Prevention
United States Pesticides and EPA 734-12-92-001 f ^
Environmental Protection Toxic Substances August 1992
Agency (H7507C)
EF>A Pesticides In Ground Water Database
A Compilation Of Monitoring Studies: 1971-1991
Region 2
Mi
NEW YORK
NEW JERSEY
RecyctodrtUcycttbte
"X Prtm»d on pap«r thai
~C7 ali«ag50%f»evcisdfe«f
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database -1992 Report
ERRATA
VOLUME PAGE COMMENTS
All
Volumes
APPENDIX
1-4
Regulatory status for chloroform is given as SR p, it should
be C,SRP
Region 3 3-VA-7
The location of the study Watershed/Water Quality
Monitoring for Evaluating BMP Effectiveness was
erroneously referred to as the "Westmoreland Water Shed".
The correct location is the Nomini Creek Watershed.
3-VA-27 The TOTAL value for NFU is given as 155, this value
should be 147.
Region 4 Florida Some of the dates in the Florida database (i.e. 1909) are
Sampling obvious errors. These dates are listed in this document as
dates they were provided, the true dates could not be
determined.
Region 9
OV-14
OV-14 REGIONAL MAP: The TOTAL NUMBER OF
WELLS SAMPLED for Arizona is given as 36, this value
should be 40.
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
Mention of trade names, products, or services does
not convey, and should not be interpreted as
conveying, official EPA approval, endorsement, or
recommedation.
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database -1992 Report
Pesticides in Ground Water Database
A Compilation of Monitoring Studies: 1971 - 1991
Region 2
Office of Pesticide Programs
Environmental Fate and Effects Division
Environmental Fate and Ground Water Branch
Henry Jacoby, Chief
Pesticide Monitoring Program Section
Constance Hoheisel
Joan Karrie Susan Lees
Leslie Davies-Hilliard Patrick Hannon
Roy Bingham
Ground Water Technology Section
Elizabeth Behl
David Wells Estella Waldman
August 1992
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report, Region 2
CONTENTS
OVERVIEW OV-1
REGIONAL MAP OV-14
GRAPH: WELLS BY STATE OV-15
STATE SUMMARIES:
NEW JERSEY
State Map 1-NJ-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-NJ-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-NJ-3
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of New Jersey l-NJ-9
Table: State of New Jersey - Wells by County l-NJ-35
NEW YORK
State Map 1-NY-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-NY-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-NY-3
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of New York l-NY-15
Table: State of New York - Wells by County l-NY-81
APPENDICES
Pesticide Cross-Reference Table Appendix 1-1
National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells Appendix II-1
-------
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
I. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Pesticide Programs (EPA/OPP)
is responsible for protecting human and environmental health from unreasonable risk due
to pesticide exposure. Monitoring efforts carried out during the last decade have shown that
the nation's ground water can become contaminated with pesticides, particularly in areas
with high pesticide use and vulnerable aquifers. Therefore, OPP has taken a strong
preventive approach to the protection of this valuable resource. Regulatory activities have
evolved to include, as a condition of registration or re-registration, a more rigorous
evaluation of a pesticide's potential to reach ground water. OPP-has also formed strong
partnerships with other federal and state agencies responsible for various aspects of ground-
water protection.
The Pesticides in Ground Water Database (PGWDB) was created to provide a more
complete picture of ground-water monitoring for pesticides in the United States. It is a
collection of ground-water monitoring studies conducted by federal, state and local
governments, the pesticide industry and private institutions. It consists of monitoring data
and auxiliary information in both computerized and hard-copy form. This report, Pesticides
in Ground Water Database -A Compilation of Monitoring Studies: 1971 • 1991, was prepared
to summarize and share the results of the studies in the PGWDB. It consists of 11 volumes:
a National Summary and ten EPA regional summaries. Each volume provides a detailed
description of the computerized PGWDB and a guide to reading and interpreting the data.
The data are presented as maps, graphs and tables.
These data are extremely valuable, but must be interpreted carefully. In general, the
PGWDB provides an overview of the ground-water monitoring efforts for pesticides in the
United States, the pesticides that are being found in the nation's ground water, and the
areas of the country that appear to be vulnerable to pesticide contamination.
When viewed as a whole, it might appear tlhe data gathered for this report are
representative of the United States and/or of general drinking water quality. This is not
necessarily the case. For example, many studies included sampling of aquifers that supply
drinking water, however these samples were usually taken at the well, not at the consumer's
tap. Therefore, conclusions concerning finished water can only be drawn by careful
examination of the data on a study by study basis. In addition, ground-water monitoring
programs vary widely in sampling intensity and design from state to state. Not surprisingly,
the states that sampled the greatest number of wells were often those that found the
greatest number of contaminated wells. This should not be misconstrued to mean that the
ground water in these states is more contaminated than that of other states, or that all
ground water in these states is contaminated. On the contrary, an active, supported
sampling program generally indicates a high regard for ground-water quality.
OV-1
-------
The database and this report are the result of the efforts of a great many individuals,
significant among whom are the state officials and principal investigators who gave
generously of their time to provide OPP with information concerning their work. In
publishing this report, OPP intends not only to provide data, but also to identify points of
contact, in order to share expertise among those responsible for the protection of the
nation's ground-water resources.
To make this information available to as many decision makers in state and other
federal agencies as possible, the computerized portion of the PGWDB will become a part
of the Pesticide Information Network (PIN).1 The PIN is a computerized collection of files
that contain pesticide monitoring and regulatory information. The PIN functions much like
a PC-PC bulletin board and can be accessed by anyone with a computer and a modem. The
PIN is currently undergoing an expansion that will allow new types of information to be
included and increase the number of simultaneous users. The new PIN will be available in
1993 and will contain the PGWDB, environmental fate chemical/physical parameters for
pesticides, pesticide regulatory information (Restricted Use, Special Review, canceled and
suspended) and a certification and training bibliography.
E. THE ROLE OF PESTICIDE MONITORING
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires EPA to
monitor the environment for pesticide residues [section 20, parts (b) and (c)]. The primary
goal of pesticide monitoring is to improve the soundness of FIFRA risk/benefit regulatory
decisions by providing information on the concentrations of pesticide residues and the
effects that exposure to these residues have on human health and the environment. In
addition, long-term changes in environmental quality can be detected through the analysis
of monitoring data. OPP can use this information to measure the effectiveness of regulatory
decisions and to indicate potential environmental problems.
EPA has directly sponsored some large-scale pesticide monitoring projects, such as the
National Monitoring Programs of the 1970s2 and the recent National Survey of Pesticides
in Drinking Water Wells.3 This type of monitoring is intended to provide information on
a national level involving large numbers of pesticides. It does not provide information
concerning localized problems or long-term trends. This method of data gathering is also
extremely resource-intensive. An alternative approach for OPP is to support and gather
information from monitoring studies performed by others. Since the responsibility for
protecting the nation's ground water is shared by federal and state governments, OPP's data-
handling responsibilities not only include procuring the most current information for its own
needs, but also sharing this information with its partners in state and federal agencies. The
development of the Pesticides in Ground Water Database is a step in this direction.
OV-2
-------
m. BACKGROUND
OPP began collecting ground-water studies for the PGWDB in the early 1980s. In 1988,
an effort was made to review and catalog these data. Summary results of this effort were
computerized and then published in the Pesticides in Ground Water Database: 1988 Interim
Report.4
Since the 1988 Interim Report was issued, many things have changed. State-sponsored
projects, initiated in the late 1980s, have been completed and digitized, monitoring
methodologies and computer technology have improved, and the quality and quantity of data
have increased. Based on extensive use of the 1988 database by OPP's Ground Water
Technology Section and the comments received from other users, both within and outside
of OPP, the computerized database and the hard-copy report were restructured. The new
computerized structure is more appropriate for the quality and quantity of the information
currently available, as well as for that expected in the future. The new structure is both well
and sample specific; that is, it contains description and location information for each well
sampled and the results of each analysis. This structure allows ground-water monitoring
data to be sorted in a variety of ways, such as by well depth, well location, and sampling
date. The new report structure provides national, regional, state and county summaries so
that readers can select the resolution appropriate for their needs.
Most of the data in the PGWDB have been produced directly by state agencies or by
private institutions that are sponsored by federal or state agencies. Some pesticide industry-
sponsored studies have also been included in the PGWDB. These studies were conducted
to support the registration status of a particular pesticide and were generally conducted in
areas that are vulnerable to ground-water contamination by pesticides.
The database is a compilation of data submitted in several different formats, including
computerized and hard-copy sampling results as well as hard-copy reports containing study
descriptions and summary information. Many states are now routinely storing their data in
computerized form and have shared their data with OPP. Some of the hard-copy data are
from older studies that were never computerized. Some are from studies that have been
computerized, but OPP has not yet been able to obtain the data. OPP is also retaining
hard-copy final reports for as many studies as possible. These reports provide vital
information such as study design, well design, analytical methods, quality control and
environmental conditions.
The focus of the PGWDB is quite narrow. It contains only ground-water monitoring
data in which pesticides were included as analytes. Therefore, the PGWDB does not
replicate STORET5 or WATSTORE6. While these large databases contain some pesticide
monitoring data and some ground-water data, their primary focus is general water quality.
As a result, these databases contain a great deal more information about water quality, but
lack many of the pesticide focused studies that are included in the PGWDB. Many states
have used STORET to store water-quality data, including analyses for pesticides. STORET
data were downloaded and added to the PGWDB when the data could be directly
OV-3
-------
associated with specific study summaries or reports sent to OPP by state agencies. These
state agencies provided their agency code, station codes, parameter codes, sampling dates
and other pertinent information so that the correct data could be extracted from STORET.
Data from the National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells (NPS)3 have not
been included in PGWDB, since these data have been recently and extensively presented
elsewhere. We are currently working on electronically transferring the results of the NPS
pesticide analyses so they will be available when the PGWDB becomes part of the PIN.
IV. THE COMPUTERIZED DATABASE
The computerized database consists of three files related to each other by study
identification and unique well number. The first file contains information describing the
study, the second contains information describing each well and the third contains sample
information. Data elements stored in these files are presented in Figure 1. These data
elements are based on EPA's recommended minimum set of data elements for ground-water
monitoring published in Definitions for the Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground-Water
Quality, July 22, 1990.*
FIGURE 1. Data Elements for the Pesticides in Ground Water Database
STUDY ft«
«lt ftU
. me
Study Number
Study Nunber(s)
Study Nuifcer
Study Title
Unique Well Huitier1
Unique Well Nutter1
Sponsoring Agency(ies)
State and County FIPS Codes^
Pesticide7
Project Officer(s) (PO)
Latitude and Longitude'
Concentration (ug/L)
PO Addressees)
Depth to Water Table (m)
Limit of Detection (ug/L)
PO Telephone(s)
UelI Depth (m)
Sample date
USEPA Region
Depth to Top and Bottom of Screen
Interval (m)
Analytical Method**
Starting and Ending Dates
Well Type4
o
Origin of Contamination
Publication Date
Well log & Other Information®
Abstract
Altitude6
1. This is a unique identifier assigned to each well in the well file. Many states have assigned a unique
identifier to wells sampled. In these cases, the number was retained, and used in the PGWDB as that well's
unique well number.
2. The Federal Information Processing Standard (FTPS) alphabetic or numeric codes for states (example MI
is the alphabetic code for Michigan, 26 in the numeric code for Michigan). County codes are three digit
numeric codes.
OV-4
-------
3. Coordinate representations that indicate a location on the surface of the earth using the equator (latitude)
and the Prime Meridian (longitude) as origin. Coordinates are measured in degrees, minutes, and seconds
with an indicator of north or south, and east or west.
4. Wells have been classified as follows:
Drinking water public community - a system of piped drinking water that either has at least 15 service
connections or serves at least 25 permanent residents.
Drinking water public non-community - wells serving public facilities such as fire stations, schools, or
libraries.
Drinking water private - privately owned wells serving a residence or farm.
Non-drinking water monitoring - wells installed specifically for monitoring ground water.
Non-drinking water other - wells used for irrigation, industrial application, etc.
5. This field will allow storage of limited well log or other information about the well, such as construction
details.
6. The vertical distance from the National Reference Datum to the land surface or other measuring point in .
meters.
7. Pesticides are tracked by their Chemical Abstracts System (CAS) number. There is also a cross-reference
file that contains all pesticide synonyms and other OPP reference numbers. Any chemical that is currently
or has ever been registered as a pesticide by the USEPA, Office of Pesticide Programs is eligible to be
included in the PGWDB. Some chemicals might be more commonly associated with industrial processes;
however, if these chemicals are now or were previously registered and used as pesticides, monitoring results
will be included in the database.
8. A short name, reference or description of the analytical method which was used. This field is not intended
to hold the entire method.
9. An origin of contamination is listed for each analysis performed as follows:
NFU - Known or suspected normal field use
PS - Known or suspected point source
UNK - Unknown source of contamination
These files will be available through the PIN in 1993. The data management software
for this system is ORACLE running under UNIX. However, OPP will accept and translate
data created in nearly any format, operating system or medium. To access the PIN, contact
User Support at 703-305-7499.
V. THE 1992 PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER DATABASE REPORT
The 1992 PGWDB report is a summary and presentation of all the data OPP currently
has available, both in computerized and in hard-copy form, concerning pesticides in ground
water. The report is organized as a National Summary and ten EPA regional summaries.
Each volume provides background information on pesticide monitoring, a description of the
computerized portion of the database and a guide to reading and interpreting the data
presented in the report.
OV-5
-------
The National Summary contains summary results of the data collection effort for all
states and a discussion of the data. The regional volumes contain data from the individual
states in each EPA Region. Each regional volume contains state summaries, which consist
of: 1) a short overview of the state's philosophy and pertinent regulations concerning
ground-water quality and pesticides, 2) a summary of each study or monitoring effort sent
to OPP, and 3) summary data for each state presented in tables, graphs and maps. In
essence, the study summaries were written by the principal investigators of each study.
Whenever possible, the author's abstracts, summaries and conclusions were reproduced
verbatim, so that the tone and intent of their work would not be misinterpreted.
There are two appendices in each volume of the report. Appendix I contains a
Pesticide Cross Reference Table, which provides pesticide names, synonyms and the
regulatory status and lifetime Health Advisory (HA) Level or Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL)7 for each pesticide. Appendix II provides a brief overview and reference information
for the NPS.
Summary and Presentation of Ground-Water Monitoring Data
The data in this report are presented in three different formats: maps, graphs and
tables. Their format and content are explained below. Each format is displayed at four
different resolution levels: national, regional, state and county. The charts and maps were
intended to provide an "at-a-glance" visual summary of the information collected for the area
in question. The tables provide detailed information concerning sampling dates, numbers
of wells sampled, samples analyzed, concentration ranges, and the relationship between
pesticide concentrations and current EPA drinking water standards.
1. Maps
The maps presented in this report display the number of wells sampled and the number
of wells with pesticide detections. Map legends are consistent throughout the report to
assist in any visual comparison of the maps. A regional-scale map illustrating the
frequency of pesticide detections as a function of the total number of wells sampled is
presented at the beginning of each EPA regional volume. The regional maps display
information for each state in that EPA region. All of the regional maps are included
in the National Summary. In addition, a state- scale map, in which the data are
presented at the county level, is included with each state summary. State maps are also
annotated with a list of pesticides detected in that state.
2. Graphs
Bar graphs, for each state within a region, illustrate the number of wells sampled, the
number of wells with pesticide detections, and the number of wells with pesticide
detections exceeding the MCL or lifetime HA. The graphs present this information
ranked in descending order by the number of wells with pesticide detections. The
version of this graph in the National Summary displays this information for each state.
A similar graph in each EPA regional volume presents data only for the states in that
region. The National Summary contains an additional graph, illustrating the above
information by pesticide. Pesticides for which analyses were performed but were not
detected in any wells are listed alphabetically at the end.
OV-6
-------
3.. Tables
Two basic data tables are used throughout this report to summarize ground-water
monitoring information: the "Pesticides" table and the "Wells" table. Figures 2 and 3
provide a detailed explanation of the information contained in each column for the two
standard tables. The numbers that occur in the field descriptors correspond to the
definitions listed below the example table.
The "Pesticides" table is illustrated in Figure 2. In this table, information is organized
by pesticide. The monitoring locations, sampling frequencies, number of wells
monitored, sampling results and concentration ranges are provided. In the National
Summary, this table details the monitoring location to the state level and also includes
the regulatory status for each pesticide. In the regional volumes, monitoring location
is provided to the county level for each state and the table is expanded to include
monitoring data for samples taken from each well.
FIGURE 2. Pesticides Table
PESTICIDE SMPLIMG IN THE STATE OF
WELL R£SUt"S
SAM PIE
fifiNCStf*
<«/!>
* - i
PE5TJC1DE
1
.. CCtfHTT
WTfc
3
TOTAL
WELLS
$Afcf>LE&
4
#OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
5
tOtAL #
SAMPLES
6
NUMBER OF
POSITIVE
SfWPLES
: r «,
¦* %
-
TR/
MO
"it
MCt
<
MCL
>
KCL
¦
KCt
Pesticide*
County A
1989/
1.3
1990/6
tounty,8 ,
1987/
1-5
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS OR SAMPLES
9
10
10
11
12
12
Pesticide t
County A.
1989
1990
County 8
1987
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
13
14
H I 15
16
16
1 The tables are arranged in alphabetical order by the parent pesticide common name. Degradates of parent
pesticides are listed directly following the parent. Any chemical that is currently or has ever been registered as
a pesticide by the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs is eligible to be included in these tables. Some chemicals
included in these tables are more commonly associated with industrial processes; however, these chemicals were
at some time also registered as pesticides.
OV-7
-------
2 County names are listed in alphabetical order for each pesticide that was monitored.
2. Well sampling dates are given by year and month(s). Months separated by a comma (13) means that samples
were taken in these months only. Months separated by a dash (1-5) is the range of months in which sampling
occurred, samples were taken in all months within the range.
4 The total number of wells that were sampled at least once during the time period stated in the previous
column.
5 Wells with pesticide detections within the time period given in the date column (3). Wells with positive
analytical results were classified based upon whether the results were above or below the MCL. If a pesticide
did not have an established MCL, the lifetime HA level was used and noted at the end of the table. If neither
of these values were established, the well was classified as less than the MCL. Wells were classified based upon
their highest analytical result. Therefore, any well with at least one positive analysis equal to or greater than the
MCL or HA during the time period listed in the date column (3) was classified as > MCL. Any well with at least
one positive analysis but all analyses less than the MCL or HA was classified as < MCL.
6 The total number of samples analyzed for that pesticide within the time period recorded in the date column.
2 Samples with pesticide detections were counted based upon whether the results were above or below the MCL
or lifetime HA as stated in 5 above.
8 The range of positive results in ug/L (ppb) for the time period specified in the date column.
2 The total number of discrete wells that were sampled at least once and analyzed for the pesticide listed in
column 1. *See Note
10 The total number of discrete wells in which the pesticide was detected based upon whether the results were
above or below the MCL. Wells were classified as explained in 5 above, based upon the highest analytical result.
11 Total number of samples analyzed for a particular pesticide.
12 The total number of samples in which the pesticide was detected that are > MCL or < MCL as explained
in 5 above.
12 The grand total of discrete wells sampled in the state for any pesticide. * See Note
14 The grand total of discrete wells with at least one detection of any pesticide. Wells are classified above or
below MCL or HA as explained in 5 above. *See Note
15 Grand total of samples taken in the state. *See Note
16 The grand total of samples with any pesticide detection for the state. Samples were classified as > or < the
MCL based upon their highest analytical result as explained in 5 above. *See Note
'Note: Some wells were sampled more than once, (i.e., during several successive years) and some wells were
sampled for more than one pesticide. Therefore, the total number of discrete wells is not necessarily the
arithmetic sum of the wells listed. Similarly some samples were analyzed for more than one pesticide, therefore,
the total number of discrete samples for the state will not be, in all cases, the arithmetic sum for the column.
OV-8
-------
Figure 3 illustrates the "Wells" table. In this table, ground-water monitoring information
is organized by well type, or use, and source of contamination. In the National
Summary, the information is summarized by state. In the regional volumes, the
information is summarized by county for each state in the region.
FIGURE 3. Wells Table
state of
IELLS BT COUNTY
; ~ -.y\
" TYPES Of WltS
SOURCE OF
CONTAMINATION
(ttJHs&t of weas)
1 , -
OME*
5
cuwmt -
TOTAL
SHPL0
4
*tt ^
i.-.-iS.
X
MB.
total
$*PLD
4
? 1 *
I m.
*"S 1 M 1
total
SKPtfr
4
¦ i-
Ha
s
<
ntx
5
4
\
!§*!
: to*
«
Couity A
1
County 6
|
TOTAL 9
1
1 Drinking Water wells include community (municipal), public non-community, and private wells. Public non-
community wells are those that exclusively serve public buildings such as Ore stations, schools, or libraries.
2 Monitoring wells, installed solely to monitor ground water for contaminants.
2 Other wells include: irrigation wells, stock watering wells, springs, and tile drains.
4 Total number of each type of well sampled in each county.
5 The number of wells per county in which a pesticide was detected. Wells were classified based upon whether
the results were above or below an MCL for any of the pesticides detected. If a pesticide did not have an
established MCL, the lifetime HA level was used. If neither of these values were applicable, the well was
classified as less than the MCL and it was so noted at the end of the table. Wells were classified based upon
their highest analytical result. Therefore, any well with at least one positive analysis greater than or equal to the
MCL or HA was classified as > MCL. Any well with at least one positive analysis but all analyses less than the
MCL or HA was classified as < MCL.
Contaminated wells were placed in one of the following categories based on the opinion of the study director:
Ji NFU = Known or Suspected Normal Field Use.
2 PS = Known or Suspected Point Source.
8 UNK=Unknown source of contamination. Wells were categorized as "unknown" if the study director did not
know the source of contamination, or if there was no information available concerning the source of
contamination.
5 Total number of wells in each category.
OV-9
-------
VL DATA INTERPRETATION
Ground-water monitoring data in this report have been assembled from numerous
sources, including state and federal agencies, chemical companies, consulting firms, and
private institutions that are investigating the potential for ground-water contamination by
pesticides. These data are extremely valuable, but must be interpreted carefully. In general,
the PGWDB provides a relatively comprehensive overview of the ground-water monitoring
efforts for pesticides in the United States, the pesticides that are being found in the nation's
ground water, and the areas of the country that appear to be the most vulnerable to
pesticide contamination.
Nationally, part of OPP's regulatory mission is to prevent contamination of ground-
water resources resulting from the normal use of registered pesticides. OPP routinely
reassesses the impact that registered pesticides have on the quality of ground-water
resources. The PGWDB will be used to support ongoing regulatory activities, such as
ground-water label advisories, monitoring studies required for pesticide re-registration and
special review activities. In addition, combining the information in the PGWDB with other
environmental fate data and usage data will assist OPP, at an early stage in the regulatory
process, in refining criteria used to identify pesticides that tend to leach to ground water.
On a state or local level, the PGWDB can be used as a reference so that a state may
access data from neighboring states. Evidence that pesticide residues occur in ground water
can be used to target a state's resources for future monitoring and to re-assess pesticide
management practices to prevent future degradation of ground-water quality. The
information presented in this report will also be useful to state and regional agencies when
implementing two pollution-prevention measures being developed by EPA; the Restricted
Use Ride and the State Management Plans outlined in the Pesticides and Ground Water
Strategy. Additional uses for the data in the PGWDB include identification of areas in need
of further study, identification of the intensity of monitoring for particular pesticides, and
graphic display of ground-water monitoring activities and localization of pesticide
contamination.
VII. DATA LIMITATIONS
Despite their apparent value, these data do have limitations and must be used and
interpreted carefully. Differences in study design, laboratory procedures/equipment,
sampling practices, or well use can affect results. Some of the limitations governing the
interpretation of the data in the PGWDB are discussed below:
1) The PGWDB is not a complete data set of all ground-water monitoring for
pesticides in the United States. While we have attempted to include as many
sources as possible, other data exist of which we are not aware or to which we do
not yet have access.
OV-IO
-------
2) Monitoring for pesticides in ground water has not been performed in a uniform
manner throughout the United States. Some states have extensive monitoring
programs for pesticide residues, while others have more limited monitoring
programs. In general, more extensive ground-water monitoring programs tend to
be found in the states where pesticide use is heavy. This creates a picture that does
not necessarily represent the overall impact of pesticides on ground-water quality
nationwide.
3) Differences in ground-water monitoring study design can radically affect the results.
Many monitoring efforts were initiated in response to suspected problems, and
therefore yielded a disproportionately high number of positive samples. These
results cannot be extrapolated to represent a larger region or state. Other efforts
sampled a small number of wells or sampled under conditions in which
contamination was unlikely. Still others were statistically designed studies, intended
to be extrapolated to a specific population of wells. Each of these scenarios
presents a vastly different view of the condition of the ground-water resource
sampled.
4) Analytical methods and limits of detection have changed over time, and also vary
from laboratory to laboratory. Therefore, comparisons between the results of
different studies and across several years must be performed carefully to avoid
errors in interpretation.
5) Differences in construction, depth, location and intended use can greatly affect the
likelihood that a particular well will become contaminated by pesticides. Some of
these issues were addressed in the individual study summaries when such details
were available. However, this information was not always provided and tends to
be obscured when large amounts of data are summarized. The reader is cautioned
to read the study summaries carefully and interpret the resulting data summaries
conservatively.
VIII. THE FUTURE
The vulnerability of ground water to contamination by pesticides depends upon a variety
of factors including depth, topography, soil, climate, pesticide use and pesticide application
practices. In some cases, ground water is shallow or closely connected with surface water
and the results of surface activities can be observed within months. More often,
contamination is not observed for many years, allowing cause-and-effect relationships to
become obscured. This report, for the most part, is a retrospective examination of the
agricultural practices of the 1960s and 1970s, the results of which were observed through
monitoring performed 20 years later. The condition of our ground-water resources for the
next 20 years will be greatly affected by how we are handling our chemicals now. Our
challenge today is clearly prospective.
OV-11
-------
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is planning to publish a summary report of
the data in the PGWDB on approximately a yearly basis. We are interested in presenting
the data in a manner that is the most helpful to as many users as possible. The following
are areas in which we would like to receive comments:
1. Should future reports summarize only "new data" (those received since the last
report) or all of the data? Should we continue to report very old monitoring data
(10 to 20 years), given the fact that some of these studies had very high detection
limits and monitored for pesticides that are no longer of regulatory interest?
2. What changes should be made to the maps, graphs and tables? Are they too
detailed or not detailed enough? Are important pieces of information missing? Is
there a clearer or more useful way to present these data?
3. How are those outside of OPP using the PGWDB?
We appreciate all of those who took the time to comment on the draft version of this
report. Many of the suggestions offered were included in this final version. However, some
very good suggestions regarding changes to the tables could not be included in this report
due to time constraints. These suggestions were taken seriously and will be considered for
future reports.
For the PGWDB to retain its value, OPP must continue to gather and share as much
pesticide monitoring information as possible. Any government agency or private institution
that would like to have its work included in the PGWDB should provide a hard copy of a
final or interim report and the sample and well data in electronic format. PGWDB data
elements are listed on page OV-4 of this report. Electronic media should be accompanied
by a description that includes, hardware compatibility (IBM, Apple etc.), operating system
(DOS, UNIX, OS2), format identification (ASCII or software package name) and a data
dictionary. Anyone wishing to provide comments or data may do so by contacting:
Constance A. Hoheisel
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticide Programs
Environmental Fate and Effects Division (H7507C)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Telephone: 703-305-5455
FAX: 703-305-6309
OV-12
-------
REFERENCES
1. Hoheisel, C. and Davies-Hilliard,L. Pesticide Information Network U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington D.C.,1987. Database:
703-305-5919. User Support: 703-305-7499.
2. Spencer, D.A. The National Pesticide Monitoring Program. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1974. Summary document published by The National Agricultural
Chemicals Association.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking
Water Wells. Washington, D.C., 1990. For Fact Sheets contact: EPA Public
Information Center, 202-260-2080. For copies of reports contact: National Technical
Information Service (NTTS), 703-487-4650.
4. Williams, W.M., Holden, P.W., Parsons, D.W. and Lorber, M.N. Pesticides in Ground
Water Data Base-1988 Interim Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Pesticide Programs (H7507C), Washington, D.C.,1988.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Information Resources Management
STORET (Water Quality Database). Washington, D.C. User assistance: 1-800-424-
9067.
6. U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Data Exchange. WATSTORE(Water Quality
Database). Reston, VA. For further information: 703-648-5671.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Drinking Water Regulations and
Health Advisories. Washington, D.C., November 1991. Tel: 202-260-7571.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Definitions for the Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground-Water Quality.
Washington, D.C.,1991.
OV-13
-------
Well Sampling by State
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Region II
IZ3
Total Wells Sampled
per State
501
101
51
1
>
to
to
to
10
1000
1000
500
100
50
O No wells sampled
OV-14
-------
REGION 2
WELL STATUS BY STATE
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
/ -•
\ . «*'i •: . / ; 21219
i 11
55
243
i
/ /
¦
i
,
100 200 300
WELL COUNTS
400
500
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL X WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
OV-15
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database -1992 Report
STATE SUMMARIES
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells witii Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Pesticides Detected
Aldicarb
Aldicarb Sulfone
Aldicarb Sulfoxide
Alachlor
Atrazine
Carbofuran
DDD
DDE
DDT
Diazinon
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
3-Hydroxy Carbofuran
lindane
Methomyl
Methoxychlor
Metolachlor
Metribuzin
1-Naphthol
Oxamyl
Prometone
Simazine
Total Wells Sampled
per County
U > 1000
ESS 501 to 1000
E3 101 to 500
CZD 51 to 100
G3 1 to 50
~ No wells sampled
2-NJ-l
-------
2-NJ-2
-------
NEW JERSEY
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
The New Jersey Ground Water Quality Standards (NJ.AC. Title 7, Chapter 9 - Water
Pollution Control, Subchapter 6 - Ground Water Quality Standards; Adopted effective
March 4, 1981; Readopted June 3, 1988) established maximum limits of 0.003 ppb for
Aldrin/Dieldrin; 0.001 ppb for DDT and metabolites; 0.004 ppb for Endrin; and 0.005 ppb
for Toxaphene.
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND-WATER
New Jersey State Department of Health, Environmental Health Program, Tel. (609) 984-1863,
Report On a Survey of Temik Concentrations in Cumberland and Salem Counties, August-
December, 1983. (#H318-83). Study transmitted to EPA via a letter from Lovell, J. S.,
UCAPC, to F. T. Sanders, USEPA (Reported February, 1984, 7 pp.).
Primary Objective
This study was conducted to determine aldicarb ground-water concentrations in New Jersey.
Design
Between August 2 and November 23, 1983, a total of 46 discrete wells (40 drinking water
wells and 6 non-drinking water wells) was tested for aldicarb residues in Cumberland and
Salem Counties. The first set of 22 ground-water samples was taken from 12 potato farms
(six in each county) and neighboring properties where aldicarb had been used for 3 to 8
years. The second set of well samples was taken to confirm the two detectable levels from
the first set of samples, and to expand the sampling of wells on properties adjacent to the
farms with contaminated wells. Samples were analyzed using GC/MS operating in the
chemical ionization (CI) mode with methane. The limits of detection were 5 and 2 ppb for
the first and second set of samples, respectively.
2-NJ-3
-------
Results and Conclusions
Aldicarb residues exceeded the MCL in ground water from one well in Cumberland Co. and
one from Salem County. In the first set of samples residues of aldicarb exceeded the MCL
at 5 and 31 ppb in two wells, aldicarb was not detectable in the other 20 wells. When the
positive wells were resampled to confirm the results, aldicarb was again detected in those
two wells at 3.1 and 19.6 ppb. The other additional samples had no aldicarb detected. The
well with the largest concentrations detected (19.6 and 31 ppb) had an aldicarb detection
of 50 ppb from a test run independently by Union Carbide. No farming practices seemed
to be the cause of the high level of residue in the well; rather, well construction (i.e., the
farmer had increased the size of his well from 12' to 50' and had never encased it) was the
probable cause of the high concentration of aldicarb.
(NOTE: The number of wells sampled in each county during the second round of sampling
was not available. The 46 total wells sampled were divided evenly between Cumberland and
Salem Counties in the State tables.)
Lovell, J.S., letter dated 10/27/83 from J.S. Lovell, Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co.
to F.T. Sanders, U.S. EPA, TEMIK Aldicarb Pesticide Groundwater Monitoring in New
Jersey. Tel (919) 549-2000.
Primary Objective
The objective of this study was to determine groundwater contamination of aldicarb from
adjacent farms in Salem and Cumberland counties in New Jersey.
Design
Nine "worst case" wells located around three farms with known use of aldicarb were sampled
on October 17, 1983. Two drinking water wells and one irrigation well were located in
Salem County, and four drinking water wells, one irrigation well, and one packing shed well
were located in Cumberland County. Aldicarb residues were analyzed using an unspecified
method with a limit of detection of 1 ppb.
Results and Conclusions
Of the 9 wells sampled in Cumberland and Salem Counties, analyses showed detectable
aldicarb residues in three wells. Aldicarb residues were 3 and 4 ppb in 2 non-drinking water
wells (1 Cumberland and 1 Salem Co., respectively) and 50 ppb in 1 drinking water well
(Salem Co.). However, the 50 ppb aldicarb detection was not confirmed (telecon with
Union Carbide 9/12/91). All of the positive detections of aldicarb were equal to or greater
than the MCL (3.0 ppb).
2-NJ-4
-------
Barton C, Vowinkel E.F., and Nawyrt J.P., U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the
Interior, Tel. (609) 771-3925, Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4023, Preliminary
Assessment of Water Quality and its Relation to Hydrogeology and Land Use: Potomac-
Raritaiu-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey. Study conducted March-April, 1985
(Reported 1987, 79 pp.). For further information, contact Eric Vowinkel, Hydrologist.
Primary Objective
This report presents a preliminary estimation of the ground-water quality in the counties of
Middlesex and Mercer pertaining to the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in New
Jersey in relation to hydrogeology and land use. The tested hypothesis is that ground-water
quality is related to land use.
Design
The sampling network consisted of 71 wells, all of which existed prior to this study. Current
use of the water from these wells includes: 20 public supply, 19 industrial, 16 domestic, 2
irrigation, 1 commercial, 1 institutional and 12 wells which are not currently used for water
supply. Ground-water samples were collected from March 11 to April 19, 1985, and
analyzed by GC/MS for the following pesticides with the respective detection limits in ppb:
Pesticide Detection limit (ppb) Pesticide Detection Limit (ppb)
Aldrin
0.01
Lindane
0.01
Ametryn
0.1
Malathion
0.01
Atraztne
0.1
Methoxychlor
0.01
Carbophenothion
0.01
Mi rex
0.01
Carbophenothi on,
methyl (Methyl
Trithion)
0.01
PCB
0.1
Chlordane
0.1
PCN
0.1
Cyanazirte
0.1
Parathion, [ethyl]
0.01
DDD
0.01
Parathion, methyl
0.01
DDE
0.01
Pertharie lethylan]
0.1
DDT
0.01
Prometone
0.1
Diazinon
0.01
Frametryne
0.1
Dieldrin
0.01
Propazine
0.1
Endosulfnn
0.01
Sifnazine
0.1
Endrin
0.01
Simetryne
0.1
Ethion
0.01
Toxaphene
0.1
Heptachlor
0.01
Heptachlor epoxide
0.01
2-NJ-5
-------
Water-quality characteristics and the concentrations of major ions, nutrients, trace metals,
pesticides, and purgeable organic compounds were compared among groups using the
Kruskal-Wallis test and frequency-of-detection method.
Results and Conclusions
Of a total of 71 wells, 66 wells/66 samples were analyzed (5 well samples were lost),
resulting in 7 wells/samples with detectable levels of pesticides present below the respective
MCL or LHA. In Middlesex County, where 51 wells were tested, 5 wells/samples were
positive for atrazine, DDD, dieldrin, and/or lindane. Atrazine was detected in two drinking
water wells at 0.10 and 0.50 ppb, and in one non-drinking water well at 0.3 ppb. DDD was
detected in one monitoring well at 0.07 ppb. Dieldrin was detected in one drinking water
well at 0.02 ppb. Lindane was observed in one drinking water well at 0.09 ppb. In Mercer
County where 15 wells were tested, 2 wells/samples had detectable levels of simazine. One
drinking and one non-drinking water well contained simazine at 0.1 ppb. All of the detected
pesticides were present at levels below their respective MCL or LHA The ground-water
contamination with pesticides was suspected to be due to the application of pesticides as
normal agricultural practices.
Louis, Judith B. and Eric Vowinkel, Pesticides in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments.
Proceedings of a National Research Conference May 11-12, 1989, Effect of Agricultural
Chemicals on Ground-Water Quality in the New Jersey Coastal Plain. Data available for
1986-87 and 1988. For further information, contact Eric Vowinkel, Hydrologist, United
States Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, New Jersey District, Tel.: 609-771-3900.
Primary Objective
Because of the limited scope of previous studies, a reconnaissance survey of groundwater
quality in agricultural areas in New Jersey was begun. This study was designed to relate the
presence of agricultural chemicals in groundwater to land use, hydrogeologic conditions, and
well-construction characteristics. Sampling was concentrated in shallow sand and gravel
aquifer systems where the hydrogeologic environment is susceptible to contamination by
agricultural chemicals. Because the New Jersey Coastal Plain is an important agricultural
area in New Jersey and contains aquifers systems that are important sources of drinking
water, it was the first area to be surveyed.
Design
Two outcrop areas were selected for study: the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy and Kirkwood-
Cohansey aquifer systems. Samples were collected from the counties of Atlantic, Burlington,
Cumberland, Gloucester, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Morris, Salem, Somerset, and
Warren. Wells were selected in areas in the Coastal Plain that were susceptible to
contamination by agricultural chemicals using the following criteria: wells located within
800 m of agricultural land, wells located in or near the outcrop area of the aquifer where
2-NJ-6
-------
confining beds are thin or absent, wells with depths less than 50 m, and the shallowest well
on farms with multiple wells. A total of 122 wells was sampled during June 1986 through
early September 1987, and June through August 1988.
Samples were analyzed for nutrients, volatile organic fumigants, triazines, acetanilide, and
chlorophenoxy acid herbicides, and carbamate, organochlorine, and organophosphorus
insecticides. Samples were analyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey Central Laboratory in
Denver, Colorado. The pesticides for which data was available, and their detection limits,
are listed below:
PESTICIDE
DETECTION
LIMIT
tug/I)
PESTICIDE
DETECTION LIMIT
(ug/l)
1-Naphthol
1987-88 0.5
Diazinon
1986-88
0.01
2,4-D
1986-87 0.01
1988 0.01-0.05
Dieldrin
1986 0.01
1987-88 0.001
2,4-DP
1986-87 0.01
1988 0.01-0.05
Endrin
1986 0.01
1987-88 0.001
2,4.5-T
1986-88 0.01
Ethion
1986-88
0.01
Alachlor
1986-88 0.1
Heptachlor
1986 0.
1987-88
1
0.001
Aldicarb
1987-88 0.5
Heptachlor epoxide
1986 0.
1987-88
1
0.001
Aldicarb Sulfone
1987-88 0.5
Lindane
1986 0.
1987-88
1
0.001
Aldicarb Sulfoxide
1987-88 0.5
Malethion
1986-88
0.01
Aldrin
1986 0.01
1987-88 0.001
MethomyI
1986 2.0
1987-88 0.5
Ametryne
1986-88 0.1
Hethoxychlor
1986-88
0.01
Atrazirte
1986-88 0.1
Hetolachlor
1986-88
0.1
Benzene hexachloride
1987 0.01
Netribuzin
1986-88
0.1
Carbaryl
1986 2.0
1987-88 0.5
Mi rex
1986-88
0.01
Carbofuran
1987-88 0.5
Oxamyl
1987-88
0.5
3-Hydroxycsrbofuran
1987-88 0.5
Parathion, [ethyl]
1986-88
0.01
Chlordane
1986-88 0.1
Parathion, methyl
1986-88
0.01
Cyartazine
1986-88 0.1
Perthane [Ethylan]
1986-88
0.1
ODT
1986 0.01
1987-88 0.001
Prometone
1986-88
0.1
ODD
1986 0.01
1987-88 0.001
Prometryne
1986-88
0.1
DOE
1986 0.01
1987-88 0.001
Propazine
1986-88
0.1
2-NJ-7
-------
PESTICIDE
DETECTION
LIMIT
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE ot
concen-
trations
om/t)
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
# Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
# OF
posmvE
SAMPLES
YEAR/
MOUTH
*
#et
<
MCL
t
Ma
; <
MCL
*1-Nanhthol
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
1
14
0
1
trace
BURLINGTON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ttJK8eRLAtfD
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
MUMTEftDOK
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
IffiRtEB
1987/8
10
0
0
10
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1987/8-1988/8
8
0
0
8
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
90
0
1
90
0
1
trace
2,4-0
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CUM8ERLAN0
1987/6-8
12
0
0
12
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HUHTEROOtt
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
ffiRCER
1986/6-1988/8
9
0
0
9
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
SALEN
1986/7-1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SOJERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
81
0
0
2,4,3-t
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
Cu^erlAnD
1987/6-8
12
0
0
12
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
S
0
0
2-NJ-9
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEU JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
WELL RESULTS
SAHPtC RESULTS
RANGE Of
COHCEM-
fRAnow
<#sA}
pesticide
OXaHTf
DATE
TOT At
WELLS
SAMPLED
# 0*- *
posirm
WELLS
TOTAl *
SAMPLES
nor
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YEAR/
> MONTH
£
#CL
; <
MCL
*
MCI
< '
HCL
(2.4,5-T)
HUNTERDON ¦
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1986/6-1988/8
9
0
0
9
0
0
MIODLESEX
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
SALEM '
1986/7-1987/9
6
0
0
"6
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX :¦
1988/7-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
81
0
0
2,4,5-TP
(Siivex)
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
BURLINGTON '
1986/6-1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CUM8ERLAND
1987/6-8
12
0
0
12
0
0
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING III THE STATE OF HEU JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
¦¦
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
ftAKQS Of
COHCflN-
fRATIONS
WO
P5SUCIPE
-COUNTY
OAre, , ;
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
# Of
¦ " POSITIVE
VEILS
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
posnivE
"SAMPLES
"
TEAR/
MONTH
*-
KCL
: . ¦
MCL
1
Ma
<
MCL
(Alachlor)
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
88
1
8
95
i
11
0.1-13
Aldicarb
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CUMBERLAND
1983/8-11
25
2
0
28
3
0
3-31
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HUNTERDOtf
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
~H-RCER
1986/6-19B8/8
10
0
0
10
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1983/10
4
0
0
8
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
HORRIS
1988/7-8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALES
1983/8-11
26
3
0
30
4
0
3.1-50
1986/7-1988/12
8
0
0
8
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
1
0
6
1
0
5
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
145
6
0
156
8
0
3.0-50
Atdicarb sutfane
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
2
3
14
2
3
tr-3.6
BURLINGTON :
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
OJM8ESIAWJ-'-
1987/6-8
13
0
2
13
0
2
1.3-1.5
"GLOUCESTER
1987/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
NUHTEROOtt
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
t«RCER
1987/8-1988/8
10
0
0
10
0
0
MIDDLESEX :
1986/6-1987/8
6
1
1
6
1
1
1.1-2.8
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALtM
1986/7-1987/8
8
1
2
8
1
2
1.3-4.4
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NJ-ll
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
tf-LL RESULTS
SAMPiE RESULTS
Bangs of
CQNCEN'
ffcAUONS
fiSTlCIDe
COUNT?
OATS
TOTAL
VELLS
SAMPLED
f Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAt #
SAMPLES
tor
POSITIVE
SAMPtES
tEAd/
MONTH
#CL
<
KCL
X
xa
¦: < . ¦
ttCt
(Aldicarb
sulfone)
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SANPLES
90
4
8
90
4
8
tr-4.4
Aldicarb
sulfoxide
Ktamtt
1987/7-8
14
0
2
14
0
2
1.7-2.6
BURLtNGTON:;
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CUMBERLAND
1987/6-8
13
0
2
13
0
2
tr-0.7
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER" '
19B6/6-1988/8
10
0
0
10
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1986/6-1987/8
6
1
1
6
1
1
2.1-5.3
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1988/12
8
0
3
8
0
3
0.7-1.5
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
90
1
8
90
1
8
tr-5.3
Aidrin
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUMBERLAND
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
7
0
0
9
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
HERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1988/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
MONMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
O
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM "
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NJ-12
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
BANGE Of
Concen-
trations
fesncipe
PAre -
w'
TOTAL
«EtLS
SAHPLEO
' 9 pf -;:"
POSITIVE
WELLS -
total *
SAMPLES
* Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
- -
TEAR/
NffllTN
s
a
«CL
; '<
MCL
: *
HCt
i <
m
(Aldrin)
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
'WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
186
0
0
200
0
0
Amel ryn
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUtffiEAtAND
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
HUHTEROON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCE8 '
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
16
0
0
19
0
0
MiOOLESSX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
25
0
0
HONHOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS '
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALE*
1986/7-1987/8
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET "¦
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
201
0
0
Atrszine
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLINGTON
1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUM8EHLAN0
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
2
9
0
3
0.1-0.8
HUNTEROOH
1988/6-8
11
0
1
11
0
1
0.2
IffRCfR
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1988/8
16
0
1
19
0
2
0.1
MIODLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
3
51
0
3
0.1-0.5
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
2
25
0
3
0.5-0.9
MONMOUTH ;
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
• SALEM :'
1986/6-1987/8
11
0
2
13
0
2
0.1
2-NJ-13
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
-
-
, WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE Of
CONCEIT
TRATtOUS
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MEW JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
,
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
fiAHGE Of
£CHC£lh
fRATIONS
Ufl/O
mncjpe ,
sssS
sown „
""sss
pate ' v
, TOTAL
UELIS
SAMPLED
' #0? '
wsrovi'
VELLS
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
f OP
wsmvE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
' - NOJITH
e
act
< -
MCL
I
wet
¦
<
net
(Carbofuran)
MIDDLESEX
1986/6-1987/8
6
0
2
6
0
2
0.6-1.4
HOfiHtS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALfiM
1986/7-1987/9
8
0
3
8
0
3
0.5-6.6
$WERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
VlARftE«
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRITE
WELLS/SAHPLSS
90
0
9
90
0
9
trace-
6.6
*
: Carbofaran
ATLANTIC "-*
1987/7-8
14
0
1
14
0
1
trace
¦ BURtfNGTON'
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CUK8ERLAHD
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HtJHteftOOB ,
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
HERCER
1987/8
10
0
0
10
0
0
MIDDLESEX ;
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1987/8-1988/8
8
0
0
8
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARRED "
1988/7-B
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
90
0
1
90
0
1
trace
CarfeoohenotMon
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
BURUXCTfltf
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CU&£ftLArit) '
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTEH
1987/7-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
HUtfTEftDOto
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
HERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
;
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
2-NJ-15
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW JERSEY
1-Nephthol to Lindane
WELL RESULTS
SAHPtE RESULTS
8ANG6 or
COtiCEJh
rwmons
mncipe
COUNTY
OAT?
TOTAL
VELIS
SAMPLEO
*Cf
POSITIVE
UELLS
TOTAL #
SAMPiES
#op
SAMPLES
-
YEAR/
MONT#
e
#ct
<
MCL
¦ *
MCt
: m
MCL
(Carbopheno-
thion)
HIODLEStX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
MGNHOUTJt
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
1TORBTS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
soHERser
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
184
0
0
198
0
0
Carbophenothicn,
nethvl
ATLANTIC ^
1987/7-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
BURLtNGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
OJ>ffiERLAND
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
HUHTEftDOIf
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
KERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
MONMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEH
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HwrrIWS
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
184
0
0
198
0
0
Chtordanfi
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUMBERLAND-
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
2-NJ-16
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATTE OF NEW JERSEY
1-Naptithol to Lindane
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
&ANG£ Of
oowcEu-
NATIONS
fesritioe
OXWTT
DATE
TOTAL
wells
SAMPLED
# OF
POSITIVE
UEU.S
TOTAJ, »
SAMPLES
n OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
imi
- MONTtf
a
ttCL
<
MCI
Ma
<
MCL
(Chlordane)
&.<*JC£STER
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
HUHTEROOR
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
#ERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1988/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
HlODLtSEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
MOMMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORSIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WARREH
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL OISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
186"
0
0
200
0
0
Cyanazine
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURUNGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUMBERLAND
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
6LfiUC£S?e«
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
HUHTEROO#
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
H5RCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
I
1986/6-1987/8
16
0
0
19
0
0
MtOOLESEXf
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
25
0
0
MONMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1987/8
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
201
0
0
2-NJ-17
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING III THE STATE OF KEU JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
WELL RESULTS
SAMPIE RESULTS
RANGE Of
coNce#-
iratiqhs
pesTtcioe
COUNT?
.DATE
TOT At.
UEUS
SAMPLED
f Of
POSITIVE
VEL1S
TOTAL *
SAMPigS
* OF
posmve
SAMPtES
YEAR/
MOJITH
-
*
¦HCt
<
MCL :
-
" t
MCI .
MCt
>TOT: ¦ ¦
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
2
14
0
2
0.004-
0.006
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
OJHBEftLAND
1987/6-9
13
0
2
13
0
2
0.002
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
7
0
2
9
0
2
0.001-
0.020
HUlfTERDOH
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
~eiiceii
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
16
0
0
18
0
0
MIOOLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
KOHMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
187
0
6
200
0
6
0.001-
0.020
*M0
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUH8ERLAN0
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
610UCESTER .
1987/7-8
7
0
0
9
0
0
HUNTEROOH
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
tCRCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
1
51
0
1
0.07
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
MONMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS :: I
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM ' ' •
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
2-NJ-18
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING III THE STATE OF KEU JERSEY
1-Maphthol to lindane
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
OW/O
PESTICIDE "
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL J n Of
VEILS 1 wsmve.
SAMPLED : VELLS
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
* or
positive
SAMPLES
•• TEAR/
HOJTX
1' *
«CL
<
#et
I
MCI
<
: tttt
(DDD)
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6 il 0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX'
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WARREN J
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
186
0
1
200
0
1
0.07
~DDE
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUMBERLAND
1987/6-9
13
0
2
13
0
2
0.001
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
7
0
2
9
0
2
0.001
ttUHTERbOlt
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
«ERCEB
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
1
18
0
1
0.001
HIBOIESEK
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
1
26
0
1
0.001
MONMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WORK IS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET "
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
186
0
6
200
0
6
0.001
Bfazinort
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
13
0
1
13
0
1
0.01
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUMBERLAND
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
~ERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
2-NJ-19
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS :•
Rank of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
<#a/U
mntiDE
COUNTY
PATE
TOTAt
WELLS
SAMPLED
t Of
POSITIVE
NELLS
TOTAL 9
SAMPLES
•• #or
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YEAR/
MONTH
MCt"
<
MCL
I
MCI
, <
ttCL
(Diazinon)
MONMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
1
8
0
1
0.09
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
184
0
2
198
0
2
0.01-
0.09
DicMorprco
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
13
0
0
13
0
BURLINGTON-:
1986/6-1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CUM8ERLANO
1987/6-8
12
0
0
12
0
0
GLOUCESTER'
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER '
1986/6-1988/8
9
0
0
9
0
0
WlCDLESgJC
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
SALEM •
1986/7-1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
81
0
0
81
0
0
k0iel
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEU JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
-
-
WELL' RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
#e$Ticipe
C0UNTT
PATE.
TOTAL
MELtS
SAMPLED
#Of
fOSWV*
WELLS
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
nor
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
; "
tmt -
MONTH
£
HCL
<
HCL
*
MCL
<
: MCL'
(Dieldrin)
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
1
51
0
1
0.02
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
3
25
0
3
0.001-
0.03
K0NHDU1U."
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
HORRtS :
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
. SALEH
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
2
13
0
2
0.001-
0.033
BCttfRSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX •
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WARREN '
1988/7-8
8
0
1
8
0
1
0.001
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
186
0
18
199
0
19
0.001-
0.043
Endosutfan
J «RCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
, M100LESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
66
0
0
66
0
0
Endrtn
ATLAtfTTC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUJfflERLAMD
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
7
0
0
9
0
0
' hUNTEROOfc
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
~SRCEH '
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
1
18
0
1
0.001
WCDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
HONMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
*ORRfS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM '
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
1
13
0
1
0.011
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NJ-21
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEU JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANK Of
CONCEIT
I rat lews
DL£SEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
.. 21
0
0
26
0
0
MONMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SAIEM
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WARREN '
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
184
0
0
198
0
0
6thyIan
ATLAWttC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUM8CRLAND
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
6
0
0
8
0
0
HUKTERDOS
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
IffRCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1988/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
~TONMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
2-NJ-22
-------
PESTICIDE SAW LI KG III THE STATE OF KEU JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
v."
WELL fcESULTS -
SAMPLE RESUtTS
ftANtt Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
, im/l)
fESnCiDF
COUNTY
" DATE o.
TOTAL
VELt*
SAMPLED
!
POSITIVE
WELLS '
TOTA1, *
SAMPLES
# OF
POSITIVE ¦'
SAMPLES
-
YEAR/,
MONTN
i *
#CL
<
»CL
X
*ct
<
¦MCL
(Ethylan)
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOtfftSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
185
0
0
199
0
0
rteptacbtor
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
TURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CU^eftLAMt)
1987/6-9
13
0
1
13
0
1
0.001
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
HUUTEftOO#
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
1CRCER
1985/3-4
.. 15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
MIDDLESEX:
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
KOHHOUTX
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
KORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM 1 -
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
185
0
1
199
0
1
0.001
Keptachtor
epoxide
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUtfflERLAND
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
2-NJ-23
-------
PESTICIDE SMVLING IN THE STATE OF HEW JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
WELL RESULTS
* SANPIE RESULTS
BANGS Of
COKCEIh
rftAttoxs
PESTICIDE
COUHTT
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPIED
POSITIVE
' WELtS
TOTAL, 9
SAMPLES :
# Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YEAR/
MONTH
i
MCI
<
MCL
-
v'
Ma
< ':¦¦¦
MCL
(Heptachlor
epoxide)
3ERCE6
1983/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1983/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
HOHMOUTM
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1998/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
- 8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
185
0
0
199
0
0
Lindane
Atlantic :
1987/7-8
14
0
6
14
0
6
0.001-
0.003
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
HJMERLAND
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GtOUCEStER
1987/7-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
3
18
0
4
0.004-
0.14
MIOOLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
1
51
0
1
0.09
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
MONMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS ¦ ¦ ¦¦
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM :
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-9
5
0
0
5
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
185
0
10
199
0
11
0.001-
0.14
2-NJ-24
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING I> THE STATE OF HEW JERSEY
(Nalathion to Trifluralin)
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
BANGS Of
CONCEM"
NATIONS
PESTICIDE
COUNT*
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
9 Of
rosiriv*
WLLS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
posm«
SAMPLES
YEAR/
MONT* '
* '
net
; <
: KCL
: X
act
<
HCL
Malethton
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
BUSUNCTOtt
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CltoBEfttftNO
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
MONMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MOftRlS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
saiEm
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
UARRE»
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
185
0
0
199
0
0
Methomyi
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUMBERLAND .
1987/6-8
13
0
1
13
0
1
1.0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCEP
1986/6-1988/8
16
0
2
18
0
2
0.5-0.6
MIDDLESEX
1986/6-1987/8
20
0
1
26
0
1
trace
MONMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
1
13
0
1
0.8
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NJ-25
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW JERSEY
(Malath ion to Trifluralin)
WEIL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
8AHGS Of
CONC&J*
TRAnotJS
(w/t)
fssncipe
COUMTr
PATE
TOTAL
VELl$
SAMPLED
# Of
POSITIVE
VEILS
TOTAL 9
SAMPLES
# or
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
VM/
M0N1#
*
HCt
<
MCL
I
MCI
<<
MCt
(Methomyl)
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WARREN '
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
120
0
5
134
0
5
trace-
1.0
M«thoxvcMor
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
U
0
0
14
0
0
BURL INC TO It
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
ClWStRtANt) "
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
6
0
1
8
0
1
0.05
KWfTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
hercer
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
MONKOOT#
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS -
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM -r?
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WARREN V:,::.;:"
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
185
0
1
199
0
1
0.05
Hetolachlor r
ATLANTIC - ]
1987/7-8
14
0
1
14
0
1
1.0
BWtLJNGTON
1986/6-1987/8
3
0
0
4
0
0
Cumberland :
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
1
11
0
1
1.1
MERCER :
1986/6-1987/8
11
0
0
13
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1986/6-1987/8
11
0
1
12
0
1
0.4
SALEM
1986/7-1987/8
10
0
0
12
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NJ-26
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLIKG IN THE STATE OF NEU JERSEY
(Nalathion to Trifluralin)
f ' *
v.
¦
«£U RESt&TS
SAMPIE RESULTS
RANGE Of
COttCEK-
ruATious
N , ^ ""
€QUW
' PATE
•As
TOtAt
UEU.S
SAflPiEO
* M
"posum '¦
VEU.S
' total *
SAXPiES
0 OF
„w$mvr -
SAMPLES
\
>
TEAR/
M03WH
#Ci
<
ttCL
xa
: <
*ct
(Metolachlor)
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
UARREtt-
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
98
0
3
104
0
3
0.4-1.1
Hatrfbuzfn
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURUtiCTOH
1986/6-1987/8
3
0
0
4
0
0
CUMBERIAN6
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1986/6-1987/3
11
0
0
12
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1986/6-1987/8
11
0
0
12
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1987/8
10
0
1
12
0
1
0.1
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WAftREK
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
98
0
1
103
0
1
0.1
#?rex
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLHiCTtW
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUMBERtANO
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER "
1987/7-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
Htm T£ ROOK -
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
HTDDIESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
MWlKOOTtt '
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
M08RIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET -'
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NJ-27
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING III THE STATE OF HEW JERSEY
(Malathion to Trifluralin)
" , WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE Of
cowcen-
TRATlONS
PESTICIDE
COUKU
DAT?
TOTAL
UELIS
SAMPLED
9 Of
posmvt ¦
WELLS
TOTAL #
SAXPtE-S
* or
positive
SAMPLES
YEAR/
- MONTM
* -
#CL
<
HCL
X
Mtt
<
MCI ¦
CHirex)
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
UARRE&
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
185
0
0
199
0
0
Oxanyt
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLINCTOK
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CtMSSRLANO
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1987/8
10
0
0
10
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
HOftRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1987/8-1988/8
8 -
0
1
8
0
1
1.4
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
UARREtt
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
90
0
1
90
0
1
1.4
farathlon,
ethyl
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
BURUHGTOH
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUMBERLAND
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
SLOltCKTER
1987/7-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
HUNTERDON ¦<-
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18 -
0
0
MIDDLESEX'
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
MONMOUTH •:
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS ::;x
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM -
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NJ-28
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IH THE STATE OF KEU JERSEY
(HaLathion to Trifluralin)
¦ WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE Of
COHCEH-
TRATIWS
PESTICIDE
C0UHTT
DATE
TDTAI, ' # 0*
WEILS POSITIVE
SAMPLED WELLS
TOTAL *
SAMPLE'S
n of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YEAR/
MONTH
1 KCL
X
HCL
KCt
<
MCt.
(Parathion,
ethyl)
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
liARRCK
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
184
0
0
198
0
0
Porathian,
methyl
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUMBERLAND
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-3
6
0
0
8
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
HONHCUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SAtEM
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HARREtf ¦ ¦
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
184
0
0
198
0
0
Prometort
ATLANTIC:: :::
1987/7-8
14
0
2
14
0
2
0.1-0.3
SUKLlNGTOK :
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUMBERLAND
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
CLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
MIMTE3DON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1983/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1988/8
16
0
1
19
0
1
0.1
MIDDLESEX
1983/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
1
25
0
2
0.1-0.2
MCNKOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
2-NJ-29
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
(Halathion to Triflurelin)
-
t£Lt RESULTS
SAMPLE ffiSULTS -
Ran (2; of
CONCdi"
mnws
iM/i}
resncipe
ccuwy
; OATS
TOT At-
wus
SAMPLED
# pf
posum
VEILS
TOTAL *
SAMPiES
9 OF
rosmvs
SAMPLES
yeAft/
MONTH
-
fc
«CL
<
MCL
-
Ma
< .
MCL
(Prometon)
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOHEBSST
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WAftR8» ¦¦
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
4
201
0
5
0.1-0.2
Prwnetryn
ATLANTIC* :
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
SUftLINCTOM
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CtWBERLAKD
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1988/8
16
0
0
19
0
0
Hf00tESR(
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
25
0
0
MONKOJTK
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEH
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
suss£x
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
UARREI*
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
201
0
0
Propazine
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BmiNGTOW
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CtWBERlANO
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
HE8CER
19B5/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1988/B
16
0
0
19
0
0
2-NJ-30
-------
PESTICIDE S/WLINS IN THE STATE OF KEU JERSEY
(Halethion to Trifluralin)
:s ¦>
MEU RESUUS ~-
SAMPLE RESULTS' j
1 ' V'.j:
t" •. • j
pesticide
COUNTY
-'OAie
TOIAt
,U£U$
SAMPLES
9 W
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL *
SAW PUS
POSITIVE
SAMPtES I
8ANQ£ or -
[ COHCfcK '1
[ nations
TEAR/
MOWN |
" *
HCt
¦ ^
'¦ *ct
<
*ct I
I, <#8/0
(Propazine)
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
25
0
0
HOttKOJTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WAftREfr
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
201
0
0
BU8LIKST0K
1986/6-1987/8
3
0
0
4
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
HtftlTERDOa
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1986/6-1988/8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MtOtaESEX
1986/6-1987/8
11
0
0
12
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1987/9
4
0
0
6
0
0
soHpftsrr
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-0
6
0
0
6
0
0
1
MARKER
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
YELLS/SAMPLES
63
0
0
67
0
0
Propoxur
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
CtMBERtANfr
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
SALEM
19B7/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
36
0
0
36
0
0
Steazirie
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
SURLINGTCH
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CtWBERLAKD
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER ::
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
2
9
0
2
0.1-0.2
2-NJ-31
-------
PESTICIDE SWUNG IN THE STATE OF HEW JERSEY
(Malathion to Trifluralin)
- WEIL RESUtTS
SAMPiE RESULTS
RANGE Of
COHC6K-
tRAttOHS
im/n
PESTICIDE
coourr
^ DATE
TDTAt
WELLS
SAHPIEO
9 Of
wsmvt
- WELtS :
TOTAt *
SAMPLES
positive
SAMPLES
YEAH/
MONTH
t
HCl
<
HCL
: X
MCt
<
HCL
(Simazine)
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
HERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
2
15
0
2
0.1
1986/6-1988/8
16
0
1
19
0
1
0.1
MIOOiESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
"51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
1
25
0
1
0.3
MONMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/B
1
0
0
1
0
0
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
0
13
0
0
I
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSS€Xi':lisI:;
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WAftREB
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
6
201
0
6
0.1-0.3
Slmetrvn
ATtAXTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
flURL1HCTOH
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
OW8ERLAHD
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
HERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1988/8
16
0
0
18
0
0
HtDOlESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
25
0
0
HONKOUTK : ;
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS >
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM :
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
200
0
0
2-NJ-32
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW JERSEY
(Malathion to Trifluralin)
_
Ifftt RESULTS^""
SAHPtE RESULTS
8AXGE Of
cohcEk-
T RATIONS
;!v;v:xr-!y^xv'x->>x-;v:':'
¦ ' >
^ NOtl«
*
. KCt
<
Ml
xa
: <"
act
fox«Dhena
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLINGTOH
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CtWBERlMlD
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
CLOUCESTER :::
1986/6-1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
HUNTERDON ; -S
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
«ERC£ft
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1988/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
s
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
HONWXJT#
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-6
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
UARR6W
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL OISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
185
0
0
197
0
0
Trtf luret in
ATOMIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLINCTO#
1986/6-1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CtiHBERtAM
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HUNTERDON '
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1986/6-1988/8
10
0
0
10
0
0
WDOIESEX
1986/6-1987/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
HONKOUTK
1988/6-8
1
0
0
1
0
0
KORRJS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEH
1986/7-1987/9
8
0
0
8
0
0
SOMESSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NJ-33
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEU JERSEY
(Halathion to Trifluralin)
'
W-U results
SAHPIE RESULTS
RAHG6 Of
CONCEIT
..***«<*$
pssnctpe
COUNTY"
DATE ,
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
' - # Of
¦ fOSJTlVE
VEttS¦¦
TOTA1, 0
sampus ;
» 0?
POStTlW
SAMPtES
YEAR/
MONTH
'V
net
<
m.
UK
*a
<
: HCl
(Trif(uratin)
SUSSEX - ¦ -
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
89
0
0
89
0
0
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES ||
2«
11
u
268
13
552
~ No MCL or Lifetime HA available,
tr = trace
A One of the tests for alachlor was qualitative only, no concentrations were reported, all
listed in this table as less than the HCL.
NOTE: Data from Louis and Vom'nkel (1989) is provisional data, subject to change.
2-NJ-34
-------
STATE OF HEW JERSEY
WELLS BY COUNTY
§11:11
IW»W or UEtl-SL"
SOliBCS Of
UAtSR
' ¦. .. ¦> w. :
MOKiTWitra
CTHfcR
, 'CWtmhwatiwi
\
t
: «a
*
ICL
torn
- Sk-
ua.
<
'xa"
BW*
¦PS*
tWK*
Atlantic
2
0
0
0
0
0
12
2
7
9
0
0
Burlington
3
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
1
2
0
0
Curobeflsnd
25
1
0
0
0
0
13
1
6
8
0
0
Gloucester
3
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
4
5
0
0
Hunterdon
10
0
1
0
0
a
1
0
0
1
0
0
Herwr
26
0
3
0
0
0
5
1
1
5
0
¦ 0
Middlesex
61
1
7
0
0
0
IS
0
3
11
0
0
Hofwouth
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HorriB
1
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
Saten
28
2
2
0
0
0
9
2
3
9
0
0
Somerset
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Warren
8
0
4
0
0
~ 0
0
0
0
4
0
0
Tom
176
4
19
0
0
0
67
7
25
55
0
0
*
NFU ° Known or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS ° Known or Suspected Point Source
UNK = Unknown
2-NJ-35
-------
2-NJ-36
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
New
Y ork
w.
Total Wells Sampled
per County
u > 1000
501 to 1000
101 To 500
EZ3 51 to 100
m i to 50
~ No wells sampled
1,2-D
1. 3-D
Z.4-D
3-OH Carbofuran
Alachlor
Aldicarb
Aldicarb Sulfone
Aldicarb Sulfoxide
Aldicarb, Total
Atrazirie
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Cyanaziae
Endosulfan Sulfate
Methiocarb
Methomyl
Metolachlor
Naphthol
Oxamyl
Propoxur
Simazine
2-NY-l
-------
2-NY-2
-------
NEW YORK
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Public awareness of general organic chemical [including pesticidel contamination in the
environment has greatly increased throughout the country in the last decade. Because of
the potential for serious, long-term health effects, this problem has led to a high level of
concern by public health officials. The need for development of standards and/or guidelines
to be used in the surveillance and regulatory control of organic chemical contamination of
the State's drinking water has been recognized by the New York State Department of
Health. A Department report Organic Chemicals and Drinking Water prepared by Dr.
Nancy Kim and Daniel Stone, P.E. addressed the need to provide a rational basis for
developing a regulatory posture to control the level of synthetic organic chemical in the
State's drinking water. (Slade, K. 1987).
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Water Resources Institute Center for Environmental Research (1988) Assessment of Pesticides
in Upstate New York Groundwater-Completion Report and Appendix Three: Summary of
Information for Sampled Sites. Water Resources Institute, Cornell University (607-255-
7535), Ithaca, New York.
Primary Objective
This sampling survey was designed to assess the potential for regional ground water
contamination by testing shallow supplies immediately adjacent to treated areas with shallow
ground water and permeable soils. The results of limited sampling in these vulnerable areas
were designed to provide the basis for judging the potential for widespread contamination
in Upstate aquifers and to provide the type of information needed to design a ground-water
protection strategy.
Design
The survey examined a limited number of sites to gain insights about likely concentrations
of leached pesticides immediately beneath, adjacent to and near treated areas. It
concentrated on sites judged to be most vulnerable, particularly because of soil and subsoil
textures.
2-NY-3
-------
Criteria for choice of sampling sites;
Soil Properties-sandy soils low in organic matter, overlain with coarse textured soils; those
classified as being in hydrologic groups A and B, using the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation
Service's system of describing internal soil drainage.
Ground Water Occurrence
-in an identified primary or potential principal aquifer;
-depth to ground water would generally be less than 20 ft. below the land surface;
-within, immediately adjacent to, or topographically downgradient from treated
agricultural areas.
Seventy-three ground-water sources were sampled at twenty-nine sites in nineteen counties.
These included nineteen monitoring wells, thirty-eight existing wells, fourteen temporary
piezometers and two tile drains.
Interviews with farm operators and field inspections provided information about individual
plots of land, cropping and pesticides use histories and likely patterns of ground-water flow,
based on topography. Crops planted near chosen sites are; corn, wheat, dry beans, carrots,
cabbage, potatoes, grapes, oats, hay, and alfalfa.
One hundred and forty-eight samples were collected. Of these, one hundred and eleven were
tested for pesticides and nitrate-nitrite/nitrogen, eighteen were tested only for pesticide
residues and nineteen were tested for nitrate-nitrite/nitrogen only.
The eight pesticides tested for are:
Pesticide Limit of quantitation for
laboratory analyses
Alachlor 1 ppb
Atrazine 1 ppb
Carbaiyl 10 ppb
Carbofuran 5 ppb
3-OH carbofuran 1 ppb
Cyanazine 1 ppb
Metolachlor 1 ppb
Simazine 1 ppb
Samples were collected throughout the project by first purging the well or piezometer and
then using a stainless steel bailer to collect the sample. Samples to be analyzed for
pesticides were then transported on ice to cold storage. Pesticide samples were extracted,
either using organic solvents or a solid-phase process, and analyzed by one of the two
project laboratories-the New York State College of Veterinary Medicine, and the New
York State Agricultural Experiment Station at Geneva.
2-NY-4
-------
The extraction and subsequent analysis was not done using an approved U.S.E.P.A. method.
However, it allowed for efficient isolation and stabilization of the pesticides under study,
which was important given laboratory scheduling constraints. Quality control work
performed throughout the project suggest that the methods used were reliable and accurate.
To ensure that the project produced reliable results, many quality control procedures and
checks were built into the sampling design. This included repetitive and confirmatory
sampling ground water to allow for temporal variation in pesticide concentrations in the
event of leaching.
Results and Conclusions
Of the 129 ground-water samples analyzed for pesticides, 21 were reported to contain
residues. Of the 21 reported detections, one sample contained residues of three pesticides,
four contained residues of two pesticides, and the remaining 16 samples contained residues
of one pesticide.
Twenty-one of the detections must be qualified according to laboratory and field quality
assessments. Not all of these detections could be attributed to leaching. Fifteen of the 21
may be the result of adulterated samples, either because of influence in the field or during
sample processing and analyses.
Field investigations at two sites suggested that single detections at three sampling points
were contaminated by pesticide solutions that ran in to ground water, [i.e. point source
contamination by carbofuran and atrazine]. Ten detections of alachlor must be qualified
with analytic quality assessment results that revealed detections of alachlor in concentrations
of one ppb in submissions of blank samples of distilled, deionized water. These are
significant because the detections in ground water samples were in the same range.
Seven early detections of 3-hydroxy carbofuran may have been due to labelling ink
contamination-including three that appeared to be in concentrations over ambient water
quality standards. All samples reported to contain these residues before a change in sample
processing must be regarded as potentially spurious.
Significance of Detections
The survey must be considered incomplete with respect to alachlor, primarily because the
high number of low parts per billion detections cannot definitively be attributed to either
suspect laboratory or sample processing procedures or to actual concentrations of alachlor
residues in the samples. The same observations must be applied to carbofuran residues
detected early in the sampling survey.
2-NY-5
-------
The sampling program conducted as the basis for this report is far from being a complete
assessment of pesticides in ground water in Upstate New York. Because of the small suite
of pesticides which served as the focus of this study, the limited number of samples and
difficulties encountered in analytic work, the information cannot be taken as being
representative of all pesticides used in Upstate New York.
The four types of sampling points offered some spatial and temporal basis for evaluating the
likely concentrations of leaching pesticides, though no single site offered all three spatial
perspectives and only monitoring well sampling offered a minimal temporal perspective.
Because of these constraints, the data cannot support reliable predictions about the
frequency and expected concentrations at different distances from treated areas. The few
combinations of hydrogeologic settings and soil types cannot represent all of Upstate New
York.
The results suggest that contamination of Upstate New York ground water from areas
treated with the seven studied pesticides is not likely to be a widespread problem, based on
current standards and health advisories. Despite having selected sampling sites in
vulnerable areas and having sampled shallow ground water beneath or very close to treated
areas, there were few detections and reliable detections were in low concentrations.
Because similar results from repetitive sampling create confidence in the overall results,
those which must be considered most informative in this study are the repeated
nondetections of the five most reported used chemicals, despite the fact that every effort was
made to select sampling environments where leaching seemed likely. The non-detections
were repeatedly confirmed by resampling, especially for the monitoring wells.
The low concentrations noted in this and other surveys suggest that extensive downgradient
contamination from residues transported with ground-water flow may be less a concern than
localized, low level contamination near treated areas.
Slade, Kenneth E. (1984-1985) (1985-1986) (1986-1987) Report(s) of Statewide Surveillance
of Organic Compounds in Selected Community Water Systems, New York State. New York
State Department of Health (518-458-6742), Albany, New York, 12237.
During 1985, 1986 and 1987 the New York Bureau of Public Water Supply Protection
conducted three surveys to determine the occurrence of organic chemical contamination at
selected community water systems in the state. Although this survey focused primarily on
the detection of purgeable halocarbons and purgeable aromatics, the occurrence of
herbicides and pesticides at a limited number of locations was also studied. A total of 142
ground-water systems was tested for up to 35 pesticides.
2-NY-6
-------
Purpose of the studv:
1) to define the extent of organic chemical contamination of community water systems in
New York State,
2) to sample community water systems in New York State having a potential for organic
chemical contamination,
3) to provide data for future standard setting.
Studv design:
Only community water systems were selected for this survey. Actual sample locations were
selected by Health Department field staff as those which were, in their opinion, most
vulnerable to organic contamination. This resulted in selection of sources of supply that
were located near a landfill, toxic substance industry, pesticide distributor or agricultural
area; from areas with complaints about chemical or petroleum tastes and odors; or subject
to other types of indicators of potential organic contamination. Overall, site selection
resulted in a statewide distribution of system types and ranges of population served.
Each sample consisted of four (4) one-quart mason jars filled to overflowing and capped
with a teflon liner and screw top ring so that no air space existed. Samples were iced in
transit to the laboratory and refrigerated upon arrival. Extraction for the herbicide portion
of the analysis was started within seven days and for the pesticides portion within 14 days
of the collection time. Samples were analyzed in the Laboratory for Organic Analytical
Chemistry of the WCL&R in the New York State Department of Health. Criteria were
established for follow-up sampling at those sites showing organic chemical contamination.
Compounds Analyzed for (by groups):
Group I
Analytic Testing Methods: Herbicides, DES 310-3; Insecticides, DES 310-4
Analyte
Detection A
Detection
Detection
Limit
Limit
Limit
1984-1985
W5-IM
1986-1987
2,4-D
0.5 ug/1
0.7 ug/1
0.7 ug/1
2,4,5-TP
0.1
0.5
0.14
Endrin
0.02
0.2
0.03
lindane
0.04
0.4
0.06
Methoxychlor 1
1.4
1.4
Toxaphene
1
1.4
1.4
2-NY-7
-------
Group II
Analytic Testing Method: DES 31-23
Analyte
Detection
Detection
Detection
Limit
Limit
Limit
1984-1985
1985-1986
1986-1987
Atrazine
1 ug/1
lug/I
2 ug/1
Alachlor
1
1
2
Azinphos-Methyl
NT (Not Tested)
1
2
Butylate
1
1
2
Chlorpyrifos
NT
1
2
Cyanazine
1
1
2
Diazinon
NT
1
2
EPTC
1
1
2
Isofenphos
NT
1
2
Malathion
NT
1
2
Metolachlor
1
1
2
Trifluralin
NT
1
2
Grpup ni
Analytic Detection Method: DES 310-2
Analvte
Detection
Detection
Detection
Limit
Limit
Limit
1984-1985
1985-1986
1986-1987
2,4-D
0.5 ug/1
0.7 ug/1
0.7 ug/1
2,4,5-TT
0.1
0.5
0.14
Aldrin
0.02
0.2
2
Chlordane
0.1
1
10
DDD-Para,Para
0.05
0.6
0.5
DDE-Para,Para
0.05
0.6
0.5
DDT-Para,Para
0.05
0.6
0.5
Dieldrin
0.02
0.2
0.2
Endosulfan I
0.05
0.1
5
Endosulfan II
0.05
0.6
0.5
Endosulfan
0.05
0.6
0.5
Sulfate
Endrin
0.02
0.2
0.2
Endrin
0.02
0.6
0.2
Aldehyde
HCH, Alpha (BHC)
i 0.04
0.4
4
HCH, Beta (BHC)
0.04
0.4
4
2-NY-8
-------
(1984-1985) (1985-1986) (1986-1987)
HCH, Gamma 0.04
(Lindane)
0.4
4
HCH, Delta (BHC) 0.04
Heptachlor 0.05
Heptachlor 0.05
Epoxide
0.4
0.6
0.6
4
5
5
Methoxychlor 1
1
NT
1
10
10
0.5
10
Mirex
Toxaphene
NT
10
aNOTE: Detection limits may vary between samples for each analyte. The value shown
is the highest detection limit reported. If the value shown is 0.04, some samples may have
a detection limit of 0.03, 0.02, etc., but never higher than 0.04 for that analyte.
Discussion of results:
1984-1985: In community water systems using ground water as the sole water source five
systems were found to have detectable pesticide residues, none of which had detections
above the MCL. Endosulfan sulfate was detected in four of the systems with concentrations
ranging from <0.05 to 0.14 ug/1. The pesticide 2,4-D was detected in two ground-water
systems, ranging in concentration from <0.5 to 0.56 ug/1. The frequency of detections in
both ground water and surface water systems was greater than expected but at very low
levels of contamination.
1985-1986: In community water systems using ground water as the sole water source only
one system had detectable pesticides. Alachlor was found at a concentration of
0.8 ug/1. The frequency of detections in both ground water and surface water systems was
about as expected but at very low levels of contamination.
1986-1987: No pesticides were detected in any ground or surface water system tested.
2—NY—9
-------
Neubeck, William S. (1986) Groundwater Contamination at Eagle Bridge, New York. New
York State Department of Law (518-474-7233), Environmental Protection Bureau, Albany,
New York, 12224.
Purpose of Study
Site investigation pursuant to hazardous waste litigation.
Location
Eagle Bridge is located close to the eastern border of New York State (Rensselaer Co.)
near the southwest corner of Vermont (42° 56' 58" N, 73° 23' 42"W). The village is located
on a terrace on the south side of the Hoosic River and is underlain by approximately 20 feet
of unconsolidated sand and gravel.
The water table fluctuates around the top of bedrock, or about 20 feet below the surface.
The aquifer is unconfined. Bedrock has essentially no primary porosity and ground water
is confined to vertical and horizontal fractures that become fewer and tighter with depth.
Ground-water flow is generally to the north from the higher elevations in the south toward
the Hoosic River.
Contamination History
Ground water beneath Eagle Bridge is contaminated with, primarily, two pesticides:
atrazine and alachlor. The contamination was not the result of field application although
many local fields receive them. In the case of the village, the contamination resulted from
the disposal of pesticide residues and wash water to the surface soils in a limited area.
Analytical Data
Two sets of data are included with this report. The first contains early data indicating the
relative extent of contamination around 1980. At that time, alachlor was not being tested
for due to lack of analytical methods.
The second set of data includes 1985 quarterly sampling results for atrazine and alachlor.
All samples and State splits were taken from household taps following adequate purging of
the systems.
All samples were collected under strict chain of custody. Samples were collected in glass
and transported to the laboratory on the day of collection in a 4° C cooler. Samples were
solvent extracted and concentrated within 7 days. The extract was examined by gas
chromatography using a nitrogen-phosphorus detector. This method was used for the 1985
analyses by both the Agway lab and the New York State Department of Health.
2-NY-10
-------
Detection limits: Agway lab: 0.01 ug/1.
NYS Department of Health: 1 ug/1.
QA/QC information: Spikes and duplicates were used to determine percent recovery; the
results were variable but generally good.
Results
Most of the wells tested in this study had positive results for atrazine and alachlor. The
results varied from near the detection limit to over hundreds of times the allowed MCL for
drinking water. Older, more highly contaminated wells were replaced in many instances by
newer, deeper wells which generally had lower levels of contamination but often were still
positive.
Moron, Dennis (1991) Pesticide Monitoring in Suffolk County, New York. Department of
Health Services, Bureau of Drinking Water (516-348-2776), Hauppauge, New York 11788.
Aldicarb was widely used on Long Island, New York between 1976 and 1979 to control
insects on potato crops. In 1979, significant aldicarb residues were detected in ground water
and the product was removed from the local market. A subsequent survey sampled over
8,000 area wells, of which over 2,000 were found to contain detectable residues of aldicarb.
More than 1,000 wells also exceeded the New York State health guidelines of 7 ppb.
Between 1980 and 1985, nearly 25,000 drinking water samples were collected and analyzed;
7,880 (31%) of which contained aldicarb residues. Of these, 4,100 (16%) samples exceeded
the state guideline, and 223 samples (0.9%) contained more that 100 ppb (ten times the
previous federal MCL).
Early assessments by the registrant predicted that aldicarb levels in ground water would
drop below the N.Y. State Health guidelines (7 ppb) as early as 1987. For most wells, this
has not been the case; it has remained in the aquifers of northern climates many years
longer than anticipated. Data reviewed by the State of New York for sampling between
1982 and 1987 found no significant degradation of aldicarb in ground water. Large numbers
of drinking water wells in Suffolk County still exceed the previous federal MCL of 10 ppb.
Continuous monitoring for aldicarb residues is expected to be necessary in Suffolk County
for many years.
The monitoring data for aldicarb on Long Island, New York is the most comprehensive set
of data for any pesticide in the United States. The Suffolk County Department of Health
has provided OPP with the results of all monitoring information on magnetic tape. Besides
aldicarb itself, the Department of Health has analyzed for aldicarb sulfoxide, aldicarb
sulfone, total aldicarb, carbofuran, hydroxycarbofuran, oxyamyl, carbaryl, methomyl,
naphthol, propoxur, and methiocarb.
2-NY-ll
-------
Loria, K, Eplee, R.E., Baier, J.H., and Martin, T.M. (1986) Efficacy of Sweep-Shank
Fumigation with 1,3-Dichloropropene Against Pratylenckus penetrans and Subsequent
Groundwater Contamination. Department of Plant Pathology, Cornell University, Ithaca,
NY 14853, (607)255-7831.
Abstract
Populations of Pratylenchus penetrans in plots treated with a 92% solution of 1,2-
dichloropropene (1,3-D) at 47, 70, 94, 117, or 140 L/ha of formulated material increased
less than in control plots when this fumigant was injected under an untitled winter cover
crop with a sweep-shank injector. Linear regressions of posttreatment P. penetrans
populations or population changes against 1,3-D rates were significant (P< =0.01) at one of
two locations. Fumigation at 140 but not 94 L/ha resulted in contamination of ground
water by cis and trans 1,3-dichloropropene within 68 days of application. Water samples
taken 83 days after fumigation also contained 1,2-dichloropropane (1,2-D). Peak
concentrations of these chlorinated hydrocarbons in ground water occurred 83 days after
fumigation. Abnormally heavy rainfall (11 cm) that occurred within 6 days of fumigant
application probably reduced fumigant efficacy and enhanced pesticide leaching.
Design
Both plots were fumigated on 6 April 1983. Four wells were installed on the periphery of
the field at each location: one upstream to monitor incoming ground water and three
downstream of the anticipated flow of ground water from the treated fields. On each
sampling date, wells were pumped for 30 min. before water samples were collected. The
samples were immediately stored at 0°C and analyzed within 30 hours of collection. The
protocol suggested by the EPA for purgeable hydrocarbon analysis (Method 601, Federal
Register, Vol. 44, No. 233.3 December 1979) was followed to determine concentrations of
cis and trans 1,3-D and 1,2-D, an impurity in the Telone II formulation.
Results and Discussion
Neither 1,3-D nor 1,2-D was found in pretreatment water samples or in upstream wells at
either location. Levels of these materials in all water samples taken after fumigation with
1,3-D at 94 L/ha were also below the detection threshold of 2 ppb. However, both 1,3-D
and 1,2-D were found in ground water after fumigation with 1,3-D at 140 L/ha. Both cis
and trans 1,3-D appeared in one downstream well 68 days after fumigation. The
concentrations of these stereoisomers peaked at 83 days and were still found in ground
water samples 138 days after fumigation. Water samples taken from the same downstream
well 83, 104,138, and 188 days after fumigation also contained 1,2-D. Rainfall immediately
after fumigation was unseasonably high; 10.6 and 18.5 cm of precipitation occurred within
5 and 12 days, respectively, of 1,3-D application. A total of 32.1 cm of rain fell after
fumigation and before the pesticide was first detected in samples of ground water in wells
on the peripheries of treated fields.
2-NY-12
-------
Though leaching of 1,3-D was demonstrated only under conditions that were very favorable
for movement through the soil, these data show that the potential for ground water
contamination by 1,3-D exists.
Kotcon, J.B. and Loria, R (1987) Fall Fumigation of Potato with 1,3-DichIoropropene:
Efficacy Against Pratylenchus crenatus, Yield Response, and Groundwater Contamination
Potential. Department of Plant Pathology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, (607) 255-
7831.
Plots in two commercial potato fields infested with Pratylenchus crenatus were fumigated in
September 1984 with 94% 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) at 0,94,117, or 140 L or formulated
material per hectare. Population densities of P. crenatus 2 weeks after fumigation were
reduced by all rates of 1,3-D at both locations, and up to 96% control was obtained with 140
L/ha. In a separate experiment, plots in fields with shallow water tables (< 4 m), were
fumigated with 1,3-D (94 or 140 L/ha). Ground-water samples were taken from wells
adjacent to fields and analyzed for 1,3-D and related hydrocarbons 1 day before, 1 week
after, and at about 3-week intervals for 1 year after fumigation. No detectable levels (> 2
ppb) of 1,3-D or related hydrocarbons were found in ground water samples after fumigation
at either 94 or 140 L/ha. About 0.6 cm of rain fell during the first 17 days after fumigation,
and a total of 89.7 cm fell during the sampling period. Relatively low levels of precipitation
immediately after fumigation may have reduced the potential for ground water
contamination by 1,3-D and related hydrocarbons.
2-NY-13
-------
2-NY-14
-------
PESTICIDE SAWLIKG IN THE STATE OF HEM TOIK
1,2-Dichloropropane to Butylate
¦
UEU, sesULt?
SftKPLS RESULTS
RAMOS OF
COKCES* :
nsricu*
CCUWY
om
tftlAt.
UELLS
SAMPLED
#=0f ..
POSITIVE
WELLE
TOtAL #
OF
SAMPLES
KtMBE* Of
POSITIVE
SAKPLK
TCAd/
*ma
KCL
<
!ii§i!
" • svS
t
ML
<
MCL
1,2-
Dichlora-
$W*par
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING III THE STATE OF IEU YORK
1,2-Oichloropropone to ButylBte
WELL 8ESULTS
SAKPLE results
RANGE OF
CONCEK-
tftATIONS
Cw/i>
«STICU>i
couwr*
PATE
TOTAL
urns
SAMPLE)
MCf
POSITIVE
WELuS
TOTAL #
OF
SAMPLES
KUtfttE* Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEA®/
NOMTH
2
mi
<
net
t
KCl
<
*ct
(2,4-D)
HWRQC
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
wmocmx
7/1985
8/1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
lUAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OtetD*
1985/9
1987/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
OHONOAGA
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
mmt
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORAKCE.
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OSWEOd
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
otsrco
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
POTBAH
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
REtl$$ELAEIl
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ROCIOAW -
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
$C«0#A«£
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1985/8
1986/
6.8
3
0
0
3
0
0
ST.
tAUBEbCe'
1985/10
1987/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SJLLlVAS
1987/9
4 .
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
UASKIHCTO#
1985/9
4
0
1
4
0
1
0.56
WATNE
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
1
6
0
1
0.5
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
2-NY-16
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW YORK
1,2-Dichloropropane to Butylate
<• %' "T-T * * $
. - .
ICLL. HESULtS
SAHPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEN*
t*at»0*s
mm)
eesrieioi
count*
WT6
torn
VELLS
SAMPLED
wot
POSITIVE
WELLS
Tim *
OF
SAMPLES
KWEft Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
r?AR/
NOHTb
*a
-------
PESTICIK SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW YORK
1,2-Diehloropropane to Butylate
,
WEtL RESULtS
SAKPLS fctsutls
RAS5E OF
COUCEtt*
TfiAtlW
mm
p&ricu*
CAMTV, -
MK
total
- VEILS
SAMPLED
*Of
POSITIVE
MSLtS
am §
OF
SAHtt.es
mWEd Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAK/
*0#T«
*
HCL
<
MCL
s ,
HCL
<
mi
<2.4,5-
TP)
WteiPA
1985/9
1987/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
ONQXDASA
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
mmci' "
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
OftAHGf
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OSWEGO
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
OTSEfiO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
mkm
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
RENSSELAER -
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ROCCIAND ¦
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHtWAfiie
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
eteje&K
1985/8
1986/
6.8
3
0
0
3
0
0
wmmms
uwsEwre
1985/10
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
SUFFOLK!
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SOtUtfAfc
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OlSTCft
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHIHfiTO*
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
WAtWf
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WTOHNW
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
139
0
0
139
0
0
2-NY-18
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLIKG IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK
1,2-Oichloropropane to Butylete
«ll fiESULTS
&MPIE fcESUlt*
RWHiE W
coucat-
iftMiwe
iw/n
,
¦
pEsmu*
;
wum
tOIAt
UEU.S
J '#-¦ "V
POSITIVE
WEILS
1WSU. #
-"-¦¦OF
SAMPLES
WJHBEfi Of
POSITIVE
8WPU*
"••• *
TEAR/
*0«T«
.. .
£
KCL
<
*ct
I
: act. -
«
*CL
Mach or
AUMHf
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALU?CAN!f
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BROOME -
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAT TA MUCUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
1986/
7,10
1987/4
4
0
0*
5
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1986/9
1987/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CH^gJW
"» V N
*
1985/8
1986/
6-9
1987/
2.4.6
11
0
0*
17
0
0
CSStrAKGO
1986/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
CUKTON
1985/8
1986/10
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
^ \ W '
t&iium
1985/9
1986/1,
5,7,8,
10
1987/
2.4
10
0
0*
22
0
0
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SHE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
FRAMCttK
1986/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
fVlTO#
1987/
2.4
3
0
0
4
0
0
CENESEE
1986/5,
6.9
1987/2,
4.7
8
0
0
21
0
0
GREENE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
2-NY-19
-------
PESTICIDE SMVLIKG IN THE STATE OF MEU YORK
1,2-Dichloropropane to Butylate
WEIL SESCLt?
:: -awte *e$tfLts
RANGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATION
tw/n
msrituK
COUKn
DAT*
towt
WELLS
SAMPLED
" #*£ - 'V
POSITIVE
WEILS
TOTAL f
OF
ttwtx.es
Of
POSITIVE
% SAMPLE*
, \
tea#/
2
Ml
<
net
t
#ei
' *
*Cl
(Ala-
chlor)
1985/10
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
ilVINOSrON
1985/7
1987/2
1986/9
5
0
0
6
0
0
HAOiSOW
1986/
4,10
4
0
0*
6
0
0
WdNftOfc
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
«c»ra«E«Y
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
HtAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OtfcJDA ,
1985/9
1987/4
7
0
0
7
0
0
W0HDA6A
1985/10
1986 /9
1987/2
4
0
0
5
0
0
OWtttS -'
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
OftAKCE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OSWEGO
1985/10
1986/6
1987/
2.4
7
0
0
12
0
0
orseoo
1985/8
1986/
7,10
1987/
2,8
13
0
0*
15
0
0
WTIttH
9/1987
5
0
0
5
0
0
8EJ1SSR.AER
1985/3,
6,9,12
1986/7
1987/8
29
7
8
58
11B
31
0.04-16
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ROCIOAW:
SWfflHMIC
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
SENECA
1986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
STEU3EK
1985/8
1986/
6,8
1987/
2,4
6
0
0
17
0
0
2-NY-20
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN TIE STATE OF IEU TQM
1,2-Dichloropropane to Butylate
WEU MSULT5
SAMPLE HESULTS
ftAtl&£ Of
TRAT IONS
<«/t>
mUCJDE
COUNTY
! OATS
1
TOTAL
VELU
SAKPtEP
it OF
w$mw -
" uetu
TOTAL #
Of
SAMPLES
NUMBER OF
fOSlTJVE
SAMPLES
.
Y6AR/
mm
MCI
¦<
MCt :
fe
Ma
<
¦ MIX :
(Ala-
chlor)
ST*
LAUREtJCf
1985/10
1987/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
SUffCUC
1986/9
3
0
1
3
0
1
0.8
SULlTVAtt
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
TIOGA
1987/2
6
0
0
6
0
0
ia.$TEft
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHINGTON
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
MAUI
1985/7
1986/
9,10
1987/2,
4,6
8
0
0
12
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
' WONING
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
214
7
9
311
11
32
0.04-16
Atdicarb
SUFFOLK
1980
8121
1534
718
8595
1615
752
0.20-
515.00
1981
644
314
134
680
333
140
0.20-
161.00
1982
2793
0
6
2906
0
6
1.00-
2.00
1983
4341
2
5
4667
2
5
0.08-
45.00
1984
3696
15
1
3989
15
1
0.08-
62.00
1985
3783
28
2
4240
30
2
2.00-
57.00
1986
2743
7
0
3804
8
0
3.00-
27.00
1987
4590
17
0
7083
30
0
8.00-
47.00
1988
3411
2
3
4611
2
3
1.00-
16.00
1989
3165
9
0
4278
9
0
8.00-
47.00
2-NY-21
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MEV TOWC
1,2-Oichloropropane to Butylate
WEIL RESULTS
rswwLE semis
RANGE OF
CONCEIT*
: TMTI0K6
PISTJCIW
cam*
total
WELLS
SAMPIS*
**
POSITIVE
WELLS
WAV*:
OF '
SAMPLES
WW8£* Of
POSITIVE
SAttn.ES
n**/
MOUTH
2
KCL
*CL
t
net
*
¦¦ mi
(Aldi-
carb)
1990
3081
9
10
4100
9
10
1.00-
66.00
1991
43
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
20955
1723
731
49022
2053
919
0.08-
515.00
Aldicnrb
Sutfone ¦
sa^oLt
1980
8121
0
0
8595
0
0
1981
644
2
1
680
2
1
1.00-
91.00
1982
2793
517
70
2906
540
72
1.00-
124.00
1983
4341
1105
157
4667
1196
174
0.01-
153.00
1986
3696
903
139
3989
987
149
0.01-
81.00
1985
3783
1347
153
4240
1462
169
0.01-
97.00
1986
2743
1031
121
3804
1327
176
0.01-
70.00
,, •. s%
1987
4590
1572
186
7083
2250
324
0.07-
97.00
: • rr:r:
1988
3411
1161
134
4611
1393
208
1.00-
58.00
1989
3165
1021
129
4278
1236
177
1.00-
51.00
-
1990
3081
1029
138
4100
1184
199
1.00-
58.00
1991
43
18
2
60
19
4
1.00-
8.00
TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELLS/
SAMPLES
20955
4529
440
49022
11399
1653
0.01-
153.00
2-NY-22
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF IEV YORK
1,2-Dichloropropane to Butylate
UEU RESULTS
SM9LE RESULTS
RAKGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATION
uwm
iHgmfctte.
COUNT*
PATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
#<*
POSITIVE
WELLS
WAl *
OF
SAMPLES
KtMSEft Of
POSITIVE
-- SAMPLES
Aldicarb
Sulfoxide
TEAft/
KtttTtt
I
#Cl
*
*Cl
I
mmsi
<
¦ teCt
SJFfOU
1980
8121
0
0
8595
0
0
1981
644
2
0
680
2
0
11.00-
84.00
¦¦ ¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦-¦¦¦ ¦
1982
2793
378
199
2906
394
207
0.11-
266.00
1983
4341
817
474
4667
868
540
0.02-
132.00
1984
3696
649
405
3989
690
459
0.01-
87.00
1985
3783
941
536
4240
989
615
0.01-
107.00
1986
2743
748
431
3804
902
648
0.03-
83.00
1987
4590
1092
642
7083
1513
1032
0.01-
75.00
1988
3411
765
505
4611
876
688
1.00-
69.00
1989
3165
625
490
4278
723
645
1.00-
86.00
1990
3081
601
549
4100
670
6865
1.00-
65.00
Illllilwi
1991
43
12
8
60
12
10
1.00-
9.00
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
20955
3414
1505
49022
7640
5533
0.01-
266.00
£
Total
1980
8121
1534
718
8595
1615
752
0.20-
515.00
1981
644
316
135
680
335
141
0.20-
175.00
1982
2793
532
87
2906
555
90
1.00-
283.00
1983
4341
1174
174
4667
1277
191
0.01-
268.00
¦
1984
3696
962
158
3989
1048
170
0.01-
167.00
1985
3783
1390
193
4240
1508
216
0.01-
181.00
2-NY-23
-------
PESTICIDE SAWLIMG IN THE STATE OF HEW YORK
1,2-Diehloropropane to Butylete
,
WEU RESULTS
SAMPLE RfiSUltS
RANK OF
CONCEtt*
t#ATi<#$r
'£W/1>
P6$mu«
caj#n
PATE
TOTAL
WELLS
tAKPLKJ
f Of
POSITIVE
UELLS
TOTAL *
OF
sakw.es
HtME* Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
(Aldicarb
total)
-
ffiM/
koktb
lllill
m
HCL
v„...;
net
*0.
7®
1986
2743
1073
163
3804
1382
250
0.01-
153.00
'
1987
4590
1628
209
7083
2350
373
0.01-
131.00
s ¦>
1988
3411
1183
157
4611
1411
250
1.00-
145.00
. *
1989
3165
1053
142
4278
1285
188
1.00-
137.00
1990
3081
1058
151
4100
121B
218
1.00-
119.00
1991
43
19
1
60
20
3
1.00-
16.00
TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELLS/
SAMPLES
20955
5818
1025
49022
14007
2B43
0.01-
515.00
Aldrin
ALBANY ' ¦
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALIEGAW
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BROOME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA '
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHEMUNG
1985/8
1986/
6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
cuw
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF KEU YORK
1,2-Dlchloropropane to Butylate
:
WEIL RESULTS
SWtE RESULTS
RARGE OF
C0NCEN-
tftATEQMS
cetmifti
caw
tm
TOTAL
'WELLS
SAXfLEO
¦¦"v.**:-: .
POSITIVE
WELtS
TOTAL #
OF
SAMPLES
tame* or
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
¦
% .. t X f ^
*> s * ,
TEAS/
wmn
<
XCL
t
HCL
<
net
(Aldrin)
KOUH*
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
XONTGOHEltr
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OttTARW
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
..OftAXCE. '¦
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
oneeo
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
• HrfrtAH s
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SEHSSEiAER.
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ftOCKUWD
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHASIt
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STEUBEN
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST.
iawrence;
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
3
0
0
itSLtma l
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
UASHIMGTOK
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
UATKE
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WY0WH6
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
122
0
0
119
0
0
Atrazlrw
ALBANY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALtEGAUY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BROOKE
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
2-NY-25
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEIi YORK
1,2-DictUoropropene to Butylate
UEll ttSULt?
sfcffte «ests.is
RANGE OF
CONCEK'
tHATIOMS
twr/O
pEsriciof :
cam
CATE
TOTAt « Of
vats POSITIVE1
SAHPLSJ | tKitS -
TOTAt f
OF
of
POSITIVE
SAXPU&
-
/¦ ,um"
KOKTH
2
j net
' <¦
net
t
ftCL
<
(Atra-
zine)
CATTARAU6U5
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/
7,10
1987/4
4
0
0
5
0
0
CtMUTAUCUA
1986/9
1987/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CtSWJNS
1985/8
1986/
6-9
1987/2,
4,6
11
0
0
17
0
0
CHENANGO
1986/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
..CliKTOK '
1985/8
1986/10
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
mnm
1985/9
1986/1,
5,7,8,
10
1987/
2.4
10
0
0
22
0
0
DELAWARE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
ItiltitllSglli
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
eme „
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
mNOJK
1986/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
HATCH
1987/
2.4
3
0
0
4
0
0
6ENESES
1986/5,
6,9
1987/2,
4.7
8
0
0
21
0
0
CRSEKF
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
^pfsnsoN
85/10
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
uvwttro*
1985/7
1986/9
1987/2
5
0
0
6
0
0
MA0ISOH
1986/10
1987/4
4
0
0
6
0
0
MMRCE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
2-NY-26
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLIKG III THE STATE OF KEU YORK
1,2-Dichloropropane to Butylate
UElL RESULTS
SAXPtE RESlfLtS
fcAKGE
COMCEK-
THAT IOHS
0*8/*>
Hsricme
COJKTY
tQTAL
VEILS
SAMPLES
#Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL §
OF
SAMPLES
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YSAD/
NOMT8
2
XCl
<
net
* ,
net
: «
mt
(Atra-
zine)
NOUTGOHESr
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OtttM
1985/9
1987/4
6
0
0
6
0
0
OKONOAGA
1985/10
1986/9
1987/2
5
1
0
5
1
0
3
0*TA*|D
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORANGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OSWEGO
1985/10
1986/6
1987/
2.4
9
1
0
14
1
0
4
0«E60
1985/8
1986/
7,10
1987/
2.8
13
0
1
15
0
1
1
POTHAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
RENSSELAER
1979/10
•1987/8
42
16
12
103
36®
47
0.12-
1500
8DCKIAW
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
3C#OHAXIE
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
SENECA
1986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
STEU8EW
1985/9
1986/
6,10
1987/
2.4
6
0
0
17
0
0
St*
LAURENCE
1985/10
1987/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
mnvAH
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
TIOGA
1987/2
6
0
0
6
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHING YOlf
' 1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
2-NY-27
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING III THE STATE OF NEW TORT
1,2-Dichloropropane to Butylate
mi RESULTS
, 1 SWLE RESULTS
ftAKCE OF
CONCEN-
tsatiohs
m/u
counr*
torn
WELLS
SAMPLED
,,a rofc
>*OHTIVB
r tttits
total #
OF
¦SAMPLES:
KUKBE* Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
'
TEW
MONTH
s *
J 8
XCL
<
:*ei
*
<
(Atra-
zirie)
mm
1985/7
1986/
9.10
1987/2,
4.6
8
0
0
12
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WYONIKS
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
OISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
232
18
13
258
38
48
0.12-
1500
Arinphoa*
methyl
ALBANY
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
ALLEGANY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BROCHE *
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA "
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHSMUMC
1986/
6,8
1987/6
4
0
0
4
0
0
CLitfTON
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CWTtAW
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
DELAWARE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
wrrcjfESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
6E1ESEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
GREENE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
iEFFfftSON
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
HOMTCWERY:
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WtAUtft ;•»
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
0RAN6E
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
fcJTKAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
2-NY-28
-------
PESTICIDE SAWM-ING IN THE STATE OF HEU YORK
1,2-Dichloropropane to (Butylate
UEti. RESULTS
SAHPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CDXCSli*
tHAtiOKS
CM/1)
PE$riC»M
cam
"i'¦
WTf"
TOTAL
UELLS
SAHPLB)
*Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
total #
OF
SAMPLES
KUWED Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
\ :.. -¦
nm
M0KT8
XCL
*Ct
t
MCL
<
net
(Azinphos
-methyl)
600OAW
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCSOHAfilE
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
ST*
LAURENCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
Stfl.LiVAM
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WATKt
1986/9
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
UYOMIHC
1987/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELLS/
SAMPLES
79
0
0
79
0
0
SHC
ALBANY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALiEGANT
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BROOME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATUSA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHMfTAUftJA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
1985/8
1986/6,
8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CUkTON
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTLAND
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
DELAWARE
1986/7
5
0
0
5
0
0
WJTWESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERIE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
GENESEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
2-NY-29
-------
PESTICIDE SAW LING IN THE STATE OF HEW YORK
1,2-Diehloropropane to Butylate
=wett *ESULt$
SAKPCE fcESJtfS
RANGE OF
CONCH#-
: f*A?IOH£
(MVft)
CttJKTY
DATE
101*
VEUS
SAMPLES
, *#'
POSITIVE
¦ Wits
tout f
- OF
SAMPLES
*t#ee# Of
POSITIVE
SAKPIK
'
YEAH/
H0NT8
8 - 1
HCt
~ <
HCl
-
HCL
<
fcCL
(BHC)
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
L1VINCST0H
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
KtMKOET
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
HtWTGOHERT
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WTASJO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORAKGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
>
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PWtWf
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
mmj&t"-
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
tectum
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHWAS IE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STEU8EJI
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST»
LAURENCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
sullm#
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASK1H6T0# -
19B5/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
WATHE
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WKTCHEStS!
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WY0H1KS
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELLS/
SAMPLES
122
0
0
122
0
0
2-NY-30
-------
PESTICIDE SJUPLIKG IN THE STATE OF MEW YORK
1,2-Dichloropropane to Butylate
- ^
UEU SESULTS
SAMPLE HEStftU
RAM# OF
COtfCSK'
that tons
CM/U
PESTICIDE
50UKT*
mi
tOTAt
VEILS
SAKPLgO
v- re* v
POSITIVE .
WELL 5
tOttt #
OF
SAMPLES
watt <*
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEA*/
NOKTB
HCt
*
''
*
net
<
HCl
9utyt9t^
aibant
1985/6
1987/6
5
0
0
5
0
0
AUFGdNV
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
1986/6
1
0
0
1
" 0
0
-
CAUARAUOtt
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CttAUTAUaUft
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHOSJItfl
1985/8
1986/
6-8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CtiHTON
1985/8
1987/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
C02TLAM}
1985/9
1986/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
OEtAWASE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHESS
' 1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERie
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
$mm -
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
GREENE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
.(EFfERSON
1985/10
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
LMNGSTWt
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
HOJJlttf
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
WWTfiONEliy
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OtttDA
1985/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
CBJQHOASA
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONTARIO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
OftAtotf
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
2-NY-31
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING I If THE STATE OF KEU YORK
1,2-Dichloropropane to Butylate
UEU RESULTS
SAKPLE 8ESW.TS
RAK6E OF
CWCE#-
w/l)
PEsmiltf;
eoum /
MT4
tOTAt.
WELLS
-SAMPLES
f Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
-OF
^SAMPLES:
*UM9£ft Of
POSITIVE
SAKPLE5
TEAS/
NOtrra
S
*CL
<
m.
*
xa
feet
(Buty-
late)
osweso .
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
OTSEGO : ¦
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
9
0
0
9
0
0
PUTHAK '
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
8EUSSE1AER
1985/3,
6.9
1986/7
1987/8
21
0
0
29
0
0
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SDKXARIE
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
STEUBEN
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST.
uwttitce
1985/10
1987/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
*»#*£
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
mnvAif
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
Dure* u
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASKItftSrOtJ
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
WA¥H£
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WTOHIHG
7/1985
6/1987
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
146
0
0
154
0
0
2-NY-32
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Carbaryl to Dieldrin
VEU. «£SULtS
SAMPLE RESULTS
SAUCE Or
COMCEil*
TRAtJCmS
WSticiMf
countr
we
WU.
UEU$
SAMPLE*
• Of
POSITIVE
VEILS
TOW #
¦OF
SAMPLES
mass* OF
POSITIVE
SAXPLES
TEW/
wtrra
J
net
<
KCL
. ww.vwm'.vowi','"
«•
#8.
*
«x
Carfearyt
CArtieA
1986/10
1987/4
3
0
0
4
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1986/9
2
0
0
2
0
0
CHEMUNG
1986/7,9
1987/2,4
4
0
0
10
0
0
CHEHAK60
1986/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
CI INTO!
1986/10
2
0
0
2
0
0
CCSUWP
1986/7,
10
1987/2,4
6
0
0
12
0
0
FfiAllKLItt
1986/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ftHTOH
1987/2,4
3
0
0
4
0
0
C8ESEE
1986/6,9
1987/2,4
7
0
0
17
0
0
UVlHfiSTOi
1986/9
1987/2
2
0
0
3
0
0
ittrsotf
*
1986/10
1987/4
4
0
0
6
0
0
CJfElbA
1987/4
6
0
0
6
0
0
OtJOH&AS*
1986/9
1987/2
3
0
0
4
0
0
OSWEGO
1986/6
1987/2,4
6
0
0
11
0
0
OTSEGO
1986/10
1987/2
4
0
0
6
0
0
SElttCA s-
1986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
STEUSE#
1986/6,
10
1987/2,4
4
0
0
15
0
0
SUFFOLK
1980
8121
0
0
8595
0
0
1981
644
0
0
680
0
0
1982
2793
0
5
2906
0
5
1.00-
48.00
1983
4341
0
4
4667
0
4
1.00-
3.00
2-NY-33
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IK THE STATE OF NEU YORK
Carbaryl to Dieldrin
-
UEU RESULTS
" SAMPLE «SUt?S
RAJIGS &r
CONCEM"
mtftws
mi
total
WEUS
SAMPLED
*0f
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAt *
OF
' SA#PtIB.
IWH&fUtt
miTfVE
SAW>L£S
nw
K0KT8
2
net
<
*0.
e
Wt
<
net
(Carbaryl)
1984
3696
0
7
3989
0
7
1.00-
61.00
1985
3783
0
15
4240
0
16
1.00-
46.00
1986
2743
0
8
3804
0
8
0.11-
14.00
1987
4590
0
11
7083
0
13
1.00-
610.00
1988
3411
0
16
4611
0
16
1.00-
21.00
1989
3165
0
8
4278
0
8
1.00-
43.00
-
1990
3081
0
6
4100
0
8
1.00-
47.00
1991
43
0
0
60
0
0
TIOGA
1987/2
6
0
0
6
0
0
1MWE
1986/10
1987/2,4
2
0
0
6
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
21027
0
69
49144
0
85
0.11-
610.00
Cfirtofuitn .
CAYUGA
1986/10
1987/4
3
0
0
4
0
0
CHAtfTAUOUA
1986/9
2
0
0
2
0
0
CHEMUJIG
1986/7,9
1987/2,4
4
0
1
10
0
1
1
CHENANGO
1986/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
ctwto#
1986/10
2
0
0
2
0
0
COfTLASO
1986/1,
5.7,10
1987/2,4
6
0
0
18
0
0
FBAHKL5#
1986/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
H&TON
1987/2,4
3
0
0
4
0
0
GEffiSEE
1986/5,
6.9
1987/2,4
7
0
0
20
0
0
2-NY-34
-------
PESTICIDE SMM.MG IM THE STATE OF KW YORK
Corbaryl to Dieldrin
•
UEU RESULTS
SWPLE RESUltS
RANGE OF
CO#CE*-
TRJittcms
¦
1
COUXTr
mi
w*.
vats
tttxptes
\C * ¦
¦¦¦¦¦posmvB ¦¦
WEitS
WtAt *
OF
¦ SAMPLES
SUHKfr Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
. : WW .
*0#TH -
>
act.
<
ttx
; m.
<
MCL
(Carbo-
furan)
irviwsrof
1986/9
1987/2
2
0
0
3
0
0
HABISOd
1986/10
1987/4
4
0
0
6
0
0
OKETDA
1987/4
6
0
0
6
0
0
0NMDA6A
1986/9
1987/2
3
0
0
4
0
0
OSWEGO
1986/6
1987/2.4
6
0
0
11
0
0
orseso
1986/10
1987/2
4
0
0
6
0
0
SEBtCA
31986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
STEUWN
1986/6,
10
1987/2,4
4
0
0
15
0
0
SUFFOLK ¦¦
1980
8121
13
90
8595
13
114
1.00-
65.00
1981
644
2
297
680
2
305
0.5-
41.00
1982
2793
13
600
2906
13
623
1.00-
92.00
1983
4341
26
1335
4667
27
1455
1.00-
114.00
J" >¦?"
1984
3696
9
1014
3989
9
1090
0.01-
176.00
1985
3783
7
1135
4240
7
1210
1.00-
56.00
1986
2743
1
828
3804
2
981
1.00-
40.00
1987
4590
4
1180
7083
7
1557
0.01-
58.00
1988
3411
2
804
4611
2
859
1.00-
47.00
1989
3165
0
548
4278
0
618
1.00-
29.00
1990
3081
1
428
4100
1
455
1.00-
49.00
i ''
1991
43
0
3
60
0
3
1.00-
5.00
2-NY-35
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEU YORK
Cerbaryl to Dieldrfn
UCtt SESOltS
1 SAKPLfc RESUltS
8AN8E Of
COttCEK*
TftWONS
WWf"
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS-
S*»LED
*0f
POSITIVE
" (Kits .
TOTAL #
Of
SAMPLES
: Of
: fOSJIiVE
SAMPLES
/ v
TEAR/
*WTH
•2
HCL
<
"Utt *
2
«CL
<
~tel.
(Carbo-
furan)
trosA ~
1987/2
6
0
0
6
0
0
UAWE
1986/10
1987/2,4
2
0
0
6
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
21027
72
3959
49153
83
9271
0.01-
176.00
3-Hydroxy
Cirbofuran
CAWGA
1986/10
1987/4
3
0
0
4
0
0
GHAUTAUOUA
1986/9
2
0
0
2
0
0
CHEMUNG
1986/7,9
1987/2,4
4
0
1
10
0
1
2
CKEtittiGG
1986/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
CLINTO*
1986/10
2
0
0*
2
0
0
CORTLAND
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEW TORJC
Carbaryl to Dieldrin
* III
<¦ WEtl SestlLTS
SAMPLE WSJlTS |
SANGE OF
COHCEJK
tratkbis
u <«/'»>
WESTtCJOE I COWf
PATE
S TOTAL
URLS
EAKPLEC ;
* Of
POSITIVE „
UELLS
TOTAL *
OF
¦SA#PL«''::
iiUMBEft iIF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES |
1
W&f
ko#th i
8121
2
mm
*&
*ct
< 1
MCL 1
I >
(3-OH Carbo-
furan)
1980
0
0
8595
0
0
- ' •
1981
644
0
0
680
0
0
1982
2793
0
5
2906 '
0
5
1.00-
6.00
1983
4341
0
1
4667
0
1
1.00
y
1984
3696
0
4
3989
0
4
1.00
/ I
1985
3783
0
4
4240
0
4
1.00-
10.00
1986
2743
0
3
3804
0
3
1.00-
3.00
' ' %
1987
4590
0
2
7083
0
2
1.00-
2.00
, V
1988
3411
0
6
4611
0
6
1.00-
2.00
-
*
1989
3165
0
4
4278
0
4
1.00-
2.00
1990
3081
0
8
4100
0
8
1.00-
8.00
1991
43
0
0
60
0
0
TIOGA
1987/2
6
0
0
6
0
0
UAYNE
1986/10
1987/2,4
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELLS/
SAMPLES
21028
0
37
49126
0
41
1.00-
10.00
CtUordane
ALBANY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALLSttAKY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BROOME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHEHUN3
1985/8
1986/6.8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
2-NY-37
-------
PESTICIDE SAW LING IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Carbaryl to Dieldrin
VEIL *ESULT$
SJWPLE RESUiTS
RANK Of
CtWCEN-
tRATItWS
(M/t)
pssnejoe -
cowir
mi
TOTAL
wats
SAMPLED
#0f
POSITIVE
wetts
tow#
OF
SAWLES
ttUHIttfr OF
mmvE
SAWLEE
nw
H0KT8'
warn
< ,
net
£
Ktt
mi
(Chlordanc)
cu*r<*
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTUW
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
MtAWM
1986/7
5
0
0
5
0
0
mtX£S&
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
Eft IS
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
GENESEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
68EEKE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
ilVIHGSTOM
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
K0SRC8
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
KORTGCHEftY
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
HtMMA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OHTARfO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
GRANGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PtttNAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
REMSSEUEa
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ftOCKtAlffl
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOSAfttS
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STEtMtt
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST.
muRara
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
f&ftox
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
mttwa
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
DISTEH •
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHlliSTtM
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
wathe
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NY-38
-------
PESTICIDE SANH.MG IN THE STATE OF IEU YORK
Carbaryl to Oieldrin
VEtt RESULtS
SAMPLE RESISTS
ftANGE Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
pesTieioe
COUWtr
am*
TOT*.
WELLS '
¦SAKPL5B'-
POSITIVE
KiLS
: WM#
w
SAWtES
gUMttftOF
POSITIVE
SAK>l£S
TBAft/
-*otn»
'*;
mi
¦ wa.'v
ft
<
HCL
(Chlordarte)
«STtH£$tW
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WCMIDfi
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
122
0
0
122
0
0
Oilor-
twlfoa
ALBANY
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
Aliegahy
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
liiiteHit
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA.
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHAUTAUOUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
O^XUMG
1986/6,8
1987/6
4
0
0
4
0
0
CIM?6K
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CMTUU®
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
OftAUAK*
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WtCrtSS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
G€KE«CE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
fi«EEK£
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
JEFFERSON
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
KORTGOHERY
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
MTA5ARA
1987/6
0
0
1
0
0
ONTARIO
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
OR/WCE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
KfWAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
XOCKUffi
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCWStARlE
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
ST.
LAURENCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
2-NY-39
-------
PESTICIDE SANDING IN THE STATE OF NEU YORK
Carbaryl to Dieldrfn
WELL SESULtt
SANP16 RtSRTS
RANK OF
COHCEH-
TftAneHS
pssriaoe ,
C0WT
ML
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
# Of
POSITIVE
UELLS
TOTAL *
OF
SAMPLES
WJMHSfrOF
POSITIVE
SAKPLEC
TSAR/
*Q«Ta
inii
*cu
<
XCl
SP
m.
<
MCL
(Chlor-
pyrifos)
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SUlLlVAW
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
mrrat
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WAWE - ,
1986/9
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WVQKING
6/1987/
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
79
0
0
79
0
0
Cyaotrine
ALBANY'
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
AiticaoVf
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BSOOKE
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAtTASAyCW
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA- .
1986/7,
10
1987/4
4
0
0
5
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1986/9
1987/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CCEMUNfi
1985/8
1986/6-9
1987/2,
4,6
11
0
0
17
0
0
CHEtUM«5
1986/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
CLINTOH
1985/8
1986/10
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
CCRUAKQ
1985/9
1986/
1,5,8,10
1987/2,4
10
0
0
22
0
0
OEtAWWE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WIC8ESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERII
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
fRAMKLtM
1986/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
2-NY-40
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLING IN THE STATE OF MEU YORK
Carbaryl to Dieldrin
VELL SESWIT5
sww.6 nesutts
imm of.
CONCEU-
TdAtrws -
p«ric>De
catwtr
date
¦
tOTAt
uat$
SAMPLED
#0f
POSITIVE
WEUS
¦
liiiiilpis
SAWLES
mm of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YEAR/
t .
net
<
¦ MCL"-
,
lllif
m.
<
*0.
(Cyanazine)
m.Toti
1987/2,4
3
0
0
4
0
0
gemesse
1986/5,
6.9
1987/2,
4.7
8
0
0
21
0
0
CBKKE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
jef tosses -
1985/10
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
LIVINGSTON -
1985/7
1986/9
1987/2
5
0
0
6
0
0
HADISOH
1986/10
1987/4
4
0
0
6
0
0
KOSROE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
HOMT&OHEftr
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
It 1 AG A* A
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
oweioa
1985/9
1987/4
7
0
0
7
0
0
ononOaga
1985/10
1986/9
1987/2
4
0
0
5
0
0
ONTARIO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORANGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OSUEGO
1985/10
1986/6
1987/2,4
7
0
0
12
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7,1
0
1987/2,8
13
0
0
15
0
0
PDTNAR
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
RENSSELAER
1985/3,
6,9
1986/7
1987/8
22
1
0
28
1
0
1
ROCtCLAK)
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
Schoharie
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
2-NY-41
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING III THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Carbaryl to Dieldrin
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESUVTS
SAHCE OF
COKCEU-
imtm*
ossricjoe
ttuwr
DATE
TOTAL
UELLS
SAMPLED
f Of
positive
WELLS
TOTAt *
OF
SAMPLES
' ^POSITIVE
SAMPLES
WAS/
MOUTH
2
KCL
<
MCL
: £
net
MCL
(Cyanazine)
SS!K6CA-:;:..
1986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
STEUBEM
1985/8
1986/6,
10
1987/2,4
6
0
0
17
0
0
ST.
LAWRENCE
1985/ 10
1987/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
mi! VAX
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
TTOGA
1987/2
6
0
0
6
0
0
oi&m
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHINGTON
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
UAYtfE
1985/7
1986/9,
10
1987/2,
4.6
8
0
0
12
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WYCfclUG
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELLS/
SAMPLES
219
1
0
284
1
0
1
DOT
ALBANY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALLEGART
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BROOME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAOOJS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATOCA
1986/7
1
0
0
X
0
0
CHAUTAUOUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHWMG
1985/8
1986/6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CLINTC8
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTLAND
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
2-NY-42
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW YORK
Carbaryl to Oieldrin
' , s
WEU RESULTS
SAMPLE REStitTS
8ANGE OF
CONCEN*
>
p&tttm /
PATE
TOTAL
uats
f Of
PQSriVE
UELtS
WTAt *
¦OF
SAMPLES
WJKBffrOf
POSITIVE
SAHPLfS
"
TEW)/
KOMTH
*
; mi
<
¦ ¦ ¦
*
: net
<
t&L
(ODT)
DtUWAftT
1986/7
5
0
0
5
0
0
oytcaEss
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERIE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
GEhESEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
GREERE ">
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
LIVINGSTON
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
HONROt
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
HOtrffiOHEur
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
NIAfittA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONTARIO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORANGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
crrseoo
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7 "
0
0
7
0
0
PUTHW
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
RERSSCLAEfi
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ROCKUl©
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCROHAftfE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
; STEU9EK
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
sr.
tAVREUCe
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
StlfFOU1
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUUIVAV
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
UlSTtt
1987/10
9
0
0
9.
0
0
UASHtNCtON
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
HATME
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NY-43
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLIXG IN THE STATE OF MEW YORK
Carberyl to Dietdrin
, "
'
UEU. SESUltt
SAMPLE KSSWTS
RANK OF
CWTCEU-
TRATIOKS
Marntwi
COLUtTf
DATE
torn
VEILS
£A*PtH>
*«f
POSITIVE
WEitS,, 3
WAt *
SF .
SAWLfS
Of5
POSITIVE
SAWLES
rw/
mrtn
: *
, net
<
net
£
#Ct
MCL
(DDT)
uESfCHESTSft
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
UYQKINQ
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
122
0
0
122
0
0
WD
ALBANY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
AUEGAMY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BRoore
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATtAftAtJfeK
1987/6
1
0
0
1 -
0
0
CAfUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHD4UNG
1985/8
1986/6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CLINTON
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTLATO
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
DELAUARH
1986/7
5
0
0
5
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
EfifS
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
CEK£S«
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
GftEEHE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
tXVI KGSTCBf -
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
MOWftOE
1985/6
0
0
2
0
0
: BOtfTGOHERT
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
KtAGAKA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONTARIO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORAHGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
2-NY-44
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLIKG IN THE STATE OF HEW YORK
Carbaryl to Dieldrin
s-*
w;
RESULfS 1
SAMPLE RESULTS
SAM HE OF
COTCElh
TRATfOWS
'wsnctae
COLBitf
OWE
; torn-
veils
SAKPL53
# or
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
OF
SAHPLES
WH&ft Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAS/
WITH
2
#ct
«
WL
i
<
(ODD)
WtK AH
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
" ttusseuar;.
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ROCKIAKO
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARie
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
5TEUBER
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST.
LAWRENCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SBFFQLK
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SULLIVAN
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHINGTON
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
WATSE
<¦-
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
UTQHINC
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
122
0
0
122
0
0
oce
...'
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALLECAHV
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BROOKE
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
C*trARAtttt*
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHEWJNG
1985/8
1986/6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CLtttTOK
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
2-NY-45
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Carbaryl to Dieldrin
"WELt RESULTS ¦¦ ¦
, SArt>L£ RESUiTS
RANGE Of
CONCEH'
TMTNWS
countr
DATE
TOTJU.
VEILS
SA*PLE©:
« Of
positive
WEitS
: KttAt #
OF
SAMPLES
POSITIVE
SA»>L£S
nw
KOKT#
t
net
<
no.
: *
m.
<
mi
(DDE)
COftTUlffl
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
DELAWARE
1986/7
5
0
0
5
0
0
carcass*
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SI£
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
ffi#ESEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
GBEEKE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
llVWWTON
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
MONROE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
HOWTCOWEftt1' y
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONTARIO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
WAHGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
pimiAK
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
REKSSELAEK
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
KStJOAKO*
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE .
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STEUBEN
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST.
tAWREHCE .. :
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SttffOLK
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
as.it vmj
1967/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTE8
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
yASHMGTOtf
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
uimie
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
2-NY-46
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEU YORK
Carbaryl to Dieldrln
vox «E$um
SAMPLE teSUtTS
RANGE Of
CONCEV" :
: micas :
#<*
POSITIVE
was
: TOTAL $
¦¦¦¦¦¦ :«f
KUNBSftdF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TW/
w*t«
¦ ¦
v^v j
s>v^
'/s,
<
tel.
t
: m
-xa
(DDE)
WdKlUG
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELL/SAMPLES
122
0
0
122
0
0
Ofaztoot
JILBAW
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
ALLS&AHY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BfiOOHE
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTAKAIKSUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHEWS
i +¦
1986/6,8
1987/6
4
0
0
4
0
0
CLINTON
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTUtW
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
W-UUAKE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
OUTtKESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
GEKtStfe"
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
GS6EKT
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
J6#K5SG«
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WNTCOHEW
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
RIA&AKA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OMTARIO •
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
08AHGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
PUTNAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
ROCKLAtffi
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
scnohame
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
ST.
LAURENCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SULLIVAN
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
2-NY-47
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLIHG IN THE STATE OF KEU YORJC
Carberyl to Dieldrin
..
¦¦'.."WELL SESULtS,,
-'¦ - ®Ufl>lE wistftjs "
SAMS; Of ]
CCtfCEX-
Tftwoas
ewrsr v ;
DATE
TOTAL
WEU«
&*pim
# Of
POSITIVE
UEUS
TOTAL *
¦OF
SAMPLES
: «UH!K* OF
ipcamvjt
SAMPLES
re«/
MKT it
¦
#ct
<
KCL
t
¦ *ct
m.
(Diszinoo)
LISTER •' -
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WVSE
<
1986/9
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
'yesrcH&Ki*
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
1987/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELL/SAHPLES
79
0
0
79
0
0
MHchloro-
pft^sehc ' '
SUFFOLK
1983/
4-11
8
0
1
35
0
4
18-140
-
1984/
9-12
9
0
0
54
0
0
1985/1-9
9
0
0
117
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
17
0
1
206
0
4
18-140
Dieldrin
ALBANY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALU6AW
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
6S00KE ""
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CArfAftAtXSUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATOCA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA "
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHEHUWG
1985/8
1986/6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CLWOH
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTlAfBJ
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
DELAWARE
1986/7
5
0
0
5
0
0
DUTCHES*
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ESSE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
GEM SEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
GSEERE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
2-NY-48
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW YORK
Cerbaryl to Dieldrin
wu results
SAMPLE Rtsuers
; ftANGE OF
CONCEti"
IRATIONS
wsnciae
01
(Dieldrin)
IfVllWSTOH
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
MOttftOS
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
ftOtfTGOHEAY
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
HIAGA8A
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONTARIO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORANGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
,
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PUTNAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
KKSSgUE*
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ROCtOAKD
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCK08ARIE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STEUBEN
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST.
LAWRENC2
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SULLIVAN
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTES
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
UtSHINGTOti
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
UAYNE
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
: WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WYOKJIIIS
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
122
0
0
122
0
0
2-NY-49
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW YORK
Endosulfan I to Heptachlor Epoxide
>
WELL BRUITS
' SflftE RESULTS
JtAMGE Of
COHCEM*
IftMONS
:
101AI
WELLS
SA#>tE&
# &
KBinwr/
/WELLS "
t
OF
SAHPIEE
KUKSEttOr
TOSITIVE
SAHPtfS
s
UAH/
HOKTH
i
mm
*
$ .
<
*£L
Endtwlfsn J
ksMUt ,
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
AUEGAUY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
**«*£ '
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAtTAftAuGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CBAUTAIKKM
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
ctsEHUss
1985/8
1986/6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CLINTON
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
COHTLAND
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
delahare
1986/7
5
0
0
5
0
0
DUTCHESS ¦
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
me - - "
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
GENESEE - -
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
LIVINGSTON
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
1985/6
2
a
0
2
0
0
MOWTCUTsAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
fiEJISSELAER :
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ROCKLAND
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
2-NY-50
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IM THE STATE OF HEU TORK
Endosulfen I to Heptachlor Epoxide
UELL RESETS
-&W>L£ RESULTS
SAWS OF
: COHCEU- :
ttfclflM*
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MEV YORK
Endosulfan I to Heptachlor Epoxide
s
WELL RESULTS
SftKPLE RESULTS
fiANffi .OF '¦
COttCEJJ*
TftATJCWS
:
WtmtY
date
TCtAl
WEILS
SAWtEfr :
*&
¦ POSITIVE
UEttS
tm #
OF
SAHW.ES
1 UOH&SK OF
' POSITIVE
SAW>t£6
«A8/
XDKIH
¦ i ¦
«
«a
&
-m.
fcCl:
(Endosulfan
II)
mm
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
UVfNGSTW
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
' '
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
(WAtGonaiT
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
NIAGARA.
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OUTAH10
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
dftAUGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/8
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PUTMAH
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
HEMSSELAER
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
iCHQHASIf
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STEU8E*
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST.
lAWREtttE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUFFOt*
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUUlVAS
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
#ftSXl»GTO»
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
w^Iester
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
worn KG
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
122
0
0
2-NY-52
-------
PESTICIDE SMVLIKG IN THE STATE OF HEW YORK
Endosulfen I to Heptachlor Epoxide
1ELI 8ESUUS
SAMPLE RESULTS
8AHCE OF
COtttEK-
TRAT J CMS
UT CHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SM '' -
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
C=HES££
1987/7
0
0
1
0
0
GKEUE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
ttVlHGSTO*
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
MONROE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
MONTCOOIT
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
HtAtURA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OMTABIO .
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORAKCE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
GTSECO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
wrrwH
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
JtENSSSLAER
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
DOCKLAND
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
2-NY-53
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING III THE STATE OF NEW TOST
Endosulfan I to Heptechlor Epoxide
- l£Lt fitSUtTS
' fflWLE RESULTS
SANSS Of
Monetae
COUNT!
Wlt£
TOrM.
UEILS
SAKPLtt
#OF
POSITIVE
- uau -
TCtM, *
OF
SAKPtES
8UH8ER OF
' POSITIVE:
SAMPLES
: CONCEN-
TRATIONS
>£AR/
HOfTH
-
: net
-------
PESTICIDE SAM9LIKG IN THE STATE OF HEW YORK
Endosulfen I to Heptechlor Epoxide
VEtl tt&Ltt
&WL£ feES&TS
ftAHUE »
COHCEH*
HWMflW
reSTICIOE
cotwrr
OAte
" "¦
TOtAl
WEILS •
SAMPLED
i* or
POSITIVE
VEILS
rem *
OF
- SAUCES
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
•: '
turn
mw
!" *.:¦
XCl
'
Ha
i
HCL
<
XCl
(Endrin)
turcHEis
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
: £ftie j - '
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
CSHESEf ' '
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CftfESE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
JEFFERSOJi
1985/10
2
0
0
2
0
0
tlVISGStW
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
NOWROE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
aoifswm
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
mm
1985/9
1987/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
wwsdaga
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONTARIO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CRANGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
CSUEGO
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PUTRAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
JtEllSSELAEIt
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
HOCKLAMO
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STtlfflEU
1985/8
1986/6,8
3
0
0
3
0
0
ST.
LMREHCE
1985/10
1987/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
SUFFOUf
1986/9
19B7/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SULLIVAN
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHINGTON ->
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
2-NY-55
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF KEU YORK
Enbosulfan 1 to Heptachlor Epoxide
UEll RESULTS
SAWLE RESWJ3
JWIGE Of
CONCEii"
TttTIQNS
:
mxrt
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAKPUE&
* OF
POSITIVE
VEILS
TOTM, #
OF
SAMPiES
KUH&* OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
1 year/
KOMTH
£
m
«
NO.
'
a
m.
<
(Endrin)
urn
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTC8ESTE®
19B7/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WTDMIRS
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
139
0
0
139
0
0
Endrin
: aldehyde
A18ANT
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALLECAUf
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
8R00KE
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CtiAirr AtioDA ¦
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
1985/8
1986/6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
aittTON
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTLAND ,
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
OELAWAftB
1986/7
5
0
0
5
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SR1E
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
SENESEt
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
SREEHE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
iivmcsto*
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
WjUlK*
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
K0M1C0MERT
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
ill AGAR* !' •
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OUTAS10 •
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
2-NY-56
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING III THE STATE OF KEU YORK
Endosulfan I to Heptachlor Epoxide
•
SAXPL£ Results
SANK Of
CONCEN*
TftAttONS
PSSTICifiE
txmrt
fiAT*
TOW.
HELLS
SA#»LS0
iff
POSITIVE
5 -status -
TOTAL f
OF
tiiAttR or
POSITIVE
"SAKWJES
.¦ >
YEAa/
.: HOKfK -.
*
XCL
*
MO.
ill!
MCL
<
MCI.
(Endrin
aldehyde)
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PUrHAK
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SQISSELASft
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
R0CKIA«D
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
St£U6£li
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
St.
IAVRENCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SULirVAK
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OtSTEft
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHIBCTOB
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
VAYW
1985/7
19B6/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
urwim:
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
122
0
0
mc
ALBANY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALLEGANY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BROOME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
2-NY-57
-------
PESTICIDE SAW LING III THE STATE Of HEW YORK
Endosulfan I to Heptachlor Epoxide
mi afstits
" SWLE BESUITS
: RANK Of
COKCEH*
;TWT10HS
(*3/l>
wawwe
comtT
IfATf
T0TAI
WEILS
SAWL8&
#0F
POSITIVE
UELtS
torn f
OF
SAM PIES
HUMW& OF
POSITIVE
SAMPtES
V&Stf
MOUtlt
I 4.
<
na :
'
if
«CL
<
*CL
(EPTC)
CSAUTAtMlA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CttHWtG
1985/8
1986/6-B
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CUNTCM
1985/8
1987/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
COftTLAtJS
1985/9
1986/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHES
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
EftlE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
6£*ES££
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
Sft£E«E
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
JEFFERSOJ
1985/10
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
LtvufSdtet»
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
MONROE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
(OJTCOHtftt
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
btCIOA ••
1985/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
mmnsk
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONTARIO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
GRANGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OSWEGO
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
9
0
0
9
0
0
#>UT«AH
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
*eN$$ELA£* ;
1985/3,6,
9
1986/7
1987/8
21
0
0
29
0
0
ROCKLAND xs
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
2-NY-58
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW YORK
Endosulfan t to Heptachlor Epoxide
; v
¦'¦¦¦UEll- fiESULtS
SAWLE RESULTS
SAfctE OF
COttCElb
TMTfONS
•
WsSTJCi&E"- 1
O >
COWT
, -
TOtAl
WELLS
SAHPLEft
if or
POSITIVE
MittS
TOTAL f
OF
SAMPLES
WK W
POSITIVE
SAHP1E8
\ .
,.3£A8/ .
^ noimr
£
: HCt
< i
Htt :
KCl
<
*ct
CEPTC>
SCHOHAJlHs
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
STEUBEN
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST,
1AWREKCE
1985/10
1987/5
4
0
0
4 "
0
0
SUFFGUf
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
3ULLIVAS
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
\Rsvat
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHINGTON
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
MAYBE
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
VWMKG
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
-
146
0
0
154
0
0
8ept«cirt6r
ALBANY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALLEGANY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BROOME
1986/6
1
0
0
0
0
CATTARAUGUS. ;
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CSEKLXG
1985/8
1986/6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CURTCtf
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORUAkD
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
OELAUAfiE
1986/7
5
0
0
5
0
0
OUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERfE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
2-NY-59
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING III THE STATE OF HEW TGRJC
Endosulfan I to Heptachlor Epoxide
" WEti RESUm '
- SAWPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
: CCtfCEH*
t mm$
<«f/b
pssticioe
cousn
wr
TOT At
UEUS
iAWtfiO
*0«?S
: POSITIVE
.TOW. *"
Of
SAHW.ES
or
POSITIVE
SAKPtES .
YEAS/
W*T# '
S >
£
xer
<
ttl
<
; *ct
(Heptachlor)
flfcKESEE
1987n
1
0
0
1
0
0
WfBfE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
tlVNGSTOH
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
MONROE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
nwrreooy
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
MIAQARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OHTARtO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
c
0
OftAHCE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEflO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PUTNAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
fi9)SSELA£R
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ROCKLAND -
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
*&hoh«B'11
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STtUBE*
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
St.
tAWfttttCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUFFOUf . •
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUllIVAR
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
BISTER -
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASBDOTON ;
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
WAYSE
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
Wyoming
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
122
0
0
2-NY-60
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF KEV TOW
Endosulfan I to Heptachlor Epoxide
mi RESULTS
SAWL£ teSUiTS
8ANGEOF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS -
pssncfee-' ::
cwsnr
¦. s -
-a
m»L
VEILS
SAMPLED
1
#OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
OF
SAHPtES
Xlfcttft OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
JttptueMqr
Epoxide
YEA9/
*WTR
¦
£
MCI
a
<
Ml
HtflAUr
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
MLESAHV
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
SHOCKS
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGU9
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CMJTAUOlM
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
a&mn
1985/8
1986/6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
ClIRTON
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
aSTLAKD
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
DELAWARE
1986/7
5
0
0
5
0
0
OUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
«««"'
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
C£NES£f
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
ttEENE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
LWIJIGSTOH
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
MONROE .
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
MONTGOMERY
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
StAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OKTARiO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
c
0
ORANGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PUTNAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
fiEUSSE|.AE»
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ROCKLAND
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
Schoharie
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
2-NY-61
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF KEU TOW
Endosulfan I to Heptachlor Epoxide
' - ^
"m RESULTS
SWtl SESW.T3
SAKOE Of
«Bsyicioe
COWTT
OAT£
TOTAl
WEILS
#QF
POSITIVE
- TOW f
SAMPLES
glMSSR OF
POSITIVE
SAMP1ES
COtttE**
THAWWS
¦
KCAR/
HONTrt
' i
HCL
It
Htt :
&
HCL
HCt
(Heptachlor
epoxide)
StEOBfci
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST.
LAWREIKE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUFfOLK
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SULLTVAN
1987/9
U
0
0
4
0
0
UWTER*
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WAfiBIKGTOH
1985/9
A
0
0
4
0
0
WAYNE
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WEiTCftfSTW
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
Iff OHJMG
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
122
0
0
2-NY-62
-------
PESTICIDE SMFLING IN THE STATE OF KEU YORK
Isofenphos to Trifluralin
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAKGE OF
CONGE tf»
; mnm
(jtafi>
;; Wife /"'
tow,
WELtS
SAKPLE0
#CF
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
**8ER &*
, posing, '
SAMPLES
TEA#/
-HONtH-
2
wt
<
Htt
t KCL
<
#a
tsofenpho*
A18ANY
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
ALLEGAHY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
fiROCUB
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
Chautauqua
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CJJEKUKG
1986/6,
8
1987/6
4
0
0
4
0
0
cunton
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
C0R11AN&
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
&ELAWASE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
CUTCHESS
10/87
4
0
0
4
0
0
CEWESEC' " ^
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CREESE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
JEFFERSON
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0 '
0
HOUtWHEST ~ -
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
jhagara :-
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
t#Ake i';
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
fUT«AM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
DOCKLAND -
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCH0HA8IS
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
"ST* ' *
tAWftERCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SULUVA*
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WAYNE
1986/9
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
2-NY-63
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING III THE STATE OF NEII YORK
Isoferphos to Trffluralin
VtU RESULTS
SAHPtE RESULTS
RANGE OF
GBICEM"
mnm
Menace
cowrr*
DATE
: ">,
TOTAL
: WELLS
tttMPLB*
# Of
, WSITIV6
WELLS
TOTAt *
SAMPLES
m*ae* or
POSITIVE
SAHtt.ES
¦ !Wt
MOUTH
*
#ct
<¦ 1 ;
*ct
; *#Ct
4
, #CL
(1sophen-
fos)
wwicaesrat
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
wroHrwi -
1987/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
UEILS/
SAMPLES
78
0
0
78
0
0
M'rxfene
AL9AJIT " ¦ '
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALLECAKT
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
8TOOHH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
Mrmum
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ct>*m
1985/9
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CHAUtAUQUA
1985/7
1987/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
C8EHWH. 1
V*\ ^ sX
1985/8
1986/6,
8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CU#TG*T
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CCRTUW
1985/9
1986/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
DELAWAPE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERIE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
GENESEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CftEEHE
1986/7
1
0
0
I
0
0
jEffERSOH
1985/10
2
0
0
2
0
0
LIVIUGSTOtf
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
MOttOS 1
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
' MCU T60MCR1T.;
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
2-NY-64
-------
PESTICIDE SAW LI KG IN THE STATE OF HEW YORK
Isofenphos to Trifluralin
VEU RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RA)td£ Of
COttCEK* :
HAT IftiS
COWT*
: ..DATE
TOTAL
UEttS
SAILED
POSITIVE
WELLS
row. #
OF
SAMPLES
MftSEft or
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
ttW
KOWTH
SSHMSS:
¦ m.7,
net
*«CL
4
KCL
(Lindane)
UlAfiARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OHS1DA
1985/9
1987/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
OROKDA&t
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
OK TAX10
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORAKGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
0SW64&
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PUTRAM ,
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
BENSSELAER
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
80C(CtAH£> -
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
StHOHASJS
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
5T£UBEJf
1985/8
1986/6,
8
3
0
0
3
0
0
ST+
IaSSENCE'- :
1985/10
1987/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
suem* !j
•, "s
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SULtlVAK
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
UtSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WAS8TK&TO#
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ttWll
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTEB
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WT0H1BS
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELLS/
SAMPLES
139
0
0
139
0
0
2-NY-65
-------
PESTICIDE SWUNG IN THE STATE OF NEU YORK
Isofenphos to Triflurelin
VEIL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE Of
CONCEK-
pssticioe
cotmv *"
•s *
DATE
total
WELLS
SAKPLE&
< OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL *
OF
SAMPLES
ttWE* or
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
*
I YEAR/
MOUTH
£
#ct
c
Ntt
i i m.
net
NaUthjon
AU1AW - »
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
ALLEGANY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
SROOHE " "
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CBAUTMJWA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
C8EHUSG
1986/6,
8
1987/6
4
0
0
4
0
0
CtlMTW
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTLAND
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
DELAWARE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
GENESEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CREENE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
JEFFERSON
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
NOWTGOHERY
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONTARIO
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
OftANGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
PUTNAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
ROCKLAND
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE ,
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
: LAWREMCE :•?:
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SULLIVAN
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
Aster
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WAYNE
1986/9
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
2-NY-66
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IH THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Isofenphos to Trifluralin
'%s s
WEIL teSULtS
SANPLC RESULTS
RANGE tjf
COtlCEN- :
TKATI0MS
CjtB/O
«srteioe
CtWT*
DATE
W*
weus
# CP
POSITIVE
iSLLS
TOT At i
Of
SAMPLfS
wjtffiER or
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
•
TEAR/
¦ (WITH-
t
m:'
¦nt
^ *Ct""
¦.^v ' v. '
^ ,
S KCt
<
«&'
(Malathion)
vesizmsm
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
VrOMIRG
1987/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
79
0
0
79
0
0
frttethiocarb
SUFFOLK
1980
8121
0
0
8595
0
0
1981
644
0
0
680
0
0
1982
2793
0
0
2906
0
0
1983
4341
0
0
4667
0
0
1984
3696
0
0
3989
0
0
, v , -
1985
3783
0
0
4240
0
0
1986
2743
0
0
3804
0
0
1987
4590
0
0
7083
0
0
1988
3411
0
0
4611
0
0
1989
3165
0
0
4278
0
0
1990
3081
0
1
4100
0
1
1.00
1991
43
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
20955
0
1
49022
0
1
1.00
Hethomy.
SUFFOLK
1980
8121
0
0
8595
0
0
1981
644
0
0
680
0
0
1982
2793
0
16
2906
0
17
1.00-
4.00
1983
4341
0
20
4667
0
21
1.00-
9.00
1984
3696
0
7
3989
0
7
1.00-
4.00
1985
3783
0
20
4240
0
20
1.00-
3.00
1986
2743
0
10
3804
0
10
1.00-
8.00
2-NY-67
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING III THE STATE OF NEW TORK
Isofenphos to Trifluralln
. ... -..v.
WELL RESULTS
-¦¦'¦-SAKPLt JtESVLTS
RAKCE OF
. CONCEK*
TSAH0N$
CHJ/O
pssnetoe
DATE
WAt
UEUS-
SA»te>-
#«*
1 POSITIVE •
WELL&
urn#.
OF -
SAMPLES
HtlMtt* OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YEAR/
ftOUTH
e
¦i'= act ;•
<
m
tm.
' <
KCt
(Hethoaiyl)
1987
4590
0
10
7083
0
10
1.00-
2.00
1988
3411
0
0
4611
0
0
1989
3165
0
6
4278
0
6
1.00-
20.00
"
1990
3081
0
8
4100
0
8
1.00-
7.00
1991
43
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELLS/
SAMPLES
axyehlfii*
20955
0
81
49022
0
85
1.00-
20.00
ALBANY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALlEGAJiy
1987/6
1
0-
0
1
0
0
CROOHE
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS ¦
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
1985/9
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
C1WTAU8UA
1985/7
1987/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
C8EKUSC
1985/8
1986/6,
8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
ai«ro»'
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
Ct»TlA%f
1985/9
1986/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
CEtiESEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
•CREEHE:%r
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
j£m*so«
1985/10
2
0
0
2
0
0
2-NY-68
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW YORK
Isofenphos to Trifluralin
V£U RESULTS
&WPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CCHCEH-
mrioxs
tw/l>
nsncioe
cam*
DATE
TOTAL
wais
-SAKPL5)
#«F
POSITIVE
"" WELLS
TOTAl #
Of
SAMPLES
or
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEA Hf
MOUTH
«
m.
t #CL
*CL
(Heth-
oxychlor)
tlVIHOStO#
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
KMRCE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
¦noNTctrev
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
diasAra
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONEJM
¦« - ' 5'
1985/9
1987/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
OKONDAGA
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONTARIO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORANGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OSWECO
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0-
0
7
0
0
PUTNAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
RENSSELAER
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
AUCKLAND
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STEU8E*
. ¦
1985/8
1986/6,
8
3
0
0
3
0
0
ST.
LAWRENCE
1985/10
1987/5
4
0
0
4
0
c
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SULLIVAN .
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHINGTON
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
WAYNE
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NY-69
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING ID THE STATE OF HEW YORK
Isofenphos to Trifluralfn
VtU RESULTS
- - SAMPtf SESULTS
.:«MCE-0F
COUCSK*
1*AT!0R*
tff8/t>
>€STJCtof:'.x
ccwrr*
DATE
WAl
VEILS
SA*?tS>
# OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
WAl #
OF
:;:;'SAW*i£S ;
; *0*81* or
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
-
TEAR/
HCtlTH
2
: #Ct
<
WCl
m.
(Meth-
oxychlor)
WESTCH6STPJ
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WTOHIBft
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
139
0
0
139
0
0
HetolocMcr
AtSAMT
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
AL1ECAMT -
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BftflCKE
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS ¦¦
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7,
10
4/87
4
0
0
5
0
0
C8WTAUOW
1986/9
1987/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
tREWJJJQ ;
1985/8
1986/6-
9
1987/2,
4,6
11
0
0
17
0
0
CH£«AkGO
10/86
1
0
0
1
0
0
CLINTON
1985/8
10/86
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
CCBTLAMD
1985/9
1986/1,
5.7,8,
10
1987/2,
4
10
0
0
22
0
0
OELAtfAHE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
OUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERIE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
FRANKLIN
1986/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
2-NY-70
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW YORK
Isofer^hos to TrHluralfn
VEtf RESULTS
SAHPtr results
RAKGE OF
COUCEK-
thations
cm/*)
•
resncjOE
cam*
fiA«
rem
UEttS
•SAHP10)
s 0 r«? :
WS1TIVE
WELLS
wm v
OF
JAKWjES :
ttftftEX Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TfAR/
NWtX
. It
<
*Ct
:t#Ct
«
'HO.
(Hetola-
chlor)
FUHO«
1987/4
3
0
0
4
0
0
OEUESES
1986/5,
6,9
1987/2,
4.7
8
0
0
21
0
0
flREEKE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
JgFliftSW
1985/10
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
J. IVtHOSTOK
1985/7
1986/9
1987/2
5
0
0
6
0
0
HAD ISO*
1986/10
1987/4
4
0
0
6
0
0
HON ROE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
wtu&fcpr
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
UlAGWW
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OSEIDA
1985/9
1987/4
7
0
0
7
0
0
OtKHBAGA
1985/10
1986/9
1987/2
4
0
0
5
0
0
mrjutto
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORAKGf
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OSWEGO
1985/10
1986/6
1987/2,
4
7
0
0
12
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7,
10
1987/2,
8
13
0
0
13
0
0
PUfKAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
8EN6SEIAEK
1985/3,
6,9,12
1986/7
1987/8
21
1
6
28
1
10B
0.13-112
2-NY-71
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEK YORK
Isofenphos to Trifluralin
WEit RESULtS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANCE OF
COUCEIt»
, WWOK*
pwmtae
cam*
we
torn i
WELLS
SAKPLH)
f OP
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL §
OF
SAJW-fE :
OF ,
KWTIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
HOUTH
: jt !
m.
<
N' • *<
<
KCl
(Metola-
chlor)
HOCKLMP
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
SENECA
1986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
StEUBEN
1985/8
1986/6,
10
1987/2,
4
6
0
0
17
0
0
ST.
••tAv&»cr*MI
1985/10
1987/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
SUFfOU
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SUlLiVAU
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
TIOGA
1987/2
6
0
0
6
0
0
¦llliWII
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASKIRGTOK
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
WAW
1985/7
1986/9,
10
1987/2,
4.6
8
0
0
12
0
0
fcESTOtfSTEfi :
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WrOHlW
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
218
1
6
282
1
10
0.13-112
Kif«X
ALBANY
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
AtteGAN?
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CKAUTAtlOUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CKEWJWS.: . :;:
1987/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
CLIWTOW
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CORTLAND
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
2-NY-72
-------
PESTICIDE SMPUHG III THE STATE OF HEW YORK
Isofenphos to TrHluralin
' f
Ufct RESULTS
SAXPt£ Jt£SULtS
RAMIE OF
CCttCEtt-
rnnotti
cowrt
Mt
ttJTM.
WEILS
SWtftS)
#OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
WMl f
OF
SAKPLCS
#uwe* OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
MWtK
•. V
¦¦¦:¦» .
<
*tL
*
HCt
(Mire*)
6ELAtfAS£
1987/8
i
0
0
1
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
CEMESEE ""
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
«MTG0NE#T
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
¦
tflAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OR*NG£
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
putkam
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SENSSEIAER
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
80CKLAH&
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
sr.
UWREIfCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
iatttsx--
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
SULLIVAN
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
VA7KE
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
UTOHIKG
1987/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
UELLS/
SAMPLES
65
0
0
65
0
0
Oxonyl
SUFFOLK
1980
8121
0
0
8595
0
0
1981
644
0
0
680
0
0
1982
2793
1
29
2906
2
32
1.00-
314.00
1983
4341
3
105
4667
3
112
1.00-
395.00
1984
3696
0
104
3989
0
112
1.0-39.0
1985
3783
0
199
4240
0
210
1.0-64.0
1986
2743
0
196
3804
0
220
0.01-
38.00
2-NY-73
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Isofenphos to Trifluralin
VEU RESULTS
, SAfcPLF RESULtS
RANGE OF
CONCEK-
TWtOKS
Mssmtw
- TOTAL j
WEILS :
SAMPLE
"V# -
' POSITIVE ^
UELLS
WM #
OF
SAWHJES
or
POSITIVE
.. SAMPLES
:
t
. MCl
<
: net
4 •
#a
(Oxamy I)
1987
4590
0
254
7083
0
334
0.03-
29.00
1988
3411
0
194
4611
0
212
1.0-30.0
1989
3165
0
173
4278
0
197
1.0-39.0
s
1990
3081
0
172
4100
0
184
i.co-
rn.oo
¦» '
1991
43
0
2
60
0
2
1.0-2.0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
20955
3
894
49022
5
1615
0.01-
395.00
Propoxur
SUFFOUf
1980
8121
0
0
8595
0
0
1981
644
0
0
680
0
0
1982
2793
0
0
2906
0
0
1983
4341
0
0
4667
0
0
1984
3696
0
0
3989
0
0
1985
3783
0
0
4240
0
0
1986
2743
0
0
3804
0
0
1987
4590
0
0
7083
0
0
1988
3411
0
0
4611
0
0
1989
3165
0
0
4278
0
0
1990
3081
4
1
4100
4
3
2.0-35.0
:
1991
43
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
20955
4
1
49022
4
3
2.0-35.0
Sfnatine
CAYUGA
1987/4
1986/10
3
0
0
4
0
0
CHAUTAtJOU*
1986/9
2
0
0
2
0
0
CJJEKUKS
1986/7,
9
1987/2,
4
4
0
0
10
0
0
2-NY-74
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEU YORK
Isofenphos to Trifluralin
VfiU SS5WUTS
SAMPtf RfiSULtS
¦:M#GE OF
' COICEK-
mnoss
(ra/O
;
wsTjeioe
mm
TOTAL
vats
SAMPLED'
'# Of-
posmve
VELIS
tm #
Of
sftm.cs"
#UH8E*0F
POSITIVE
SANM£S
T6*W
HCH»r
I
m.
4
XCL
(Simazine)
CH6SAHO)
1986/10
1
0
0
i
0
0
CtfNTffl)
1986/10
2
0
0
2
0
0
CO«TLAND
1986/1,
7,10
1987/2,
4
6
0
0
12
0
0
FRA««.rn
1986/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
FULTOS
1987/2,
&
3
0
0
4
0
0
VWESEE
1986/6,
9
1987/2,
4
7
0
0
17
0
0
LIVW6STO#
1986/9
1987/2
2
0
0
3
0
0
WUJJSC8)
1986/10
1987/4
4
0
0
6
0
0
OSEIDA'
1987/4
6
0
0
6
0
0
QNOWftQA
1986/9
1987/2
3
0
0
4
0
0
OSWEGO
1986/6
1987/2,
4
6
0
0
11
0
0
OTSEGO
1986/10
1987/2
6
3
0
6
3
0
1-4
SfWECA
1986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
STSUBCT
1986/6,
10
1987/2,
4
4
0
0
IS
0
0
1987/2
6
0
0
6
0
0
¦MlttS.
1986/10
1987/2,
4
2
0
0
6
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
74
3
0
122
3
0
1-4
2-NY-75
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLING IN THE STATE OF KEU YORK
Isofenpttos to Trlfluralfn
/f
:
W£U RESULTS
t'wmk Rcsutts '
RAKCE OF ¦
COUttK- :
HWTJOtSS
i
«$ncioe
«*#?*
0A1E
, 5' 4
70TAJ.
UELtS
-SAXflH)
#OF
POSITIVE
SELtS %
TOW. * :
„ OF ,
$A»tfE :
; ~ JM*E« 0?
: - POSITIVE
SMHPtfS
-
TEAR/
:
t
net
<
*ct
v.v.v.v.v.-.v.v
iV
\
§fcH#Ct-
<
HCl
Iwwpherw
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
AtLECAHlf
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
8*00*&
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1985/9
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CfiAUTAlKWA
1985/7
1987/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
C8E«m6
1985/8
1986/6,
B
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
Ct Iff TON
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTLAND ^
1985/9
1986/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
&ELAU*ȣ
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
<£#£SK
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
GfttQiE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
JEFFEKSOM
1985/10
2
0
0
2
0
0
UVHGSTON '
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
WWRQE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
#o«tg»oy
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONEIDA
1985/9
1987/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
0X0)3) AG*
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
CKTA9JO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
QftAMCE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
2-NY-76
-------
PESTICIDE SMVL1NG IN THE STATE OF NEV YORK
Isofenphos to Trifluralin
¦
¦ =¦¦ 1 WEtt RESULTS
SAHPJJf RESULTS
RANGE OF
aaicEK» :
TWKW
mesticix
com*
mt
tOIAt
VEUS
#0*
POSITIVE
UELL&
TOTAL #
OF
.. SARPtIS
KUHfttt or
POSITIVE
SAHPtES
tear/
MOUTH
s %
e
u#et
<
act
tm
Ha
(Toxaphene)
0SWE«0 -
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PUTNAH"" =
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SEHSSELAEft
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
SOCKLAhD
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
- <
STftlSEN
1985/8
1986/6,
8
3
0
0
3
0
0
ST
tAwttuce
1985/10
1987/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
SUFffc-K
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SULtJVAN
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
utiren
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WAsnfHcrm
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
MAYKE
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
Wyoming
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
139
0
0
139
0
0
TcHtufMln
AL9AMY
1987/8
3
0
0
3'
0
0
ALLEGANY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
croche
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATLCA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
2-NY-77
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MEW YORK
Isofenphos to Trifluratfn
-
VEU RESULTS
SAXPtt results
RANGE Of ¦
C0NCEK-
nwriw?:
CMJ/l) '
mttcm
Cfcarr*
8AT6
TOT/U.
WEILS
SAKHED
#«F
POSITIVE
WELLS
T<**t $
OF
SAMPtES
AMES Of
POSITIVE
'ws^w.Es:':;:::'yr
TEAR/
MONTH
¦
2
net
<
s '
tm.
<
*Cl
(Tri-
fluralin)
C8Aur*i»tM :
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
OffiHWH*
1986/6,
8
1987/6
4
0
0
4
0
0
(XTHTON
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTLAND
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
9ELAWAEE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
GREENE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
JEFfERSOH
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
fWNTGOHEfi*
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SSAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
mmo"
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
ORAftGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
fUTNAH
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
ROCKLAND
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHASIE
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
«r-
LAURENCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
suluvak
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
UAYHf
1986/9
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
2-NY-78
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW YORK
Isoferphos to Trifluralin
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
a»C€K-
thatuws
Mssrjc'ioe -
COtmV ^ ;
DATE
TOTAL
WEILS
6AKPLE& :
* or
POSIT VE
iil&Ltisili?:
rem *
Of
KUWEft OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
-
YEAR/
HtWT#
itiis
<
*a
t net
<
tKl
(Tri-
fluralin)
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WYOMING
1987/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
79
0
0
79
0
0
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
21218
5763
1676
49592
13773
4822
«¦ Ho MCL or HA available
A
Seme of these results were determined to be positive, but quality
assessment experiments indicate that these detections are unreliable.
O
Split samples, sent to two different labs, resulted in sanples which
have both positive and negative results. The positive results could
be both above and below the MCL. Such sanples were counted as one
sample end placed in the category corresponding to the highest result.
r
In this tBble Total Aldicarb, as defined in the Suffolk County data from Moran. Dennis
(1991), equals the sun of Aldicarb sulfone plus Aldicarb sulfoxide.
2-NY-79
-------
2-NY-80
-------
STATE Of HEW YORK
UELLS BT couvrr
tTPES Of «t£S
i'iwiSi-i-i&i
SOJHCC OF
count*
CfttUlCJKC WATE8**
HOttirORXHC
OTHEft
amAKIKATION
(NUttffiR OF WfUU)
TOTAL
SMfU)
KCl
4
"HCt
TOTAt
S*PU>
*
NCL
«L
TOTAL
SKPtO
x
MCt
™ «¦'
¦m
OTVI*
*
9%
woe*
Albany
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Allegany
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Broome
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Catteraugws ;
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cayuga
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chautauqua
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
OieHUftd
7
0
0
3
0
1
1
0
1
0
2
0
Ctierwnso
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CUftton
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cortland
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Delaware
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dutchess
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Er»*
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
frpnfcltjl
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FuttOft
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Genesee
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Greene
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Jefferson
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Livingston
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hadtsoft
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
Honroe
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
hcntgoas-y
2
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Niagara
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Orel'da
8
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Onondaga
2
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Ontario
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Orange
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oswego
4
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Otsego
11
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
Putraai
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rensselaer
42
17
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
2-NY-81
-------
STATE OF HEU YORK
UELLS BY COUNTY
, SOURCS OF
CCKTAHINATiD#
{NUM&fiK 0FW£US>
' WATER**
MOMIORING
"btHEH
TOTAL
: SMPUJ
• 2^:f
HCl
w* •
HCt
TOTAL
SMPU>
; HO?5;
<
net
TOTAL
SHPU)
HCL
Liiist?"
WCL
tc
V
¦ *
PS :
UNK*
Rockland
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Schoharfe :
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Seneta
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
St
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database -1992 Report
APPENDIX I - PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CKBUCAt
REFERENCE
s "• y.
KCl
CATESORT
; secuwosr
.STATUS
. t-Xaphthai
Insecticide
C
t ,2, ch (orobemene
9
9
Herbicide
u.c
1,2-D
. t,2^btchtoropropan9 ''
: 1 2-0 ich 1 or&a thane:.. -:• -
5
Funi gBnt
s
t ,2-0 fchlorDpropane
5
Funigant
c
1,3-0
DSchlofopropene
1,3-Diehloropropene
DtcMoropropene
2-Chloroallyl-
diethyIdithiocarbamate
COEC
2(2,4-0ichlorophenoxy)
propionic ecid
Otchtorprop
2(2,4-DP)0iethylamine salt
Oichtoroprap
\6-0
70
Herbicide
S.SRPre
Herbicide
S.SRPre
2,4'DTchtdrcbenrofc acid
Possible
degradate or
impurity
2,4-DIchlorophenoxyaceti c
acid
2,4-D
2>*Dfnitrapfienol
Acaricide
insecticide
U,C
2,4-DP
OlthtGfprfip
2,4.5-I
70
Herbicide
C,SRC
2,4,5-TrieHlorophenoxy-
acetic acid
2,;t5-T
2.4,5*TP
SO
Herbicide
C,SRC
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
•¦¦TtricMoropfienot
Atachlor
Degradate
3-»yire*ycarbof urorv
Carbofuran
Degradate
'3'Ketocspbofwan &
4:3 ~Ketocarbofuran (phiridl)
Carbofuran
Degradate
•^S-OfcKlorcbeniofc acid
Pronamide
Degradate
i J tpophenol
ParBthion, methyl
60
Degradate
Fungicide
S
4(2,4-Dichloropher>oxy)
butyric acid
2r4*DB ' r'":
4(2,4-0B), Butoxyethanol
ester
2,4<0B ; • •'
APPENDIX 1-1
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHattCAL WWS | fiEFESEUCE
MCL
J.KA
^::.::resfrcib& •'
CATEGORY
ReojUTcar
STATUS
2,4-DB), Dimethylamine
salt
2,4*DB
S-HydrtXy dtcantoa
Dicamba
Oegradate
Acerwpfcthene
Insecticide
Fungicide
s
Acephsts
Insecticide
s
Acif hjat-fett
Herbicide
s
Aeralefn
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
S.R
AcrylamtrUe
Funigant
C,R,SRC
Atachtor
2
Herbicide
S,R,SRP
Atcjfcarb
3
1
Insecticide
Acaricide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S,R,SRP
Aldicarb Sulfone
Aldicarb
2
1
Degradate
Aldicarb Sulfoxide
Aldicarb
4
1
Oegradate
Atcffeerb, Total
Aldicarb
3
Parent +
degradates
SRP
Aldrin
Insecticide
C,SRC
Aftetryri
60
60
Herbicide
S
Aatnccari)
Insecticide
U.C
Amltraz
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R,SRC
Amitrole
Herbicide
S,RP
Artitazine
Fungicide
S
Arsenic
50
Arsenates, Arscnitcs
Arsenfe
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
SRC
Arsenic acid
Arsenicals
Arsenic
Defoliant
Insecticide
Atraton
experimental
discontinued triazine
Herbicide
C
. Atrazfne ::::
3
Herbicide
S.R
Atrazine, deatkyteted
Atrazine
Degradate
Azlrqjhos'ethyl
Insecticide
C
Aztnphos-wethyt
Insecticide
S.R
Banvel
D icambo; "•'iy1:!':"
APPENDIX 1-2
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL RA&
REFERENCE
NCL
LHA
pcsri£toe
CATEGORY
fteGULATOftr
STATUS
Barton
Herbicide
C
Baygon
Propoxur
Sendtocarb
Insecticide
S,R
Benefit
Benflural in
Insecticide
Herbicide
S
Benfluralin
Benefm
Sorwmyt
Fungicide
S,SRC
8ensutide
Herbicide
S
Sentozon
20
20
Herbicide
s
Sentardn, sodStn 6aIt
Bentazon
Degradate
SHC (a, B.*>
Insecticide
C,SRC
BHC CD
Lindane
Broraeit
90
Herbicide
S
Snwltfev
Sodium bromide
BPomoxyriU
Herbicide
S
Bufencarij
Insecticide
c
Butachlor
Herbicide
c
Butylote
350
Herbicide
s
Captafot
Fungicide
c
1
WW.
Fungicide
S,SRC
Corbaryl
700
Insecticide
S
Cartwndazfm
Fungicide
C
Carbofuran
40
40
Insecticide
Acaracide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S,R,SRC
Carbofunan phenol
Carbofuran
Degradate
Carbofuren, totsl
Carbofuran
Parent ~
degradates
SRC
Carbon disulfide
Funigant
Fungicide
U
Carbon tetrachloride
5
Fire retardant
in fumigant
formulations
SRC
Carbopfienothion
Insecticide
Acaricide
C
Cwbophemthtfofi, #*thyt
Insecticide
Acaricide
U
APPENDIX 1-3
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL
REFERENCE
MCI
t«A
CM/l>
resriciDe
CATEGORY
RECUtATOfir
STATUS
Csrboxfo
700
Fungicide
S
CDSC
Herbicide
c
Chtoranben
100
Herbicide
U,c
CMonterte
2
Insecticide
Termiticide
C,SRC
Chtordecone
Insecticide
C,SRC
CtUordtoefom
Insecticide
Acaricide
Ovacide
C,SRC
CMoi*f*rw6
Herbicide
U.c
CMofffcnsoft
Acaricide
u,c
Cfctoroailyt alcohol
Insecticide
c
cbtorobeaHat*
Insecticide
Acaricide
C,SRC
p-ChlDM-a-di-eaol
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
s
p-CHoro*o-cre$ot
Chloroform
100
Funigant
C.SRP
Chloroneb
Fungicide
S
ChteropicHn
Funigant
Warning agent
S,R
ChlorotftalcrtU
Fungicide
S
ChtdfDXuCott
c
Chtorpropham
Herbicide
s
ChtorpyHfoa
20
Insecticide
s
ChlorpyHfos, methyl
Insecticide
s
Chiorautfuron
Herbicide
s
Chlorthal dimethyl
IDCPA jV-' :;C;
Copper
Copper salts
Copper
Insecticide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
Fungicide
some S
some U
Copper oxides
'Copper
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
S
Counaphofi
Insecticide
S
Crufoaate
Insecticide
Cyanarfrw
1
Herbicide
S,R,SRC
APPENDIX 1-4
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CH&UCAL HAM
REFERENCE
Ma
tm
twm
resiicide
CATECORr
ftEGUUTCftr
STATUS
Cynltle "
200
200
Cyanide, calciira or
potassinn
Cyanafda
Rodenticfde
U
Cyanaide, sodiun
Cyanide ¦ ¦
Rodenticide
S.R
Cycloate
Herbicide
S
CyjwimethHn
Insecticide
S,R
Cyprazine
Herbicide
C
Oacshal
DCPA
Dacthel diacid
OCPA 3c*<# metabotftes
Datoport
200
200
Herbicide
U.c
OBCP
0.2
Fumigant
C,R,SRC
DCBA
t,k-D IchIorobeniotc
acid
DCP
t,2*D$chloroprcpfine
&CP/, % \
4000
Herbicide
S
DCPA acid metebotttes
DCPA
Degradate
D-D Mix
t,2-0ichloreproparwi
and Dtchtoroprspene
COT -
Insecticide
C
ODD
DDT
Degradate
SRC
DDE
DDT
Degradate
DO VP
Dtchlorvos
DEF
Trilxifos
Insecticide
Acaricide
C,R
Dometco
Insecticide
Acaricide
c
OefnetoiV-nethyl
Insecticide
Acaricide
c
OeraetorvS
Degradate
DemetdrvS sutfonfr
Demeton-S
Degradate
Cft£*
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CH9IJCAL
' REFESENCE
¦
' .M**-
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEHICAfc HAM
8EFERENCS
KCL
ttu
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHQUCAL
8EFE8EHCE
m,
<*b/U
resricioe
CATEGORY
REGULATORY
STATUS
Fenaurfphoe sulfone ¦
Fenamiphos
Oegradate
Fwwmiphos sulfoxide ¦¦¦
Fenamiphos
Degradate
feneritaol
Fungicide
S
fenbwt5t3n-ox{«te
Insecticide
Acaricide
S
fensulfctMtm
Insecticide
Fungicide
Netnaticide
C,R
fcnthjon
Insecticide
C
f emirttv':
Herbicide
C
fenvaltratfc- •• ¦
Insecticide
S,R
flu#zf fop-butyl
Herbicide
s
Hucftloralta • •
Herbicide
s
*Hu»trat fn
Herbicide
s
fiucmattiron
90
Herbicide
s
flyridon*
Aquatic
herbicide
s
fonofijs
10
Insecticide
S,R
Fonwldahyde
1000
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
u
Glyphocate
700
700
Herbicide
s
Glyphosate isopropylamine
salt
Glyphosate
Guth i on
Azlnphos-sietfiyt
HCH (a,3,5)
8KC «t,8,£>
HCH (D
Undone
Heptachtor ' •
0.4
Insecticide
C,SRC
Hcptaehtor epoxide
Heptachlor
0.2
Degradate
rtlcxwhlDrobopicn?
1
Seed
protectant
Hexszfnona
200 .
Herbicide
s
; Hydroxyatachlor
Alachlor
Degradate
Iprodtone ¦
Fungicide
s
Iscbornyl tKiocyanoacetate
Insecticide
c
(saferphos v.;
Insecticide
Herbicide
S.R
Isoprcpotio
Herbicide
c
APPENDIX 1-8
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICtt KAtfE
REFERENCE
: KCl
tHA
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHgmCAt KAKf
REFERENCE
HCt.
resnctoe
v.category
aecutATOftr
STATUS
Methyl parathion
Parathion, aethyt
Methyl trithion
Carbopfcenotbf«v
methyl
Methylene ehtoritfe
Insecticide
U
Hetolaehtor . •
100
Herbicide
S
Hfttrfbwn'n
200
Insecticide
S
Ketrlburln DA
Metribuzin
Degradate
Hetribvzin MS*
Metribuzin
Degradate
Hetrfbut fn OK
Metribuzin
Degradate
HevfnpJm$
Insecticide
Acaricide
Sf R
Nexacarbate
Insecticide
u,c
Mirw
Insecticide
C,SRC
MbiiftStfe
Herbicide
S
MoHttatfe sulfoxide
Hot inate
Degradate
Honocrotophos .
Insecticide
Acaricide
C.R
Monuroft
Herbicide
C,SRC
Insecticide
Acaricide
S
Haph thaler® - -
20
Insecticide
S
NdpropsiAide
Insecticide
s
NaptalAtt
Herbicide
s
Meburon
Herbicide
c
Nemagcn
DBCP
MJtrofen
Herbicide
c
p-Nitrophenol
¦¦?¦$*(( It rophenol
HowWpr ...:
Chlordane
Impurity in
formulation
aorfiurazon
Herbicide
s
Octyt bfeycloheptene-
ctfcarboKimide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
s
Ortho-di eh Iorobenzene
iio-O tch I orobenzene
Oryzalin ¦¦.
Herbicide
s
Ovex
Chtorfensoo
APPENDIX 1-10
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL NANS
REFERENCE
#CL
(w/t)
IKA
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL KANE
REFERENCE
«a
(W/l)
LHA
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CKattCftL SAME
REFERENCE
LKA PESriCIpg
CATEGORY
PFCUUTOftT
STATUS
SiwKone :¦ L .....
Herbicide
NR
Simetryn
Herbicide
NR
Sod ion bromide
Bromide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
S
Sodium cyanide
Cyanide
Sulprdfos
Insecticide
S,R
Swcp
Herbicide
C
TCA and salts
THdttoroBCtfSC acid
TCE
Trichloroetbene
Tefcuthiuren
500
Herbicide
s
Telone
Dlchloropropene
terbacH -
90
Herbicide
s
lerbufos
0.9
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematiclde
S.R
ItrtxrfOs sutfOne
Terbufos
Degradate
I«rfaut&yl8tihe
Herbicide
Algaecide
s
Terautryn
Herbicide
c
Terrazole
Etridiaiale
TefachtWoethyL**
5
Funi gant
c
7«racfit£>rvlnph<»
Insecticide
s
Tetf*dJfon
u,c
Thanite
Isobcryl
thiocyanoacetate
.TMobencarto
Herbicide
s
Thtobenearb sutfoxltfe
Degradate
Thlophanate
Fungicide
c
Thiophanate-methyl
Insecticide
Fungicide
S(SRC
Tordon
Pfeloram
Toxephene
3
Insecticide
U,R,SRC
Tralomethrin
Insecticide
S,R
Trars*ncn3chtor
chlordane
Impurity in
formulation
Triadlmefon
Fungicide
s
APPENDIX 1-13
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHSUCAt MAKE
REFERENCE
liill
WD
tit*
<«»/U
PSsrjciog
CAIEGORT
fiKUUTMtr
STATUS
THbufos
Herbicide
s
tpjchlorfw
Insecticide
s
Trichloroacetic acid
Herbicide
u
Trichlorobenzene
w-
. TrJchlofobenzen* :'
If I diloroetlvene
Trichloroethylene
Trichloroethene
5
Funigant
c
TricfcUronatte} ;
Insecticide
c
TncMorojabetttrt
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
U.c
Trichlorophon
THeUpyr-
Insecticide
Herbicide
s
TpjcytrlatDte
Fungicide
NR
TrlfUiratin
5
Herbicide
S,SR,C
Trithion
Carbophenothfon
Tunic
Mathazole
Uracit/Oree
Antimicrobial
U
VermXatg 1 -
Herbicide
S
Vorlex
1,2-Dfchloropropan?,
DicMoropropene,
Methyl fsothiocyanate
Xytefte - -
10000
10000
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
u
21neb
Insecticide
Fungicide
c
Siraft
Insecticide
Fungicide
u
SRPrePresently in Pre-Special Review
D
SR Special Review in progress
r
SR Special Review cotnpleted
S Supported: The producer(s) of the pesticide has made commitments to conduct
the studies and pay the fees required for reregistration, end is meeting
those comitments in a timely manner.
APPENDIX 1-14
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
U Unsupported: The producer(s) of the pesticide has not made or honored a
commitment to seek reregistration, conduct the necessary studies, or pay
the requisite fees for reregistration of the product.
C Canceled: The active ingredient is no longer contained in any registered
pesticide products.
R Restricted Use: The pesticide has been classified as a Restricted Use
Pesticide under 40 CFR Part 1, Subpart 1. It is therefore restricted to
use by a certified applicator, or by or under the direct supervision of a
certified applicator.
* In Hawaii both dichloropropane and 1,2-dichloropropane appear in the data.
APPENDIX 1-15
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database -1992 Report
APPENDIX n - NATIONAL SURVEY OF PESTICIDES IN DRINKING
WATER WELLS
-------
: NATIONAL* SURVEY OF PESTICIDES IN PRINKING WATER WELLS
At this time the Pesticides in Ground Water Database does not contain data from
the National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells (NPS). These data have been
recently analyzed and published.3 OPP is currently working on importing the results of
the pesticide analyses, so that they will be available when the PGWDB becomes part of
the Pesticide Information Network. The following is a short description of the NPS and
a summary of findings from the NPS.
The NPS is a joint project of EPA's Office of Drinking Water and Office of
Pesticide Programs. This survey is the first national study of pesticides, pesticide
degradates and nitrate in drinking water wells. The Survey has two principal objectives:
1) to determine the frequency and concentration of pesticides and nitrate in drinking
water wells nationally; and 2) to improve EPA's understanding of how the presence of
pesticides and nitrate in drinking water wells is associated with patterns of pesticide use
and the vulnerability of ground water to contamination. The focus of the Survey was on
the quality of drinking water in wells, rather than on the quality of ground water, surface
water or drinking water at the tap. The Survey was designed to yield valuable
information on both the frequency and levels of pesticides, pesticide degradates and
nitrate in rural domestic (private) and community (public) drinking water wells on a
nationwide basis. The Survey was not designed to provide an assessment of pesticide
contamination in drinking water wells at the local, county or State level.
More than 1300 wells were sampled, some in each State, for 127 analytes. Nitrate
was the most commonly detected analyte in these wells. Based upon the NPS results
EPA estimates that nitrate is present at or above the analytical minimum reporting limit
of 0.15ug/L in about 52.1% or community wells, and 57% of rural wells nationwide.
The survey detected pesticides and pesticide degradates much less frequently than
nitrate. Twelve of the 126 pesticides and degradates were found in the sampled wells.
EPA estimates that 10.4% of community wells and 4.2% of rural domestic wells in the
United States contain pesticides or pesticide degradates at or above the analytical
minimum reporting limit. The two most commonly found pesticides were DCPA acid
metabolites (degradate of dimethyl tetrachloroterphthalate) and atrazine. The following
is a list of the pesticides found in each type of well in alphabetical order.
Community: atrazine, DCPA acid metabolites, dibromochloropropane,
dinoseb, hexachlorobenzene, prometon, simazine.
Rural Domestic: alachlor, atrazine, bentazon, DCPA acid metabolites,
dibromochloropropane, ethylene dibromide, ethylene thiourea,
gamma-BHC (lindane), prometon, simazine.
Appendix II-1
------- |