain. Many states rery on the 305(b)
process to gather the information needed to conduct program planning, and to report to their
legislatures on progress in ground-water pollution control and resource protection programs.
The New Jersey 1988 State Water Quality Inventory Report (305(b) Report) is the eighth in a series of
State Reports prepared by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) since
1975. The Report presents an assessment of current water quality conditions in the State's major
rivers, lakes, estuaries and ocean waters; describes which waters are attaining State designated water
uses and national clean water goals; identifies pollution problems in surface waters; and identifies the
suspected and known sources of water pollution.3 The 305(b) report describes the quality of both
surface and ground-water supplies within the State, although the primary emphasis is on surface
water quality. The Report presents a discussion of ground-water quality and quantity conditions in the
State and the current management efforts for the resource. The conclusions addressing ground-water
quality presented in the Executive Summary of the Report include:
Currently, about one-half of the State's population relies on ground
water for its drinking water.
Overall, ground-water quality is considered naturally good in the State.
There are problems, however, as evidenced by the fact that during the
period from 1985 to 1987 the NJDEP responded to 960 ground-water
pollution related cases. In addition, well sampling conducted between
May, 1985 and December, 1987, indicated that 76 public wells and
139 private wells had unacceptable levels of volatile organic chemicals.
3 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey 1988 State Water Quality Inventory Report.
-------
Common sources of ground-water pollution in the State include land
disposal sites, accidental spills and leaks, underground storage tanks
and unknown sources.
Maintaining adequate ground-water supplies is an important resource
issue in the State, and NJDEP has established two Water Supply
Critical Areas.
It is expected that the use of indicators will assist New Jersey in further characterizing trends in the
quality of it's ground water, as part of future 305(b) reports.
B. DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL RESEARCH APPROACH FOR THE STUDY
EPA developed research activities to demonstrate the manner in which ground-water indicator data
are and can be collected and reported in the State of New Jersey. The activities included on-site
interviews, follow up contacts, preparation of a project plan, collection and analysis of data and final
report preparation. EPA and contractor staff held on-site interviews with New Jersey personnel on
October 18 and 19,1989 to discuss the project, review supporting documentation, identify available
information, discuss data formats, determine data management requirements, identify responsible
parties and key contacts, and request assistance in preparing the specified information. Personnel
responsible for each of the major data bases were present at the meetings. EPA contractor staff used
follow-up contacts to discuss specific comments and to review data availability and usefulness. EPA
and contractor staff developed a written Project Plan to present the results of the interviews and
follow-up contacts and to identify specific characteristics for each of the data bases to be used to
collect indicator data Following distribution of the Project Plan, EPA and contractor staff scheduled
meetings with the personnel responsible for each of the data bases to review any specific concerns,
identify specific data requirements, and set time frames to collect the data EPA and contractor staff
collected data on tape and computer disk and analyzed the data to assess and identify trends in
ground-water quality, and to track progress in ground-water protection efforts. This final report
presents the results of the research activities, and discusses the methodologies used and the
problems identified during the data compilation efforts.
EPA collected indicator data State-wide, where available, for each of the five indicator parameters. In
some cases, data collection centered on seven counties in New Jersey because of the greater
availability of data in those jurisdictions. These seven counties include Carnden, Hunterdon,
Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, and Somerset Counties (Exhibit 1). New Jersey has also
complied automated waste site information for these seven counties. In addition, EPA requested the
private well data that Ocean County, New Jersey Health Department personnel have collected.
C. OUTLINE OF THE REPORT
Section I presents an introduction to the indicator concept for measuring the progress of ground-water
protection efforts. Section II of this report presents a summary of the hydrogeologic setting in New
Jersey and ground-water use. Section III addresses each of the ground-water indicators by
presenting the national objectives the indicator was designed to address; a description of the
indicator; a discussion of relevant sources of ground-water data in New Jersey and the data
management for each of these sources; the approach used to characterize the data and the results of
the data collection efforts; suggested revisions to the data collection process; and a conclusion
regarding the availability of sufficient data to address the national objectives. Section III concludes
with a discussion of additional indicators identified by New Jersey personnel which may be applicable
to measure progress in ground-water protection efforts. Section IV presents the study conclusions
including a summary of the findings for each indicator, a discussion of the technical and data
-------
Exhibit 1
10 11 12
13
A
M^^H
B
C
D
E
F
^^^H
G
H
I
J
K.
L
WH
M
N
O
P
Q
^^^m
R
S
County Map of New Jersey
Counties
Name of
County
Atlantic
Bergen
Burlington
Camden
Cape May
Cumberland
Essex
Gloucester
Hudson
Hunterdon
Mercer
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Ocean
Passaic
Salem
Somerset
Sussex
Union
Warren
Total
Population
1986
205,500
836,900
384,700
492,800
91.900
135,300
841,900
211.500
553,100
96,200
320,800
638,200
542,600
419.100
392.600
460.900
65,400
215,700
123.700
504,000
86.800
7,619,600
Location
on Map
0-9
E-12
L-8
M-7
Q-8
P-7
G-ll
N-6
G-ll
H-8
J-8
1-10
J-ll
F-9
L-10
E-10
N-6
H-9
D-9
G-10
F-7
Counties focused on in the report
1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
^H
J
K
L
M
N
O
^^H
P
tt^H
Q
R
S
-------
management factors limiting the availability of data to support the study, suggestions for modifications
in the data management practices to support the study, a brief discussion on resources needed, and
the next steps EPA is planning to take to implement ground-water indicator reporting.
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
BLANK
-------
II. SUMMARY OF NEW JERSEY HYDROGEOLOGY AND GROUND-
WATER USE
A. HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
New Jersey is divided into four physiographic provinces, known as the Coastal Plain, Piedmont,
Highlands, and the Valley and Ridge (Exhibit 2).4 These provinces are defined by the common
physical features of the land surfaces. Each province is defined by different types of consolidated and
unconsolidated deposits, which have similar hydrogeologic properties affecting ground-water storage
and flow characteristics. These four provinces can be classified into two groups - Coastal Plain
aquifers south of the Fall Line and non-Coastal Plain aquifers north of the Fall Line.5 The Fall Line,
which runs along a line parallel to the Delaware River through Trenton to south of Newark, New
Jersey, divides the unconsolidated sediments of the Coastal Plain from the consolidated units and
glacial valley-fill deposits of the Piedmont, Highlands and the Valley and Ridge physiographic
provinces.
Coastal Plain
The Coastal Plain is the largest of the physiographic provinces in New Jersey and covers an area of
approximately 4,500 square miles in southern New Jersey (Exhibit 2). The five principal aquifers or
aquifer systems in the Coastal Plain are the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system, the Atlantic 800-foot
sand aquifer of the Kirkwood Formation, the Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer, the Englishtown aquifer,
and the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system. The aquifers are composed of extremely
permeable beds of unconsolidated sand and gravel. Less permeable silts and clays form the
confining layers within the Coastal Plain and separate the individual aquifers. The Coastal Plain
system dips to the southeast and thickens. All aquifers in the Coastal Plain, except the Kirkwood-
Cohansey aquifer system are confined, except where they outcrop.
Piedmont
The Piedmont physiographic province is the second largest province in New Jersey and covers an
area of approximately 1,500 square miles. The area extends from the northeast comer of New Jersey
to the Delaware River in the Trenton area (Exhibit 2). The province consists of consolidated shales,
siltstones, sandstones, conglomerates, and igneous rocks. Ground-water flow in this province is
limited to the cracks and joints within the consolidated formations. This feature results in a very
complex hydrogeology with varying water yields.
Highlands
The Highlands physiographic province covers an area of approximately 900 square miles in
northwestern New Jersey (Exhibit 2). The province consists of consolidated units of Precambrian
gneisses, igneous rocks and Paleozoic sedimentary rocks. Ground-water flow within this province is
similar to the Piedmont province, primarily through joints and fractures in the consolidated units.
However, water movement in the gneisses is considered restricted to localized areas.6
4 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resources, New Jersey 1988 State Water
Quality Inventory Report.
5 U.S. Geological Survey, 1985, National Water Summary 1984, Water Supply Paper 2275, page 309.
6 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resources, New Jersey 1988 State Water
Quality Inventory Report.
-------
Exhibit 2
PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NEW JERSEY
VALLEY AND RIDGE
HIGHLANDS
PIEDMONT
FALL LINE
Source: USGS National Water Summary 1984, Water-Supply Paper 2275
-------
Valley and Ridge
The Valley and Ridge physiographic province covers an area of approximately 580 square miles in the
northwest corner of New Jersey (Exhibit 2). The Province consists of folded and faulted Paleozoic
sedimentary rocks. Ground-water flow is generally through the fractures and joints within the
consolidated units, although some limestone formations permit free flow through solution cavities.
B. POPULATIONS RELYING ON GROUND WATER
Ground water is the drinking water source for approximately fifty percent of the State's population or
about four million people. Approximately ninety percent of the community water systems in the State
(588 out of 622) obtain all or a portion of their water supplies from ground-water sources. In addition,
there are about 16,000 non-community wells and 400,000 private potable wells in the State, plus
additional industrial and agricultural users.7
7 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resources, New Jersey 1988 State Water
Quality Inventory Report.
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
BLANK
-------
11
III. GROUND-WATER INDICATORS
The following section discusses the data availability and findings related to the five indicators
investigated in the State of New Jersey.
A. MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS
This section presents the national objectives, approach and findings of the study of maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) as an indicator of ground-water quality in public drinking water supplies in
New Jersey.
National Objectives
EPA designed the MCL indicator to address the following national objectives:8
identify the degree to which ground-water based water supply systems
meet all applicable MCLs,
identify the size of the population at risk from systems in violation,
provide an understanding of the geographic distribution of populations
potentially at risk,
identify specific contaminants for which systems are failing to meet the
MCLs, and
identify those contaminants which are responsible for the greatest
number of MCL violations.
The following discussion describes the data sources identified in New Jersey to address these
objectives, and presents and analyses the data results.
Description of the Indicator
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are water quality standards set under the authority of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The Act authorized EPA to establish a cooperative program among local,
State and Federal agencies to protect drinking water quality and ensure that human health is not
adversely affected by water-borne pollutants. Maximum contaminant levels are set for inorganic,
organic and microbiological contaminants, radionuclides, and turbidity.9
An MCL is the highest amount of a specific contaminant allowed in the drinking water supplied by a
public water system. Primary MCLs are established for contaminants that are known to occur in
drinking water, cause adverse health effects, and can be measured with existing instrumentation. As
one of the indicators of ground-water quality, MCLs are useful determinants of the quality of the
ground water that is used for public drinking water supplies.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is the primary agency for
implementing the SDWA. New Jersey has adopted all of the Federal MCL standards for inorganic
8 U.S. EPA, Office of Ground-Water Protection, April 1989, Indicators for Measuring Progress In Ground-Water
Protection,1 EPA 44016-88-008.
9 Data characterizing turbiC
considered relevant to analyses of ground-water based supplies.
9 Data characterizing turbidity violations are not described in this report because this parameter is generally not
-------
12
contaminants, microbiological contaminants, radionuclides, and turbidity. In 1983, under Amendments
to the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L 1983, C.443), referred to as A-280, the State
mandated the development of 26 additional MCLs for a specified list of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). No Federal MCLs had been set at the time for these compounds. In 1987, EPA published
MCLs for eight VOCs that were previously on New Jersey's A-280 list. In most cases, the MCLs
developed by the state were more stringent than those set by EPA. Currently, New Jersey has
established MCLs for all 26 VOCs mandated under A-280. Nonetheless, this analysis focuses primarily
on violations of the Federal MCLs. A separate analysis of the VOCs indicator is provided in Section III-
C of this report.
Indicator Data Management In New Jersey
New Jersey monitors maximum contaminant levels for the Federal MCL constituents as well as the
additional 26 volatile organic compounds identified by New Jersey law. Data for public drinking water
supplies are collected by the NJDEP, Bureau of Safe Drinking Water (BSDW) and are stored on the
New Jersey Public Water file (NJPWF) data base. In addition, BSDW regularly reports these data to
the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS-II) data base maintained by U.S.EPA. The Ocean County
Health Department also collects water quality testing results from private wells for most of the New
Jersey MCL constituents. Ocean County maintains these data in automated files.
The NJPWF data base contains data for the MCL constituents listed under the Federal Safe Drinking
Water Act; however, these data were not consistently reported on the NJPWF until 1984. The BSDW
has collected data for the 26 additional VOCs regulated by the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act
since 1985. Actual analytical results are reported for "finished water*, not just violation/non-violation
indicators. The BSDW also tracks a limited amount of raw water data, but most of these data are held
by water purveyors.
The following types of information are collected on the NJPWF data base: community water supply
inventory (i.e., location, treatment plant type, average production, design capacity, owner, and
population served); individual source file (i.e., plant basin number, latitude and longitude, number of
wells, permit number, pumping rate, well depth and treatment array, and public water system and
seller I.D.); a sample analysis file that includes all analytical testing results, except VOCs; and a VOC
file that includes analytical testing results for VOCs (A-280). Additional background on the NJPWF
data base is contained in Appendix A to this report.
The Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS-II) contains public water supply data reported by the
states. EPA's Office of Drinking Water maintains the FRDS data base to support the Agency's
information collection requirements established under the Safe Drinking Water Act. FRDS tracks a
number of data elements, including:
the public water system identification number,
the location of the PWS,
the population served by the PWS,
the sources of drinking water (ground and/or surface water),
the MCL constituent violated,
the concentration reported,
the actual Federally mandated maximum allowable concentration level,
the date of the violation, and
the number of months that the system was in violation.
However, the FRDS data base contains several deficiencies:
-------
13
the locations of PWSs are provided in longitude and latitude of either
the drinking water source (as provided by the owner) or the centroid of
the zip code of the system mailing address. Either of these data may
be erroneous, as the owner may provide inaccurate information, or the
mailing address of the water system may be miles away from the well
source;
systems that are served solely by ground water are designated as
ground-water based systems, but those systems that are served by
both ground and surface water are designated as surface-water
based systems, regardless of the degree to which the system relies on
ground water;
population data provided by FRDS are total populations served by
PWSs. As a PWS may use several sources to serve this population, it
may be difficult to estimate the extent of exposure to MCL violations;
FRDS provides no information on the location of actual exposure
points, the proportion of a reported population served by each source,
or the term during which each source is used; and
data on location of private wells and drinking water population
associated with private wells are limited or non-existent.
The Ocean County, New Jersey Health Department maintains over 1,200 records of private wells in
Ocean County. These data have been collected since May, 1987. Data for the 26 New Jersey MCL
constituents have been tracked using the 'Interim Action Levels and Responses for Selected Organics
in Drinking Water* from 1987 to January 1989, and the 'New Jersey Primary Drinking Water Standards*
from 1989 to the present. The latitude and longitude for each private well are not tracked, but the
county uses a coding system indicating the municipality for each property owner who reports well
information.
Approach for Characterizing the Indicator
EPA's review of the data sources described above revealed that the Federal Reporting Data System
(FRDS-II) would provide the most consistent State-wide data base for the Federal MCL constituents.
The BSDW was unable to provide analyses and summary data of its NJPWF data base due to budget
constraints, and the Ocean County data were found to be difficult to manage and access.
Furthermore, EPA believed that the data available through FRDS-II were consistent with thosd
maintained on the NJPWF data base. Therefore, FRDS-II served as the sole source of data for this
analysis.
EPA obtained data retrievals from the FRDS-II data base for public water supplies relying solely on
ground water in the counties of Camden, Hunterdon, Momouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, and
Somerset. The data retrievals consisted of public water system violations of Federal MCLs for the
years 1982 through 1989 for the following constituents:
barium,
cadmium,
nitrate,
selenium,
silver,
trichloroethylene,
-------
14
fecal coliform,
trihaiomethanes, and
tetrachloroethylene.
Study Results and Interpretation of Data
In general, EPA found very few MCL violations for constituents other than fecal coliform. Exhibit A-1
depicts the number of MCL violations for fecal coliform for public ground-water supplies in the seven
counties. As shown, the number of violations for fecal coliform was highest in Hunterdon and Morris
counties. Data from the FRDS-II data base summarizing the number of MCL violations in the seven
counties for the nine water quality constituents are presented in Appendix B; Tables B-1 through B-9.
The pilot study for the MCL indicators demonstrates that:
MCL data are available at the county level,
MCL data lend themselves to visual representation, and
MCL data allow for comparison among counties.
Hence the data available from the FRDS-II data base support a portion of the national objectives for
the MCL indicator described above. However, this pilot study did not collect sufficient data either to
characterize the geographic distributions of MCL violations beyond the county level or to identify the
sizes of the population at risk from these violations. To support such an analysis, the FRDS-II data
base does record the location of public water supply systems and the populations served by these
systems. As a result, the geographic distributions of the public water supply systems and the sizes of
the populations served by those systems could be developed. Nonetheless, there are limitations to
the usefulness of the population data recorded in FRDS:
Population data represent the total population served by a PWS. As a
PWS may use several sources to serve this population, it may be
difficult to estimate the extent of exposure to MCL violations.
Population data are recorded only periodically and thus, accurately
represent only certain years of the period of record.
Despite these limitations, EPA believes that the population data maintained in FRDS can give a broad
brush representation of the national objective to 'provide an understanding of the geographic
distribution of populations at risk.' Furthermore, the NJPWF data base contains location information
which can be used to generate geographic distributions. Populations at risk were not analyzed in this
pilot study due to resource limitations. In addition, data on populations served by PWSs were not
supplied in a timely manner.
Another uncertainty inherent in the data from FRDS-II and the NJPWF data bases is that they reflect
the analysis of finished drinking water rather than raw ground water, and, therefore, do not necessarily
represent the quality of ground water at the wellhead. This uncertainty is generic to the
characterization of the indicator and is not solely a function of the available data
Revisions to the Indicator Data Collection Process
EPA did not analyze the NJPWF data base because the New Jersey Bureau of State Drinking Water
was unable to provide sufficient analytical support and summary data due to budget constraints.
However, this data base could provide extensive information to analyze MCL violation trends either in
place of, or in addition to FRDS data Furthermore, in order to assess the geographic distribution of
MCL violations, future studies could assess the NJPWF data base, or focus on public water supply
location information available through FRDS-II.
-------
Exhibit A-1
MCL VIOLATIONS FOR FECAL COLIFORM
FOR SELECTED COUNTIES IN NEW JERSEY
MCL VIOLATIONS
ou
OK
<£O
on
£\J
1C
13
in
IU
O
-
-
-
-
-
Infl lib
T
bi m W
-i
n
i \m\ ni rfl i II
Ol
CAMDEN MONMOUTH OCEAN
HUNTERDON MORRIS
COUNTIES
SOMERSET
PASSAIC
1982
1986
1983
1987
1984
1988
1985
1989
Source: Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS-II)
-------
16
Conclusions
Data from the FRDS-II data base are sufficient to support the national objectives described above.
EPA limited the analysis of supply system geographic distribution to aggregate data organized at the
county level, and did not analyze populations potentially at risk. However, data on geographic
distributions and population served by PWSs are available from FRDS and are believed to be sufficient
to provide a general understanding of the geographic distribution of the populations at risk. The
NJPWF data base also contains data which can be used to address the national objectives, although
additional work by the State will be needed to access and organize these data
B. ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE CONTAMINATION FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
This section presents the approach and findings of the study of on-site and off-site contamination from
hazardous waste sites as a ground-water quality indicator in New Jersey.
National Objectives
EPA designed this indicator of on- and off-site contamination from hazardous waste sites to support
the following national objectives:10
identify the number of Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites with ground-water contamination on-
site and off-site;
provide an indication of the risk posed by such contamination to the
population in the vicinity of off-site contamination; and,
identify the relative frequency with which various types of contaminants
are responsible for ground-water contamination at CERCLA and RCRA
sites.
The following discussion describes the manner in which this study was able to address these national
objectives with the waste site data collected in New Jersey.
Description of the Indicator
Active and abandoned hazardous waste sites can serve as significant sources of ground-water
contamination and may pose serious risks to human health and the environment. The level of ground-
water contamination at these hazardous waste sites, the potential risk to drinking water supplies, and
the risk to the populations served by those supplies are each assessed under this indicator.
This indicator ateo tracks changes in the number of CERCLA and RCRA sites with on-site and off-site
ground-water contamination over time as a measure of the progress in managing waste sites. Such .
indicator data could also be used to monitor progress made in dealing with contaminated sites by
evaluating changes in site identification, remedial investigations, remedial design implementations, and
site closures.
10 U.S. EPA, Office of Ground-Water Protection, April 1989, 'Indicators for Measuring Progress In Ground-Water
Protection,' EPA 44016-88-006.
-------
17
Indicator Data Management In New Jersey
Data characterizing contamination from hazardous waste sites are collected in several data bases
managed by New Jersey State agencies. EPA identified three current data bases and a fourth one
under development for this study. These data bases include the following: (1) the Major Remedial
Action Tracking System (MRATS) data base, maintained by the New Jersey Bureau of Planning and
Assessment; (2) the Ground-Water Pollution Investigation Data Base (GWPIDB), maintained by the
New Jersey Bureau of Ground-Water Pollution Assessment; (3) the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NJPDES) data base, maintained by the Bureau of Information Systems; and (4) a
new Geographic Information System (GIS) data base, currently under development by the Division of
Hazardous Site Mitigation in the New Jersey Bureau of Environmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment
(DHSM/BEERA). These data bases are described briefly below.
The MRATS data base is composed of two files. The first is the site file which contains information
concerning site locations, such as ID number, name, municipality and county. The second is the
Subsite File, which tracks the planned and actual starting and completion dates for each major phase
of the remedial process, the completion percentage, and cost of each phase. Example Subsite Files
are presented in Appendix C. A site refers to the total area under investigation that may require
remediation. The main subsite is defined as the primary source of contamination or the major
remedial activity to be conducted at a site. In general, the MRATS data base does not contain lists of
specific contamination or the population at risk. It does track phases of remediation and general
areas of concern for each site. New Jersey has collected this information since 1986.
The GWPIDB tracks information specifying the status of ground-water investigations or remediations
for approximately 3,200 sites that have been judged to require detailed assessments. These sites are
regulated under RCRA, CERCLA or the New Jersey Environmental Compliance and Remediation Act
(ECRA). General information, such as site name, location, lead agency, and program or bureau
providing geologic support is collected. It is important to note that the investigation location pertains
to ground-water pollution investigations, not hazardous substance releases. If a class of pollutants is
specified as being present at a site, it means that they were found in the ground water as determined
by laboratory analysis. The GWPIDB also contains detailed information characterizing the extent of
ground-water contamination at waste sites in Camden, Hunterdon, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic,
and Somerset Counties (1,265 investigations in 1989); though most of this information is at least
eighteen months old. The state plans to continue to update these data and incorporate data for sites
in other New Jersey counties. A sample data sheet used for collecting the more detailed site data is
provided in Appendix D to this report.
The NJPDES data base is the primary repository for the ground-water monitoring data collected at
over 900 sites in New Jersey which are regulated under RCRA or other State and Federal programs.
This data base contains Ground-Water Permit tracking data that include; well number, well
latitude/longitude, municipality, county, hydrotogic unit, aquifer code, well characteristics, contaminants
observed, and ground-water monitoring analytical results (i.e., constituent name, sampling date,
results, units, etc.). The NJPDES data base also contains a Ground-Water Monitoring data base that
includes NJPDES permit number, monitoring well ID number, sample date, parameter number, sample .
value, remarks used to qualify data, and laboratory number. The parameters and time periods
measured are specific to the permit. The data bases cover a five to ten year period. Appendix E to
this report contains samples of the forms used to report laboratory testing results and well monitoring
data
A GIS data base tracking waste site locations is also currently under development. It will have two
modules: one containing background information on the site (e.g., location and lead regulatory
program information) and one that details the contaminants found and various remediation activities.
This system is not yet operable. Appendix F to this report contains additional information on the GIS
data base.
-------
18
Approach for Characterizing the Indicator
Following review of the data sources described above, EPA concluded that the GWPIDB would
provide the best available data source for analysis. EPA chose not to include the other data sources
in the analysis because the NJPDES data base did not have information readily available in
computerized form, the MRATS data base did not contain specific information on contaminants, and
the GIS data base is still under development.
Data retrievals were collected from the GWPIDB for the counties of Camden, Hunterdon, Monmouth,
Morris, Ocean, Passaic and Somerset. The retrievals consisted of the following:
number of ground-water investigations performed,
number of PCB detections obtained from analyses,
number of metals detections obtained from analyses,
number of volatile organic compound (VOC) detections obtained from
analyses, and
the extent of ground-water pollution at the sites, as determined by the
number of investigations that have fully characterized the site
contaminant plume dimensions.
EPA found that few data were available in the GWPIDB to assess the sizes of the populations at risk
around the sites. Therefore, EPA was not able to assess that objective in this analysis.
Study Results and Interpretation of Data
A total of 530 VOC detections were recorded in the GWPIDB for sites in all seven counties. In
comparison, EPA found that 39 PCB and 181 metal detections were recorded. A summary of the data
characterizing the number of ground-water investigations performed, number of VOC detections, and
the number of sites with fully characterized contaminant plume dimensions for Camden, Hunterdon,
Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic and Somerset Counties is presented in Exhibit B-1. While data
characterizing PCB and metal detections are also available for the sites, only VOC detections are
shown in Exhibit B-1, because they were found to occur more often. Summary data for ground-water
pollution investigations, VOC detections, PCB detections, and metal detections are provided in
Appendix G, Tables G-1 through G-4. Because the data presented above have not been collected or
reported on a regular basis, it is not yet possible to detect trends in waste site investigations in New
Jersey. These data also do not allow for comparisons of the severity of contamination among the
sites. The information in the data base characterizing detections is based on a yes or no response
and does not indicate the concentration of the pollutant in the ground water nor whether it constitutes
a violation of MCL standards. However, the extent of known ground-water pollution, not necessarily
from documented releases, is indicated by the number of sites with fully characterized plume
dimensions. The proximity of these investigations to exposed populations cannot be obtained from
the GWPIDB data base. Thus, the data contained in the GWPIDB data base does not support all of
the national objectives. Conditions that contribute to this include:
data have not been collected on a regular basis,
data are recorded for ground-water investigations and do not specify
the regulatory authority for the site CERCLA or RCRA,
data characterizing the hazardous substance releases are not
reported,
-------
Exhibit B-1
WASTE SITE SUMMARY FOR SELECTED COUNTIES (1989),
NEW JERSEY
co
CAMDEN MONMOUTH OCEAN SOMERSET
HUNTERDON MORRIS PASSAIC
COUNTIES
GW INVESTIGATIONS
W/ ANALYSES FOR VOCs
PLUME CHARACTERIZED
VOC DETECTIONS
Note: Plumes characterized are not necessarily
contaminated by VOCs. Other contaminants such
as metals and PCB$ may be found at the sites.
Source: New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Ground-Water
Pollution Assessment
-------
20
the extent of on- and off-site contamination cannot be determined from
the data,
populations at risk were not recorded, and
the number of sample detections were recorded, but not the
concentration of the pollutant in the ground water.
The approach to characterize this indicator should be expanded to include information that is currently
managed in paper files. Such additional data will expand the analysis and, combined with the new
GIS data base under development, improve the usefulness of the data, particularly in identifying
populations at risk from ground-water contamination.
Revisions to the Indicator Data Collection Process
Although New Jersey has entered much of its waste site data into automated systems, information
summarizing the extent of contamination at the sites is still largely maintained in paper files. Inclusion
of these data, as well as other site interpretation data from CERCLA and RCRA project managers, into
a computerized data base, would facilitate access to more comprehensive data to support the
indicator analysis. Substantial human resources are required to sort and compile this information.
Conclusions
Currently available computerized data bases do not contain sufficient data to support the national
objectives fully. However, much of the information needed to meet the objectives is available in paper
files. Inclusion of this data in the QIS data base under development or other existing data bases
would improve access to the data and support its use for indicator reporting.
C. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
This section presents the national objectives, approach and findings of the study of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) as indicators of ground-water contamination sources in New Jersey.
National Objective
EPA designed the VOC indicator to address the following national objective:11
identify the frequency with which various VOCs are found in ground
water.
The following discussion describes the data sources identified in New Jersey to address this objective,
and presents and analyzes the data results.
Description of the Indicator
Volatile organic compounds typically include solvents and other chlorinated hydrocarbons. They
serve as indicators of ground-water contamination resulting from industrial and non-industrial activities.
These activities or sources can include landfills, septic systems, spills, hazardous waste sites, leaking
underground storage tanks, underground injection control wells, industrial sites generally, and other
potential point sources. Volatile organic compounds also serve as surrogates for other compounds
11 U.S. EPA, Office of Ground-Water Protection, April 1989, 'Indicators for Measuring Progress In Ground-Water
Protection; EPA 44016-88-006.
-------
21
that may be released from these sources. Volatile organic compounds can reach the ground water
from improper material handling, and leakage of tanks and industrial equipment at the ground surface.
There is an interest in the level and frequency of VOC contamination due to the possible health
hazards posed by VOCs, and other contaminants from similar sources. As a result, measuring
changes in VOC concentrations over time may provide a valuable indicator of future trends in drinking
water quality resulting from industrial and non-industrial activities.
Indicator Data Management In New Jersey
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Division, New Jersey District, and the New
Jersey Bureau of Ground-Water Pollution Assessment maintain ground-water quality data bases that
include VOC data The NJDEP, Bureau of Safe Drinking Water (BSDW) and the Ocean County Health
Department also maintain ground-water data bases that include VOC data These data are described
below.
The USGS, Water Resources Division, New Jersey District has collected VOC data for several New
Jersey counties for various projects such as hazardous waste studies, county-level water quality
studies, and regional aquifer assessments. The data base containing VOC information is called the
National Water Information System (NWIS).12 As pan of these studies, ground-water samples are
collected at the wellhead and have been tested for as many as 36 constituents. Information recorded
for each sample includes location (e.g., latitude and longitude), data reliability, primary use of water
(e.g., public, industrial, etc.), and aquifer code information. Most of the VOC data within the data base
were reported during the last ten years, and most sites were sampled and analyzed only once.
The New Jersey Bureau of Ground-Water Pollution Assessment maintains ground-water quality data
for seven counties (Camden, Hunterdon, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic and Somerset) in the
Ground-Water Pollution Indicator Data Base (GWPIDB). Specific VOC constituent information is not
provided on the GWPIDB; the data base tracks whether or not a volatile organic compound was
detected (i.e., the specific compound is not recorded). The data tracked in the GWPIDB generally
represent one-time sampling events at the site and are typically 18 months to two years old. The
information collected and maintained on the GWPIDB, as well as an explanation of the data fields, is
provided in Appendix D to this report.
The NJDEP, Bureau of Safe Drinking Water (BSDW) maintains a VOC file that includes all analytical
testing results for VOCs in public water supply wells in the NJPWF data base (also called the "A-2801
file, see Section III A). A sample data collection form for these compounds is provided in Appendix A
to this report.
Approach for Characterizing the Indicator
EPA chose to limit the analysis of VOC data to the USGS NWIS data base for samples collected in the
counties of Camden, Hunterdon, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic and Somerset. EPA chose this
data base because it is currently the best data source available in that it provides:
the greatest amount of data in one data base;
sites identified with geographic locators (i.e., latitude and longitude);
the greatest number of sites in one data base;
the greatest consistency in collecting, analyzing and reporting data;
specific VOC concentrations;
the broadest State coverage;
12
The NWIS data base was previously referred to as the Water Data Storage and Retrieval System or "WATSTORE."
-------
22
the broadest time coverage;
existing data base documentation; and,
existing data base personnel support.
EPA chose not to use the other identified data bases because the Ocean County data base was
found to be difficult to access, and the Bureau of Safe Drinking Water was unable to provide analysis
and summary data of it's NJPWF data base due to budget constraints. In addition, the NJPWF VOC
data reflect the analysis of finished water rather than raw ground water, and, therefore, do not
necessarily represent the quality of ground water at the wellhead.
EPA requested the following information from NWIS for the seven counties analyzed:
number of wells monitored for VOCs,
number of samples in which VOCs have been detected,
number of samples in which MCLs or other health-based thresholds
have been exceeded, and
yearly trends in VOC monitoring practices and detections.
Study Results and Interpretation of Data
Over the 1980 to 1989 period (data were not available from NWIS for years 1983 and 1986) a total of
395 VOC detections were recorded for all seven counties, out of a total of 7,382 sample analyses.
The analysis indicates that there were 109 samples with VOC concentrations that exceeded health-
based thresholds collected in Camden, Morris and Ocean Counties. The other four counties (i.e.
Hunterdon, Monmouth, Passaic and Somerset) had no detections that exceeded health-based
thresholds. No wells were sampled in Morris County for the years 1980 through 1984, or in Ocean
County for the years 1980,1983, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988. In Hunterdon, Monmouth and Passaic
Counties, samples were taken and analyzed for only one of the years of record. Summary VOC data
for individual compounds are provided in Appendix H, Table H-1 through H-7.
Exhibit C-1 graphically presents the VOC detections for the seven counties. Trends in VOC detections
over time cannot be made based on these data since samples were taken from wells that, for the
most part, were tested only once. Therefore, increases or decreases in VOC detections may result
from samples being taken in different regions of a county. In addition, the number of wells sampled
and the number of samples analyzed varied from year to year and from county to county. Most of the
variation in the number of sample detections from year to year and between counties (shown in
Exhibit C-1) can be explained by the differences in the number of samples analyzed. For example, in
Camden County in 1980, 66 wells were sampled and a total of 949 analyzes were completed on the
73 samples collected. In 1981, 17 samples were collected from 17 wells and 253 analyzes were
completed. The percentage of VOC detections per the number of analyzes completed was 5.9
percent and 6.7 percent for the years 1980 and 1981 respectively, which is not a significant change.
Based on the above relationship, the frequency of specific VOC detections and health-based threshold
exceedances can be estimated as a function of the number of samples analyzed. Exhibits C-2
through C-4 graphically present the frequency of detection for the most common VOCs during the
1980 to 1989 period for Camden, Morris and Ocean Counties. These frequencies do not necessarily
represent the true VOC levels in the county's ground water. Multiple samples were frequently
collected from the same wells that were suspected of contamination which may have biased the
results. The distribution of VOCs in ground water at the sample locations may not adequately
represent the actual distribution of VOCs in ground water county-wide or state-wide.
-------
Exhibit C-1
SUMMARY OF VOC DETECTIONS FOR SELECTED COUNTIES
IN NEW JERSEY
DETECTIONS
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
I
ro
n
CAMDEN MONMOUTH OCEAN SOMERSET
HUNTERDON MORRIS PASSAIC
COUNTIES
1980
i98-i n1982 H i98*
1987 n1988 n1989
Note: Data were not available in NWIS for years
1983 and 1986.
Source: USGS, Water Resources Division, New Jersey District National Water
Information System (NWIS)
-------
200
150 -
100 -
50 -
Exhibit C-2
FREQUENCY OF SPECIFIC VOC DETECTIONS
FOR CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY (1980-1989)
IV)
A
DICHLOROETHANE TRICHLOROETHYLENE TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE
COMPOUNDS
SAMPLES ANALYZED
Source: NWIS, USGS, Water Resources Division, NJ
Sample analyses were not completed for each year
Compounds were those most frequently detected.
DETECTIONS
MCL VIOLATIONS
-------
EXHIBIT C-3
FREQUENCY OF SPECIFIC VOC DETECTIONS
FOR MORRIS COUNTY, NEW JERSEY (1980-1989)
60
50 -
40 -
30 -
20
10 -
TRICHLOROETHANE TRICHLOROETHYLENE TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE
COMPOUNDS
SAMPLES ANALYZED
Source: NWIS, USGS. Water Resources Division. NJ
Sample analyses were not completed for each year
Compounds were those most frequently detected.
DETECTIONS
MCL VIOLATIONS
-------
60
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
EXHIBIT C-4
FREQUENCY OF SPECIFIC VOC DETECTIONS
FOR OCEAN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY (1980-1989)
ro
en
CHLOROBENZENE TRICHLOROETHYLENE TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
DICHLOROBENZENE TETRACHLOROETHANE
COMPOUNDS
SAMPLES ANALYZED
Source: NWIS, USGS. Water Resources Division, NJ
Sample analyses were not completed for each year
Compounds were those most frequently detected.
DETECTIONS
MCL VIOLATIONS
-------
27
The pilot study did show that:
VOC data are available at the county level,
VOC data lend themsetves to visual representation, and
the frequency of detection of individual VOCs remained fairly
consistent across several of the counties.
However, there are many uncertainties regarding the data and the ability to make valid interpretations
concerning significant trends. Conditions that contribute to this include:
data are limited in geographic coverage;
sampling is not consistent in geographic coverage;
sampling is not consistent over time;
sampling, for the most part, is on a one time basis;
non-uniformity in securing and analyzing samples;
sample depths vary; and
number of samples with detections and the number of samples in
which
MCLs that have been exceeded were recorded instead of the number of wells with detections or MCL
violations. Thus, the usefulness of these data are minimized as indicators of ground-water quality
within the counties themselves, as well as across the state. The frequency of specific VOC detections
and MCL exceedances as a function of the number of samples analyzed can be determined, but this
analysis does not meet the national objective to 'identify the frequency with which various VOCs are
found in ground water,' because of the uncertainties inherent in the data
Revisions to the Indicator Data Collection Process
The approach to characterize this indicator can be expanded to include VOC information that is
currently managed in computer data bases or paper files for CERCLA and RCRA waste sites and
NJDEP permitted facilities. Use of these additional data bases, together with VOC information
available from the BSDW data base, will expand the information available to characterize this indicator.
Other information on VOCs provided to NJDEP can be sorted and included in the analysis for the
305(b) report. This information may include testing from private drinking water wells, ground-water
data collected during the design of new septic systems, results of the cleanup of underground storage
tanks, and ground-water data at industrial sites.
Conclusion
Data on VOCs are available at the county-level; however, certain counties appear to have a greater
quantity of VOC data than others. Furthermore, apparent trends in VOC detections in some of the
counties may be explained by differences in the number of samples taken and analyzed. Thus, data
on VOCs, maintained in the NWIS data base are not sufficient to support the national objective fully.
A more thorough and consistent VOC sampling and analysis program should be developed to
determine trends in VOC levels State-wide.
D. NITRATES
This section presents the national objectives, approach, and findings of the study of nitrates as an
indicator of area-wide ground-water contamination sources in New Jersey.
-------
28
National Objective
EPA collected nitrate data in New Jersey in an effort to support the following two national
objectives:13
identify the pattern and level of ground-water quality with respect to
the area-wide sources throughout the country by identifying the
geographic pattern of contamination on a county-by-county basis over
a given time span, and
display State-by-State trends over time in the area-wide quality of ground-water by
identifying the number of counties, State-by-state where ground-water concentrations
of nitrates are improving versus those where they are deteriorating.
The following discussion describes the data sources identified in New Jersey to address these
objectives and presents and analyzes the data results.
Description of the Indicator
Nitrates are commonly found in ground water in regions that are affected by area-wide sources of
contamination, such as agriculture and septic systems. Nitrates can leach into ground water from
normal agricultural practices (e.g., the use of nitrogen fertilizers) and wastewater disposal because of
their high solubility in water and their inability to adsorb to soil particles. The detection of nitrates also
can often indicate the possible presence of other ground-water contaminants. For example, a
correlation between areas susceptible to nitrate contamination and those susceptible to pesticide
contamination has been suggested. This is likely because chemicals that leach into ground water
tend to be water soluble, poorly adsorbed by soil, and have a partial or full negative charge at
ambient pH. Some pesticides (such as the triazine and acetanilide herbicides and carbamate
insecticides) share these properties with nitrates. In one study completed in New Jersey, the samples
collected showed higher nitrate concentrations in wells where pesticide residues were also
detected.14
Approximately fifty percent of the population in New Jersey relies on ground water for drinking water
supply, and, in many areas of New Jersey, ground water is the only available source of drinking water.
As a result, measuring changes in nitrate concentrations over time may provide a valuable indicator of
future trends in drinking water quality. In addition, high nitrate concentrations in drinking water
supplies are a recognized human health concern, especially for young children. Exposure to high
levels of nitrate can result in methemoglobinemia or 'blue-baby syndrome.' As a result, the primary
drinking water standard for nitrate has been set at 10 mg/l (as nitrogen).15
Indicator Data Management In New Jersey
Nitrate data have been collected as part of routine ground-water analysis activities by several New
Jersey agencies. For this study, EPA identified two principal sources of nitrate data: (1) the U.S.
Geological Survey NWIS data environment; and (2) nitrate data from the records maintained for private
well analyses in Ocean County. This latter Ocean County data base was identified as a representative
source for private drinking water well data
13 U.S. EPA, Office of Ground-Water Protection, April 1989, "Indicators for Measuring Progress In Ground-Water
Protection,' EPA 44016-88-006.
14 Louis, Judith B. and Eric Vowinkel. 1989. "Effect of Agricultural Chemicals on Ground-Water Quality in the New
Jersey Coastal Plain."
1540CFR Part 141.11.
-------
29
The NWIS data base contains data that have been compiled since 1980. The following types of
information are collected in the data base: location (i.e., latitude and longitude), analytical results (i.e.,
water quality parameters) and physical characteristics (e.g., pH, conductivity and temperature). The
USGS and the New Jersey Geological Survey work together on ground-water data collection activities
that vary in intensity from year to year. Data from these joint studies are managed in the NWIS data
base. In the past, as many as 100 wells have been sampled and analyzed for a wide variety of
inorganics and organic constituents, including nitrates, and physical parameters. In contrast, only 26
wells were sampled in FY90. In addition, the geographic focus of the ambient monitoring program
varies. Sampling activities in FY90 were focused on the Highland physiographic province.
Ocean County data are managed at the County Health Department office. Over 1,200 records for
private wells in Ocean County are maintained; these data have been collected since May 1987. Water
quality information is collected for 26 constituents, generally consisting of the New Jersey MCL
constituents (including nitrates). Latitude and longitude are not tracked; however, Ocean County uses
a coding system indicating the municipality for each property owner who reports well information.
In addition to the NWIS and Ocean County data sources, the Bureau of Safe Drinking Water (BSDW)
tracks MCL compliance results, including federal MCL violations for nitrate. This data source is further
described in Section III-A of this report Other sources of nitrate indicator information in New Jersey
are described in Appendix I.
Approach for Characterizing the Nitrate Indicator
After reviewing the data sources described above, EPA concluded that data retrievals from the NWIS
data base would provide the best available source of information to track trends in nitrate
concentrations in New Jersey and, therefore, chose NWIS as the sole data source for characterizing
the nitrate indicator.
EPA identified the NWIS data base as the best data source available in that it provides:
the greatest amount of data in one data base,
sites identified with geographic locators,
the greatest number of sites in one data base,
the greatest consistency in collecting, analyzing and reporting of data
the broadest State coverage,
the broadest time coverage,
existing data base documentation, and
existing data base personnel support
The obstacles encountered with the Ocean County data base were due to Ocean County's inability to
provide, through their contractor, the needed retrieval and analysis support their data management
system required.
EPA collected data retrievals from the NWIS data base for the counties of Camden, Hunterdon,
Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic and Somerset The retrievals consisted of the following for the
years 1980 through 1989:
wells monitored for nitrates,
number of samples taken and analyzed for nitrates from each well,
and
nitrate levels reported for each sample.
-------
30
Study Results and Interpretation of Data
Based on the data retrieved from NWIS, EPA derived four pieces of information to characterize the
nitrate indicator in the counties for each of the years 1980 through 1989:
number of wells monitored for nitrates,
number of samples taken and analyzed for nitrates,
number of samples with detectable levels of nitrates, and
number of samples with nitrate concentrations in excess of the
drinking water standard (10 mg/l).
EPA's analysis found that nitrate detections were highest in Ocean County in 1982, followed by much
lower detections in the following years. Morris County has experienced an increase in nitrate
detections in recent years. Camden and Morris County detections have been consistently higher than
in Passaic or Somerset Counties. However, these trends shown in Exhibit D-1 may be further
explained by the relationship between nitrate analyses and detections, as is illustrated for Morris
County in Exhibit D-2. Both the number of nitrate samples and detections in Morris County increased
for the years 1985, 1987 and 1989, while the relative difference between the number of samples and
the number of detections remained approximately the same. Sampling and detections were lower for
1986 and 1988. This suggests a relationship between the number of samples analyzed and the
number of detections. Additionally, Passaic and Somerset Counties were only sampled during the last
three years of the eight years of record. A total of 26 samples were collected from Passaic and
Somerset Counties during this period, while 219 samples were collected from Camden and Morris
Counties. As a result, the higher number of detections for Camden and Morris Counties may be
explained by the greater number of analyses. The nitrate data summary for the seven counties is
presented in Appendix J to this report.
Two exceedances of the nitrate drinking water standard were recorded for Ocean County for the entire
period of record. The remaining six counties had no exceedances of the nitrate drinking water
standard for this period of time.
The pilot study demonstrates that:
nitrate data are available at the county level;
nitrate data do lend themselves to visual representation; and,
nitrate data would allow, with time, for comparison among counties
and within a county across time.
However, there are many unknowns concerning the data which make the identification of significant
trends problematic. Conditions that contribute to this include:
data are limited in geographic coverage;
sampling is not consistent in geographic coverage;
sampling is not consistent over time;
sampling, for the most part, is on a one-time basis and repeat
sampling locations could not be identified from the data base;
nonuniformity in securing and analyzing samples; and
sampling depths vary.
-------
Exhibit D-1
NITRATE DETECTIONS FOR SELECTED COUNTIES
IN NEW JERSEY
DETECTIONS
100
80
ru
PI
CAMDEN MONMOUTH OCEAN SOMERSET
HUNTERDON MORRIS PASSAIC
COUNTIES
1982
1983
1986 liiil 1987
Note: This exhibit depicts the number of ground
water samples in which quanitfiabte levels of
nitrate were detected.
1984
1988
1985
1989
Source: USGS Water Resources Division, New Jersey District National Water
Information System (NWIS)
-------
Exhibit D-2
NITRATE ANALYSES AND DETECTIONS
MORRIS COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
SAMPLES/DETECTIONS
l^U
4O/>
1 tU
tnf\
TOO
on
oU
t*f\
bO
Af\
*t\i
oft
AJ
-
-
-
-
\ \ \ r-^U, 1
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
1
$
$
T
98
5
1
*i
986
1
A
1
*£
r
98
r~h^
7 1988
1
&
s8
A/
X)
6^
Sr>
x>
>o
fe
x>
s
^
&>
T
98
9
CO
ro
YEARS
NUMBER OF SAMPLES
NUMBER EXCEEDING MCL
Source: USGS. Water Resources Division,
New Jersey District National Water
Information System (NWIS)
NUMBER OF DETECTIONS
-------
33
The approach selected to collect and analyze New Jersey nitrate data focused on the use of data
readily available from the USGS NWIS data base. Broad generalizations can be. made from the New
Jersey nitrate data, but it is necessary to understand that this approach does not meet the national
objective to 'display county-by-county trends over time in the area-wide quality of ground water by
identifying the number of counties where ground-water concentrations of nitrates are improving versus
those where they are deteriorating.' For the reasons stated above these data should be analyzed
carefully in support of their use as indicators of ground-water quality within the counties themselves as
well as across the State.
Revisions to the Indicator Data Collection Process
In order to collect data to meet the national objective and effectively track trends in the 305(b)
reporting environment, the following recommendations are made based on the experience gained in
this pilot study:
maintain consistency in sample taking,
maintain consistency in sample analyses,
identify and establish an ambient monitoring well network,
sample on an annual basis,
develop and use a standard data collection format,
use data bases that are consistent State-wide, and
use data bases that are maintained by one office or bureau.
If these recommendations can be implemented on a statewide basis, with time, trend analysis would
be possible on the national level.
Conclusions
The New Jersey nitrate data can be used as a broad bush representation of nitrate trend analysis if
the limitations are identified. Until such time as complete county-by-county data are available, the
recommendation is to accept the current data However, this approach does not fully meet the
national objectives for the nitrate indicator.
E. EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE USE
This section presents the national objectives, approach, and findings of the study of agricultural
pesticide use as an indicator of ground-water contamination in New Jersey.
National Objective
EPA designed the agricultural pesticide use indicator to support the following objectives:16
identify the relative intensity of pesticide use on a county-by-county
basis,
identify the relative vulnerability to ground-water contamination on a
county-by-county basis, and
16 U.S. EPA, Office of Ground-Water Protection, April 1989, "Indicators for Measuring Progress In Ground-Water
Protection," EPA 44016-88-006.
-------
34
provide an indication of where potential ground-water problems from
pesticide use might occur, based on geographic patterns of use and
vulnerability.
The following discussion describes the manner in which this study was able to address the first
objective with agricultural pesticide usage data collected in New Jersey. The second and third
objectives cannot be addressed until such time as ground-water vulnerability studies are completed
for New Jersey.
Description of the Indicator
The use of pesticides, primarily associated with agricultural practices, has been identified as a
potential source of ground-water degradation. The potential degradation of ground water due to the
application of pesticides in New Jersey is an important issue for several reasons:
approximately fifty percent of the population of New Jersey relies on
ground water for drinking water supply, and, in many areas of New
Jersey, ground water is the only available source of drinking water;
eighteen percent of the land on New Jersey is devoted to agriculture,
the major portion of this is cropland;17
the diversity of agricultural crops has a corresponding diversity in the
amounts and types of pesticides used;
New Jersey is physically (geographically) a small state, therefore,
agricultural areas are intermingled in rural, suburban and urban
regions;
many agricultural chemicals are also used in residential areas; and,
much of the farm land in New Jersey is being developed, and the
water supply for these new residential areas often comes from
domestic wells that are at risk from agricultural pollution.
Indicator Data Management In New Jersey
In 1986, the NJDEP Bureau of Pesticide Operations (BPO) conducted a survey of private agricultural
pesticide applicators to collect 1985 pesticide usage data The applicators were requested to identify
the pesticides used, the number of acres treated, the method of application, and the municipality
where the pesticide was applied. A total of 2,957 responses to the survey were received; of these,
1,722 respondents applied pesticides to their crops.
BPO enforcement personnel also conducted follow-up investigations (i.e., phone calls or farm
inspection visits) to evaluate the accuracy of the data reported. Data obtained from this survey are
maintained by the BPO in a dBase III Plus data base. Summary information is maintained in Lotus 1 -
2-3 files.
BPO also summarized and entered the data from this survey into a Geographic Information System
(GIS). Using the mapping capabilities of this system, useful information such as quantitative
descriptions of the locations of pesticide applications in relation to areas where there are vulnerable
aquifer systems, potable water intakes or other environmental concerns, could be obtained, although
aquifer vulnerability mapping in New Jersey is not yet complete. Other uses for these data include:
17 New Jersey Department of Agriculture, 1986.
-------
35
supporting the State in developing ground-water protection strategies,
reviewing applicants for specialized pesticide use,
imposing restrictions on certain pesticides in areas where problems
may occur,
USGS projects to monitor pesticide residues in ground and surface
water,
NJDEP evaluations of areas where non-point source runoff from
agricultural areas may be affecting surface water quality, and
NJDEP studies of the impact of long-term exposure of farmers to
organophosphorus insecticides.
Reports prepared by the State of New Jersey that summarize the information obtained from the 1965
private use survey, and other sources of information on pesticide use in New Jersey are described in
Appendix K of this report.
A second survey was conducted in 1989 to collect 1988 pesticide usage data The primary difference
between the 1985 and 1988 data was the more detailed breakdown of crop codes used in the survey
completed in 1989. A total of 3,087 responses were received from the second survey; of these 1,703
respondents applied pesticides to their crops.
A commercial applicator survey was also conducted that covered the 1985 calendar year. This survey
requested the same types of information as the private applicator surveys, with the exception that
locations of the pesticide application practices were not requested.
Approach for Characterizing the Indicator
The BPO data base was chosen by U.S.EPA to characterize the pesticide usage indicator because it
is the only data source available. The data base contains data collected from 1985 and 1988 which
includes:
summaries of pesticide application rates on a county-by-county basis,
and
a subset of pesticide types.
Summaries of pesticide application rates for each pesticide include:
the number of registrants using the pesticide,
amount of active ingredient applied, and
estimates of the application rates for each pesticide on a county-by-
county basis.
Study Results and Interpretation of Data
The 1985 and 1988 registered private applicator data were provided by the NJDEP Pesticide Control
Program. The 1985 survey gathered information characterizing pesticide use information for 1,722
farming operations located in 243 of the states 567 municipalities (about 75 percent of the State's
farming operations). Smaller growers who do not use restricted pesticides were not included in this
survey. In 1988, the total number of registrants dropped to 1,703, a 1.1 percent decrease from the
number of registrants in 1985. Exhibit E-1 shows the total number of registrants by county for 1985
-------
Exhibit E-1
TOTAL PRIVATE PESTICIDE APPLICATOR REGISTRANTS
BY COUNTY IN NEW JERSEY
COUNTIES
BUWiN
CAPE MAY
CUMBERLAND
GLOUCESTER
HUNTERDON
:RCER
MIC
MOT
MORRIS
OCEAN
PAS
i
i
50
100 150 200
REGISTRANTS
250
300
1985
1988
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Pesticides
-------
37
and 1986. Tracking the number of registrants may support analyses of trends in pesticide usage;
however, the relationship between the number of registrants using a specific pesticide and the level of
pesticide use is unclear because only two years of data are available.
Exhibits E-2 through E-8 provide a breakdown of pesticides by type, the number of registrants in each
county and the amount of active ingredients applied for the years 1985 and 1989.
Exhibit E-9 shows the total amount of pesticide applied for each pesticide group for the years 1985
and 1989. The total amount of active ingredients applied increased from 1,563,967 pounds in 1985 to
1,824,803 pounds in 1989. The increase in the total amount applied is primarily due to increases in
the amounts of fungicides and insecticides applied. The average application rate decreased from 13.7
Ibs/acre in 1985 to 9.7 Ibs/acre in 1988. Analysis of the data revealed that the total amount of active
ingredients applied increased even though the amount applied per acre decreased because more
land was treated with pesticides by private applicators in 1988.
Summary data are provided in Appendix l_ Tables L-1 through L-9. Hudson County was not included
in the data base because of the limited number of farms in the county.
The data collected by the BPO provides sufficient information to assess pesticide usage trends in New
Jersey. However, the data do not support detailed analysis of the factors underlying the trends, such
as:
weather patterns,
changes in cropping practices, and
long term trends in land use.
The BPO has indicated that these surveys will be continued in future years, which will provide a long
term record of pesticide usage in New Jersey.
Analysis of the 1985 commercial applicator survey was not performed. This data base includes the
same data elements as the private use survey, but does not include any geographic information,
therefore, areas affected by commercial applications cannot be determined.
Suggested Revisions to Indicator Data Collection Process
EPA found a need for few revisions in data management practices for this indicator. The data
provided by the BPO were maintained on a dBase III Plus data base with additional summary
information on Lotus 1-2-3 files. This computer format provided easy access to the data for analysis
of the information. The data contained on the files were limited and specific to the needs of this effort,
which minimized data compilation and analysis efforts.
However, data collection efforts in future surveys can be expanded to include information on ground-
water quality in the areas of pesticide application, and can be expanded to include cropping histories
and rotations.
Conclusions
The data collected by the BPO is sufficient to analyze pesticide usage trends by private applicators in
New Jersey. In addition, these surveys are to be continued in the future, which will provide data for
long term trend analysis. Combining the pesticide usage data with ground-water quality and
contamination vulnerability data, can provide an indication of where potential ground-water problems
from pesticide use might occur. However, until such time as ground-water vulnerability studies are
complete, the national objectives concerning geographic distributions of vulnerability and pesticide
usage cannot be fully met.
-------
Exhibit E-2
FUNGICIDES APPLIED BY COUNTY IN NEW JERSEY
COUNTIES
ATI ANTIP
1 L_r\IN I IVy
BERGEN
BURLINGTON
CAMDEN
CAPE MAY
CUMBERLAND
Rl Ol IPF^TFR
WfVrERDON
MERCER
MIDDLESEX
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SALEM
SOMERSET
SUSSEX
UNION
WARREN
- i i ; i ! I
^^^^^^^i : : i-
111 i i i
ill! i i i
!r i i i i i i
a 1 I ! 1 i i
3 ! i i i i i
h | i I i ! i
^^_ ! i i ! ! !
L j i i : i i
^ , i i 1 . 1 , i , i , 1 ,
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
50,000
150,000
250,000
350,000
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (POUNDS)
1985
1988
Note: This Exhibit depicts the amount applied
by private pesticide applicators.
-------
Exhibit E-3
GROWTH REGULATORS APPLIED BY COUNTY
IN NEW JERSEY
COUNTIES
200
400
600
800
1,000 1,200 1,400
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (POUNDS)
1985
1988
Note: This Exhibit depicts the amount applied
by private pesticide applicators.
Ct>
(D
-------
Exhibit E-4
HERBICIDES APPLIED BY COUNTY IN NEW JERSEY
COUNTIES
ATLANTIC
BERGEN
BURLINGTON
CAMDEN
CAPE MAY
CUMBERLAND
ESSEX
GLOUCESTER
HUNTERDON
MERCER
MIDDLESEX
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SALEM
SOMERSET
SUSSEX
UNION
WARREN
i
i
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (POUNDS)
1985
Note: This Exhibit depicts the amount applied
by private pesticide applicators.
1988
-------
Exhibit E-5
INSECTICIDES APPLIED BY COUNTY IN NEW JERSEY
COUNTIES
ATI AMTIP
r\ I UrMN 1 IO
BERGEN
BURLINGTON
CAMDEN
CAPE MAY
CUMBERLAND
ESSEX
GLOUCESTER
HUNTERDON
MERCER
MIDDLESEX
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SALEM
SOMERSET
SUSSEX
UNION
WARREN
F ! 1 i ! ! ! i
P 1 1 i I ! 1 1
- j i i i 1 j ;
: : . ^^^^^^^ : : :
13 I I I I I \ I
!b i i i i i ! !
T i i i i ! \ i
b- ! ! 1 1 1 1 1
', i , i , i , i , i , i , 1 ,
40,000
80,000
120,000
160,000
20,000
60,000
100,000
140,000
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (POUNDS)
1985 1988
Note: Hudson County is not included in this summary
because of the small number of farms
sttl active hi the county.
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Pesticides Operations
Note: This exhibit depicts the amount applied
by private pesticide applicators.
-------
Exhibit E-6
FUMIGANTS APPLIED BY COUNTY IN NEW JERSEY
COUNTIES
ATLANTIC
BERGEN
BURLINGTON
CAMDEN
CAPE MAY
CUMBERLAND
ESSEX
GLOUCESTER
HUNTERDON
MERCER
MIDDLESEX
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SALEM
SOMERSET
SUSSEX
UNION
WARREN
i
i
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (POUNDS)
1985 1988
Note: Hudson County is not included in this summary
because of the small number of farms
still active in the county.
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Pesticides Operations
Note: This Exhibit depicts the amount applied
by private pesticide applcators.
-------
Exhibit E-7
RODENTICIDES APPLIED BY COUNTY IN NEW JERSEY
COUNTIES
ATLANTIC
BERGEN
BURLINGTON
CAMDEN
CAPE MAY
CUMBERLAND
ESSEX
GLOUCESTER
HUNTERDON
MERCER
MIDDLESEX
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SALEM
SOMERSET
SUSSEX
UNION
WARREN
5 10 15 20
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (POUNDS)
25
Note: This Exhibit depicts the amount applied
by private pesticide appicatore.
1985 n 1988
Note: Hudson County is not included In this summary
because of the small number of farms
sti active in the county.
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Pesticides Operations
Note: There were 38 registered applicators In 1985, while there were 30 in 1988.
-------
Exhibit E-8
MISCELLANEOUS PESTICIDES APPLIED BY COUNTY
IN NEW JERSEY
COUNTIES
E
2,000 4,000 6,000
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (POUNDS)
8,000
1985
1988
Note: Hudson County is not included in this summary
because of the small number of farms
Note: This Exhibit depicts the amount appied
by private pesticide applicators.
still active in the county.
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Pesticides Operations
-------
Exhibit E-9
TOTAL POUNDS OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS APPLIED
BY PESTICIDE GROUP
PESTICIDES
FUNGICIDES
GROWTH REGULATORS
HERBICIDES
INSECTICIDES
FUMIGANTS
RODENTICIDES
MISCELLANEOUS
200,000 400,000 600,000
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (POUNDS)
800,000
1985 LJ 1988
Note: This Exhibit depicts the amount of active Note: Hudson County is not included h this summary
Ingredients appied by private pesticide because of the small number of farms
applicators. stM active In the county.
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Pesticides Operations
Note: "mere were 1795 pounds of active ingredients applied in 1985. while there
3161 pounds of active ingredients applied in 1988.
-------
46
F. ADDITIONAL INDICATORS IDENTIFIED BY NEW JERSEY PERSONNEL
This section describes additional ground-water indicators that were suggested by New Jersey
personnel.
Description of the Additional Indicators
Information on sodium and chloride levels in raw water are tracked by the NJDEP, Bureau of Water
Allocation in the "W Quality data base. Data are reported by public water suppliers and industrial
water users on a monthly or annual basis.
Secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCLs) have been established for sodium and chloride in
New Jersey. Contaminants covered by these regulations are those which may adversely affect the
aesthetic quality of drinking water (e.g., taste, odor, color, and appearance), and which thereby may
deter public acceptance of drinking water supplied by public water systems.16 While secondary
levels are intended as guidelines, they are not enforceable. New Jersey requires periodic monitoring
for secondary contaminants in public community water systems. The regulations define upper and
lower limits for these substances in drinking water to protect the public welfare. Failure of test results
to fall within these limits may constitute grounds for unacceptability of the water supply.
The SMCL for chloride is 250 mg/l. Chloride concentrations above this level have an adverse effect on
the taste of the water. High chloride concentrations may also contribute to the deterioration of
domestic plumbing, water heaters and municipal waterworks equipment. Elevated chloride
concentrations may also be associated with the presence of sodium in drinking water, which may
have adverse health effects, especially on people placed on sodium-restricted diets. Chloride is a
major anion that does not interact appreciably with other ions in ground water. Chloride
concentrations detected in wells may indicate saltwater intrusion. A comparison of the ratio of
chloride to sodium helps to verify the presence of saltwater.
The SMCL for sodium is 50 mg/l. Sodium is the principal cation in the hydrosphere and is derived
geologically from the following:
leaching of salt deposits (surface and underground), and
decomposition of sodium aluminum silicates and similar minerals.
Other potential sources of sodium in water supplies include:
the sodium ion as a major constituent of natural waters,
sodium chloride as a deicing agent, and
sodium in washing products.
This study did not investigate the relative contribution of the potential sources of sodium to ground
water in New Jersey. Two USGS studies have been conducted that include determinations of sodium
and chloride in water samples drawn from wells. These studies are referenced in Appendix M to this
report.
18 "Interpreting Drinking Water Quality Analysis, What Do the Numbers Mean?" by Theodore B. Shelton, Ph.D.,
Rutgers Cooperative Extension
-------
47
Applicability and Relevance of the Additional Indicators In Relation to the Indicators Described In
This Study
The 'W Quality' data base maintained by the Bureau of Water Allocation appears to have sufficient
information to assess sodium and chloride levels in raw water. Data are reported by public water
suppliers and industrial water users on a monthly or annual basis. These data are important to public
water suppliers in New Jersey because of the concern for saltwater intrusion and the impact of
saltwater on water supply aquifers. While New Jersey has taken steps to restrict ground-water
withdrawals (Critical Areas Program) in certain areas, there is still an over dependence on ground-
water supplies for drinking water in some areas. Therefore, tracking sodium and chloride levels as a
measure of the impact of saltwater intrusion is important in New Jersey and should be included in the
Indicators Programs as a measure of ground-water quality.
Discussion of Nation-wide Applicability of the Additional Indicators
Other states across the nation that are in similar geographic and hydrogeologic settings as New
Jersey would benefit from tracking sodium and chloride levels as a measure of ground-water quality.
Over dependence on ground water for drinking water supplies in coastal areas and areas adjacent to
tidal rivers and estuaries could lead to saltwater intrusion. Other non-coastal areas with salt deposits
or high salt concentrations in the geologic setting could also be vulnerable to ground-water
contamination due to salt intrusion in the aquifers. These areas would also benefit from the use of
these additional indicators.
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
BLANK
-------
49
IV. STUDY CONCLUSIONS
EPA conducted this pilot study to determine whether the criteria for reporting ground-water indicators,
as developed by the EPA workgroup, could be met with data collected for the State of New Jersey.
These criteria include the following.
indicators should be based on actual data measurement;
indicators should lend themselves to graphic display to convey trends
and other information readily;
whenever possible, existing data should be used rather than requiring
new data collection;
data should be collected over time at the same locations; and
data can have limitations and still be useful as an 'indicator' of ground-
water problems or progress.
In general, the study found that data characterizing the five indicators are available and that these
data do lend themselves to graphic display, as depicted in this report. EPA used only existing data
for this analysis, although EPA noted that additional data collection could better characterize several
of the indicators. EPA also found that much of the ground-water monitoring data compiled for this
study did not fully support trend analyses because samples were not always taken from the same
locations over time. Nonetheless, EPA concluded that if the limitations are understood, data are
available in New Jersey to at least partially characterize each of the five ground-water indicators. The
following discussion presents specific conclusions relating to the data collected for each of the
indicators.
Maximum Contaminant Levels: Data from the FRDS-II data base are sufficient to support the national
objectives for this indicator. Although EPA limited the analysis presented in this study to county-level
summaries of MCL violation information, the analysis could be organized at different geographic levels
and could include analyses of the populations potentially at risk from the violations. The population
data maintained in PROS, however, may not entirely reflect the actual size of the population exposed
to a particular MCL violation.
On-SKe and Off-Site Contamination at Hazardous Waste Sites: Automated data management
systems maintained by New Jersey do not contain sufficient information to support all of the national
objectives outlined for this indicator. EPA was able to retrieve data to assess the number of sites with
ground-water contamination in seven of New Jersey's counties. For those sites, EPA was also able to
determine the principal contaminants involved and the number of sites that have had their ground-
water contaminant plume dimensions fully characterized. However, New Jersey maintains information
characterizing the populations at risk from the contamination in paper files which were not readily
available for this study.
Volatile Organic Compounds: EPA accessed data maintained in the USGS National Water
Information System to characterize this indicator. EPA was able to organize the data available from
NWIS at the county level and display trends in VOC levels graphically. EPA determined that the
limited geographic distribution of the VOC analyses and the lack of consistent repeat analyses at
many of the sampled wells limited the usefulness of the data to support a State analysis. A more
19 U.S. EPA, Office of Ground-Water Protection, April 1989. 'Indicators for Measuring Progress in Ground-Water
Protection." EPA 44016-88-006.
-------
50
thorough and consistent VOC sampling and analysis program could better support analyses of trends
in VOC levels State-wide.
Nitrates: EPA accessed data maintained in the USGS National Water Infbrmation System to
characterize this indicator. EPA was able to organize these data at the county level and display
trends in nitrate levels graphically. EPA noted several limitations with the data, however, including
limited geographic coverage and inconsistent repeat sampling at well locations. Nonetheless, until the
State chooses to develop a more thorough sampling program for nitrate analyses, EPA has concluded
that the currently available nitrate data can support the national objectives.
Pesticide Use: EPA compiled pesticide usage data collected by New Jersey Bureau of Pesticide
Operations in two State-wide surveys. EPA determined that these data can support the national
objective of identifying the relative intensity of pesticide use on a county-by-county basis. With time
and after completion of aquifer vulnerability analyses in the State, the pesticide data can also be used
to support analyses of potential ground-water problems by overlaying the geographic patterns of
aquifer vulnerability and pesticide use.
Additional Indicators: New Jersey personnel identified trends in sodium and chloride levels in
ground water as an additional indicator of salt water intrusion problems. This indicator may be of
special interest to coastal counties that are undergoing extensive coastal development and
experiencing increasing ground-water withdrawals. Trends in sodium and chloride levels may also
indicate ground-water contamination problems resulting from roadway salt applications.
The following discussion presents a summary of the general lessons learned during the course of this
pilot study. The discussion first addresses the technical issues and data management practices
encountered in this pilot study- The discussion then outlines suggested revisions to these existing
practices that can be adopted by the State to better support future ground-water indicator reporting.
Finally, the resources needed to support further indicator reporting and next steps are briefly
discussed.
A. EXISTING PRACTICES
In completing this pilot study, EPA encountered a number of problems relating to the quality and
availability of the compiled data which limit their application to support the indicator objectives. The
problems concerning the quality of the data related both to the representativeness or geographic
coverage of the data and to the procedures used to collect the analytical results. In particular, EPA
identified the following technical issues:
data are limited in geographic coverage;
sampling is not consistent in geographic coverage;
sampling is not consistent over time;
securing and analyzing samples was not uniform;
limited repeat sampling is conducted at the same location; and
sampling depths vary.
In addition to these technical issues, EPA also identified problems with regard to the way in which the
collected data were managed. These data management issues limited EPA's ability to access and
use the information provided by the State:
data bases were originally organized to support objectives that differ
from those the indicators were designed to address;
-------
51
different agencies were responsible for data presented, leading to
potential inconsistencies; and
missing annual data or other data gaps were not explicitly identified.
While these problems were encountered in the automated files, EPA also noted that many other
potential data sources were either not automated or were automated in a format that could not be
readily accessed by the responsible agency. In those cases, EPA was not able to access the data for
this study.
B. SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO EXISTING PRACTICES TO SUPPORT INDICATOR
REPORTING
EPA is strongly promoting the wider use of indicator data collection across all Federal and State
programs. An EPA Task Force, with State participation, developed concrete principles and objectives
to ensure effective and consistent decision-making in all Agency decisions affecting ground water, and
will also institute State Comprehensive Ground-Water Protection Programs20. Monitoring and data
collection is one area that will be addressed.
As New Jersey continues its monitoring and data collection efforts and begins to develop its
comprehensive program, it is important to keep the issues noted in the pilot study in mind. For
example, sampling and analytical consistency may be promoted by establishing consistent standard
scientific and data collection protocols and by promoting the development of ground-water monitoring
networks, as appropriate, to provide trend data Data management activities that employ standard
data collection formats for each of the indicators are already underway in New Jersey to maintain
standard data management protocols between agencies. Cooperative efforts between EPA and New
Jersey will ensure that information collection activities support the objective of protecting the nation's
ground-water resources.
To begin moving toward data consistency, EPA along with the States and other Federal agency work
group participants developed a set of the most critical data elements for ground-water quality
information. These data elements form the foundation upon which ground-water data users may build
their own data base, adding elements to meet their specific needs. The use of this minimum set of
data elements (MSDE)21 will ensure that EPA and the States can share and manipulate ground-
water data to support better environmental decision-making, and facilitate cross-program integration.
Once adopted, these revisions could facilitate the collection, management, and reporting of indicator
data for future 305(b) reports.
C. RESOURCES FOR IMPLEMENTING
Initially, the resources required at the State level to implement national indicator reporting may be
extensive. New Jersey cannot significantly improve it data collection and reporting without expending
the necessary resources to correct deficiencies. As the State establishes monitoring networks and
integrates their information systems, data will become more accessible for use in indicator
development. Furthermore, after the information is collected and the data elements and data
20 U.S. EPA, Office of the Administrator, 'Protecting the Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy for the 1990s," EPA
21Z-1020, (Washington, D.C.) July 1991.
21 U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 'Definitions for the Minimum Set of Data Elements for
Ground-Water Quality,' (Washington, D.C.) July 1991 (draft final).
-------
52
reporting formats for including ground-water indicators in 305(b) reports are identified and applied, the
effort expended for completing the 305(b) report will be greatly reduced.
D. NEXT STEPS
This pilot study is one of three studies EPA completed to investigate the use of ground-water
indicators in 305(b) reports. A Findings Report has been prepared which outlines and summarizes
the information and knowledge gathered in New Jersey, Minnesota, and Idaho. The Findings Report
also makes recommendations regarding the implementation of indicators in future State 305(b)
reports. Based on these recommendations, EPA is developing a Technical Assistance Document
(TAD)22 to provide technical guidance to the States on how to gather and use indicator data as part
of their 1992 305(b) Reports. The TAD is also intended to help set the stage for those States that are
moving toward developing comprehensive ground-water monitoring and information systems,
particularly in relationship to ground-water indicator reporting, and to assist those which are already in
the process. The TAD is expected to be completed by early 1992.
22 U.S. EPA, Office of Ground-Water Protection, April 1989. 'Indicators for Measuring Progress in Ground-Water
Protection.1 EPA 44016-99-006.
-------
53
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barton, C., E.F. Vowinkle and J.P. Nawyn, 1098. Preliminary Assessment of Water Quality and its
Relation to Hydrogeology and Land Use: Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System. USGS
Water Resources Investigations Report 87-4023.
Kish, G.R., E.F. Vowinkle, T.V. Fuoillo, and W.A. Battaglin, 1986. Relation of Land Use to Ground-
Water Quality in the Outcrop Area of the Potomac-Raritan Magothy Aquifer System, New
Jersey. National Water Summary 1986, Ground Water Quality-Water Quality Issues.
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, 1990. GIS Data Dictionary, Data Entry
Forms, and Instructions. Division of Science and Research, January 3,1990. John R.
Fleming, Jr., 984-5268.
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, 1989. New Jersey Pesticide Use
Survey, presented at a conference entitled 'Pesticides in Terrestrial and Aquatic
Environments,' sponsored by the Virginia Water Resources Research center, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, march 11-12, 1989, Richmond, VA. Judith B. Lewis,
Mark G. Robson, George C. Hamilton.
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, 1989. Effect of Agricultural Chemicals
on Ground-Water Quality in the New Jersey Coastal Plain, presented at a conference entitled
Pesticides in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments,' sponsored by the Virginia Water
Resources Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, March 11-12,
1989, Richmond, VA. Judith B. Louis and Eric Vowinkle.
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, 1989. Hazardous Waste Management
Programs (presentation by Commissioner Christopher J. Daggett to the Assembly
Environmental Quality Committee). May 1,1989. Christopher J. Daggett.
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, 1989. Case Management System
Manual: Case Assignment Component (draft). Division of Water Resources/Hazardous Waste
Programs, May 1989.
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, 1989. Hazardous Waste Site
Prioritization: Case Management Strategy (draft). Division of Water Resources/Hazardous
Waste Programs, July, 1989.
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, 1989. Statistical Study of Nitrates in
Two NJ Counties: Phase II Hypothesis Testing. Bureau of Water Quality Standards and
Analysis. David A. Schock.
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, 1988. Case Management Strategy:
Remedial Process Component (draft). Bureau of Planning and Assessment, July 1988.
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, 1988. NJDEP Ground Water Activities
(staff draft). Division of Water Resources, August 1988.
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, 1988. New jersey Hazardous Waste
program: Status Report. Division of Hazardous Waste Management, October 1988. JohnJ.
Trela
State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 1988. New Jersey 1988 State Water
Quality Inventory Report.
-------
54
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, 1987. New Jersey's Case Management
Strategy for Hazardous Waste Programs: Remedial Actions. Division of Hazardous Waste
Management/Bureau of Planning and Assessment, June, 1987.
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental protection. Description of the Well Permit file,
1986. Division of Water Resources.
State of New Jersey, Department of Health, 1985. 1985 Private Applicators Pesticide Use Survey
(draft).
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental protection, 1983. Ground Water Analysis -
Monitoring Well Report (field reporting form), Division of Water Resources, April 1983.
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, 1983. Ground Water Analysis - Volatile
Organics Report (field reporting form), Division of Water Resources, April 1983.
State of New Jersey, Nitrate Levels Exceeding MCL of 10 MG/L in NJ Ground Water.
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection. Assessment of Ground Water Quality in
Northwestern NJ, Division of Science and Research.
U.S. EPA, 1989. Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1990 State Water Quality Assessment (305(b)
Report).
U.S. EPA, Office of the Administrator, 1991. Protecting the Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy for
the 1990s: EPA21Z-1020.
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 1991 (draft final). Definitions for the Minimum
Set of Data Elements for Ground-Water Quality.
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground-Water Protection, 1989. Indicators for Measuring Progress in Ground-
Water Protection: EPA 44016-88-006.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1985. Ground-Water Quality in East-Central New Jersey, and a Plan for
Sampling Networks. Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4243
U.S. Geological Survey, 1985. National Water Summary 1984, Water Supply Paper 2275.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1984. Water-Quality Data for Aquifers in East-Central New Jersey, 1981-82.
Open File Report 84-821.
Vowinkle, E.F. and WA Battaglin, 1988. Methods of Evaluating the Relation of Ground-Water Quality
to Land Use in a New Jersey Coastal Plain Aquifer System. USGS Water Resources
Investigations Report 88-4220.
-------
APPENDIX A
Bureau of Safe Drinking Water, New Jersey Public Water File (NJPWF)
Sample Data Collection Forms
-------
PWS ID
onlimlntnl
ID
UI
<.U>Ufc.L « I /\ I t. IMrUI*Mf%llt/M » » * I »-..l
WATER QUALITY COMPLIANCE SUBSYSTEM
BACTERIOLOGICAL OR TURBIDITY SUMMARY ANALYSIS INPUT
PUBLIC WATIR SYSTEM NAME AND ADDRESS
ITtinuctlon
Cod*
LTOJJ . HzT
i ; 1-9
1I
CONTAMINANT NAME
SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS
27
fiWET
32
J2EHB
EEC
37
NUMBER OP SAMPLES
H«niilr«d
b-n
No. of SMnplw In VloUllon
Eft
KnLfi Q. Si lUMCL
31-41«-«
SAMPLE PERIOD
O
- ROM I
DAY! YR 1
Mil
MO
1
JNTIL.
DAY
1
YR
1
1 SAMPLE
TYPE
n
n»ft* n
MO
put
DAY
1
JU7I&I1
VR
i
LABORATORY ANALYZING THE MOST SAMPLES
ILJ
IN 1
NAME
M-7a
13
CHECK SAMPLES
REGULATIONS
FEDERAL
REQUIRED NUMBER TAKEN
| STATE |
u
Actlld
Number
II
NoWUd of VloU^onf
Laiii
74
IT
NUMBER OP PORTIONS POSITIVE
PEHMENTATIQN TUBE_I
NUMBER OF SAMPLES
REQUIRintl CtttCtS^Mf'l f, .
BY
DATE
DATE
/
/I
SAMPLE TYPE KEY
C CHECK SAMPLE
D REGULAR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
P PLANT TAP SAMPLE
R RAW WATER SAMPLE
S SPECIAL SAMPLE
y
-------
A-3
EPA Analysis Methods for Trfhalomethanes
501.1. Analysis of Trihalomethanes in Drinking Water by Purge and Trap
501.2 Analysis of Trihalomethanes in Drinking Water by Liquid/Liquid Extraction
501.3 Measurement of Trihalomethanes in Drinking Water by Gas Chromatography/
Mass Spectrometry and Selected Ion Monitoring
524.1 Volatile Organic Compouncs in Water by Purge and Trap Gas Cnromatography/
Mass Spectrometry
524.2 Volatile Organcs Compuncs in Water by Purge and Trap Capillary Column Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
OB.
Equivalent as determined by EPA and certified by the NJDEP Office of Quality Assurance
Sample Type
C Check Sample
D Regular Distribution System
M Maximum Residence Time for THM's
P Plant Tap (Treated Water) Sample
R Raw Water Sample (Untreated)
S Special Sample
-------
Form OWH-O42 :9/87!
3WH 3SDW . 01
A-4
New oarsev uaoanmant of Environmental Prstection
Division cr Water Resources - Bureau of Safe Dnnxmg Water
CN C29, Trenton, N.J. 08625
QUARTERLY TRIHALOMETHANE fTHM) INPUT FORM
Name
Address
Citv
State Zio
PWS ID# 1 T H |
Plant Name #
Laboratory ID#
Laboratory Name
SAMPLE LOCATION j ANALYSIS RESULTS
1. Aaarass:
Citv: Countv
2941 - Chloroform
2942 - Brcmoform
2943 - Brornoaicnlcrom«trian«...._. _.
2944 - Oibromocnloromethane _
2. Address:
Citv: Countv
2941 - Chloroform
2942 - Bromoform»...M.__.....M _ ....
2943 - Brornodichloramathane _
2944 - Dibrornochioromethana
3. Address:
Ci'tv: Countv
2941 - Chlcrotorm
2942 - BrcmoTorm _
2943 - Srcrrsodicnloromethana .
2944 - Oibrcmocritoromethane
4. Aaaress:
Citv Countv
2941 - Chloroform _
2942 BrcrroTorm
2943 BromoaicnloromBtnana
2°
uau
Date
-------
A-5
DWH-193 (7/88)
3WR-BSDW-OS
New Jersey Department of Environmental Proteoon
Division of Water Resources Bureau of Safe Drinking Water
CN 029. Trenton. N.J. 08625
SECONDARY SUBSTANCES ANALYSIS INPUT FORM
Name
Address.
City
State
Location at which sample collected:
Address
City
C o u nty
Zip.
PWS ID*
Plant Name
Laboratory ID#
Laboratory Name
Collection Date
Sample Type:
Collected by
Analyzed by
Contaminant 10 and Name
1905 Color
1095 Zinc
1920 Odor
2905 ABS/L.A.S.
1017 Chloride
1022 Cooper
1916 Hardness fasCaCO,)
1028 Iron
1032 Manganese
1055 Sulfate
1930 Total Dissolved Solids
1910 Corrosivrtv (in
1925 OH
1929 Alkalinity (as CaCO-.)
Temoerature
Analysis Results
Sign
(<)
mg/f
(PPM)
Anftlvdc
Method *
Analysts
Oat*
Determinations in ppm (mg/1) except Color (CU). Odor (TON). Comsrvtry. pH, *no Temperature ( f)
Form prepared by:
_Owner/Operaior or
^Laboratory
Print Name
Signature ot Hepresentative
Phone No.
SAMPLE TYPE
C - Checx Samoie
D - Regular Oistnoution Svsiem Samoie
M - Maximum Residence Time for THMs
P Plant Tao (Treated Water) Samoie
R - Raw Water (Untreated) Sample
S Special Sample
-------
A-d
192 (6/88)
-ascw-cs
New Jersey Deoar.r.ent ci Environmental Prciecicn
Division ol Water Resources Bureau of Safe Dffrrtung Water
CN C29. Trenion, N.J. 08625
INORGANIC CHEMICAL ANALYSIS INPUT FORM
sme
adress.
late
.ccation at which sample collected:
-<3dress
Zip.
-ounty_
PWSID*
Plant Name
IN
Laboratory ID*
Laboratory Name.
Collection Date
Sample Type:
Collected by
Analyzed by
Contaminant 10 and Name
1005 Arsenic
1010 Barium
1015 Cadmium
1020 Chromium
1025 Fluoride
1030 Lead
1035 Mercury
.X^i040\- Nitrate (as Nl
1045 Selenium
1050 Silver
1052 Sodium
Analysis Results
Sign
f
-------
DWR-;31 (6/88)
DWR-3SDW-04
A-7
New Jersey Daoanment of Environmental Protection
Division of Water Resources Bureau of Safe Drinking Water
CN C29. Trenton. N.J. 08625
ORGANIC CHEMICAL ANALYSIS INPUT FORM
Name
Address.
City
State
Location at which sample collected:
Address
City
County
Zip.
PWS ID#
Plant Name
Laboratory ID#
Laboratory Name.
Collection Date
Sample Type:
Collected by
Analyzed by
Contaminant 10 and Name
2005 Endrin
2010 Lindane
2015 Methoxychlor
2020 Toxaohene
2105 2,4-0
2110 2. 4,5-TP Silvex
Analysis Results
Sign
(<)
ug/l
(PPB)
Analysis
Method *
Analysis
Date
Form prepared by:
jDwner/Operator or
.Laboratory
Print Name
Signature 01 Representative
Data
Phone No.
SAMPLE TYPE
C - Check Sample
D - Regular Distribution System Samoie
M - Maximum Residence Time for THMs
P - Plant Tap (Treated Water) Sample
R - Raw Water (Untreatea) Sample
S Special Sample
EPA ANALYSIS METHODS FOR ORGANICS
Indicate trie Anaivsis Method * for the appropriate aporoved method as references: in the Federal Register. 141.24 (e) & (f)
or
5c:-;vaieni as cetermnec Dv USEPA ana certified tv ;ne NJDEP Office of Quality Assurance.
-------
A-8
New jersev Caoanrnent of Environmental r-otecion
Division or Water Resources Bureau of Safe CnnKinq Water
CN C23. Trenton. N.J. C8625
Name
Adcress
Citv
State
PWS ID*
Plant Name
Laboratory ID*
ZIP Laboratory Name
|HZ]
it
Location at which samoie collected:
Address_
Citv .
County_
Collection Date
Sample Type:
Collected by
Analyzed by
Contaminant 10 and Nama
2984 Tricrtloroetrtviene
2987 Tetracnloroetnvlene
2982 Carbon Tetracnlonde
2981 1.1.1 - Tricntoroetnane
2980 1,2- Dlcnloroetnane
2976 Virtvi Chloride
296«t Metnviene CMIoride
Analysis Results
Sign
'<}
2990 Benzene
2989 CJilcrcoenzene
2401 Total Cicrilorobenzenes*
2278 1.2.4 - Tricniorooenzene
2977 1,1 - Dicnioroetnvlene
2280 c:s - 1.2 - Cichloroetnvlene
2979 trans 1 2 - QicMloroetnviene
2955 Total Xvlenes*
2283 Total ccfvcr!!cnnated Biohenvls*
2959 CWorcane
ug/l
rPP9)
Anal%/*l«
Method *
Analysis
Date
' See note an ttie cscx cf this form if detectable levels ana found.
Form oreoarea by: Cwner/Cperator or Laboratory
! certify that this water samoie was collected and analyzed in accordance with aoproved procedures estaoiisnea
by the New Jersey Ceoartment of Environmental Protection from the location described above.
Print Name Signature
-VOTE. See reverse siae for anaivsis metnoa numoers ana sample type Key.
uata
-------
3WR-3SDW-02
A-9
NOTE: if detectacte levels are found wnen analyzing for Oicfiiorcoenzenes. Xylenes. or Polycnionnated Sionenyis.
please identify the following specific isomers with their resoective concentration! s) herein.
Contaminant ID and Nam*
2968 o Qichlorecenzene
2967 m Oichlcrooenrene
2969 o Dicnforeoenzene
2997 o-Xvlene
2995 m-Xvlen«
2999 o-Xvlene
2388 Arocior 1016
2390 Arcctor 1221
2392 Aroc!orl232
2394 ArocJcM242
2396 Arcocr 1248
2398 Arocior 1254
2400 Aredor 1260
Analysts Results
Sign
r«i
ug/t
'PP^
Analysis
Method *
Analysis
Data
EPA ANALYSIS METHODS FOR ORGANIC^
502.1 Volatile HaJogenated Organic Chemicals in Water by Purge and Trap Gas Chrematograpny
502.2 - Volatile Organic Comocunds in Water by Purge and Trap Capillary Gas Chrematograpny with Photoionization
and Eearoiyiic Conducnvrty Oeteoors in Senes
503.1 Volatile Aromatic and Unsaturated Organic Compounds in Water by Purge and Trap Gas Chromatograpny
504 - Measurement of 1,2-Oibromoethane (EOB) and 1,2-Oibromo-3-chtoroprooane (OBCP) in Drinking Water by
Microextraaion and Gas Chromatograpny
524.1 Volatile Organic Compounds in Water by Purge and Trap Gas Chrematography/Mass Spectremetry
524.2 - Volatile Organic Compounds in Water by Purge and Trap Capillary Column Gas Chromatograpny/
Mass Spectrometry
503 - Chtoraane and Porychiormated Biphenyis in Water by Extraction and Gas Chromatograpny
or
Ecun/aient as determined by USEPA and certified by the NJOEP Office of Quality Assurance
SA.MPLg
C Checx Samcxe
C 3eqular Cistnbution System Samoie
M Maximum flesidenca Time for THMs
P - Plant fao (Treated Water) Sarncie
R Raw Water (Untreated) SamoM
S Special Sample
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary Data of MCL Violations for Selected Counties In New Jersey
-------
Table B-1 Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Federal MCL Violations for Barium
County
CAMDEN
HUNTERDON
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SOMERSET
New Jersey
YEAR
19BO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1981
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1982
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1983
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1986
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1988
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MCL. I.Omg/l
Source: Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS-II)
«P
-------
Table B-2 Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Federal MCL Violations for Cadmium
County
CAMDEN
HUNTERDON
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SOMERSET
New Jersey
YEAR
1980
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1981
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1982
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1983
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1986
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1988
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MCL: 0.01 mg/l
Source: Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS-II)
CD
-------
Table B-3 Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Federal MCL Violations for Nitrate
County
CAMDEN
HUNTERDON
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SOMERSET
New Jersey
YEAR
1980
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1981
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1982
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1983
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1985
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1986
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1988
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MCL: IO.Omg/1
Source: Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS-II)
-------
Table B-4 Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Federal MCL Violations for Selenium
County
CAMDEN
HUNTERDON
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SOMERSET
New Jersey
YEAR
1980
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1981
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1982
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1983
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1986
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1988
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MCL: 0.01 mg/l
Source: Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS-II)
03
01
-------
Table B-5 Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Federal MCL Violations for Silver
County
CAMDEN
HUNTERDON
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SOMERSET
New Jersey
YEAR
1980
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1981
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1982
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1983
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1986
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1988
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MCL: 0.05 mg/l
Source: Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS-II)
tp
6)
-------
Table B-6 Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Federal MCL Violations for Trichloroethylene
County
CAMDEN
HIINTERDON
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SOMERSET
New Jersey
YEAR
1980
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1981
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1982
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1983
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1986
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1988
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1989
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
4
MCL: 0.005 mg/l
Source: Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS-II)
-------
Table B-7: Number of PWS Reporting Federal MCL Violations for Fecal Coliform
County
CAMDEN
HUNTERDON
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SOMERSET
New Jersey
YEAR
1980
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
3
1981
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1982
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1983
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1984
0
4
0
0
2
1
0
7
1985
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
3
1986
0
8
1
2
0
0
0
11
1987
1
4
0
6
2
0
0
13
1988
0
4
1
14
2
2
0
23
1989
2
24
1
8
5
3
4
47
MCL: N/A
Source: Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS-II)
CD
00
-------
Table B-8: Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Federal MCL Violations for Trihalomethane
County
CAMDEN
HUNTERDON
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SOMERSET
New Jersey
1980
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
YEAR
1981
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1982
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1983
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1986
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1988
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MCL: N/A
Source: Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS-II)
CD
<£>
-------
Table B-9: Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Federal MCL Violations for Tetrachloroethylene
County
CAMDEN
HUNTERDON
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SOMERSET
New Jersey
YEAR
1980
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1981
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1982
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1983
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1986
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1988
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1989
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
MCL: 0.005 mg/l
Source: Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS-II)
-------
APPENDIX C
Bureau of Planning and Assessment, Major Remedial Action Tracking System (MRATS) Data
Forms
-------
C-2
or* ernecia M
ounry
NOL _ (Y/N) Publicly Owned RP _
-------
C-3
OA/12/88 I^Ojor Remedial fiction Tracking System (Subsite File)
Site Name _.
Subsits Nam* _.
Planned Actual Planned Actual Per Cent Cost Cost
3hase Start Start End End Comolete (*M) Code Comment
Q _Q__ J3__ -Q <-> F
__ < > S
( ) RP
Q _Q _Q _Q (_> F
< ) S
_.- II (_) RP I_I_.
Construction Q _Q _Q _Q <_> F ;
<_) S
Tyoe _ (Comol«x, Major, mOdarate, minor) C_) RP ;
3 S, M -. _Q . -Q Indefinite (_) F
-;- __ ~ (.) s
_"CMinimaI, Periodic,Full scale) Years _ ^ (_) RP
i
-------
APPENDIX D
Bureau of Planning and Assessment, Ground-Water Pollution Investigation Data Base (GWPIDB)
Data Forms
-------
D-2
D*T« SHEET >0t egQUMD-WATEt . 0 L LU T t 0 M I N V t t T T B A T t 0 II
SITEHAKE:
LOCATION AOOIISS:.
MA1LIMC ADDRESS:
MUNICIPALITY: ___^^_ 10 00.:
COUNTY: SAS HUNIER:
LAT: LONG: NJPOES-GU:
ATLAS SHEET COOID »0.:__ NJPOES-SW; .
TYPE OF SITE: MAJOR SOURCE OF POLLUTION:,
LAGOON: UST: AROVE GROUND STORAGE TANKS:___
SEPTIC/DRY UELL:._ SURFACE SPILL:___ AGRICULTURE:..
US6S QUAD: ---M_ IEO AllOUl
LEAD: >toCtAMt.jj..^ _^_J_ OAT* OPEIEO iT IJOIP(aa/dd/yy>t
DATE OF REVISIOM: _. BiOLOCIST; r^_ .. ^ SUMOITs
STATUS:
SOUICE IENEOIATION:
Mil PRODUCT RECOVERY:.
GU PLUME OELI«IATEOl_
6W PLUME CONTAINED:
GU RECOVERY: .....
GU TREATMENT:
FATE OF RECOVERED GU:
DIMENSIONS OF GROUND'UATER POLLUTION PLUME:
LENGTH: WIDTHi____...^..^ TIICr«ll«t.
BST. VOLUME OF POLLUTED GROUND UATERt
LAND USE; .,--._.-._.. ^ J..1...._J. P»YtIO«RAP«I C PROVIICEl.
8URFICIAL CEOLOGIC FORMATION:
AQUIFER(S) AFFECTEO;^..,. ,^L _._ TNREATENEDi.
PREDOMINANT GROUNO-UATBR FLOU DIRECTION:
DEPTH TO UATER:_ «^;TO JiDiOtK: ;TO CONFINING LAYER:.
IYORAULIC CONDUCTIVITY: IYORAULIC GRADIENT:
TOTAL NO. MONITOR WELLS: . ^ ,
PRIVATE DOMESTIC UELLS AFFECTED; n__ TIREATEIEOt.
COMMUNITY UELLS AFFECTED: THREATENED:
VOi: ?.P. METALS: RASE NEUTRALS: ACID EXTRACTAGLES 1_.
PCS/PESTICIDES: OTHER: _
-------
D-3
Explanation of F'e]Qs
SITENAHE: official name of site ias it appears in tne Computer Report).
LOCATION ADDRESS: number ana street name locating the site.
MAILING ADDRESS: Full mailing address including zip code.
MUNICIPALITY: give name and identify as town, twp., boro or city.
ID NUMBER: ECRA, Spill, or other identifying », if known. (.Do not give PAC).
LATITUDE, LONGITUDE: degrees- minutes- seconds.
ATLAS SHEET COORD. NO.: seven-digit number locating case on Atlas sneet.
NJPDES-GW, SW, GW DIVERSION: permit numper(s).
TYPE OF SITE: private residence, dry cleaners, factory, etc.
MAJOR SOURCE OF POLLUTION: name source which caused majority of GW problems.
LAGOON, UST, ABOVE GROUND TANKS, LANDFILL, SEPTIC/DRY WELL,
SURFACE SPILL, AGRICULTURE:Yes/No/Unknown.
USGS QUAD: name of 7.5 minute quad on which site 1s located.
RED ARROW: A red arrow must be accurately located on pollution quads- place
a check after checking.
PRPs: Have Potential Responsible Parties been Identified and notified?- Yes or No.
LEAD: name of lead bureau, e.g., BCM, BFO, BSM, NBRE, DWR, BEECRA, BEAC, BGWDCM, BUST, BWS.
PROGRAM: name of program, e.g., ECRA, Superfund, A-280, Enforcement, NJPDES, UST, WSP.
DATE OPENED BY NJDEP: month/day/year.
DATE OF REVISION: date of latest comprehensive revision.
GEOLOGIST: use last name of geologist assigned to case.
SUPPORT: Geologic support group- BGWPA, BGWDC, BUST, BAP, BGWPAb.
STATUS: Chcose one of the following: investigation continuing, monitoring,
closec by lead agency.
SOURCE REMEDIATION: NA, none, ongoing, complete, discontinued, unknown.
FREE-PRODUCT RECOVERY: NA, none, ongoing, complete, discontinued, unknown.
GW PLUME DELINEATED?: Yes, No, partial.
GW PLUME CONTAINED?: Yes, No, partial.
GW RECOVERY: NA, none, ongoing (if ongoing, give gallons par day), complete,
discontinued, unknown.
GW TREATMENT: airstripping, GAC, biological, none, etc.
FATE OF RECOVERED GW: sanitary sewer, remjection, surface water, potable use, etc.
DIMENSIONS OF GW POLLUTION PLUMEU, W, T): 1n feet.
If unknown, give estimate if possible.
ESTIMATED VOLUME OF GW POLLUTION: in gallons. (L«W*T*Effective Porosity*7.48gal/cu ft).
LAND USE: Choose one: residential, industrial, agricultural, woodland,
comercial. Based on neighborhood surrounding the site.
PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE: Highlands, valley and Ridge, Piedmont, Coastal Plain.
SURFICIAL GEOLOGICAL FM: give formation name .
AQUIFER(S) AFFECTED, THREATENED: aouifer name, see attached list. If more than
one, separate by a comma.
PREDOM GW FLOW DIRECTION: N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW, complex (1f mulitdlrectional),
unknown.
DEPTH TO WATER: average depth to first water, 1n feet, NA or unknown.
DEPTH TO BEDROCK: average depth to competent bedrock, 1n feet, NA or unknown.
DEPTH TO CONFINING LAYER: average depth to first confining layer, 1n feet, NA
or unknown.
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY: avg., 1n ft/day. HYDRAULIC GRADIENT: avg.,1n ft/ft.
TOTAL NUMBER MONITOR WELLS: total » monitor wells Installed to monitor site.
PRIVATE DOMESTIC & COMMUNITY WELLS AFFECTED AND/OR THREATENED: approximate
number of wells. Closed and abandoned wells count as being affected.
VOLATILE ORGANICS, PRIORITY POLLUTANT METALS, BASE NEUTRALS, ACID EXTRACTABLES,
PCBS: Are they found 1n the ground water? Yes/No/Unknown.
OTHER: name(s) of contaminant(s) of special Importance, e.g., dloxln,
radlonuclides.Separate compounds with semicolons
OTHER INVSTIGATIONS DIRECTLY RELATED: List SAS * of other related Investigations.
Note-taking on the front of the data sheet Is encouraged.
-------
D-4
Contact "LEAD" for general questions or current status etc.:
Abbreviations-LEAD
BCM (Bureau of Case Management) 9 609-633-1455
BEAC (Bureau of ECRA Applicability and Compliance) 609-633-7141
BEECRA(Bur. Env. Eval. Cleanup & Rspnsblity Assmnt.) 609-633-7141
BEMOA (Bureau of Environmental Measures and Quality Assurance)
9 609-633-0783
BFO-Metro (Bureau of Field Operations) 201-669-3960
BFO-Northern (Bureau of Field Operations) t 201-299-7570
BFO-Central (Bureau of Field Operations) t 609-426-0700
BFO-Southern (Bureau of Field Operations) 609-346-8000
BGWDC (Bureau of Ground-Water Discharge Control) 609-292-0424
DHWM (Division of Hazardous Waste Management-Trenton) 9 609-292-9120
BSDW (Bureau of Safe Drinking Water) 9 609-292-5550
BSM (Bureau of Site Management) 9 609-984-2990
BWS (Bureau of Water Supply) 9 609-984-5862
BUST (Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks) 609-984-3156
MBRE (Metro Bureau of Regional Enforcement) 201-669-3900
NBRE (Northern Bureau of Regional Enforcement) 9 201-299-7592
SBRE (Southern Bureau of Regional Enforcement) 9 609-426-0791
CBRE (Central Bureau of Regional Enforcement) t 609-426-0786
BGWPAb (Bureau of Ground-Water Pollution Abatement) t 609-292-8427
BHWE (Bureau of Hazardous Waste Engineering) 9 609-292-9880
Abbreviations-PROGRAM
ENF- Water Resources Enforcement
NJPDES- New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
ECRA- Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act
SF- Superfund
A-280- Safe Drinking Water Act
U- Unknown
RCRA- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
UST- Underground Storage Tanks
BWS- Water Supply Replacement Program
BFO- Hazardous Waste Enforcement
For file review, mail Eleanor Santarsiero, Records Custodian
written request to: NJDEP, Central File
CN-029, Trenton, New Jersey 08625
-------
APPENDIX E
Bureau of Information Systems,
New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) Data Forms
-------
i vwx-oie
-- E-2
NEY* JERSEY OErARTMEVT Of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION Of WATER RESOURCES
WATER OUALmr MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GROUND WATER ANALYSIS - VOLATILE ORGANICS REPORT
-£>LJf Tfft 0* t*INT WITH BALLPOINT PEN
AGILITY NAME
r
lb
712
'
1
SAMPLE DATE
. . .; NJPOESNO, WlLLPEHMfTNO. TIL MO. (DAY MJ LAB CERT. Na
IT1 " NJI ! 1 I ! 1
T »
_g L J L
U JT 12 SJ
~J
17
MOM USE
g
T>a«CHlDUU INDICATED itLOW«TO iEO«SERVtOFRO« 1 t I t I TO [lilt
Ma Y». Ma TIL
MONTHS
ANALYSIS
UNITS
PAJUMCTIfl
VAtUf
X
i
i
i
f
i
i
:
,
.
| -
^ ,
,
i !
.,
r
*
i
i I
.
i
I i I
i
i
I
t i
I
i
I
i
Aeryionitrilt
Btnnnt
Bronvorofin
Cartoon Tttnchlorid*
WMoroo«n*tn*
cniofoo*Ww«"Oiu»a'w
ChloroTonn
1. 1 Oichlorotthant
1. 2- Dicftlorortiunc
1,1- Oictiloretthvttfx
1.2* Dicft(oreorop«n«
Ettiyibtnnna
MettivtcfM Chloride
1 . 1 . 2. 2 T«nonioroeth»r»t
T iLijUMUTtlLTlj
Taif acwiwJ u« UiVwfn
Totutnc
1.1.1*Trkh
-------
E-3
VWX-01S A
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
WATER QUALITY MANAGEM?NT ELEMENT
GROUND WATER ANALYSIS - MONITORING WELL REPORT
fLlASC TTfS OH HUNT WITH tALLfOINT P£N
tun
[R] KJ| j
J 1
>tSNO. WlU.fl
_ID LThl.
1
: sw IB NO.
SAMPLE OAT1
IRMFT Ma T». i MO. DAY MJ LAI CERT. NO.
..ion :~T:_D C:_L~
it IT a 13 IT
WQMUSE
a
THE SCHEDULE INOICATIfi SELOW IS TO SE OSSEKVCD f ROM
^ u.
SAMPLIMO: MONTHS
iniinm
MO. y*.
SUSMTT VTTB SIGNED T-VWX-OH
ANALYSIS
UNITS
AJUMSTtft
VALUE
1
I j
1
1
i
t
1
Elevation of toe of wtll easing with cap off
IB toectfitd in wtll eomplttisn report)
EJavar /on of original ground Irvtl
(as soteifitd in wtll eomolttion rtoort)
Otpth to wattr tablt from top of easing prior to
samoling with eao off
Otpth to wtttr tabla from original ground Itvtl
prior to samMine
Antnic, Dissolvtd
Barium. Dissolvtd
Bioehtmical Oxygan Otmand 5 Oav
Cadmium. Oissotvtd
Chlohdt. Dissotvad
Chromium. Oisio4vtd
Chromium. Dissolvtd. Hasavaltnt
Chamlcal Oxygan Otmand (COO). Dissolvtd
Coliform Group
Color
Copptr, Dissolvtd
Cvtnidt. Tetsl
cndnn. i otav
Fluoridt. Dittolvtd
Gross Aloha. Oitsolvtd
Grots Btta. Dlaorvtd
Hardntss. Total as CaCO|
Iron. Oissoivtd
Lasd. Ottsohrtd
Lindant. Total
Mangantst. Oistolvtd
Mtreurv, Disseivtd
ftttMSL:
to ntartn .01
ftttMSL:
to naartrt .01
fttt: to
ntartst .01
fttt: to
ntartrt .01
UG/L as As
UG/L as Ba
MG/L
UG/L as Cd
UG/L as Q
UG/L as Cr
U£/LasCr
MG/L
N/100ML
f\-Co
UG/L as Cu
MG/L as CN
UG/L
MG/L as f
*e/L
Pe/L
MG/L
UG/L as Ft
UG/L as Pb
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
8
7
0
2
2
1
S
0
0
4
1
0
6
9
0
o 1 loio's
0
0
8
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
.ojshlo
i
2
1
1
0
4
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
3
0
0
01
2
9
3
2
4
S
B
4
7^2
S
5
10
0
1
«
0
0
0
e!3|9lo
OJ9lSlO
1
5
3 S
0
B
1 JO
1
B
1
1
0
0
0
4
3
3
0
8
0|4JB
7(8
0
2
5(6
8 9
0
i
i
I
i
1
1
i j
!
I
1
i
VALUE COOING RULES AND « 4S4* S3 si
REMARK COOES ON REVERSE
l«
t o
-------
vr» A-J 13 o
uer*" i MCN i u>- CM VIHUMMfeNT AL
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
WATER OUALfTY MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GROUND WATER ANALYSIS - MONITORING WELL REPORT
E-4
ASK Tff£ OH 'HINT WITH BALLPOINTFfN
isw ic Ng.
NJPOES
1 C * IU 11
1 ^ f ^
1 *
NO.
1
§
WELL PERMIT NO.
n*
*i
SAMI
Y*.
IT
PLED
MO.
ATE
DAY
11
N.
J LA* CERT.
JJ
NO.
IT
WQMUSE
g
-HE SCHEDULE INDICATED IE LOW IS TO IE OtSERVEO PROM
] TO I ill I
MO. raw
SAMPLING MONTHS
SUtMJT wrrff SIGNED T-WX-014
AMALWIS
UMTTS
PARAMETER
VALUE
vt
x
JE
I
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
!
j I
I
i !
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
Mcthoxycnfor, Tout
Metnylene Blue Active Substances
Nitrogen, Ammonia , Dissolved NH, * NH4 as N
Nitrogen. Nitrate Oinotved
Odor
PH
Phenols, Total Recoverable
Radium 226, Dissolved
Radium 228, Dissolved
Selenium, Dissolved
Silver, Dissolved
Sodium, Dissolved
Sulfatt. Dissolved (as S04 )
Total Oiaolved Solids (TDS)
Total Organic Carbon (TOO
Total Organic Halogen (TOX)
Toxaphtfw
Turbidity
Zinc. Diaohwd
2. 4-0. Total
2. 4, 6-TP. Total
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L as N
MG/L as N
T.O.N.
Standard Units
UG/L
Pc/L
Pc/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
PPM
PPM
UG/L
UG/L
NTU
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
3 9
3
0
0
0
8
4
2
6JC
6 0
oieio 8
0618
008
5
OlOJ4lo|o
3 2|7!3'0
0;9|SJO
8 1
0
0
0
0
7
0
7
3
0
0
3
3
1
1
3 6
1
0
4
7
^9 3
0
9
0|3
0(6
0
9
0
1
9
9
3
4
0
0
4
0
3
6
5
5
0
6
0
8 0
5
0
7
3
0
6
9|0
3(7
0
4
i J
! i
0
6
1
i ! i i i
1 !
1
1
i 1
1
1 1 1
i
1
1
; j j t
l ;
;
i
! i
1
1
1
1
1
.' i
' i i
1
i
:
1
1
1
1
1 i
i
-
i :
i ;
1
1
1
1
1 I
i « .' n
1
! 1 i
i
1
i ' '
i
« «4J
ALUE CODING RULES AND H M«O
'EMARK CODES ON REVERSE " 7S
1
63 34
«T
78 ao
-------
4/S3
E-5
Ssv 3E9iSTV£'. - c= =»iv: = f.v = \-i
OIVIS.C'J Cr »VA" = S££C_ = C£:
WATE3 CLARITY MANAGEMENT ELE
GROUND WATER ANALYSIS - MONITORING V.'ELL REPORT
ft£AS£ TYP Cf> "PIHT WITH BALLPOINT P£fJ
FACILITY NA.V£ SW ID NO.
LAS NAME
SAMPLE DATE
NJPDES NO. WELL PERMIT NO. YR. i MO. i DAY NJ LAB CERT. NO.
[ui NJ! 1 i i i - !-! 1 1 ! 1 1 11
T 2 » 9 16 17 22 Z3 27
WOM USE
n
:s
THE SCHEDULE INDICATED BELOW IS TO BE OBSERVED FROM
MO. YR.
TO
MO. YR.
SUBMIT WfTH STGNED T- WX-014
SAMPLING MONTHS
v.
at
at
>». w 7
a 5 T 3 y
« 2 -5 ? < A
*
I
1
U
O
a
g ANALYSIS UNITS PARAMETER VALUE
O
! 1
1
1
1
1
1
!
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Benzidine
Calcium (dissolved)
DDT and Metabolites
Nitrogen Kjeldahl (dissolved)
Maznesium (dissolved)
Phosohorus as P
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Total
Soecific Conductance @25 C
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Streptococcus
Total Suspended Solids
Nickel (dissolved)
Potassium (dissolved)
Oil and Grease l?reon Extraetabl,
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
-' -
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
UG/L
MG/L as N
MG/L
>!C/L as P
UG/L
Umhos/cai
N/100 ML
N/100 ML
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
)MG/L
MG/KG
3l9l3l3io
3| 9 1|2
o! o!9
1
3l9l3l7
Oj 0|6
009
006
3| 95
0
C
0
2|3
2| 5
ft's
1| 6
ol ol o! 9
7
7
4
4
0(5
5
C
0|5| 4
ol oi 5
Oj 1| 0
8| 2; 0
J5. 0
8
3
6
3
sis
21 1|8
1
1
1
1
0
5
8
ft
0
I
I
i
1
1 1
1 1
1 U
I |
1 !
I 1
i
i i
1 i
!
.
1 I
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1 1
! 1
1 1
I
i 1
I i
1 i
1 i
! i
1 1
I
I I
! I
VALUE COOING RULES AND " "I*
REMARK CODES ON REVERSE JJ " "
40 -.:
S3 1^
S 15-
T9 8;
-------
APPENDIX F
Bureau of Environmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment, Geographic Information System
Proposed Data Screens
-------
_i; DATE, automatic
N^riE;
NAfig gQ» gT-g-
F-2
HAZSITE INPUT SCREEN
CIS FACILITY ID:
ADDRESS (of tite location)
STREET:
MUNICIPALITY:
COUNTY-
RESULATORY INFORMATION
AQgNCY:
u*AD RESULATORY PROGRAM:
OTHER INVOLVED PROGRAM:
M PREVIOUSLY
LEAD PROGRAM ID# FOR SITE: .
OTHER PROGRAMS ID* FOR SITE:
initial
TODAYS DATE: automatic
SITE DESCRIPTION
BUREAU/DIVISION: .
SITE SIZE (in acrtf) : * . . -v . LEVEL OF CONCERN
Jg e?TT? !S Fg3E?AL. nR «TATg QUNgD NAMg OF
QB
REDEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIAL U8E TO:
SPECIAL SITE TYPE DESCRIPTOR:
DESCRIBE PAST/CURRENT USE OF SITE:
DESCRIBE FUTURE USE OF SITS:
-------
~ jr r a u/ Contact: '.
Li * - program ID#:
F-3
CONTAMINATION
Sitt name: /
Today* dat»:
C * - - rise
of ^anc BtT
Evidenet of
tt migration: .
an tamn1 ina fram
Prtvious/othtr sampling coll»ct»d by:
CLASS CDMPQUNP
LOG.
IN GUI
LOG.
IN SOIL
OTHER
LOC
OFF-SITE
CONTAMINANT 1
CONTAMINANT 2
CDNTAH7NANT 3
CONTAMINATION
CONTINUED
.ASS COMPOUND
LOC.
IN ^W
LOC.
N SOIL
OTHER
OFF-SITE
LOG
CONTAMINANT 4
CONTAMINANT 5
CONTAMINANT &
~CNTAMINANT 7
CONTAMINANT B
-------
F-4
QROUNDWATER FLOW
8ur«au/Div. : CIS Facility ID*-
Ls*o Program ID*- . Site name:
AQUIFER
NAMES
(shallow)
(d*«p/inter. )
BETWEEN
Aq*J fc^Qj
I» thtre a confining laytr
Thickntt$ of confining l«ytr ....
Am? hyjirologie conn*etior>
BETWEEN
AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS
Confintd or Unconfintd
Bedrock or Uncontol idatt d
an «i*e
Numbtr of ut*ll»
Depth to groundwater
Date of
Direction of flow
Date of direction
PHASE OF MITIGATION
TODAYS BATE: ...... BUREAU* 1/CONTAC .......... *»**»****
. ____ HUREAU«g/CQNTACTi «
STATUS OF:
_ SA.P1PLINfl
CONTAnlNATION: .
REMEDIATION. . :
CU MONITORING: .
. --- .
PROBABLE IMPACT FROM : *»**»****»»»*» CIS FACILITY ID: ******
PROBABLE IMPACT TO. . . : **»**»**»»+**»» CIS FACILITY ID: »****
-------
F-5
REMEDIATION
Bu^tau/Ccntact : Todays data: . .
Sit» namt: ... CIS facility ID*:
Ltad program IDO:
atiBn- . . .
Month & Year Ar» datts projtcttd or actual
gtart rgmcaiatlon __
End rtmtaiation:
Uhich af tflt *Q]lnunnfl |1r«'-T>-ih» romadiatlan-
Containment : . On sit» treatmtnt:
Fixation : . Biological: ,
, ____^ Ch arnica I:
PftUftical : .
Diftpotal of location:
OTHER INFO ABOUT SITE
Site name: .- Today* Data:
-ad program ID*: CIS Facility ID*.
'^her eamcutgr iut»m3 tuith Info about tlfeg;
>te of risk atttssmtnt if ptrformtd: ....
,tncy ?< dat* of any htalth turvay:
5aure» of sit> location: .
Uhvrt on 913 to find tit* map (covtraga nadia).
I» aoeva cevtragt nama a updat; of praviout info: .
-------
F-6
HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL
Enter a
-------
SOIL REMEDIATION
Bureau/Contact; Todays datg: . .
£it» Nam»: ... h~r> <52S facility I DO: .
Liao program iD#:l^«^-rV
fltthod Start End ~ftw^nBiftk^a*i Residu
Data Datt Tgpt Amt (YD)
WATER REMEDIATION
Burtau/Cantact: .......... Today* datf:
Site Nam»: . ./?v.r^ ....................... CIS f«Cilttg ID*:
Liad program ID#: ..i
12
AECSdlWsJ Cont. M»thod Start End Rtndu«. R**»dui
Dat» Typ« Conc*n.
-------
F-8
Burt.au/Contact
L>ad program
Sit9
LONG TERM GROUND WATER MONITORING
._ Today* date
. . . 918 fa_ci_lLtu ID*
flonth & Y«*r
Start monitoring :
monitoring :
Art datis prejvcttd or actual
Cor»tainm*nt5 looking/monitorinfl for:
CLASS
COMPOUND
Contaminant I
_C_OJ5taminant "5.
Contaminant 3
Contaminant 4
-------
APPENDIX G
Summary Data for Ground-Water Pollution Investigations for Selected Counties In New Jersey
-------
Table G-1: Summary of Ground-Water Pollution Investigation Data Base
County
CAMDEN
HUNTERDON
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SOMERSET
New Jersey
No. of
Ground-Water
Investigations
175
102
193
299
167
147
181
1264
No. of
PCB
Detections
1
2
4
10
11
5
6
39
No. of
Metals
Detections
25
8
32
37
37
21
21
181
No. of
VOC
Detections
49
27
50
141
91
81
91
530
No. of Investiga-*
tions with Plume
Dimensions
2
3
4
4
8
5
13
39
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Ground-Water Pollution Assessment
Note: Table reflects site data collected as of 1989
9
fb
* Accurate plume dimension characterizations have been completed for few sites
because of the difficulties inherent in these hydrogeological investigations.
-------
Table G-2: Summary of Ground Water Pollution Investigation Data for Metals
County
CAMDEN
HUNTERDON
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SOMERSET
New Jersey
No. of
Ground-Water
Investigations
175
102
193
299
167
147
181
1264
No. of
Positive
Detections
25
8
32
37
37
21
21
181
No. of
Negative
Detections
12
17
22
32
19
5
42
149
Not
Tested
68
43
101
149
68
69
78
576
Unknown
if Metals
Were Tested
70
34
38
81
43
52
40
358
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Ground Water Pollution Assessment
9
CO
Note: Table reflects site data collected as of 1989
-------
Table G-3: Summary of Ground-Water Pollution Investigation Data Base for VOCs
County
CAMDEN
HUNTERDON
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SOMERSET
New Jersey
No. of
Ground-Water
Investigations
175
102
193
299
167
147
181
1264
No. of
Positive
Detections
49
27
50
141
91
81
91
530
No. of
Negative
Detections
11
13
14
14
10
0
13
75
Not
Tested
54
31
101
87
43
18
39
373
Unknown
if VOCs
Were Tested
61
31
28
57
23
48
38
286
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Ground-Water Pollution Assessment
Note: Table reflects site data collected as of 1989
-------
Table G-4: Summary of Ground-Water Pollution Investigation Data Base for RGBs
County
CAMDEN
HUNTERDON
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SOMERSET
New Jersey
No. of
Ground-Water
Investigations
175
102
193
299
167
147
181
1264
No. of
Positive
Detections
1
2
4
10
11
5
6
39
No. of
Negative
Detections
13
17
16
22
35
4
48
155
Not
Tested
91
49
135
186
78
86
87
712
Unknown
if PCBs
Were Tested
70
34
38
81
43
52
40
358
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Ground-Water Pollution Assessment
9
tn
Note: Table reflects site data collected as of 1989
-------
APPENDIX H
Summary of Volatile Organic Compound Detections for Selected Counties In New Jersey
-------
Table H-1.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Camden County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CIS 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DICHLOROBROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLBROMIDE
METHYLCHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
66
66
0
0
0
66
0
0
0
0
66
0
66
66
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
73
73
0
0
0
73
0
0
0
0
73
0
73
73
438
No.
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
8
3
21
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
2
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
2
1981
No.
Well
(A)
17
16
3
3
0
16
3
4
3
0
16
0
16
17
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
17
16
3
3
0
16
3
4
3
0
16
0
16
17
114
No.
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
4
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
41
41
41
41
0
41
41
41
41
0
41
0
41
41
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
41
41
41
41
0
41
41
41
41
0
41
0
41
41
451
No.
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
5
0
10
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
2
0
NT
0
2
1983
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
No.
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
-
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
_
-
NT
-
-
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
(1)
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
NT
NT
NT
(1)
NT
(2)
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*- Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-1.2: Sumarry of VOC Detections for Camden County, New Jersey
NT
(1)
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
(3)
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(4)
(2)
NT
(1)
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
TRANS 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYLCHLORIDE
XYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOETHYLENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
0
66
0
0
0
66
0
66
0
0
0
0
66
0
66
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
73
0
0
0
73
0
73
0
0
0
0
73
0
73
0
0
0
365
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
16
0
0
0
10
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
32
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
16
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
16
1981
No.
Well
(A)
0
16
3
3
0
16
3
16
3
3
0
0
16
3
16
0
3
3
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
16
3
3
0
16
3
16
3
3
0
0
16
3
16
0
3
3
104
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
12
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
4
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
2
0
1
0
NT
NT
7
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
41
41
41
0
41
41
41
41
41
0
6
41
41
41
6
41
41
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
41
41
41
0
41
41
41
41
41
0
6
41
41
41
6
41
41
545
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
10
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
6
0
7
0
0
0
29
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
10
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
6
0
0
0
NT
NT
16
1983
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
-
NT
-
-
NT
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*- Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-1.3: Summary of VOC Detections for Camden County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
BENZENE
CARBONTETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CIS 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DICHLOROBROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLBROMIDE
METHYLCHLORIDE
METHYLENECHLORIDE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
11
11
11
11
0
11
11
11
11
2
11
0
11
11
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
11
11
11
11
0
11
11
11
11
2
11
0
11
11
123
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
9
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
1
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
1
0
NT
0
2
1986
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
-
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
NT
-
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
70
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
98
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
(1)
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
NT
NT
NT
(D
NT
(2)
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) Is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*-* Signifies (hat Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(O) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-1.4: Summary of VOC Detections for Camden County, New Jersey
NT
(1)
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
(3)
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(4)
(2)
NT
0)
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
TRANS 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYLCHLORIDE
XYLENE
1.1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,t-DlCHLOROETHYLENE
1,1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOETHYLENE
1 .2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
11
11
11
0
11
11
11
11
11
0
0
11
11
11
0
11
11
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
11
11
11
0
11
11
11
11
11
0
0
11
11
11
0
11
11
143
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
7
1
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
4
0
0
0
21
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
6
NT
2
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
1
1
0
0
NT
NT
10
1986
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
-
NT
-
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
-
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
90
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
4
0
3
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
4
0
0
0
21
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
4
NT
3
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
7
1988
No.
Well
(A)
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
0
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
0
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
119
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
198<
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
)
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
I
on
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
"-* Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
-
-------
Table H-2.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Hunterdon County, New Jersey
(1)
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
NT
NT
NT
0)
NT
(2)
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CIS 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DICHLOROBROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLBROMIDE
METHYLCHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
-
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
_
-
NT
-
-
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) Is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*-' Signifies that Data are Missing tor that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-2.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Hunterdon County, New Jersey
NT
(1)
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
(3)
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
(4)
(2)
NT
(1)
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
TRANS 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYLCHLORIDE
XYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1.1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOETHYLENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
-
NT
-
-
NT
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
I
-vl
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
"-" Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-2.3: Summary of VOC Detections for Hunterdon County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CIS 1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DICHLOROBROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLBROMIDE
METHYLCHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
-
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
-
-
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
252
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
(1)
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
NT
NT
NT
(1)
NT
(2)
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*-* Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-2.4: Summary of VOC Detections for Hunterdon County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
TRANS 1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE '
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYLCHLORIDE
XYLENE
1.1-DICHLOROETHANE
1.1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOETHYLENE
1 .2-DICHLOROBEN2ENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
-
NT
-
-
NT
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
13
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
14
18
18
18
16
18
18
18
248
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
(1)
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
(3)
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
(4)
(2)
NT
0)
IX)
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
"-" Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-3.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Monmouth County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CIS 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DICHLOROBROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYL BROMIDE
METHYLCHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dots
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
9
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
9
27
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
-
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
_
-
NT
-
-
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
(1)
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
NT
NT
NT
(1)
NT
(2)
Source. National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*- Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number ot Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-3.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Monmouth County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
TRANS 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYLCHLORIDE
XYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 ,1 .1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 .2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOETHYLENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Gets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
-
NT
-
-
NT
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
(1)
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
(3)
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
(4)
(2)
NT
0)
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) Is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
"-' Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-3.3: Summary of VOC Detections for Monmouth County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CIS 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DICHLOROBROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLBROMIDE
METHYLCHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Gets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
-
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
-
-
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
(1)
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
NT
NT
NT
(1)
NT
(2)
to
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
US Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*-* Signifies that Data are Missing (or that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-3.4: Summaiy of VOC Detections for Monmouth County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
TRANS 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYLCHLORIDE
XYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 .2-DIBROMOETHYLENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHENE
1 .3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- :
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
-
NT
-
-
NT
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
(1)
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
(3)
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(4)
(2)
NT
0)
x
to
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*-* Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-4.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Morris County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CIS 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DICHLOROBROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLBROMIDE
METHYLCHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
-
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
-
-
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
(1)
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
NT
NT
NT
(D
NT
(2)
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
'- Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-4.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Morris County, New Jersey
NT
(1)
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
(3)
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
(4)
(2)
NT
0)
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
TRANS 1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYLCHLORIDE
XYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOETHYLENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
-
NT
-
-
NT
NT
-
~
-
NT
-
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
I
en
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*-* Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-4.3: Summary of VOC Detections for Morris County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBEN2ENE
CHLOROETHANE
CIS 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DICHLOROBROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLBROMIDE
METHYLCHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
16
16
16
16
0
16
16
16
16
9
16
0
16
16
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
16
16
16
16
0
16
16
16
16
9
16
0
16
16
185
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
-
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
NT
-
-
1987
No.
Well
(A)
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
266
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
2
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
14
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
56
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
140
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
5
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
(1)
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
NT
NT
NT
(1)
NT
(2)
o>
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
"-* Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-4.4: Summary of VOC Detections for Morris County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
TRANS 1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYLCHLORIDE
XYLENE
1 .1 -DICHLOROETHANE
1.1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOETHYLENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 .2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
16
16
16
0
16
16
16
16
16
0
9
16
16
16
5
16
16
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
16
16
16
0
16
16
16
16
16
0
9
16
16
16
5
16
16
174
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
12
0
3
0
1
2
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
14
No.
Dels
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
10
NT
3
0
NT
NT
0
1
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
1
1986
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- :
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
-
NT
-
-
NT
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
1987
No.
Well
(A)
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
266
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
10
4
0
1
4
3
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
20
No.
Dels
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
5
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
54
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
130
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
6
0
3
0
3
5
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
6
0
0
0
17
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
4
NT
1
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
1
0
NT
NT
1
NT
(1)
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
(3)
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
(4)
(2)
NT
0)
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
"-* Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-5.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Ocean County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CIS 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DICHLOROBROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLBROMIDE
METHYLCHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
28
10
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
10
0
10
27
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
28
10
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
10
0
10
27
103
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
1
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
1
1982
No.
Well
(A)
153
1
1
1
0
1
1
153
1
0
1
0
1
153
No.
Sam.
Takn
Anlz
(B)
153
1
1
1
0
1
1
153
1
0
1
0
1
153
467
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
-
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
_
NT
NT
_
-
NT
-
-
1984
No.
Well
(A)
16
16
16
0
0
16
16
16
0
0
16
0
16
16
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
16
16
16
0
0
16
16
16
0
0
16
0
16
16
144
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
(1)
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
NT
NT
NT
0)
NT
(2)
00
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*- Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-5.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Ocean County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
TRANS 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TR ICHLOROFLUOROMETH ANE
VINYLCHLORIDE
XYLENE
1.1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 .1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 .1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOETHYLENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANS-DICHLOHOETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
0
10
0
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
10
0
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
40
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
No.
Sam.
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
13
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
-
NT
-
-
NT
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
16
16
0
0
16
16
16
16
16
0
0
16
16
16
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
16
16
0
0
16
16
16
16
16
0
0
16
16
16
0
0
0
160
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
0)
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
(3)
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(4)
(2)
NT
(1)
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
-' Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-5.3: Summary of VOC Detections for Ocean County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CIS 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DICHLOROBROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLBROMIDE
METHYLCHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
-
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
-
-
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
322
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
4
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
13
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
4
0
3
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
1
0
NT
0
8
(1)
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
NT
NT
NT
(1)
NT
(2)
I
o
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
"-" Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-5.4: Summary of VOC Detections for Ocean County, New Jersey
NT
(1)
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
(3)
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(4)
(2)
NT
0)
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
TRANS 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYLCHLORIDE
XYLENE
1 ,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 -DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOETHYLENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
-
NT
-
-
NT
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takri
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
0
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
299
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
7
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
4
0
3
0
3
6
0
0
0
22
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
6
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
3
4
NT
0
0
2
0
0
NT
NT
9
I
ro
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
- Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-6.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Passaic County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CIS 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DICHLOROBROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLBROMIDE
METHYLCHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
P)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
_
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
-
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
-
-
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
(1)
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
NT
NT
NT
0)
NT
(2)
X
to
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*-" Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-6.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Passaic County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
TRANS 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYLCHLORIDE
XYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 .1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOETHYLENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
-
NT
-
-
NT
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
(1)
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
(3)
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
(4)
(2)
NT
0)
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(i) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
-* Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-6.3: Summary of VOC Detections for Passaic County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CIS 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DICHLOROBROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLBROMIDE
METHYLCHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
-
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
-
-
1987
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
(1)
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
NT
NT
NT
(1)
NT
(2)
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*-' Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-6.4: Summary of VOC Detections for Passaic County, New Jersey
NT
(1)
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
(3)
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(4)
(2)
NT
0)
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
TRANS 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYLCHLORIDE
XYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOETHYLENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
NO.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-.
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
-
NT
-
-
NT
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
1987
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
to
en
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
-' Signifies that Data are Missing (or that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-7.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Somerset County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CIS 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DICHLOROBROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLBROMIDE
METHYLCHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
-
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
-
-
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
(1)
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
NT
NT
NT
(1)
NT
(2)
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*-' Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-7.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Somerset County, New Jersey
NT
(1)
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
(3)
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(4)
(2)
NT
(1)
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
TRANS 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYLCHLORIDE
XYLENE
1.1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 .2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 .2-DIBROMOETHYLENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Oets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Oets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
-
NT
-
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
-
..
-
-
_
NT
NT
-
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
I
r\j
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
"-" Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-7.3: Summary of VOC Detections for Somerset County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CIS 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DICHLOROBROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLBROMIDE
METHYLCHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
?
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
-
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
-
-
1987
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
112
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
(1)
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
NT
NT
NT
0)
NT
(2)
rv>
CD
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
- Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table H-7.4: Summary of VOC Dectections for Somerset County, New Jersey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
TRANS 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYLCHLORIDE
XYLENE
1 ,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 -DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 .1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 . 1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOETHYLENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 .2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-D|CHLOROPROPENE
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
1987
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
112
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
NT
0
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
(1)
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
(3)
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(4)
(2)
NT
(1)
r\j
to
Source: National Water Iniormation System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold Is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
'-* Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
-------
APPENDIX I
Supplementary Material Describing Nitrate Indicator Information
-------
Table J-1: Summary of Nitrate Detections, New Jersey
COUNTY
CAMDEN
HUNTERDON
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SOMERSET
New Jersey
1980
No.
Well
(A)
68
0
0
0
0
0
0
68
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
69
0
0
0
0
0
0
69
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
69
0
0
0
0
0
0
69
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
81
0
0
81
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
81
0
0
81
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
60
0
0
60
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1982
No.
Well
(A)
47
0
10
0
171
0
0
228
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
47
0
10
0
171
0
0
228
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
20
0
3
0
133
0
0
156
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1983
No.
Well
(A)
2
1
0
4
7
0
0
14
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
2
1
0
4
7
0
0
14
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
1
0
2
4
0
0
7
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
19
1
23
0
0
43
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
19
1
23
0
0
43
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
COUNTY
CAMDEN
HUNTERDON
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SOMERSET
New Jersey
1985
No.
Well
(A)
45
0
46
59
16
0
0
166
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
49
0
46
59
16
0
0
170
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
23
0
3
39
1
0
0
66
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
1
0
4
12
1
0
0
18
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
0
4
12
1
0
0
18
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
2
5
0
0
0
7
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
1
9
4
81
0
3
6
104
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
9
4
84
0
3
6
107
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
7
0
52
0
2
5
66
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
7
21
2
7
0
2
11
50
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
7
23
2
7
0
2
11
52
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
7
20
0
6
0
2
9
44
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
3
2
0
72
5
4
0
86
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
3
2
0
117
16
4
0
142
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
3
2
0
82
12
3
0
102
No.
Dets
Exc
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
U.S. Geological Survey
MCL: 10.0 mg/L (as nitrogen)
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the Federal MCL
ro
-------
APPENDIX K
Supplementary Material Describing Agricultural Pesticide Usage In New Jersey
-------
K-2
Two reports summarizing the information obtained from the 1985 private agricultural pesticide
applicator survey in New Jersey are listed below:
(a) 'New Jersey Pesticide Use Survey" by Judith B. Louis (DSR NJDEP), Mark G. Robson
(NJ Department of Agriculture) and George C. Hamilton (Rutgers University); and,
(b) 'Effect of Agricultural Chemicals on Groundwater Quality in the New Jersey Coastal
Plain1, by Judith B. Louis (DSR, NJDEP) and Eric Vowinkle (USGS, Water Resources
Division, New Jersey).
These data are also being used by the USGS to plan projects that will monitor pesticide residues in
both ground and surface water.
Other publications are available that contain relevant information on pesticide use in New Jersey. Two
recent publications are listed below:
(a) 'Relation of Land Use to Ground-water Quality in the Outcrop Area of the Potomac-
Raritan Magothy Aquifer System", New Jersey by George R. Kish, Eric F. Vowinkle,
Thomas V. Fusillo, and William A. Battaglin. National Water Summary 1986, Ground-
Water Quality-Water Quality Issues.
This article evaluates the effects of use activities on the quality of water in the Potomac-Raritan-
Magothy aquifer system of New Jersey. It also is an example of non-point source contamination of
groundwater. In the northern study area, ground-water samples collected between 1984 and 1985
were analyzed for three types of organic compounds: pesticides (65 wells), phenols (69 wells) and
aromatic chlorinated volatile compounds (71 wells). Samples collected in the southern area were not
analyzed for pesticides.
Pesticides were detected at low concentrations ($ 0.5 ug/l) in 7 of the 65 wells (11 percent). Three
organochloride insecticides (DDD, lindane and dieldrin) were detected, and two triazine herbicides
(atrazine and simazine) were detected. Pesticides were found more frequently in agricultural areas (20
percent) than in other land use areas.
(b) 'Preliminary Assessment of Water Quality and Its Relation to Hydrogeology and Land
Use: Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey", by Cynthia Barton, Eric
F. Vowinkle, and John P. Nawyn, USGS, Water Resources Investigations Report, 87-
4023, 1987.
For this study, an inventory of ground-water contamination sites and contaminants detected was
compiled to determine the types of ground-water contaminants and the areal distribution of
contamination. Data were obtained from the New Jersey Ground Water Pollution Index files; the
Management Plan 1983-1986 for Hazardous Waste Site Cleanups in New Jersey; the Bureau of
Environmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment files; the Emergency Remedial Response Information
System (ERRIS) list; and the National Priorities List.
Pesticides were detected at twelve sites. Dieldrin, endrin, chlordane, DDD, DDE, and DDT were most
frequently detected. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected at six sites and phenols at
seven sites.
-------
APPENDIX L
Summary Data of Agricultural Pesticide Usage by Private Registered Applicators In New Jersey
-------
L-2
Table L-1
Total Number of
Registrants by County
County
ATLANTIC
BERGEN
BURLINGTON
CAMDEN
CAPE MAY
CUMBERLAND
ESSEX
GLOUCESTER
HUNTERDON
MERCER
MIDDLESEX
MONMOUTH
MORRIS
OCEAN
PASSAIC
SALEM
SOMERSET
SUSSEX
UNION
WARREN
Total
1985
249
42
251
35
32
121
6
198
146
59
88
97
55
26
13
121
45
42
12
84
1,722
1988
262
27
229
31
32
155
7
206
139
57
81
87
57
29
13
129
41
27
8
86
1 ,703
Percent
Change
5.2%
-35.70/0
-8.8%
-11.4%
0.0%
28.1%
16.7Q/0
4.0%
-4.8%
-3.40/o
-8.0%
-10.3%
3.6%
1 1 .5%
0.0%
6.6%
-8.9%
-35.7o/o
-33.30/0
2.4%
-1.1%
-------
Table L-2
Fungicides
Number of
Registrants
County in County
1985
Amount of Average
Active Application
Ingredient Rate
[lbs| libs/acre]
ATLANTIC 136 121,080 6.2
BERGEN 23 1,310 3.1
BURLINGTON 100 73,228 3.9
CAMDEN 19 11,682 8.3
CAPE MAY 10 394 2.6
CUMBERLAND 50 81,487 4.9
ESSEX 2 26 1.0
GLOUCESTER 100 247,736 5.9
HUNTERDON 50 4,631 4.2
MERCER 14 2,728 3.8
MIDDLESEX 33 10,334 2.5
MONMOUTH 36 8,198 3.1
MORRIS 30 2,894 2.8
OCEAN 11 907 1.3
PASSAIC 5 181 2.5
SALEM 38 23,258 2.0
SOMERSET 14 1,323 4,0
SUSSEX 22 4,101 4.9
UNION 3 73 16.3
WARREN 24 2.552 ' 3.0
Number of
Registrants
in County
169
16
105
24
13
84
3
120
54
21
29
43
38
16
7
49
14
16
5
27
Total: 720 598,122 4.9 853
1988
Amount of
Active
Ingredient
[Ibsl
125.295
1,776
69,780
21.353
837
137.222
29
301 .858
7,492
4.827
9.753
9.608
2.477
1.557
2.933
34,471
466
1.953
74
3,520
737.280
Average
Application
Rate
[Ibs/acrel
4.4
3.1
4.0
5.8
3.9
5.1
1.8
3.5
4.4
3.1
1.5
2.8
0.1
0.9
0.3
2.0
1.8
2.6
82.2
2.7
Percent Change
Amount of
Active
Ingredient
Hbsl
3.5%
35.6%
-4.7%
82.8%
112.3%
68.4%
13.3%
21.8%
61.8%
76.9%
-5.6%
17.2%
-14.4%
71.6%
1520.3%
48.2%
-64.8%
-52.4%
Average
Application
Rate
[Ibs/acrel
-29.0%
0.0%
2.6%
-30.1%
50.0%
4.1%
800%
-40.7%
4.8%
-18.4%
-40.0%
-9.7%
-96.4%
Number of
Registrants
in County
24.3%
-30.4%
5.0%
26.3%
30.0%
68.0%
50.0%
20.0%
8.0%
50.0%
-12.1%
19.4%
26.7%
-30.8% 45.5%
-88.0%
0.0%
-55.0%
-46.9%
40.0%
28.9%
0.0%
-27.3%
1.1% 404.3% 66.7%
37.9%
3.2 23.3%
-10.0%
-34.8%
12.5%
18.5%
Please note that many of the above-values contain extra decimal places that have been rounded off. Percents and averages were computed using the original values.
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Pesticide Operations
-------
Table L-3
Growth Regulators
Number of
Registrants
County in County
1985
Amount of Average
Active Application
Ingredient Rate
(Ibs) [Ibs/acre]
ATLANTIC 10 262 0.9
BERGEN 8 22 3.4
BURLINGTON 12 613 1.6
CAMDEN 2 1 0.7
CAPE MAY 1
0 0.0
CUMBERLAND 2 59 1.0
ESSEX 1
3 6.6
GLOUCESTER 16 394 0.6
HUNTERDON 7 23 0.8
MERCER 3 53 0.3
MIDDLESEX 2 4 2.5
MONMOUTH 1
0 0.1
MORRIS 9 136 1.0
OCEAN 1
13 25.0
PASSAIC 0 0 0.0
SALEM 4 92 0.9
SOMERSET 3 32 6.6
SUSSEX 3 37 0.3
UNION 1
40 11.3
WARREN 3 11 0.7
1988
Amount of
Number of Active
Registrants Ingredient
in County [Ibs]
10 49
5 41
9 298
2 2
1 0
6 201
0 0
11 80
4 20
3 8
4 61
5 40
15 153
2 1
1 1 ,275
9 853
4 17
4 2
2 45
4 17
Total: 89 1.795 0.9 101 3,161
Average
Application
Rate
|lbs/acre]
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.7
<0.1
0.4
1.9
0.1
6.7
0.7
<0.1
2.2
0.8
1.3
8.3
0.4
<0.1
0.2
Percent Change
Amount of
Active
Ingredient
|lbs]
-81.5%
81.3%
-51.4%
130.0%
n/a
242.3%
n/a
-79.8%
-12.9%
-84.2%
1535.1%
n/a
12.0%
-91.2%
n/a
826.6%
-48.3%
-95.4%
14.1%
56.4%
0.9 76.1%
Average
Application
Rate
[Ibs/acre]
-88.9%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
n/a
-300%
-100.0%
-33.3%
137.5%
-66.7%
168.0%
600.0%
-100.0%
-91.2%
n/a
44.4%
25.8%
33.3%
-100.0%
-71.4%
1.0%
Please note that many of the above' values contain extra decimal places that have been rounded off. Percents and averages were computed using the
Number of
Registrants
in County
0.0%
-37.5%
-25.0%
0.0%
n/a
200.0%
-100.0%
-31.3%
-42.9%
0.0%
100.0%
400.0%
66.7%
100.0%
n/a
125.0%
33.3%
33.3%
100.0%
33.3%
13.5%
original values.
Source: New Jersey Deparment of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Pesticide Operations
-------
Table L-4
Herbicides
Number of
Registrants
County In County
1985
Amount of Average
Active Application
Ingredient Rate
[Ibs] (Ibs/acre]
ATLANTIC 99 25,978 1.9
BERGEN 16 337 1.5
BURLINGTON 165 91.144 1.2
CAMDEN 14 2,771 1.3
CAPE MAY 18 4,090 2.0
CUMBERLAND 73 40.7BO 1.4
ESSEX
1 22 0.7
GLOUCESTER 91 19.391 0.8
HUNTERDON 99 38,172 1.4
MERCER 41 31.786 1.2
MIDDLESEX 40 16.331 0.9
MONMOUTH 54 35.142 1.6
MORRIS 23 6.068 1.6
OCEAN 14 5.697 1.1
PASSAIC 3 116 2.5
SALEM 88 101.155 2.4
SOMERSET 29 15,046 1.2
SUSSEX 23 3,199 2.2
UNION
3 25 1.9
WARREN 68 34,862 1.5
1988
Amount of Average
Number of Active Application
Registrants Ingredient Rate
In County [Ibs] |lbs/acre|
153 28.857 1.7
9 419 4.6
150 74.272 1.1
14 2.790 0.2
13 5,841 1.9
110 49.111 1.1
4 705 0.9
139 38,959 1.1
99 26,437 1.3
42 21.835 0.9
54 28.455 1.0
50 20,419 1.3
30 5.646 0.4
15 7.414 1.3
4 310 2.9
99 94,223 1.9
27 8,639 1.1
16 2,902 1.5
4 119 5.4
67 28.957 1.6
Percent Change
Amount of
Active
Ingredient
[lbs|
11.1%
24.3%
-18.5%
0.7%
42.8%
20.4%
Average
Application
Rate
(Ibs/acrej
Number of
Registrants
in County
-10.5% 54.5%
206.7%
-8.3%
-43.8%
-9.1%
-84.6% 0.0%
-5.0% -27.8%
-21.4%
50.7%
3148.4% 28.6% 300.0%
100.9% 37.5% 52.7%
-30.7% -7.1% 0.0%
-31.3% -25.0% 2.4%
74.2% 11.1% 35.0%
-41.9% -18.8% -7.4%
-6.9% -75.0% 30.4%
30.1% 18.2% 7.1%
167.6% 16.0% 33.3%
-6.9% -20.8% 12.5%
-42.6% -8.3% -6.9%
-9.3% -31.8% -30.4%
372.1% 184.2% 33.3%
-16.9% 6.7% -1.5%
Tolal: 962 472.112 1.4 1099 446.309 1.2 -5.5% -15.5% 14.2%
Please note that many of the above values contain extra decimal places that have been rounded off. Percents and averages were computed using the original values.
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Pesticide Operations
-------
Table L-5
Insecticides
Number ol
Registrants
County in County
1985
Amount of Average
Active Application
Ingredient Rate
[Ibs] jibs/acre]
ATLANTIC 239 69,345 1.4
BERGEN 42 4.787 5.3
BURLINGTON 202 58,969 1.3
CAMDEN 33 4,446 1.3
CAPE MAY 26 3,607 2.3
CUMBERLAND 100 53,940 1.1
ESSEX 6 284 4.0
GLOUCESTER 179 84,543 1.3
HUNTERDON 99 6,405 1.4
MERCER 42 12.640 1.1
MIDDLESEX 77 13.522 0.6
MONMOUTH 83 16,936 1.2
MORRIS 48 7.209 3.9
OCEAN 21 6.553 1.5
PASSAIC 11 306 1.1
SALEM 95 44,501 1.4
SOMERSET 29 2,592 1.1
SUSSEX 35 3.759 1.4
UNION 11 653 8.2
WARREN 60 12,589 1.5
1988
Amount of Average
Number of Active Application
Registrants Ingredient Rate
in County (Ibs] |lbs/acre)
254 67,539 1.5
27 1,485 2.1
184 63.998 1.4
29 6.761 2.1
28 1,070 0.7
126 141,873 2.6
6 32 0.6
183 77.874 0.8
87 4,447 1.1
38 10.226 1.9
69 10,964 1.0
71 10.498 1.1
53 4,087 0.2
22 10.410 1.9
13 3.174 0.8
100 138.020 3.8
28 4,195 3.6
20 2,577 2.9
8 2.216 49.4
58 8,436 1.2
Percent Change
Amount of
Active
Ingredient
[Ibs]
-2.6%
-69.0%
8.5%
52.1%
-70.3%
163.0%
-88.7%
-7.9%
-30.6%
-19.1%
-18.9%
-38.0%
-43.3%
58.9%
935.9%
210.2%
61.8%
-31.5%
239.2%
-33.0%
Total: 1438 407,585 1.3 1404 569,882 1.6 39.8%
Average
Application
Rate
[Ibs/acre]
7.1%
-60.4%
7.7%
61.5%
-69.6%
136.4%
-85.0%
-38.5%
-21.4%
72.7%
66.7%
-8.3%
-94.9%
26.7%
-27.3%
171.4%
227.3%
107.1%
502.4%
-20.0%
26.4%
Number of
Registrants
in County
6.3%
-35.7%
-8.9%
-12.1%
7.7%
26.0%
0.0%
2.2%
-12.1%
-9.5%
-10.4%
-14.5%
10.4%
4.8%
18.2%
5.3%
-3.4%
-42.9%
-27.3%
-3.3%
-2.4%
Please note that many of the above values contain extra decimal places that have been rounded off. Percents and averages were computed using the original values
Source: New Jersey Department ol Environmental Protection
Bureau ol Pesticide Oeprations
-------
Table L-6
Fumigants
Number of
Registrants
County in County
1985
Amount ol Average
Active Application
Ingredient Rale
[Ibsl jibs/acre]
ATLANTIC 52 5,384 2.9
BERGEN 7 80 11.5
BURLINGTON 29 17.427 6.1
CAMDEN 11 639 3.9
CAPE MAY 3 230 17.0
CUMBERLAND 14 1,728 1.3
ESSEX
1 2 3.2
GLOUCESTER 36 18.032 4.1
HUNTERDON 10 462 4.0
MERCER 6 148 3.5
MIDDLESEX 13 668 0.8
MONMOUTH 12 2.202 9.3
MORRIS 14 710 11.1
OCEAN
1 4 8.0
PASSAIC 4 2,825 209.2
SALEM 17 4.592 1.4
SOMERSET 4 96 3.5
SUSSEX 4 83 3.1
UNION 2 2 2.0
WARREN 12 997 3.1
1988
Amount ol
Number ol Active
Registrants Ingredient
in County |lbs]
44 8.768
10 351
17 1.351
5 950
2 315
20 15.724
1 4
41 14.351
13 637
7 1.694
13 1.076
13 1.801
23 1.364
2 414
4 136
6 2,320
6 210
5 47
4 59
7 604
Total: 252 56,309 3.6 243 52,177
Average
Application
Rate
(Ibs/acre]
17,6
350.6
5.1
25.3
31.5
14.2
1.3
1.7
7.8
6.1
1.2
0.2
0.1
14.5
15.1
13.5
7.0
4.7
0.0
11.6
Percent Change
Amount of
Active
Ingredient
libs)
Average
Application
Rate
(Ibs/acre)
62.8% 506.9%
336.1% 2948.7%
Number of
Registrants
in County
-15.4%
42.9%
-92.2% -16.4% -41.4%
48.6% 548.7% -54.5%
37.3% 85.3%
-33.3%
810.0% 992.3% 42.9%
150.0% -59.4% 0.0%
-20.4% -58.5% 13.9%
37.9% 95.0% 30.0%
1048.7% 74.3% 16.7%
61.2% 50.0% 0.0%
-18.2% -97.8% 8.3%
92.1% -99.1% 64.3%
10260.0% 81.3% 100.0%
-95.2% -92.8% x 0.0%
-49.5% 864.3% -64.7%
119.2% 100.0% 50.0%
-42.7% 51.6% 25.0%
2830.0% -100.0% 100.0%
-39.4% 274.2% -41.7%
1.5 -7.3% -58.2% -3.6%
Please note that many of the above values contain extra decimal places that have been rounded off. Percents and averages were computed using the original values.
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Pesticide Operations
-------
Table L-7
Rodenticides
Number of
Registrants
County in County
ATLANTIC
1985
Amount ol Average
Active Application
Ingredient Rate
[Ibs] |lbs/acre|
I 10 0,1
BERGEN 000
BURLINGTON 000
CAMDEN 000
CAPE MAY 000
CUMBERLAND 000
ESSEX 000
GLOUCESTER 000
HUNTERDON 3 17.6 0.2
MERCER
1 9.8 0.2
MIDDLESEX 00 0
MONMOUTH 000
MORRIS 000
OCEAN 0 00
PAS3AIC 000
SALEM 000
SOMERSET
1 0.8 0.3
SUSSEX 000
UNION 000
WARREN 000
1988
Amount of
Number ol Active
Registrants Ingredient
in County |lbs)
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0.1
2 2.4
0 0
1 1
0 0
1 20.5
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
1 3.6
Total: 6 38 0.2 8 30
Average
Application
Rate
libs/acre)
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
<0.1
0.1
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0.2
Percent Change
Amount of Average
Active Application
Ingredient Rate
[lbs| |lbs/acre|
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
-86.4% -50.0%
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
25.0% -100.0%
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
0.7 -22.5% 342.2%
Number of
Registrants
in County
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
-33.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
33.3%
00
Please note that many of the above values contain extra decimal places that have been rounded off. Percents and averages were computed using the original values.
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
-------
Table L-8
Miscellaneous
Number of
Registrants
County in County
1985
Amount ot Average
Active Application
Ingredient Rate
fibs] (Ibs/acre)
ATLANTIC 51 5,488 2,1
BERGEN
0 0.1
BURLINGTON 22 3,891 2.1
CAMDEN 4 56 0.7
CAPE MAY 2 38 7.7
CUMBERLAND 21 7,552 1.0
ESSEX 0 0 0.0
GLOUCESTER 35 1.562 0.6
HUNTERDON 7 9 0.1
MERCER 5 248 1.2
MIDDLESEX 7 1.283 1.1
MONMOUTH 11 508 0.6
MORRIS 3 16 0.4
OCEAN
1 2 0.3
PASSAIC 0 0 0.0
SALEM 18 6,386 2.8
SOMERSET
SUSSEX
UNION
1 28 55.8
3 915 11.4
1 1 1.4
WARREN 3 22 1.3
1988
Amount of Average
Number of Active Application
Registrants Ingredient Rate
In County (Ibs] jibs/acre]
38 3.506 1.6
0 0 0.0
19 1.673 1.1
2 1 0.4
2 33 <0.1
30 4,002 0.3
1 3 3.2
38 1.245 0.2
6 774 6.4
6 850 3.9
5 40 0.1
8 371 0.8
4 86 0.3
4 274 12.4
0 0 0.0
11 593 0.4
1 14 0.3
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
7 2.499 6.4
Percent Change
Amount ol
Active
Ingredient
[IbsJ
-36.1%
n/a
-57.0%
-97.7%
-14.1%
-47.0%
n/a
-20.3%
Average
Application
Rate
(Ibs/acre)
-23.8%
n/a
-47.6%
Number of
Registrants
in County
-255%
n/a
-136%
-42.9% -50.0%
-100.0% 0.0%
-70.0%
n/a
42.9%
n/a
-66.7% 86%
8135.1% 6300.0% -14.3%
242.6%
225.0% 20.0%
-96.9% -90.9% -286%
-27.1% 33.3% -27.3%
431.5% -25.0% 33.3%
13600.0% 4033.3% 300.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
-90.7% -85.7% -38.9%
-51.3% -99.5% 0.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
11208.6% 392.3% 133.3%
Total: 196 28,006 1.4 182 15.964 0.6 -43.0% -58.5% -7.1%
CD
Please note that many of the above1 values contain extra decimal places that have been rounded oil. Percents and averages were computed using the original values.
Source: New Jersey Department ol Environmental Protection,
Bureau ol Pesticide Operations
-------
L-10
Table L-9.1
Chemicals by Pesticide Type
Fungicides
ANILAZINE
BARIUM POLYSULFIDE
BARIUM SULFIDE
BENOMYL
CAPTAFOL
CAFTAN
CHLOROTHALONIL
COPPER
COPPER HYDROXIDE
COPPER SULFATE
DICHLONE
DICLORAN
DINOCAP
DODEMORPH
DODINE
ETRIDIAZOLE
FENAMINOSULF
FENARIMOL
FERBAM
FOLPET
FOSETYL-AL
GLYODIN
IPRODIONE
MANCOZEB
MANEB
METALAXYL
MET1RAM
OXYTHIOQUINOX
PIPERALIN
PROPICONAZOLE
QUINTOZENE
SULFUR
THIABENDAZOLE
THIOPHANATE
THIRAM
TRIADIMEFON
TRIFORINE
VINCLOZOLIN
ZINEB
ZIRAM
-------
L-11
Table L-9.2
Chemicals by Pesticide Type
Growth Regulators
ANCYMIDOL
CHLORMEQUAT CHLORIDE
DAMINOZ1DE
ETHEPHON
GIBBERELLIN
WNOPRENE
NAA
NAO
PACLOBUTRAZOL
Table L-9.3
Chemicals by Pesticide Type
Herbicides
2,4-D
ACIFLUORFEN
ALACHLOR
ALLIDOCHLOR
AMITROL
AMMONIUM SULFATE
ATRAZINE
BENFLURALIN
BENSULIDE
BENTAZON
BICEP
BROMACIL
BROMOXYNIL
BRONCO
BULLET
BUTYLATE
CHLORAMBEN
CHLOREA
CHLORIDAZON
CHLORIMURON ETHYL
CHLOROXURON
CHLORPROPHAM
CHLORTHAL-DIMETHYL
CLOMOZONE
COMMENCE
CROSSBOW
CYANAZINE
-------
L-12
Table L-9.3 Con't
Chemicals by Pesticide Type
| Herbicides (continued)
CYCLOATE
DALAPON
OICAMBA
!DICHLOBENIL
'DIETHATYL ETHYL
DINOSEB
DIPHENAMID
DIQUAT
DIURON
DSMA
EPTC
EXTRAZINE
FENOXAPROP-ETHYL
FLUAZIFOP-BUTYL
GEMINI
GLYPHOSATE
HEXAZINONE
IMAZAQUIN
IMAZETHAPYR
LACTOFEN
LARIAT
LESCO 3 WAY
LINURON
MCPP
METOLACHLOR
METRIBUZIN
MSMA
NAPROPAMIDE
NAPTALAM
NORFLURAZON
OH2
ORYZALIN
OXADIAZON
OXYFLUORFEN
PARAQUAT
PEBULATE
PENDIMETHALIN
PHENMEDIPHAM
PICLORAM
PRELUDE
PROMETON
PRONAMIDE
JPROPACHLOR
jPROZINE
iQUIZALOFOP-ETHYL
-------
L-13
Table L-9.3 Con't
Chemicals by Pesticide Type
Herbicides (continued)
ROUT
SALUTE
SETHOXYDIM
SIDURON
SIMAZINE
SQUADRON
SULFALLATE
SUTAZINE
TEBUTHIURON
TERBACIL
TRIFLURALIN
TRIMEC
Table L-9.4
Chemicals by Pesticide Type
Insecticides
ABAMECTIN
ACEPHATE
ALDICARB
ALFALFA 22E
ALFA-TOX
AMITRAZ
AZINOPHOS-METHYL
BAYTHROID
BENDIOCARB
BIFENTHRIN
BT
CARBARYL
CARBOFURAN
CARBOPHENOTHION
CHLORPYRIFOS
CROTOXYPHOS
CYHEXATIN
CYPERMETHRIN
DDVP
DEM ETON
OIAZINON
DICHLORVOS
DICOFOL
DIENOCHLOR
DIFLUBENZURON
-------
L-14
Table L-9.4 Con't
Chemicals by Pesticide Type
Insecticides (continued)
DIMETHOATE
DISULFOTAN
DISULFOTON
DYMET
ENDOSULFAN
ETHION
ETHOPROP
FENAMIPHOS
FENBUTATIN OXIDE
FENSULFOTHION
FENTHION
FENVALERATE
FLUCYTHRINATE
FLUVALINATE
FONOFOS
FORMETANATE
ISOFENPHOS
ISOTOX SEED
LEAD ARSENATE
LINDANE
MALATHION
METHAMIDOPHOS
METHIOCARB
METHOMYL
METHOXYCHLOR
METHYL OCTANOATE
MEVINPHOS
MEXACARBATE
NALED
NICOTINE
OIL/ETHION
OIL/SEVIN
OXAMYL
OXYDEMETON
PARATHION
PARATHION-METHYL
PERMETHRIN
PETROLEUM OILS
PHENOTHRIN
PHORATE
PHOSALONE
PHOSMET
PHOSPHAMIDON
PIRIMICARB
-------
L-15
Table L-9.4 Con't
Chemicals by Pesticide Type
Insecticides (continued)
PIRIMIPHOS
PROPARGITE
PROPOXUR
PYRETHRIN
RESMETHRIN
ROTENONE
SOAP
SODIUM ALUM1NOFLUORIDE
TERBUFOS
THIODICARB
TRICHLORFON
Table L-9.5
Chemicals by Pesticide Type
Rodenticides
ZINC PHOSPHIDE
Table L-9.6
Chemicals by Pesticide Type
Fumigants
ALUMINUM PHOSPHIDE
BANROT
DIKAR
DITHANE
METHAM-SODIUM
METHYL BROMIDE
METHYL ISOTHIOCYANATE
PROTECTOR
RIDOMIL/BRAVO
SULFOTEP
VINCLOZALIN
-------
L-16
Table L-9.7
Chemicals by Pesticide Type
Miscellaneous
AMILON
BORIC ACID
CALCIUM CHLORIDE
CHARGER
CHLOROPHAC1NONE
CLOFENTEZINE
DICHLOROPROPENE
DIPHENYLAMINE
DVPP
ENDOTHALL
ETHAZOL
IMAZAPYR
INDOLE-3-BUTYRIC ACID
METALDEHYDE
METAM-SODIUM
METHIDATION
OXATETRACYCLINE
PETAN
PHOSETHYL-AL
PHYSAN
PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE
RED ARROW
SALT
SALT(MAGNESIUM SULFATE)
SODIUM CHLORATE BORATE
SP,ST,AD,DEFOAM
STOP-IT
STREPTOMYCIN
SULFONYLUREA
TREATER
TRIPLE PLUS
VERNOLATE
-------
APPENDIX M
Supplementary Material on Additional Indicators In New Jersey
-------
M-2
Two studies concerning additional indicators, sodium and chloride, are summarized below:
(a) 'Ground-Water Quality in East-Central New Jersey, and a Plan for Sampling Networks1,
by Douglas A. Harriman and B. Pierre Sargent. U.S.G.S. Water Resources
Investigations Report 85-4243.
Of the 36 wells sampled in the Englishtown Aquifer, sodium exceeded drinking water standards in
samples from three wells more than 800 feet deep. For the Manasquan aquifer, 19 analyses of water
from 13 wells indicated that the water was generally safe for drinking, however, some constituents
exceeded standards, including some sodium concentrations. Chloride exceeded drinking water
standards in some areas where samples were drawn from the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system.
(b) "Water-Quality Data for Aquifers in East-Central New Jersey, 1981-82", by Douglas A.
Harriman and Lois M. Voronin, U.S.G.S. Open-file Report 84-821.
In Ocean County, major sources of ground-water contamination include: salt-water intrusion, septic
systems, landfills and disposal sites. Of the 162 Kirkwood-Cohansey wells sampled, Brick Township
Well 5 was highest in chloride (300 mg/L) and sodium (197 mg/L) concentrations.
-------
APPENDIX N
Data Specification Form
-------
N-2
SAMPLE DATA SPECIFICATIONS FORM
FILE
TAPE VOLSER/DISKETTE LABEL
FILE SIZE
RECORD LENGTH
FORMAT
BLOCK SIZE
GENERAL COMMENTS
POSITION
FROM TO
VARIABLE DESCRIPTION
UNITS
FORMAT
-------
APPENDIX O
Summary of Ground-Water Indicator Data In New Jersey
-------
0-2
The following table outlines the State agencies that track indicator data and describes the relevant
data bases and types of data collected. In several cases, more than one agency or organization
tracks relevant information.
Indicator
MCLs
Nitrates
VOCs
Hazardous
Waste Sites
Responsible Agency
Bureau of Safe Drinking
New Jersey Geological
Survey, Bureau of Ground
Water Resource Evaluation
NJ DEP/Division of Science
and Research
Ocean County Department
Public Hearth
Ocean County Department
Public Health
NJ DEP/Bureau of Data
Bureau of Safe Drinking
Water
NJ DEP Bureau of
Planning and Assistance
NJ DEP Bureau of
Ground-Water
Pollution Assessment
Data Base/Type of Information
BSDW tracks analytical testing results supplied by purveyors for 26 State
mandated MCLs. BSDW also tracks compliance information for public water
systems on a separate PC-based system.
NJGS is currently sampling the Highland physiographic province aa part of its
ambient ground-water quality network. Previous sampling of up to 100 wells
per year has been conducted throughout the State. The data is maintained in
paper files at NJGS and in the USGS WATSTORE data base.
DSR is conducting studies of agricultural chemical impacts in selected areas of
New Jersey. DSR completed a survey in 1988 of 81 wells for nitrate and
pesticide metabolite levels in two aquifers of the Coastal Plain. DSR is
currently sampling wells in the Northern bedrock aquifers of the State. The
study data resides on a PC-based format as well as in the USGS WATSTORE
system.
Ocean County passed a local ordinance in May 1987 which requires property
owners to test ground-water wells whenever a new well is drilled or property is
transferred. Ocean County requires testing for 26 constituents, including
nitrates and most of the other New Jersey MCL constituents, and maintains the
data on a mini-computer.
Ocean County passed a local ordinance in May 1987 which requires property
owners to test ground-water wells whenever a new well is drilled or property is
transferred. Ocean County requires testing for 26 constituents, including most
of the New Jersey MCL constituents, and maintains the data on a mini-
computer.
BDM maintains a data base for the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NJPDES). The data base tracks monitoring data for 930 final permits
that encompass ground-water monitoring activities. Many of these sites are
hazardous waste sites permitted under the RCRA program.
BSDW tracks analytical testing results supplied by purveyors for 26 State-
-mandated MCLs, including VOCs. BSDW also tracks compliance information
of public water systems on a separate PC-based system.
BPA is responsible for evaluating sites to determine the need for remedial
action, set case management priorities, assign remedial cases to the
appropriate bureaus, and develop strategic planning initiative. BPA tracks the
site status for RCRA corrective action, CERCLA National Priority List major
Responsible Party clean up, and some ECRA identified sites in the MRATS data
base.
BGWPA is responsible for conducting area-wide hydrogeologic studies in
support of the underground storage tank and NJPDES programs. BGWPA has
compiled the ground-water pollution inventory data base (GWPIDB) to track the
status of site investigations State-wide. In addition, BGWPA has compiled more
detailed site status information for 7 of the 21 counties in the State.
------- |