Prevention
United States Pesticides and EPA 734-12-92-001
Environmental Protection Toxic Substances August 1992
Agency (H7507C)
&EPA Pesticides In Ground Water Database
A Compilation Of Monitoring Studies: 1971-1991
Region 6
ARKANSAS LOUISIANA NEW MEXICO OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
-------
REPORT documentation page
Form Aporcved
OMB No 0704*01 S3
Zf \ ;zi
*=
> '5 i.fMce o*' -fSfio^e **<* ^•4 :? j^e 5-=ie! •,?cMr ?-¦ ?*:. ?r w't-O ??:. •*• if : Hi 3
;s:j
jvstr, f •».*
• > ¦»**«"«*
PB93-163772
2. REPORT DATE
August 1992
^
4. -SD S^STI'lI
Pesticides In Ground I ."a tar Database
A Compilation Of Monitoring Studies: 1971 - 1991
Region 6
3. *£»QRT TtPE AND DATES COVERfiO
final report 1971 - 1991
5. AwTriCSiS;
Ccnstar.ce Koheise]
Jean Karrie
Susan Lees
Leslie Davies-Hilliard
Patrick Hanncn
5. ?L"ND;.SO NU-V3E3S
none
7 - 2 -. N<3
ACTiCY • i-tr V_V3£*
saT.e as above
11. 3^rr'.t V.t.N r in 1 lO'Ci
Supersedes the "Pesticides In Ground Kater Database: 1988 Interim Report"
:a J A /A Uj l.TT j"A*£ VENT
publically available, nc limitations
12b. DlS~3.i3U ".CN CCDS
13 a3S"act
This report presents surrnary results on pesticide monitoring of ground water fron
1971 to 1991. It was conpiled from ground water monitoring projects performed
primarily by federal agencies, °tat? agencies and research institutions. The data
is well and sample specific. The report is broken into a National Sunniarv and
10 US EFA regional vciunes. The information ispresented as text, naps, graphs
and tables on a national. EPA regional ana state/county level.
The Region 6 volume is comprised of data fron Arkansas, Louisiana.Oklahoma, and
Texas.
14. Sw?;£CT "iSMS
database ground water pesticides
national water pesticide monitoring
report drinking water
15. NUMBER OP ?A3e$
168
16, "'ICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
CP *E?CR*
ncne
is. security classification
OF This PAGE
none
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF ABSTRACT
none
20. LIMITATION Of ABSTRACT
none
\<\ "iO-O-.ijr-SjtC S:arqt* 2-3S;
0re*ci-oeo t* «iNi» std iJ$- I
m-'Z2
-------
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
recommendation.
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 7992 Report
Pesticides in Ground Water Database
A Compilation of Monitoring Studies: 1971 -1991
Region 6
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 Kaixie 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 6
CONTENTS
OVERVIEW OV-1
REGIONAL MAP OV-14
GRAPH; WELLS BY STATE OV-15
STATE SUMMARIES:
ARKANSAS
State Map 1-AR-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-AR-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-AR-3
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Arkansas l-AR-7
Table: State of Arkansas - Wells by County l-AR-19
LOUISANA
State Map 1-LA-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-LA-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-LA-3
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Louisiana l-LA-7
Table: State of Louisiana - Wells by County 1-LA-l 1
NEW MEXICO
State Map 1-NM-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-NM-3
OKLAHOMA
State Map 1-OK-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-OK-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-OK-3
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of New Hampshire l-OK-5
Table: State of New Hampshire - Wells by County 1-OK-l 1
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report, Region 6
CONTENTS
TEXAS
State Map 1-TX-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-TX-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-TX-3
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of Texas l-TX-17
Table: State of Texas - Wells by County l-TX-73
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.
c
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 the 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 contraiy, 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 "ITie PIN is a computerized collection of files
that contain pesticide monitoring and regulatory information. The PEN 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. Hie 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.
n. THE ROLE OF PESTICIDE MONITORING
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FTFRA) 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? 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 arfd state governments, OPFs 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. Hie 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 STORET* or WATSTORE6. While these large databases contain some pesticide
monitoring data and some pound-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 pr the Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground-Water
Quality, July 22, 1990}
FIGURE 1. Data Elements for the Pesticides in Ground Water Database
«tUDT ftU
*11 ttU
ftum rt« |
Study Nuiter
Study NuifcerCs}
Study limber I
Study Titie
Unique Well Nutfser1
Unique Well Nvflfcer^
Soonsorirts AgencyC i es)
State and County FIPS Codes2
Pesticide7
Project Officer(s) (TO)
Latitude and longitude^
Concentration (os/l) I
PC Addressees)
Depth to Water Table (n)
Licit of Detection te date [
USES* Region
Depth to Top and lottoa of Screen
Interval (si)
Analytical Method* I
Starting ant) Ending Dates
well Type4
Origin of Contaannation^ |
Putol icntion Date
Welt Log I Other Information*
Abstract
Altitude6
1. This is a unique identifier assigned to each well is the well file. Many states have assigned a unique
identifier to wells sampled. In these cases, the number was retained, aad 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 Ml
is the alphabetic code for Michigan, 26 in the numeric code for Michigan). County codes are three digit
numeric codes.
OVA
-------
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 sscfa 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 is
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
mil be included in the database.
S. 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 NFS.
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 SMVLIK II TK STATE Of
WELL RESULTS
5AHKE «&Jt«
muse or
QQNCZK*
nunc* '
<*S/D
8
p£$nti«
COUWTT
2
MTt
3
TOTAL
VEILS
**PLE»
i
* Of
KSimE
Mtltt
*
tOTAl #
sama
& .
awes* of
POSITIVE
7
MS
5
Ma
<
no.
I
<
: Wtt
PoKtlcid* A
County A
1989/
1,3
I
1990/6
Canty 1
1987/
1-5
I
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS OR SAMPLES
9
10
10
11
12
12
I
tartlet* ft
¦ -County'* '
1989 I
1990
- County S
=_J987
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAKPLES
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
I
13
14
14
15
16
16
1 The tables are arranged la 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,
J 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.
£ 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.
J The total number ofsascks analyzed for that pesticide within the time period recorded in the date column.
1 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.
1 The range of positive results in ug/L (ppb) for the time period specified in the date column.
2 The total cumber 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 oumber of samples analyzed for a particular pesticide.
11 The total number of samples in which the pesticide was detected that are > MCL or < MCL as explained
in 5 above.
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
ii Grand total of samples taken in the state. "See Note
M The grand total of samples with any pesticide detection for the slat;. 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 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
HELLS IT COUMTT
TOES & was
source of
COHTAHHtAtlM
<*#*£» OF
MJKKriK MTCI
1
MMIT<*!«&
2
3
conn
lOTJtt.
swt# :
4
*
act
l .
Ma
$
TOTAL 1 t
PtPiS I KCL
* i s
<
net
5
TOTM.
wrvb
4
#
MCL
s
«
«CL
5
we
«
H
7
m.
»
C3WTCY A 1
Coutty B 1
1
TOTAL 9 ]
1 1
X Drinking Water wells include community (municipal), public non-com in unity, and private wells. Public Boa-
community wells are those that exclusively serve public buildings such as fire stations, schools, or libraries.
1 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 is each county.
1 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 oq the opinion of the study director
J NFU=Known or Suspected Normal Field Use.
2 PS = Known or Suspected Point Source.
J 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.
2 Total number of wells in each category.
OV-9
-------
VI. 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 OPFs 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 Rule and the Stale 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 pound-water monitoring activities and localization of pesticide
contamination.
VH. 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 p( 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.
VIIL 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 pound-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. Hokeisel, 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 (NTIS), 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 VI
Total Wells Sampled
per State
¦ > 1
S3 501 to 1800
E3 101 to 500
m 5i to 180
E3 1 to 50
D Nc wells sampled
OV-14
-------
REGION 6
WELL STATUS BY STATE
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TX
LA
AR
OK
NM
NO DATA AVAILABLE
0
100
200 300 400
WELL COUNTS
500
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCI |04 WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
OV-15
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database -1992 Report
STATE SUMMARIES
SS-I
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Arkansas
0/2
•0/44
;o/io
0/2
ip/l
¦o/.t
¦0/Z
m
W.I
0/1
Q/2
0/4
•0/1
0/1
1/19;
0/1
Pesticides Detected
ALachlor
Atrazine
MetolachJor
Total Wells Sampled
per County
¦ > 1000
ESS 501 to 1000
m 101 to 506
E2 51 to 106
El 1 to 50
Hj No wells sampled
6-AR-l
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
ARKANSAS
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
The Arkansas Department of Pollution and Ecology has conducted testing of ground water
as well as surface water under its Clean Water Act monitoring which includes screening for
most of the major pesticides, except the carbamates, which require additional laboratory
resources. They have also contracted with the United States Geological Survey to conduct
special studies of areas considered vulnerable to pesticide contamination.
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Cavalier, T.C (August 1988), The Presence and Persistence of Selected Pesticides in
Arkansas Groundwater, University of Arkansas, Masters Thesis. Studies conducted 1985-
87.
Lavy, T.L., Mattice, J.D. and T.C Cavalier (Sept. 1985) Analyses of Groundwater for Trace
Levels of Pesticides. Technical Completion Report Research Project G-893-02, Arkansas
Water Resources Research Center, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701.
Primary Objective
Hie purpose of this project was to monitor ground water in Arkansas for the presence of
pesticides that are commonly used in the state, and if such contamination is found, to
determine the extent and cause of the problem.
Design
This project was designed as a limited monitoring study and only sites that were considered
to be highly susceptible to contamination were selected. Other criteria for selecting a site
included: (1) locations where pesticides are applied in an. intensive fanning operation, (2)
good field history and records of pesticide use, (3) irrigation wells readily accessible for
sampling, and (4) cooperation of the land owner. Ideally, [they] were also looking for
relatively shallow wells. Over the period from 1985-1987,119 wells, springs, or community
water supplies in agricultural and forested areas of Arkansas were sampled.
Pesticides selected for analysis, their analytical methods and detection limits are given
below. All samples were not analyzed for all pesticides. A stability study of alachlor,
metolachlor, propanil, 2,4-D, and dichlorprop in fortified ground-water samples to determine
the typical degradation time periods was also included.
Preceding page blank
6-AR-3
-------
Pesticide
Analytical MethodDetection Limitfug/n
Acifluorfen
Alachlor
Aldicaib
Atrazine
Benomyl
Cyanazine
Cypermethrin
2,4-D
Dichlorprop
Diuron
Fenvalerate
Fluometuron
Hexazuione
Linuron
Metolachlor
Permethrin
Picloram
ProponO
HPLC
GC/ECD
HPLC
HPLC
HPLC
HPLC
GC/ECD
GC/ECD
GC/ECD
GC/ECD
GC/ECD
GC/ECD
GC/ECD
HPLC
GC/ECD
HPLC
HPLC
HPLC
OJO
0.10
5.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.10
0.10
025
050
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.10
1985 Well Sites
Twenty-eight irrigation wells from three area locations in southeast Arkansas were sampled
and analyzed for acifluorfen, alachlor, atrazine, cyanazine, diuron, fluometuron, linuron,
metolachlor and propanil. The sites were in the Altheimer-Lake Dick area of Jefferson
County and in Pickens and Kelso in Desha County. Sampling was performed just prior to
and during the peak of the irrigation season.
Twenty-eight sites were selected for sampling in Greene, Craighead, Poinsett and Mississippi
counties. These areas have more coarse-textured soils and shallow water tables than the
previous sites. Samples were taken in June and August, 1986. The Mississippi county sites
had been rated by the DRASTIC model as the most likely candidates for pesticide
contamination because of the relatively high sand content of many of the soils and the
shallow water table. Samples taken from these sites were tested for the same pesticides as
the 1985 samples, as well as for aldicarb, benomyl, cypermethrin, fenvalerate, and
permethrin.
In August of 1986, municipal drinking water samples were collected from twenty
municipalities and analyzed for the presence of all of the above-mentioned pesticides.
These samples were taken directly from faucets at randomly selected sites in each town.
Also in 1986, six hand-pump wells and two springs in the Ouachita National Forest were
sampled and analyzed for four herbicides commonly used in pine forests to control
hardwoods: 2,4-D, dichlorprop, hexazinone and picloram.
Wd Wgll Site?
6-AR-4
-------
1987 Well Sites
In cooperation with the Mississippi County Cooperative Extension Service, 35 irrigation and
domestic wells were sampled in August, 1987. Samples were analyzed for all pesticides
given above, except the four herbicides for which the forest samples were tested.
Results and Conclusions
Of the 119 wells tested, the presence of pesticides was detected in only one well. A single
irrigation well tested in 1985 showed levels of alachlor, atrazine, and metolachlor at 5.8,55,
and 6.9 ppb, respectively. Further investigation, including follow-up sampling suggested a
point source of contamination. Pesticides were not detected in any of the other samples.
The estimated half-lives determined from the stability study ranged from 196 to 1907 days.
6-AR-5
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING !M THE STATE Of MKAMSAS
MEIL ttSUUS
SAMPLE HE3UITS
SANK OF
-tORcev-
TUUONS
, PEST 1 Ci9£
coum
OATf
TOTAL
:
trna
-------
PESTICIDE SMetlNG IN TIC STATE OF MUU*»S
mi RESULT* .
ttwie xesuir
1AKGE OF
cosea-
Turrons
ptartcioE
toknm
WLTI
TOTAL
veil* -
3KKPIE3
r or
. NSIYIHC
MEU.S
TOTAL «
SAMH4S.
# OF
Kjmm
«m£i-
rtw
KQiTK
-
I
WEt
V
KCL
<' - .;
t :
kci
<
Net
(AUeMor)
CRAIGHEAD
1986/6,8
2
0
0
3
0
0
C*ITT€flDHf
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
«SKA
1985/5,8
17
1
0
33
1
0
5,8
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
FAULUfJI
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
wit*
1986/6,8
12
0
0
23
0
0
xrmsa*
1985/3.S,
S
11
0
0
24
0
0
-
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
If 8
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
UHOKC
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
MISSISSIPPI
1986/6,8
9
0
0
15
0
0
1987/8
35
0
0
35
0
0
homqe -
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
mum
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
pomsctr
1986/6,8
10
0
0
20
0
0
fomsa
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
ouwcrs
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAKPLiS
111
1
0
168
1
0
5.8
AUHwrtl
ttUXSAS
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
|
CHICOT
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
i QKATCHEAS '
1986/6,8
2
0
0
3
0
0
C»iTT£»£»
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
«£SW»
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
fAUlKHE*
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
»re«
1986/6,8
12
0
0
23
0
0
rfFfEfiSOW
1986/8
1
0
D
1
0
0
LfE
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
: iOHOKf
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
a
6-AR-8
-------
1 iisi '¦
m
1 ur>
«n
i
*12
*8»
o
o
O
o
o
o
o
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
o
O
o
o
O
O
o
o
O
o
o
O
o
O
o
O
©
©
o
o
o
o
o
o
©
O
-
o
o
o
o
©
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
-
« «t
»
£
&
•""i
-
-
s
-
'
w
fM
R
N
-
n
a
«r»
-
M
tn
s
*r*
-
s
-
-
?
i
•»
IS?2
»gS
"Sf
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
O
o
o
©
o
o
O
o
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
>sl
o
o
o
e
o
o
o
°
o
o
o
o
-
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
r*
CM
-
N
«—
-
-
M
0*
K
-
-
o
-
-
r
ii
to
4»
i
O
V.
K
8
«0
v.
I
«0
i
CO
3
«r»
*0
i
«¦»
I
•O
i
«>
§
m
i
•a
^s,
i
m
%
in
*s.
1
0
1
«
1
•0
>o
i
U|
ui m
m
25
a vi
J
-------
PESTICIDE SWUNG II TK STATE OF MKMSAS
; •
HEU tt SUITS
I SMFUE 8ERX.T3
( K*ft& OF
coteKV'
: TtttTKMS
<*a/n
PESTICIDE
COUSTY
HCTf
: TOTJtt.
«f us r<
ifNPV& ¦
#0F
KBJTm
WEilS
TOTAL *
' umu
Iff
x»invt
««9L£$
A-
HMTOi' ¦
r
NCt
<
Ma
- *
net
<
MCE. '
MKMlSK*
1986/8
1
0
D
1
0
0
CHICOT
1986/8
1
0
0
i
0
0
' OWICHEAO
1986/6,8
2
0
0
i
0
0
onm«E*
1986/8
2
0
0
1 2
0
0
OSS#* '
1986/8
2
D
0
I 2
0
0
wuiraa
1986/8
1
0
0
1 1
0
0
; ai£tm
1986/6,8
12
0
D
23
0
0
¦ xffmsm
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
' iff ¦
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
LMOKS
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
m&mjpw
1986/6,8
9
0
0
15
0
0
1987/8
35
0
0
35
0
0
xoraoe
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
MULIW . ,
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
Kiism
1986/6,8
10
D
0
20
0
0
WUSKI
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
: ST. RlMCfS
1986/8
'
1
0
0
.
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
83
0
0
1 »
0
01
Cy*ri*rine
: AlKXffttS '
1986/8
1
D
0
1
0
0
> ctticot
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
; CttiCKfijfc
1986/6.8
2
0
0
3
0
0
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
,
1985/5.8
17
0
0
33
0
0
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
MUlOItt
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
: ttEftt
1986/6,8
12
0
0
23
0
0
: MTfEXSm •
1985/3,5,
8
11
0
0
26
0
0
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
I
6-AR-10
-------
KSTICtOE SAMPLING IN TIC STATf Of MKMBIS
UELL KESULTS
SAHPlf' RESULTS ' '
8ttfl£ V
CMCEK-
' tsAhons
-------
PESTICIDE SWPLIM6 II TK STATE OF AKMSAS
;v
UEU. KSULT*
I SAMPLE MSULTS
BAMS Of
KSTICIQE
COURT?
Mil
*®M4 '•
¦ mu •-
sawoU) :
tor
wsinst
MELIS
I TOTAL i
S4WUU
* or
P05WVE
SAMPLES
COttCES-
mnow
¦ ' i :
TEAR/
MOKTK
V S ¦' '
X
¦ ' HCL :
, <" ¦
NO.' '
I :¦ ' ' ;
* :
HDL !
¦ <
: net:
Otehl«roprop
GAKUX9
1986/10
2
0
0
2
0
0
MORTQONER)
1986/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
WttT .
1986/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
PttJf '
1986/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
8
0
0
8
0
0
Oitron
AXCMSK
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
CKiCOT
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
OWlGKAft
1986/6.8
2
0
0
3
0
0
CRJTT£»»
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
: tKSttt
1985/5,8
17
0
0
33
0
0
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
: WWIOS*
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
* 8Rfia£ • >*' *-
1986/6,8
12
0
0
23
0
0
i ,
1985/3,5,
8
11
0
0
24
0
.
%
'
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
tee -
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
u*o«" * "'-v/-
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
mssissim
1986/6,8
9
0
0
15
0
0
\ v
1987/8
35
0
0
35
0
0
1 fioMfi'ae \!J'T -v
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
WfltUM?
1986/8
1
0
0
t
0
0
>6lKS81T '• , ,1
1986/6.8
10
0
0
20
0
0
: PUlAStt '
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
stZ-flwicw -
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WILLS/SAHPIES
1
111
0
0
186
0
0
Fanv*t«r*t«
[ 'mxrns'
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
| CHICOT
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
6-AR-12
-------
PESTICIDE SMPUN6 » THE STATE Of AKMBAS
WEU *f BULTS
SAMPLE JKWLT5 '
9AM (E OF
cwcpi-
TUITIONS
<*#n>
ftSTlCItt
-courty
SAtl
TOTAL
iCUS
SMTtEfi
#or
MBlTm
*US
TOTAL *
smu
# Of
posmvt -
awe>L£S
¦" ' ,
1Uk/ '
MONTH
v
t
m.
«l
1
*
na •
4
Met
(Fenvfttertte)
Wkiat&b '¦
1986/6,8
2
0
0
3
0
0
aum*** -
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
'¦ V-. . . 1 ¦
«aw» .
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
Muiorat -
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
VtfBK
1986/6,8
12
0
0
23
0
0
artmm
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
&£E
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
tOOCE
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
a
KtSS!SSTW>!
1986/6,8
9
0
0
15
0
0
-
1987/8
35
0
0
35
0
0
XOBK* ,'-
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
htflUP*
1986/B
1
0
0
1
0
0
wnistn
1986/6,8
10
0
0
20
0
0
WUS«
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
; sr. nuacis
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL 0I5CRETE
UEUS/SAKPIES
83
0
0
111
ft
0
f lM«eturcn
|,AIM*S»•' *¦
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
ewoar' -' '''
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
i OU3WEAB ¦¦
1986/6,8
2
0
0
3
0
0
: c*m*w»'
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
; bc«w
1915/5,8
17
0
0
33
0
0
*
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
;
>«&!»£»
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
: Gxcns
1986/6,8
12
0
0
23
0
0
4
«frats»/
1985/3,5,
8
11
0
0
24
0
0
;
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
Lte
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
-itWJBT
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
6-AR-13
-------
PESTICIDE SMTUIK IN TK STATC Of MBMHSfcS
WELL RESULTS'
SMPt£ RESULTS
Jllll . 111. Ill II. Ill
: MJfCE. OF
:
-THAT TONS
KST tCJBE
COUVTY •
MTt
TOTAL
mut
3JM9L&
- #«=--
KsmwE
\JEIL5
TOTAL «
/v»tr
.. KSinvt
:¦ L£S -
.
im/
MONTH
'
E -
' MCL '
m
'' ' '
: • k"
«
*a
{Fluometuron)
1986/6,8
9
0
0
15
0
0
1987/1
35
0
0
35
0
0
: HMOE
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
a
WIIIWW " •<
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
: PDMStTT"
1986/6,8
10
0
0
20
0
0
POUOCi
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
sr. FBMICIS
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
111
0
0
168
0
0
MKttfaOftt
: 6«UU®
1986/10
2
0
0
2
0
0
^ WHTGOKKT
1986/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
1986/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
¦ POUR
1986/10
I 1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL D1SOETE
uells/samples
«
- -
0
0
8
0
0
llrwren
' fSKMOAt
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
ewcor ••
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
: CMfSNEMI
1986/6,8
2
0
0
3
0
0
I ttWHoa'
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
: DESK* •
1985/5,8
1?
0
0
33
0
0
: . ;
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
rmxstat' '
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
\ OISWE
1986/6,8
12
0
0
23
0
0
.
xtmsot
1985/3,5,
8
11
0
0
24
0
0
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
LEE
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
LMOS
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
\ mssfssjpp?
1986/6,8
9
0
0
15
0
0
1987/8
35
0
0
35
0
0
6-AR-14
-------
PESTICIDE SMfHLflK IN TIC STATE OF ACCAKSAS
—.
1
1: MXL ttSULTS
' KESUtXS ;
;' mm m - J
PESTICIDE
| man
MTE
« TOJ At
"ucus
JUMPt£>
9 W
MSfT|«
' welu -
TOTAL f
«*mvi-.
¦4HFm ¦:» "
: £&&*' : I
! T RATIONS 1
| ' •
tf4*/. 1
**T« J
: )
>*v
net
c <*
NR.' '
'
m>:
- '
(Limjron)
aowrot
1986/8 I
,
0
0
I 1
0
0
WtliLffiS
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
mmtt l'
1986/6,8
10
0
0
20
0
0
mjuaci ::
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
sr. nwtcis
1986/8
1
0
0
J 1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES 1
111
0
0
168
0
0
**»UKA*
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHICOT
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
CRAlGNEAfi
1986/6,8
2
0
0
3
0
0
CRITTEWBt
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
OESKA '
1985/5.8
17
0
1
33
0
1
6.9
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
¦ tWLIOBt ¦
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1986/6,8
12
0
a
23
0
0
: -I
1985/3,5,
8
11
a
0
"
0
0
? ¦¦ >' i
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
U£
1986/8
1
0
0
.
0
0
iohoke
1986/8
2
0
0
.
0
0
1986/6,8
9
0
0
15
0
0
1987/8
35
0
0
35
0
0
HOMME
1966/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
mttiK
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
'fonrtfrr
1986/6,8
10
0
0
20
0
potAsrr
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0 I
sr. ««rci5
1986/8
1 i
0
0
1
0
0 I
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAKPI.ES
l 111
0
1
168
0
' I
1 "
6-AR-15
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING H TS STATE Of AfiEAMSAS
^ ' < ' *
1
' mineral '||
SAW LB RESULTS |
HAJfGt OF
K87IC19E
CCUKTT
s < '
. ««l4
< 1
TOTAt f
Mats
K»JT}¥t <
"wui *v
TOTAL »
WNPWt ¦
> \
'M or ''!
[ mmn I
. comnt-
' TteTfflW
wo ..
; , ""
", im/ r 1
MONTH 1
?>>
<
t'
act
: '
m.
<, " ^
¦ i
t
»CL .
¦ -4.
t'HCl
P»nw ttoHn
¦ AWUKtt
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
oucoi ' >
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
<3UMCH£»
1986/6,8
2
0
0
3
0
0
CRtmiea'^ * ^
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
«S«k.„
1986/8
2
0
0 1
2
0
0
F«JL»CS '
1986/8
1
0
0 1
1
0
0
^ GSEfW ' " ' '
1986/6,8
12
0
0 I
23
0
0
jEff&tsat
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
xjotxxg
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
xtsmsipfi
1986/6,8
9
0
0
15
0
0
1987/8
35
0
0 1
35
0
0
WXBQE
1986/8
1
0
0 I
1
0
0
pmums -
1986/8
1
0
0 1
1
0
0
! MI*$ET1 •
1986/6,8
10
0
0
20
0
0
MJUSfct
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
'¦sr. muds '
1986/8
1
0
_.o. J
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
S3
0
0
111
0
0
J
Pfclora*
' su&aw ~ ¦
1986/10
2
0
0 I
2
0
0
iwmwwKV "
1986/10
i
0
0
4
0
0
.v >-
¦'.mstt' ~ ¦
1986/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
90UC
1986/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
0
0
8
0
0
: trepan!!
' juncMtt* ¦
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
¦ mtto£ *''
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
oatene®
1986/6,8
2
0
0
3
0
0
..ainscai
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
6-AR-16
-------
KSTIC1K SAMPLING II THE STATE OF HXMSAS
WELL ttSUlTB
I SMPlfteSUtts/ ' I
'etttiF OF
COWS?*-
TRATIONS
PE5TICHJE
< coutr*
MTE
TOWJC '
, WU13
SJOTtHD
9 Of.
POEJTIVE
utus
I TOTAL#
[ SAWUS
# or /
posmvt -
SAMPLES j
VMV
MONTH
•
t
MR.
< .
na'
X
KQL
, < 7
act j
(PropaniI)
: *iHA
1985/5,1
17
0
0
33
0
.
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ftake^" * -
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
: MSB •' \
1986/6,8
12
0
0
23
0
0
; mrmm:
1985/3,5,
8
11
0
0
24
0
0
' ;
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
Ws
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
[ tOWKf
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
MISStSSWI
1986/6,8
9
0
0
15
0
0
1987/8
35
0
0
35
0
0
HOMME1
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
' Miutn,
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
; KHWttir •
1986/6,8
10
0
0
20
0
0
; Kims**
1986/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
^986/^
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAt DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
111
0
0
168
0
0
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
UEUS/SAMPLES
119
1
0
176
1
0
6-AR-17
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
STATE Of WKMSftS
UELLS IT COUKTT
mts W UELLS
«SJ*C£ Of
CQUMTT
o*ii«iwj «*re*
«WJT0#iJJ5
CT«B
GWTAR1MTIQN
(MUMfiat OF -JELLS)
TOTAL
SMPLO
*
ICL
¦<
*CL
TOW.
seio
8
HCl
*
KL
WAt
I
mi
*
Net
•ftf*
¦
«
a*'
Jurkwxu*
1
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
¦ .chiwt-
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CrfifilMtd J
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Crittenden
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D«h»
2
0
0
0
0
0
17
i
0
0
1
0
Jwiikrwr
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S*rt*r*i
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Greene
1
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
J*ff«rsor>
1
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
lee
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lonoke
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
Monroe
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KontjOMrry -
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Perry
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PhUlfpB
t
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~oiniett
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
Polk
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Puletki
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
St. Frinci*
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAl
53
0
0
0
0
0
66
1
0
0
1
0
NFU ¦ Know or Suspected Norwl Field Use
PS ¦ Known or Suspected Point Source
UNIC ¦ Unknown
6-AR-19
Preceding page blank
-------
Welt Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
a/i
0/1
L/l.
ouisiana
Pesticides Detected :
Alachlor
Cyanazine
:S/i
2/1
a/i
8/1.
Total Wells Sampled
per County
m > 1830
m 591 to 1000
E2 101 10 500
~ No wells sampled
6—LA-l
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
LOUISIANA
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
In 1988, the Louisiana Legislature voted to give the Louisiana Department of Agriculture
and Forestry jurisdiction over pesticides regulations and permitting. The overall
responsibility for ground-water monitoring and protection lies with the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality. Therefore, these two departments are working
closely together in an effort to determine the extent of pesticide intrusion into the pound-
water supplies of the State.
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Calhoun, H. F., Ill, Director, Pesticide and Environmental Programs, Louisiana Department
of Agriculture & Forestry, Tel: 504-925-3763. 1987 Survey of Louisiana Ground Water tor
Pesticides. Study conducted in 1987. (Reported 1988, 11 pp.)
Primary Objective
As a follow-up to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Survey of Pesticides
in Ground Water, water samples were collected from 12 wells throughout the state, and
analyzed for pesticides which are regularly used on crops grown near the wells. The purpose
of this study was to determine if the ground water in Louisiana has been contaminated with
pesticides as a result of agricultural practices.
Design
During August and September of 1987, water samples were collected from one well in each
of the 12 parishes listed in Table 1, and analyzed for pesticides which are regularly used on
crops grown near the wells. The well sites were selected based on aquifers, soil types, crops
grown, and associated pesticides.
•
Six of the samples were taken from private water wells located on farms, and 4 were taken
from public water wells located on Louisiana State University Agricultural Center Research
Stations, One sample was taken from a private well located at a commercial
applicator/pesticide dealer's site, and the remaining sample was taken from a private, rural,
residential water well that the owner felt had been contaminated. Data regarding the
number of persons served by each well and the water uses are documented in the following
Table 2.
Preceding page blank
6-LA-3
-------
Table 1. Major crops grown in the parishes sampled for the Louisiana ground water survey
Parish
Malor Croos
1
Morehouse
Cotton, Soybeans, Rice
2
Caldwell
Cotton, Soybeans
3
Franklin
Cotton, Soybeans
4
Tensas
Cotton, Soybeans
5
Bossier
Cotton, Soybeans, Cattle
6
Natchitoches
Cotton, Soybeans, Cattie
7
Avoyelles
Com, Cotton, Soybeans, Sweet Potatoes
8
Tangipahoa
Dairy Cattle, Nursery Plants
9
Acadia
Rice, Soybeans
10
Iberia
Sugarcane
11
Lafourche
Sugarcane
12
Plaquemines
Citrus, Vegetables
Table 2. Well disolations for the Louisiana ground water survey.
Sample Number of
Number Persons Served Uses
1 20 Drinking, cooking, bathing
2 4 Drinking, cooking, irrigation
3 2 Drinking, cooking, bathing, Irrigation
4 0 Irrigation, water livestock
5 0 Irrigation, water livestock
6 0 Irrigation, water livestock
7 6 Drinking, cooking, bathing
8 20 Drinking, irrigation
9 5 Drinking, cooking, bathing
10 20 Drinking, cooking, bathing, irrigation
11 10 Drinking, washing
12 4 Battling
6-LA-4
-------
Table 3. Detection limits for 22 pesticides analyzed by QLC.
Pestle Limit of Detection fpobl
actfiuorfen 0.83
alachlor 0.11
aldicarb 30.00
atrazine 0.41
bentazon 0.41
bromacil 0.42
butylate 0.38
carbofuran 9,60
cyanazine 0.15
DCPA 0.04
diphenamid 0.52
dicamba 0.01
dinoseb 0.16
diuron 1.70
fluometuron 3.70
methomyl 3.90
metdachlor 0.28
metrfbuzin 0.04
picloram 0.26
slmazine 0.84
terbacil 0.42
2,4,5-T 0.05
Results and Conclusions
The laboratory results indicate that pesticides were found in 2 of the 12 samples. Cyanazine
and alachlor were detected in one well each from Morehouse Parish and Franklin Parish
respectively. Both wells were private drinking water wells located on farms. Concentrations
were below the EPA established standards for these pesticides. The samples were also
analyzed for nitrates. Nitrates were found in 4 wells located in Natchitoches, Tangipahoa,
Lafourche, and Plaquemines Parishes. The sample collected from Plaquemines Parish was
in excess of the EPA established MCL for nitrates.
The authors concluded that conditions exist within the State of Louisiana that allow
pesticide to contmainate ground water. The results of the 1987 survey indicate that
pesticides have containated ground water in trace amounts in northeast Louisiana
6-LA-5
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
PESTICIDE sweilis la THE STATE Of LOUISIANA
WLL *E3UUS
SAMPLE RESULTS
.
PESTICIDE
PARISH
&A1E
K»AL
iELCS
SAMPLED
0 Of
POSITIVE
WE LIS
10TAL ~
SMPUS
fcUMSEft or
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
KAtfGC of
COKEEN'
T8ATIMS
YEAS/
KOXtK
t
net
< :
*a
I
HCL
«
MCI
2.4,5-T
ACACIA
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
IBERIA
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
UFtutca
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAKPLiS
3
0
0
3
0
0
Aeffluorfwt
ACAOtA
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
AVOTEtiES
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
UFOUItCSE
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL 6ISCSETI
wells/samples
3
0
0
3
0
0
Al*cM«r
AVWELtES
1987/9
1
a
0
1
0
0
BOSSIER
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
CALOUEU
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
fPAKKLTH
1987/9
1
0
1
1
0
1
0.28
PWESfOUSE
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
KATMUOCKTS
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TEKSAS *
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL 0ISC8ETE
HELLS/SAMPLES
7
0
1
7
0
1
0.28
Aldicarb
AVOYELLES
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL BSSCBETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
1
0
0
1
0
0
Atml/w ¦¦.¦¦¦
AWTEtUS
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAAPlES
1
0
0
1
0
0
jltirtMurat
ACASIA
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
AVOYEtttS
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
. LAPOLIKtt
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES |
3
0
0
3
0
0
Preceding page blank
6-LA-7
-------
PEST IC IDC Minnie IB TIE STATE OF LOUISIJUM
iELL RESULTS
SAWU RESULTS
PESTICIBE
PARISH
6ATE
TOTAL
tffLlS
SAMPiEC
#OF
POSITIVE
HELLS
mm. f
SAMPLES
kUPSS* OF '
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
SWSE Of
¦ BMCEX-
TBATIOh$
YEAR/
MNTM
fc
Ma
c
Utt
t
MX
KCL
SrooacfE
PLAQUEMINES
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAKPIES
1
0
0
1
0
0
ftutyltta
AWfEUCT
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
1
0
0
1
0
0
Cirbe#ur«*
AMOtt
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
UFOwtcre
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
2
0
0
2
0
0
BOSSIES '
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAlfiWEll
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
«At*u*
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
HOKEW5USE
1987/9
1
0
1
1
0
1
0,18
MTCHITOCMEC
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TEMSAS
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
.TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
6
0
1
6
0
1
0.18
dcp*
TAHGTPAHCA
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0 I
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
1
0
0
1
0
0 I
Mcwbs
TAWrPRK*
1987/9
1
0
0
I ,
0
0 I
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
|
1
0
0
I <
0
0 |
"Sfnastfe
ACA0M
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
AVOYELLES
1987/9
1
g
0
1
0
0
urou*o«
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
o I
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
3
0
0
3
0
0 j
UstMrtafrid
1 TANGIPAHOA
1987/9 |
1
0
0
1
0
o I
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAXPLES
l l l
1
0
0
1
0
0
6-LA-8
-------
PESTICIDE SMVUiG IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
arii remits
SAHPtf ttSUtTS
WSTIC10E
PARISH
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
* Of
POSITIVE
4CU.S
TOTAL t
UVU9
iitMsei of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
*A#«t or
COKEEii"
TSAT1WS
TEAR/
KOKTH
*
MCI
<
MCI
-
2
KCt
A
'« L
<*9/0
Oitrfln
AVOfEU«
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
Bossrot
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAUHKlt
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
mwctm
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
UfOURCW
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
KCKEWJUtt
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
matoutocws
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
ttftoufttisr*
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TBtSAS
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEUS/SAMPLES
9
0
0
9
0
0
yfctwwwturaR
S06SSE8
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
cauweu
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
fMNKilN
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
ssetiA
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
UMURCtff
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
NQREWOSE'
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
MTCMtooss
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
tejisas *
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL OlSCTETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
8
0
0
8
0
0
HjtlWByl
AVOYELLES
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
PUOOBttHES
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
2
0
0
2
0
0
itotelachior
AVWfEUfS
19E7/9
1
0
0
t
0
0
•OSS!EX
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
C*U*£U
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
FKAtOXIK
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
**EKCUS8
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
6-LA-9
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IK THE STATE Of LOUISIAM
ssli *ewas '
SAKPUt HESUttt .
PESTICIDE
¦cutira
' M.TE
WIM ,
VEILS .
5AHPUED
:
POSITIVE
mm
TOTAL #
SNPUS
xueeitor
POSITIVE
¦ &WPIES '
WW5E or
COEES-
7RATIONS '
W
WJtltK ¦
-
Ma
; < '
: m. <
-
«L-
#a
. ««S/0
(MetolacNlsr)
«AtCH;tCC«5
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TEMSAS
1987/9
1
c
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
7
0
0
7
0
0
tfctnbuzin
AVOTEUX8
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
jkim:
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
LAKHROffi
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL discrete
UELLS/SAKPLES
3
0
1
'
0
0
TAKGIWW©
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
1
0
0
1
0
0
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
9UMUEMIBES 1
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TAHCrPAHOA
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UlLlS/SAMPlES
5
0
0
3
0
0
TeriMtit
rWEITIA
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
LAFOURCHE
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
PtAOUEMMES
1987/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
3
0
9
3
0
0
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
12
0
2
12
'
0
2
6-LA-10
-------
STATE OF LOUISIANA
WELLS BY MilSM
PASISH
' ' 7TPES OF UEU.&
SOURCE Of
CONTAMIVATJO*
(ifUKKit of waisj
WINCIM WATBl
*W1TQ«I#C
OTHER
TOTJU.
SHPLfi
t
NCL
«
m.
TOTAL
S*PU>
i.
*a
<
net
TOTAL
$*>U)
; e
KL
<
m
M*
* ¦
u*r
Acsdis
t
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Av&yetlej
1
0
0
0
o .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sassier
0
0
0
a
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
CeldMlt
1
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FrwikHrk
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
t
Iberia
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lafourche
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Herehouse
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Hatchttoeh«s
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
a
0
P-teqiMnines
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tanefpdtoa
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TCMK
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
9
0
2
0
0
0
s
0
9
0
0
2
*
NFU'Knowrt or Suspected Nona I field Use
PS =€nom or Suspected Point Source
UNK=Unfcnown
6-LA-ll
-------
Weil Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wefts with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
New Mexico
Total Wells Sampled
per County
¦ > 1088
W 581 to 1000
E2 lei to 500
tZ3 51 to 100
E3 I to 50
~ Nc wells sanpled
6-NM-l
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
NEW MEXICO
0VERVIEW OF STATE legislative AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
New Mexico's Environmental Improvement Division (EID), part of New Mexico's Health
and Environment Department, and the New Mexico Department of Agriculture have long
been concerned about potential ground-water quality impacts resulting from pesticide use.
New Mexico's Regulatory Order Number 5 was adopted pursuant to the Pesticide Control
Act to control the use and disposal of pesticides. Although Regulatory Order Number 5 docs
not include specific provisions to protect ground-water quality, such provisions may be added
in the future. The State Engineer Office has general supervision of the state's waters and
has authority under several statutes to control activities affecting ground water. The State
Corporation Commission administers several rules and regulations which have peripheral
relevance to ground-water quality.
According to a 1986 report by the EID, monitoring of ground water for pesticides has been
limited. Samples from public water wells taken as part of monitoring performed under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) have been analyzed for endrin, lindane, methoxychlor,
toxaphene, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-TP with no positive findings.
The EID began testing for fumigants in ground water in 1984. Two fumigant constituents,
EDB and EDC have contaminated ground water as the result of gasoline spills. Otherwise,
as of 1986, no fumigant biocides had been detected in New Mexico ground water.
Biocide analyses of ground water have been conducted as part of state hazardous waste and
federal "Superfund" programs. According to the EID report, most analyses were negative.
Minute quantities of BHC and DDE were detected in shallow ground water in an area
where shallow ground water was also contaminated with petroleum products. PCP was
found in shallow ground water near a timber handling facility.
The EID report identified carbamate pesticides as a priority for testing; particularly aldicarb,
and carbofuran, which have been used heavily in certain areas of the state. Picloram was
also identified as a top priority for testing. Moderate priority has been given to testing for
earbaryl, disulfoton, methomyi monochrotophos, oxamyl, PCP, and tebuthiuron. The State
Scientific Laboratory Division has since developed the capability to conduct analyses for
carbamate pesticides.
No specific studies of pesticides in New Mexico's ground water were available at the time
of this report.
Preceding page blank
6-NM-3
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Oklahoma
0/3
0/3
0/1;
0/2;
=•0/1
0/1
0/11.
0/3:
:«/l;
0/2:
0/1
$0/1
0/3:
.0/2
O/l
O/.l;
0/1
0/4
0/2
0?1
0/2:
0/1
Total Fells Sampled
per County
¦ > leea
m 501 to 1000
ED 101 to 500
Pesticides Detected
None
~ No wells sampled
6-OK-l
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
OKLAHOMA
0VERVIEW 0F STATE LEGISLATIVE and environmental policies
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture began development of a ground-water monitoring
network in 1984 in response to concerns that, despite tight government regulations to control
the misuse of pesticides, the proper use of pesticides in agriculture in the state might be
contributing to ground-water contamination. The network of wells was derived from lists
containing over 1400 wells originally selected and sampled by the Oklahoma Water
Resources Board, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Oklahoma Department of Health.
Only wells located in alluvium and terrace soils were selected, and, using other specif c
criteria, the number of wells included in the ground-water monitoring network was reduced
to 67. The network was used to monitor 26 agricultural chemicals in 1986.
Specific Ground-Water Quality Standards were established in 1989 by the Water Quality
Division of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board. In addition to requirements for
monitoring industrial contaminants, the standards required that all pesticides included in the
Clean Water Act, Section 307(a) be monitored.
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Marak, Joseph, Plant Industry Division, Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture, Tel;
405-521-3864. Exploratory Study on the Extent of Groundwater Contamination From
Agricultural Use of Selected Pesticides in Oklahoma. Study conducted from 1986 through
1987 (Final Report April 1987, pp. 38).
Primary Objective
The objectives of this study were to: (1) determine the extent of ground-water
contamination in alluvium and terrace aquifers from past and current agricultural use of
selected pesticides in Oklahoma; (2) determine if agricultural pesticide usage poses a threat
to ground water; (3) contribute to the development of a national water quality data base;
(4) develop recommendations for pesticide regulations in Oklahoma; and (5) make
recommendations for further monitoring.
Design
A network of 67 wells was developed based on the following criteria: (1) soils favored the
leaching of possible contaminants; (2) known pesticides had been applied; and (3) well
construction was sufficiently adequate to preclude direct contamination by surface waters.
Preceding page blank
6-OK-3
-------
Wells were distributed across most of Oklahoma, and 41 of the 77 counties were
represented. Sixty-five of the 67 wells, including 50 drinking water wells and 15 livestock
and irrigation wells, were sampled for the following pesticides, based on suspected
contamination:
Pesticide No.
w?ii§
Pesticide No. Wells
Acephate
2
Dicamba
4
Alachlor
l
Dimethoate
1
Aldicarb
5
Disulfoton
1
Atrazine
6
Ethyl parathion
19
Atrazine +
Fensulfothion
1
Metolachlor
1
Malathion
5
Azinphos-methyl
1
MCPA
1
Benfluralin
1
Metolachlor
1
Bromacil
1
Metribuzin
1
Carbofuran
12
Picloram
3
Chlorothalonil
1
Simazine
1
Chlorpyrifos
2
Tebuthiuron
1
2,4-D
22
Terbutiyn
1
Diazinon
2
Trifluraiin
8
Water sampling procedures were developed using the "Handbook for Sampling and Sample
Preservation of Water and Wastewater" EPA-600/4-82-029 as the basic reference. Samples
were analyzed by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Laboratory, using GC/ECD
with GC/MS as a confirmatory method. Specific limits of detection were not established
for the 26 pesticides tested (although it was indicated in later correspondence that they
ranged from 0.01 ppb to 1 ppb). Instead, water samples were spiked in the laboratory with
varying levels of pesticides (from 0.025 ppb for dicamba to 73.0 ppb for chlorpyrifos) and
recoveries were reported. Recoveries ranged from 27.0% for chlorothalonil to 122.9% for
triflnralin.
Results and Conclusions
None of the pesticides listed above was recovered from any of the well samples collected
in this study. The investigators concluded that there was no reason to suspect that
pesticides, when properly used for agricultural purpose, would pose a current threat to
Oklahoma ground water, and that pesticide enforcement, rules, regulations, laws, and label
restrictions were adequate at that time.
6-OK-4
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING II THE SUTE OF OKLAHOMA
WELL ftES&TS
^SAMPLE RESULT*'/v
. RAISE Of
PISTI CiQE :
DATE "
: TOTAL
! UEUS'-v
SAMPLES
*Of
POSITIVE
WELLl
rT©TAL'r
SAMPLES
• OF ¦:
iposm*
SAMPLES
COWCEH-
TIATJOKS
YE At/
¦ RONTl)
<
NCI
-Ma
• * Is:
-MCI/.
SEAVEfi
1986*
2
0
0
2
0
0
CACOQ *
1986
2
0
0
2
0
0
CHOCTAW
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
CIMARSW
1986
2
0
0
2
a
0
CLEVIUJO
1986
2
0
0
2
0
0
«csr
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
CCUEY
1986
3
0
0
3
0
0
ELLIS
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
rWM»E*
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
K1RSFISMER
1986
1
0
0
t
0
0
MAJOR
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
MU«OCE£
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
iitfWS •
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
«»(1«6TC«
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELIS/SAXPLES
22
0
0
22
0
0
Aeepftitr/
C8EMXEE
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
1O0DUARD
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
2
0
0
2
0
0
'MtcMor
MAJOR
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL OISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
1
0
•I
1
0
0
Afdi'carb
team*
1986
1
0
1
0
a
. woies-
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
tCCLAT*
1986
1
0
0
%
0
0
TJLLttA*
1996
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEUS/SAMPLIS
5
0
0
5
0
0
6-OK-S
-------
PESTICIDE SAJ*LIN6 I« THE STATE Of OKLAHOMA
VCU. RERXT3
SAMPLE RESULTS
ftAtKEOF ;
COHCE*-
TBATIQWS,
Ufl/l)
v.- PESTICIOE;.'/-./^
cowrrr
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
» OF
POSITIVE
UELLS
TOTAL f
SAWLES
,0,
positive
SAMPLES
TEAR/
MONTH
I
mt ¦
4
NCL
e~
xa
<
m.
' Atrai!n#;':
: CAOOO
1986
1
a
0
1
0
0
CJRWdK*
1986
1
0
.
1
0
0
CSA1G
1986
2
0
.
0
0
OEIMMRE
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KABPOt
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
MUSCOGEE
1986
1
a
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
7
0
"I
0
0
AjinofciM-iMttryi
l*JSKOCEt!f;i»:
1986
1
0
. I
0
a
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
1
0
•I
1
0
0
HCCU.IK
1986
1
0
• I
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
t
0
01
1
0
• tfenwc f I
OABT
1986 t
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
|
1
0
0
1
0
0
Ctrtoiurm
VUMNE
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
mrnt
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
CXCCTAit '
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
CWfC , - ' ':'"
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
'CUK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
.«*£* '
1986
1
0
«0
i
0
0
XflKFrSMEl
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
KHOEU
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
OCtAMOMA
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
csAce
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
6-OK-6
-------
PESTICIDE SUCKING !1 TME STATE OF OKLAHOMA
WELL RESULT?
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAK6E Ctf
PESrtCJM
court*
DATE
TOTAL
UEU.C
Sampled
* Of
positive
WEUS
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
* OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
CONCSt* -¦
TIATIOK
tw/t>
YEAR/
K*fT8
t
MX
<
*ct
£
wa
¦¦.A :
MCL
(Cirbofunn)
TEXAS
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
: WCDWRD '
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
|
12
0
0
12
0
a
Chlorottieto«U
tSCKKAX
1986
1
0
0
1 .
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
h€lLS/SAM>LES
I '
0
0
1
0
0
1
: Chlonwtfcs
;i«fWET
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
VXDS
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UEL15/SAKPLES
2
0
0
2
0
0
WttinbsM"
»S)COe£E
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
UA«*E*
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
wells/samples
|
2
0
0
2
0
•
diCMfca
CLEVELAND i
1986
t
0
0 I
i
0
0
•
conoi
1986
1
0
.
,
0
0
(KANT i
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
J6FTUC* 1
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
W£LlS/SAHPLES
|
4
0
0
4
0
0
1 CMttbUt f" j
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
1 1
1
0
0
1
0
0
: Dlsulfotor
I Xfitt' |
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SWPLES
l l
1
0
0
1
0
0
FeajulfrtJiIwi
[tow 1
1986 1
1
,
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
1 1
1
o I
• I
1
0
01
6-OK-7
-------
PESTICIDE amine III THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Uia RESULTS
SAWLI Slated-::i
RAISE Of
COHCEM*
TftATlOttS .
pesticide
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL
tiC LIS
UMPttD
# OF
*osiTrvr
MEU.5
TOTAL f
SNPtfS
0 0I> ; •
POSITIVE
SAMPLES V
TEA#/
HONTK
i
MCL
4
MCI
*
Id
i net1:
ftalatbicrv
CHETWKEE
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
:sat{i8XE
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WlACOttR
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
WOODS
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
UOOOUARO
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UILLS/SAHPLES
5
0
0
5
0
0
KCPA I
ELDS
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES |
1
0
0
1
0
0
tectolacfctor
'>-MA!8:-
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
iUtimm
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
2
0
0
0
0
- v.:
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
1
0
0
1
0
0
ottyl
•SAVE*
1986
2
0
0
0
0
9&MI£
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
tAfiOO
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
CUUBIAB '
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
asm
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
mm
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
&US
1986
1
0
«
0
1
0
0
«UOf
1986
1
0
0
a
0
jfFKis*
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
.
rr«FJSKrt
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
tlOUA
1986
4
0
0
0
0
OKLAHOMA
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
TEXAS
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
6-OK-8
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
;¦¦¦ WELL RESULTS vi;
REStSJE
-V -eisncfee-r''-?
caarrr
toaui-.:,-:.
SAHH.E0
:«»iTiwr::
UEUS
TOTAL#
SAMPLES
» cr *:
wsmwi
::5AHM.ES ¦"
; ' TSATIONS
U4/17
YEAR/
HONTK
' -ict
^ =: »Cl.T:'
:
*t" :
(P»r»thiofl,
ethyl}
HHIU
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
VOCOS
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
w
0
0
19
0
0
' Pielorwi
GRA0Y
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
¦'¦¦wtma'rK
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
2
0
0
0
0
SfdMtsiinai*
emotm
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELIS/SAKPLIS
1
0
0
1
0
0
:Tebort'I«r«r
' OEEC
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0 1
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
1
0
0
1
0
0 I
tertutnfri-—----''
1986
1
0
0 1
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
1
0
.
1
0
0
:• Tr
CiJttMOB
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
GtAia
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
DELAWARE
1986
1
a
0
1
a
0
mew
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
: L«8 '
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
! MMXOGEE
1986
1
0
. o
1
0
0
WftlWtff*
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
IftfcttU
1986
1
0
0
1
0
0
"
TOTAL DISCRETE
I UELLS/SAMPLES
8
0
0
8
.
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
} WELlS/SAMPLES
65
0
0
105
0
0
* All datM are Spring 1986.
6-OK-9
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
STATE OP OKLAHOMA
ICLLS IT CQUITT
¦-•"tomtit
TYPES OF WELLS
3 SOURCE OF ¦'*";¦
;:':"::cwAWi*TJo*v- V
: UMBO or r-
•¦•MEaS)-"n; ¦
MtWCIJW UA
ttXITDKJK
OTHER
TOTAL
SHPW
HCl:
V--
r*Cfc.:'
TOTAL
SWLD ::
:i HCL ¦
¦
TOTAL
3 'My
Ma
«a
¦ MU* .
• •
•
,«WC*
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
taekhaa
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bldne
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"8ry»*:.
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
t#ddo
2
D
0
0
0
a
1
0
0
a
a
0
Canadian
1
0
0
0
0
a
1
0
0
0
0
0
CfarskM
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
a
5
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
-'{Haarran
1
0
0
0
0
a
2
0
0
0
0
0
'OClfWlini'' !':"
1
0
0
0
0
a
1
0
0
0
0
0
Cotton ,
1
0
0
0
c
a
0
0
0
0
0
a
Crtf®
2
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
D
Crock
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cwtar
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D«t*u«r*
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
l>wer
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EtUt
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
firtefy
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Grant •
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'Grwr ¦
1
0
0
0
e
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Qtrptr
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
«ugh»*
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J*f f «rwjn '
2
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Kfnoftdhtr "t
1
0
0
0
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
tlaa
5
0
0
0
0
0 I 1
0
0
0
0
0
Itatty
1
0
0
0
c
a | o
0
0
0
0
0
lev*
0
0
0
0
0
0 1 1
0
0
0
0
0
Ha/or
1
0
0
0
0
a 1 o
0
0
0
0
0
HeCtatn
1
0
0
0
c
a 1 0
0
0
0
a
0
MuriuflMt
2
0
0
0
0
0 | 0
0
0
0
a
0
Preceding page blank
6-OK-11
-------
STATE Of OKLAHOMA
NELLS BT COMTT
rtFts cfwEuJ
SOOBCf Of |
toft** WAT to*
IKMGEX or
miti j
courrr
MttMCNK tATEt
nwnoRfKS
OTSEft
WAlP
SXPL0
HO.
: « '
HCI
rsjTAt ;
sm.*
' KCL
TOTAL '
.'.$NPU>r
c
-HCt'
«
*a
~ 1
UMC l
oHihaHB ':-v
1
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OSfrje
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pewnee
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Se®ifiot#
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tex«
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
a
0
0
Til Inn
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
; uwwrter
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
a
D
y»sh»ngt an
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UmMwi
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
tfoodn
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
Uaot^srd
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
a
0
0
0
0
| TtffiU. J
50
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
NFU * Known or Suspected Norail field Use
PS * Known or Suspected Point Source
UK « unit noun
6-OK-12
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number at Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
Pesticides Detected
Glyphosate
Metolaehlor
Picloram
Frometon
2.4, &-T
Tebuthiuron
Triclopyr
Propazme
Bromacil
2,4—D
2,4-DB
Dicamba
Diuron
:b/l]
£/Z
Q/l
<0/1:
0/S
M
M
Y.yi
i: '
O/iiiZMi/i
2/mmQ/2
3/7 3^7
mmu
Total Wells Sampled
per Coun ty
> 1000
501 to 1000
ES2 101 to 500
m 5i to 100
E3 1 to 50
~ No wells sampled
6-TX-l
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
TEXAS
' " i ti ¦¦ ¦ saasaaggii i i ,sa—
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
In 1987, the Texas Department of Agriculture ("IDA) initiated a ground-water monitoring
program. This was in response to the recognition of pesticides as potential ground-water
contaminants and concern about the potential risks that pesticides in drinking water may
pose to human health. Hie goals of this program were to address the concerns on the
potential effects on water quality from the leaching of agricultural chemicals, especially in
private rural wells which are not protected under existing public water supply regulations;
and to collect information that may indicate types of agricultural and pesticide use practices,
hydrogeological characteristics and well information that may be associated with pesticide
contamination of ground water.
TDA is the lead State agency responsible for regulating pesticides. The Department's role
in the protection of ground water is to ensure compliance with Federal and State laws and
regulations, relating to pesticide distribution and use, through its pesticide registration and
enforcement programs. TDA has primary enforcement responsibility for pesticide use
violations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FEFRA). The
agency is responsible for regulating the distribution and use of pesticides is mandated under
the Texas Agriculture Code.
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Texas Department of Agriculture (Dec 1990) News Reiease-TDA Finds Five Pesticides and
Arsenic in One-Third of 60 Wells Tested in Six Texas Counties. Point of Contact: Max
Woodfin, (512) 463-7664.
Objective
This survey was a follow-up to 1987 and 1988 studies by TDA that found pesticides in rural
wells. This round of sampling explored the extent of contamination which was previously
found previously and its causes. Data are being analyzed to determine if regulatory action
is required to prevent further contamination.
Design
Sixty wells were sampled in six counties during September and October 1990: 39 in Knox,
six in Haskell, seven in Stonewall, six in Comanche, and one each in Howard and Martin
counties. Each county is an area of significant agricultural production, shallow groundwater
Preceding page blank
6-TX-3
-------
and pesticide use. These areas were targeted for study because they have a high
groundwater pollution potential from agricultural sources.
Laboratory work for pesticide and arsenic analysis was done by TDA. Procedures routinely
used to analyze water samples were capable of detecting more than 200 pesticides. The two
wells sampled in Howard and Martin counties were also tested for arsenic
Results
Twenty-one pesticide detections occurred in 18 of the 60 wells. Ten of the 18 were used for
drinking water. Five pesticides were found. Prometon was found in 14 wells, atrazine in
four wells, propazine in one well, metolachlor in one well, and dicamba in one well. Two
wells contained both prometon and atrazine, and one well contained both atrazine and
propazine. The majority of pesticide detections were at wells located on farmland near
Knox City.
In all but two wells, the concentrations of pesticides found were well below the safe drinking
water levels established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Atrazine was
detected in one well at levels higher than the acceptable level. The Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) for atrazine is 3 ppb. The average concentration in the well was found to be
17 ppb. Another atrazine-contaminated well had concentrations averaging 2.5 ppb. Both
of the wells were used for drinking water.
The levels of arsenic found in the two wells in Howard and Martin counties were at or
below the MCL for arsenic (50 ppb). The average concentrations of arsenic detected in the
two wells were 50.0 and 42JS ppb. Both of the wells were used for irrigation purposes.
Data are being examined to determine whether the contamination incidents are a result of
normal pesticide application.
The results of this study indicate that pesticides, especially prometon and atrazine, are
affecting a substantial number of wells in the study areas.
Note: Only the five pesticides identified by positive well detections from the News Release
are listed in the State table.
Aurelius, Lee Aly Testing for Pesticide Residues in Texas Well Water (1989) Texas
Department of Agriculture. Studies conducted during 1987 and 1988. Point of Contact:
Dr. Charles Ambrose, Texas Department of Agriculture, (512)463-7699.
The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the potential effects on rural water
quality from the leaching of agricultural chemicals.
6-TX-4
-------
Design
The geographical scope of the survey was focused on a few areas of the State that were
determined to be sensitive to ground-water contamination based on hydrogeological
conditions and agricultural practices.
The areas were selected for several reasons:
1) Near surface geology which might allow agricultural activities to negatively impact
the quality of groundwater.
2) Portions of the areas are within the areas porposed by the Texas Water
Commission in July 1986 as having or facing the potential for critical groundwater
problems as related to overpumping or contamination.
3) Howard and Martin counties were targeted for further study after arsenic was
found in wells (See TDA 1984 & 1988).
4) The Seymour alluvial aquifer has problems of nitrate contamination, which may
be taken as an indicator of potential vulnerability to pesticide contamination of
shallow rural wells.
5) Portions of the area are classified as having high groundwater pollution potential
according to DRASTIC analysis.
6) All areas have substantial agricultural production.
The primary criteria for selection of individual wells included the following: (1) domestic
use of water, (2) location of well near agricultural fields with a history of pesticide use,
(3) presence of shallow water table (preferably less than 50 feet), (4) presence of soils that
might be conducive to leaching or movement of agricultural chemicals into ground water,
(5) protection of well from surface water runoff, (6) samples that could be collected near
the wellhead before water passed through pressure tanks or prior to treatment, and (7)
presence of high nitrate levels.
To obtain information about the physical characteristics of the well and local cropping and
pesticide use patterns, TDA employees conducted an interview with the well owner or other
person living at or near the property where the well was located. A well inventory
questionnaire, which consisted of a base of questions for TDA staff to measure or discuss
with the interviewee, was filled out for every well sampled.
Sampling Schedule
Beginning in the spring of 1987, TDA conducted a pilot study to include testing of 75 wells
located within Comanche, Haskell and Knox counties. Five wells were found positive for
pesticides and were retested for confirmational purposes approximately six months later.
Additional follow-up sampling in Haskell and Knox counties was carried out in August 1988
and consisted of resampling three pesticide contaminated wells and collecting the first set
of samples at an additional 13 wells.
Other geographical regions of Texas were also studied as part of the survey during 1988.
The study included testing of 100 wells located in Dawson, El Paso, Hidalgo, Howard, Lynn,
Martin and Terry counties.
6-TX-5
-------
Analyses
Pesticide analyses were conducted by TDA at the Pesticide Residue Laboratories located
in Brenham and San Juan, Texas. The Brenham Lab tested organo-nitrogen, organo-
phosphorus, and organo-chloride sample types using EPA Draft Methods #1 and #2.
Methods used by the San Juan Lab included the EPA Draft Method #3 for chlorophenoxy
herbicides, the PAM I, 2122 test for carbamates, and the Silver Diethyldithiocarbamate
method for total arsenic samples.
Pesticides screened for in water analyses:
OR (j ANO-NTTROOEN
TRIAZINES
ORGANO-PHOSPHATES
ORGANO-HALOGEN
Atraziae
Acephate
AlachJor
Cyaaaziae
Betasan
Aldria
Prometon
Chlorpyrifos
Bene fin
Frometiyn
Demetoa Methyl
Captafol
Propaziae
DcmetOB-S Sulfoae
Captan
Simazine
Diazinon
Chlordane
Vclpar
Dimethoate
Chlorotiialoni]
Disulfotoo
Cypennetiiin
Disulfotoo Sulfooe
DDE
UREA DERIVATIVES
Dyfonate
DDT
Broioacil
Elhion
Dicofol
Folex
Dieldrin
Guthion
Eadosulfaa I
CARBAMATES
Malathion
Endosuifan II
Aldicarb
Neoacur
Endosulfan Sulfate
Aldicarb Sulfooe
Parathion
Eadria
Aldicarb Sulfoxide
Parathion, Methyl
EthalQuralia
Carbaryi
Phosaione
Feavaleratc
Carboftiran
Profenophos
Heptachlor
3-Hydroxycarbofuran
Trilhion
Heptachlor Epoxide
Methotnyi
HCH, alpha, beta,
Oxamyl
delta, gamma
Methoxycldor
Metolachlor
PKENOXYS
Norflurazoa
2,4-D
Oxyfluorfen
2,4-DB
PCNB
2,4-DP
Pendimeihalin
Dicamba
• Pennetkria, cis and
MCPA
trans
MCPB
Propachlor
MCPP
Tralomethria
Picloram
T riflirralin
2,4>T
Triclopyr
6-TX-6
-------
Results and Conclusions
Nine pesticides were detected in 10 of the 188 wells. Pesticides detected were 2,4,5-T,
2,4-DB, metolachlor, dicamba, atrazine, prometon, bromacil, picloram, and triclopyr. Poor
well construction, well location, mixing and loading praaices, leaching as a result of normal
use, and leaching combined with excessive rate of application were identified as potential
causes of pesticide contamination of wells.
In addition, of the 110 wells tested for arsenic, 38 contained measurable levels of the
compound. The source or cause of contamination of indvidual wells was uncertain
Contamination could be due to arsenic-based pesticides, naturally occurring arsenic or a
combination of these sources.
Texas Department of Agriculture (1988) Investigation of Arsenic Contamination of
Groundwater Occurring Near Knott, Texas.
(1984) Final Report on the Investigation of Arsenic Contamination of
Ground Water Near Knott, Howard County, Texas (Project No. CI-8401).
Point of Contact: Dr. Charles Ambrose, Texas Department of Agriculture, Stephen F. Austin
State Office Building, 17th and Norh Congress Avenue, Austin TX 78701, (512)463-7699.
Primary Objective
The objective of the studies was to identify the level and extent of arsenic contamination
and to determine the sources and routes of contamination.
Analytical Methodology for Arsenic Residues
Analyses for total arsenic in water and soil samples at the TDA Laboratory (San Juan, TX)
utilized the Wilver Diethyldithiocarbamate method. Graphite-furnace atomic adsorption
and hydride-furnace atomic adsorption were the methods used at the TDH Laboratory
(Austin, TX) to determine total and soluble arsenic concentrations in water, soil, and
samples of cotton gin trash. The BEG Laboratory (Austin, TX) used the graphite-furnace
atomic adsorption procedure to analyze water samples for total arsenic. Adsorption studies
and analyses for arsenic species were also conducted at the USDA Laboratory, Beltsville,
MD,
*
Initial Studv-Design:
The initial study, conducted between December 1983 and February 1984, sampled 101 wells
near the city of Knott in Howard and Martin counties. Additionally, three sites were
selected for soil sampling and five sites for cotton gin trash sampling. The detection limit
was 0.025 mg/L [25 ug/1].
6-TX-7
-------
Samples from 99 of the 101 wells were not acidified with nitric acid prior to analyses by the
laboratory. Thus, it is possible that a portion of the arsenic may have become insoluble and
precipitated out. This may have resulted in lower analytical accuracy. Additional sampling
of 22 of the 101 wells included addition of nitric acid.
Results:
The 23 contaminated wells found in the initial sampling were in an area immediately west,
northwest, and southwest of Knott. Only two of the 23 wells were located outside a four-
mile radius around Guitar Gin on the west side of Knott The highest concentration of
arsenic found in water was from a well located southeast and adjacent to the abandoned
Guitar Gin. Cotton gin trash was piled next to the well with some gin trash packed around
the well as insulation. Local residents indicated that an old cotton burr pit, 15 to 20 feet
below ground, was within 60 to 90 ft of the well.
A pattern of contaminated wells occurred primarily west of Knott along FM 846, and north
and south along the county road, one mile west of Guitar Gin. The four local cotton gins
are located on or within a half mile of these roads. It was claimed by area residents that
because of manpower and transportation limitations, gin trash was usually not hauled for
any long distances from cotton gins unless requested. Furthermore, gin trash is dumped on
piles in fields, or on the edges of fields when the soil is wet, and may set for months before
it is spread on the soil. This may result in high localized concentrations of arsenic in contact
with the soil. Additionally, when gin trash is spread on the soil with disks, it may not be
distributed evenly across the field and high localized concentrations of arsenic may still
occur. It is likely that it may be stacked and spread over only five or 10 percent of the area.
It was also discovered during the investigation that some well owners were using gin trash
as winterizing material around their wells. Thus, it is conceivable that arsenic could readily
enter the completed wells. The sites at which this occurred were not well-documented,
however it was estimated that gin waste was packed around the plumbing of the well
annulus at approximately 10 percent of the 101 wells.
The groundwater predominantly flows in a southeast direction, approximately parallel to FM
2230. Two groups of contaminated wells were closely parallel to the direction of
groundwater movement, the group of wells along the county road and the group of wells
near Knott Co-op Gin and Guitar Gin. A single area could not be identified, however, as
the source of overall contamination.
*
Statewide and High Plains Region Surveys-Design:
In March 1984, the Texas Department of Agriculture conducted a limited statewide survey
to determine the extent of arsenic contamination of groundwater in Texas. In this study, 61
water wells from 16 counties [grouped into six areas] were sampled on the basis of proximity
to cotton production, shallowness of wells, and permeability of soils.
Wells were pumped five minutes before sample collection. Analyses were performed by
TDA.
6-TX-8
-------
Results:
The only well in which arsenic was found above the 0,025 mg/1 detection limit wis in
Willacy County, where the total arsenic level was 0.033 mg/1,
Hiyh Plains Survey-Design and Results:
As part of an independent study in cooperation with TDA, the Bureau of Economic Geology
surveyed wells in the Texas High Plains to determine levels of arsenic, nitrate, and tritium.
Concentrations were measured for 92 wells in 33 counties throughout the High Plains
Region. The survey was carried out by BEG from December 1984 though July 1985. The
detection limit for arsenic was 0.01 mg/1. Only one well, which was located close to Knott,
near the county line between Howard and Martin counties, was shown to exceed the
0.05 mg/1 tolerance level. The concentration observed in this well was 0.100 mg/1.
Other wells surveyed in Howard and Martin counties, located much farther south and
southeast of Knott, were not found to contain arsenic. Wells sampled to the north and
northwest of Knott in the area of Andrews, Gaines, Teriy, and Lynn counties had levels of
arsenic ranging from 0.012 to 0.035 mg/1. Another area, farther north and northwest of
Knott in Hockley and Lubbock counties, also had elevated levels, with concentrations
ranging from 0.011 to 0.017 mg/1. WeUs in Swisher, Potter, Briscoe, and Armstrong counties
in the northern part of the Texas High Plains also had elevated levels, with concentrations
ranging from 0.011 to 0.017 mg/1.
Beginning in May 1984,10 sites in Howard and Martin counties were selected for soil core
sampling. Samples from each site were analyzed for total arsenic and nine of the sites were
analyzed for soluble arsenic. Ground-water samples were obtained from one soil core site
and during drilling of a new water well at a local farm. Water from the soil core site was
taken at the 12-12J ft. level and contained an arsenic concentration of 0256 mg/1. The
water obtained during the drilling of the new water well did not contain detectable arsenic.
Analyses of Water Samples for Arsenic Species
To clarify the source of contamination, additional water samples were analyzed for arsenic
species in June 1984. A minimum of two water samples from 10 wells were collected and
analyzed for arsenic species. Samples were analyzed for arsenate, arsenite, cacodylate,
methanearsonate and trimethylarsineoxide. Of these five compounds, the only species
detected was arsenate. Based on these results and knowledge of the types of pesticides used
around Knott, it appeared that the inorganic forms of arsenical pesticides, such as arsenic
acid and calcium arsenate, were possible sources of contamination. Cotton gin waste, when
containing high concentrations of residual arsenic, could also be a source of contamination
when incorporated into the soil as an organic mulch, stored on the soil prior to
incorporation, buried in pits, or used as insulating material around improperly completed
wells.
Arsenic and Nitrate Contamination of Selected Wells
TDA also studied the variability of arsenic concentrations in individual wells over time.
From the initial 101 wells, 17 were selected and monitored monthly from June to November
1984, To determine if a relationship existed between high nitrates and arsenic levels in
6-TX-9
-------
groundwater, the wells were also analyzed for nitrates in May and September 1984,
Additionally, monthly precipitation data were studied to determine if seasonal changes in
arsenic concentrations were related to precipitation events.
Of the 15 wells which exceeded the arsenic drinking water standard, four wells also
exceeded the nitrate drinking water standard. The highest arsenic and nitrate levels both
occurred in a well which was located adjacent to the abandoned Guitar Gin, where local
residents claim that gin waste was buried.
Results also showed that arsenic concentrations varied over time. Concentrations were
found to be highest in a greater percentage of wells during September. At that time arsenic
levels peaked in seven wells. Arsenic acid is generally applied in October and November.
Thus, it did not appear that the seasonal application was related to the higher
concentrations observed during September. Due to higher precipitation during September,
it was speculated that the rate of recharge and the amount of surface and subsurface runoff
impacting open well bores may have affected the downward movement of residual arsenic.
Special Requests
Due to special requests from landowners in August and September, arsenic and nitrate data
were collected for an additional nine wells near the Knott community. Seven wells had
nitrate levels which exceeded the water quality standard- Five of the wells exceeded the
water quality standard for arsenic.
Results and Conclusions
Ogallaia Aquifer ground-water contamination near the City of Knott appears to be related
to the long-term use of arsenical pesticides and cotton gin waste. Gin waste was found to
contain high concentrations of residual arsenic from the cotton defoliant, arsenic acid.
When waste containing high concentrations of residual arsenic is used as a soil amendment,
arsenic may be leached out into the surrounding soil.
The environmental characteristics of arsenic, combined with the soil and hydrogeological
conditions, the long-term use of arsenical pesticides and cotton gin waste, and the local
agricultural practices indicate that arsenic has the potential for movement through the soil
to groundwater. Additionally, many of the wells in the area do not adequately meet the
standards set for well construction. This may provide an additional pathway for arsenic to
contaminate groundwater, by way of surface and subsurface runoff, or by more direct entry
when gin trash containing residual arsenic is packed around the wells.
6-TX-1Q
-------
McReynolds, Don. Pesticide Sampling Effort Described, High Plains Underground Water
Conservation District, 2930 Avenue Q, Lubbock, TX 79405 (806)762-0181. Study conducted
during the early summer of 1988 (20 pp.).
(Nov 1988) District Pesticide Sampling Procedures Described in "The
Cross Section" Vol 34-No. 11, November 1988, High Plains Underground Water
Conservation District No. 1, 2930 Avenue Q, Lubbock, TX 79405.
(Feb 1989) Letter to Douglas Parsons, USEPA/OPP/EFED, Washington
D.C. concerning the pesticide sampling project noted above.
Primary Objective
The primary goal of this project was to collect a sufficient number of ground-water samples
for analysis of a selected group of pesticides within the District's service area. This sampling
project was initiated to give an adequate indication of a need for further testing of the
Ogallala Aquifer or to indicate a low priority to continue such a program.
IksigiL
District-wide sampling with a limited number of samples collected within the District area
of each county was determined to be the most cost effective method for achieving the goal
of the project.
During August 1988, ninety wells were sampled and thirty-one composite samples were
prepared for analysis from those samples. The wells whose samples were selected to
produce individual composites were grouped as closely together as the well distribution and
sampling capability would allow.
NOTE: The composite samples were counted as if each composite was a single well for the
purposes of the Pesticides in Ground Water Database Report
Owners and/or operators of wells that appeared to be appropriate for sampling purposes
were contacted, and pertinent available data were collected. The owner or person familiar
with the use of pesticides near the prospective wells to be sampled was asked to respond to
a questionnaire regarding present and historical use of chemicals. Also included for this
review was a list of the pesticide trade names for which analyses would be made. Hie
person responding to the questionnaire was asked to indicate any use of these chemicals,
method of application, and approximate period(s) of use. .Wells tentatively selected to be
sampled were visited to determine the capability of sample collection and to decide whether
the well site or wellhead offered the possibility of point-source pollution. If it appeared that
chemicals could have readily entered the well in the past, the prospective well was
disqualified for sampling for this project. The main objective of this project was to test the
aquifer water quality rather than test for point-source pollution.
6-TX-ll
-------
The following pesticides were analyzed:
Pesticide
J2LA
(ppb)
Method
Pesticide
mA
(PPb)
Method
2,4-D
0.05
GC-ECD
Diuron
0.01
UV-V1S
ppm
Alachlor
0.05
GC-ECD
Glyphosate
0.02
GC-NPD
mg/1
Aldicarb sulfone
GC-NPD
Metolacfalor
0.05
GC-ECD
Arsenic acid
0.01
AA-HC
Paraquat
0.02
trv-vis
Ppffl
ppm
Atrazioe
020
GC-NPD
Phorate
1 Pg/I
GC-NPD
BromaciJ
0.10
GC-ECD
Pidoram
lJO
GC-ECD
Chlorpyrifos
0.05
GC-ECD
Propazine
020
GC-NPD
DDT
0.05
GC-ECD
Stfvex
0.05
GC-ECD
Dtazinoo
0.05
GC-ECD
Trifluralin
0.05
GC-ECD
Dicamba
0.05
GC-ECD
A Detection Limit is ppb unless otherwise noted.
Results and Conclusions
Preliminary analysis results indicated the presence of a few of the historically-used
agriculturally-related chemicals in well water sampled during this project Most of the
positive detections occurred in trace amounts, equivalent to a few parts per billion in
concentration-
Because of the widespread use of pesticides in the District's service area over several years,
the logical assumption was made that the potential existed for some of these chemicals to
have reached the aquifer while the sampling project was being planned. It was probably
unlikely that percolation of these chemicals through several feet of geological materials
above the water table was a primary means of contamination. Direct access, by way of
wells, is most likely the principal route of potential chemical contamination to the aquifer,
Substandard well construction and careless use of chemicals near wells probably accounts
for a large percentage of aquifer contamination.
6-TX-12
-------
Molofoky, Seth J (Aug 1985) Ground-Water Evaluation From Test Hole Drilling Near
Mission, Texas-Report 292. Texas Department of Water Resources, PO Box 13087, Austin,
TX 78711.
Primary Objective
This investigation was conducted to establish additional bydrogeological data in
southwestern Hidalgo County where agricultural activities, including the widespread use of
agricultural drainage wells, may be adversely affecting ground-water quality. The main
objective of the project was to drill test wells which would provide accurate ground-water
quality data for the near-surface aquifer system within the study area. Secondary objectives
of this investigation include; (1) determination of the geometric and hydraulic characteristics
of the aquifer; (2) investigation of the impact of agricultural drainage wells (injection-type)
on ground-water quality; (3) refinement of test hole drilling and sampling techniques; and
(4) determination of the potential for additional ground-water development
Water from sixty-four existing wells was subjected to standard chemical analysis, six of these
wells were also analyzed for pesticides. Four of these wells were used for drinking water
(three were public water supplies), one well was unused, and one well's usage was unknown.
Five test wells were drilled on highway right-of-way. Water from these wells was also
analyzed for pesticides. Well sample logs and geophysical lop such as gamma ray, gamma-
gamma, and neutron lop were used to select intervals to be tested for water quality in the
monitoring wells.
The following pesticides were analyzed for in the eleven wells:
Design
2,4-D
2,4,5-T
Silvex [2,4,5-TPJ
HeptacMor
Heptacblor Epoxide
Guthion
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Parathion
Diazmos
DDT
DDD
DDE
Aldrin
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endrin
Methyl ParatUon
Dibutyl Phihalate
Diethythexyl Phthalate
Elhion (Azinphos-
methyij
Bromacil
Simaane
Results and Conclusions
No pesticides were detected in any of the wells sampled.
6-TX-13
-------
Borneo, Earl; Bovey, JR.K; and Richardson, CW., Effect of Tebuthiuron on the Quality of
Surface Ground Water In the Western Gulf Region. Study conducted in 1975. (11 pp.)
Point of Contact: Dr. R. W. Bovey, UDSA-ARS, Dept. of Range Science, Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX 77843 (409)260-9238.
Primary Objective
Hie study was conducted with the following objectives:
1. Determine the effect of rainfall amounts,intensity, run-off rates and rainfall
volumes on the movement of herbicides in surfiace water.
2. Determine the rate of herbicide movement, accumulation, and degradation in
soils with respect to time after application.
3. Determine rates and amounts of herbicide movement in seepage flow.
4. Determine herbicide accumulation in plants as related to rainfall intensity and
periodicity.
Design
Surface water runoff was monitored for tebuthiuron in the following three studies:
1. Small Watershed Plot (Reisel, Texas) - A small watershed was constructed
approximately 20 feet in diameter on a natural grass pasture on 3% slope (no
groundwater was sampled).
2. Brush Control Watershed Research (Reisel, Texas) - Tebuthiuron granules
were applied to a precalibrated watershed supporting honey mesquite
(ground-water samples included).
3. Bermudap-ass Watershed Research (Temple, Texas) - In March 1975, tliree
tebuthiuron treatments were applied to 1.5-acre duplicate watersheds
established in coastal bermudagrass on a Houston black clay soil (no
groundwater was sampled).
Ground Water-2. Brush Control Watershed Research
Two shallow ground-water monitoring wells located in the brush control watershed were
sampled for tebuthiuron eight times between March and My 1975. Depth to the transient
water table varied from 28 feet to more than 10 feet from the soil surface as the season
progressed. The wells were not representative of wells used as domestic sources of water,
as wells in the surrounding area are typically 50 to 100 feet deep.
The herbicide was applied March 11, 1975. Essentially no herbicide was found in the well
samples on March 11 or March 14. A runoff producing storm totalling 1.12 inches occurred
March 13. Samples from one of the wells on the treated watershed on March 19 contained
030 ppm of the herbicide. The concentration remained close to this value throughout the
summer.
Results and Conclusions
Tebuthiuron would be expected to leach slowly in clay soils under relatively low rainfall
conditions. It is very unlikely that a few inches of rainfall could cause sufficient vertical
movement of tebuthiuron through the soil profile to result in significant quantities in
transient pound water in only a few days or weeks after application. Therefore, other
explanations must account for the presence of tebuthiuron in the water samples. It is
6-TX-14
-------
suggested that tebuthiuron moved in surface water through cracks in the soil or directly
down the side of the well casing during runoff producing storms, and into the underlying
gravel bed. Thus, the well acted as a trap for the surface runoff water containing
tebuthiuron.
The presence of tebuthiuron in water samples from this artificial shallow well is no
indication that contamination of transient ground water supplies was likely to occur under
the proposed use conditions.
6-TX-15
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
PESTICIDE SMM.ING IN THE STATE Of TEXAS
tEllftESHTO ;
SAMPLE AS SUITS
ftMde flf
CONCEK-
mno«*
KSTiace
COUftY
WTS
rout
SAKPLE&
POSITIVE
VEILS
TOTAL f
SAXPU5
#0*
POSITIVE
SMWLES
Y£AR/**tH
t
¥Cl
<
ma.
'
ii
*CL
*
KCL
2.4-9
AJ9KTIK5tW
1988/8
i
0
0
1
0
0
SAILET
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
asmo
1988/8
3
0
1
3
0
1
57.1
ftyrfH*
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
CfiKMCHE -
1987/5-6
25
0
o
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
cross*
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
GAttSM '
1986/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
OEAF SKITS
1988/8
z
0
0
2
0
0
EL PASO
1988/4-6
24
0
0
48
0
0
PLOTS
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
SALE
1988/8
1
0
1
1
0
1
6.58
KitttEU.
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
>
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
c
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
WML®
1983/6-8
11
0
0
19
0
0
, '
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
¦HOCKLCT - ¦
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
aOWW '
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
KllO*
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
UM
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
. iUMXX ¦
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
: 1<1»
1988/6-8
14
0
0
27
0
0
iwinti
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
*«** '
1988/8
3
0
0
1
0
0
POTTER
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
Preceding page blank
6-TX-17
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING II TM STATE OF TEXAS
mi
CE5ULTS
SAMPLE ASSULIS
j
HSSTJCttJt
C0UKf>
mts
TOTAL
ICLUI
MKPIO
# or
POSITIVE
VEILS
TOTAL (
SAAPtfS
#<»
m mm
CAKP1CS .
RMte Of ]
£0NC£K* ]
m,nm& |
j
VBtt/KftfK '
v
a \
NO..
¦% '
*a
t
net
•ii
(2,4-0)
' mmx
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
I
TERR*
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
I
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
229
0
2
440
0
2
6.58-57.1
~2,4-DB
COMANCHE
mr/s-6
25
0
1
50
0
2
0.22-0.23
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
DM5QK
1988/6
to
0
0
20
0
0
El PASO
1988/4-6
24
0
0
48
0
0
MSOZa
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
HJMUO
1988/7
«
0
0
16
0
0
NOUU0
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
max
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
iW«
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
MUtTiN
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
1 rem ¦
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
187
0
1
»
0
2
0.22-0.23
2>,5-T
COMANCHE
1987/5-6
25
0
1
50
0
2
2.66-2.99
1987/12
1
0
1
2
0
2
2.82-2,92
: WW308 v ;
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
Q
; Si PASO
1988/4-6
24
0
0
48
0
0
MASKEU
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
; r . .
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
HJOAtGO
1983/6-8
11
0
0
19
a
0
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
6-TX-18
-------
PCSTICIOC SMPtlNS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS
_
•
UEU. KSt&TS
. WW «SUtT4
potjcioe
count*
WITE
TOtAV
VEIU
SAHPU9
* or
vosnm
wait
TOUi 9
SW3.C5
"# Cf
fosmvt
SMM.E8
of
CONCEK-
mriots
-
ymrMOKTK
e
act
¦«
*a
- <¦
MCI
(2,4,5-TJ
KOUMSO
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
iOBK
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
- <
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
vm*
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
HttTf*
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
TEAR*
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
1%
0
2
409
0
4
2.66-2.99
2,4,5-tf
ASMTTKOtKi '
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
BA1UV
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CASTRO
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
coaau#
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
CftOS&V
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
o
B&tf wit*
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
funo
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
-wu
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
HIOiUGO
1983/6-8
11
0
0
19
0
0
¦ tanner .. \ -i
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
UM
1986/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
iwox :
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
LTKK
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
«to€t - ¦
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
wm* "
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
R/WMU
1988/8
2
0
o I
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
42
Q
0 |
50
0
0
CCNWtCHE
1987/5*6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
OMSON
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
it MM
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
6-TX-19
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING 11 THE STATE OF TfXAS
UEU. KSUtTS
UMPU S53UIIS '
«ANGE Of
. CQBCEK-
TRAHOKS
(M/i)
KSTJC10E
co*n
WTH
TWAt
WtU
3MM.EB
, * & ' .
pottrnt
WELLt
WM 9
f at
SMP1ES
TCA*M»r»
t
MCI
< <
ICL
t
ML -
let
(Aeephatc)
«KS3I4
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
% N -
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
HJCA180
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
mum
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
*M3X
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
<
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
'
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
«wr
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
Momx
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
mm'
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAt DISOJITE
VELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
3%
0
0
- Aladiior'
ttKSTfK*e"
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SAIttf
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
a
CASTS0
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
COC*Aai
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
'tiQHANCNE
1987/5-6
ZS
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
cnu.1
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUUSM
1986/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
SEAT OUTS
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
a
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
rusn
1988/8
3
0
9
3
0
0
HAlE
1988/8
1
0
a
1
0
0
1987/6
2S
0
0
50
•0
0
..
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
SIWU.S&
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
: 10CKIE3P
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
HOUASO
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
6-TX-20
-------
PESTICIDE SMPUiG II TWE STATE OF TEXAS
1
mi lesum
SAXPU: tEJtHTJ
'
reSTJtt&E
CO*TY '
Mm
TOT At
MEtta
3AHPU9
* W
posit tve
«EtLS
TOTAl §
SAJPLtt
#C*.
positive
tuna
ra»k£ or
CONGER*
TMTKKS
TfAJWOtTH
\
,t -
net
X
Ma
' k.;
Net
X.
MCL
(Alaehlor)
: Kiffy
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
' '
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
: * ' '' ^
1986/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
3
0
0
iiaSOC*
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
vm .
1988/8
14
0
0
27
0
0
*MTM
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
PttMEt
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
KfTTEt
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
^ metis
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
TE8RT
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPIES
219
0
0
423
0
0
At<«e»rfe
COKWCHE . .
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
ttAUSOti
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
a
tl PASO
1988/4-6
20
0
0
40
0
0
HftttEli
1987/6
2S
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
6
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
KICM.6D
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
WXMB
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
¦' KMOX
1987/5-6
2S
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
* l«8
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
: IMS TIN
1988/4
13
0
0
26
0
0
TEUBT
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
182
0
0
380
0
0
6-TX-21
-------
PESTICIDE SMPllMS IN TIC STATE Of TEXAS
j
;
VCil RESULTS
' SAMPtt ftesuus
I ftwaeof j
CONCXtf- 1
rnrioK
wo
*sTJcm
COUNTY - '
WTE
TOW
UHt»
SAMPLED
M OP
Wilis
WELLS
torn t
$MFl£9
"K <
¦ f OF '
CMM.ES
mx/mtttH
' fc i
MCL-
tea.
' ' ' \ r
•s i
**
<
M
-------
PESTICIDE SMVillU IN THE STATE Of TEXAS
tfa KSULT*
SAMPLE «SULTS
KMttiE Of
COHCEK-
TWK**
«ST1C10E
-caatvt
CAtE
TOTAL -
IJEU9
SAKPLO
#01*
UELif
TOTAL #
SjWJ.CS
* 01
posm*
SAMPLES
*EAX/**t«
t
HCl
*
HCL
i
Ra.
(Aldicarb
sulfone)
KAKMLL
1983/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
Tift**
1988/8
10
O
0
1 20
0
0
213
0
0
411
0
0
~irffetrfc
sutloxid*
: COKAXCHE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
a
0
2
0
0
DAWS08
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
ft PASO
1988/4-6
20
0
0
40
0
0
HASKELL
1987/6
21
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
HIDALGO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
~I0WWS0
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
m» ¦ ¦
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
LVMR
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
MWTIK
1988/4
13
0
0
26
0
0
TESRT
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE 1
WELLS/SAMPLES |
182
0
°l
380
0
0
AldHn
COKAHCHS
1987/5-6
25
0
. 1
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
OXMSON
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
£L M5Q
1988/4-6
25
0
0
SO
0
0
WiSKEU
1987/6
25
0
0
SO
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
:
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
KIOALGO
1983/6-1
11
0
0
19
0
0
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
6-TX-23
-------
PESTICIDE SMPUIK II TME STATE Of TEXAS
MEU KESU.TS
SAWUL HESUITS
UKGE Of
CCKCEN-
TSAtlOKS
(WO
PfSTJClOl
cou*n
WTE
TO*,
i «IU .
5AW.E6
IW
WEILS
TOTAl f
SAW.ES
«smvE
'ttmes
. ,
t
mi :
(CI
t'
«&
« '
(Aldrin)
itOKAXB
1988/4
20
0
0
40
<5
0
X»0K
1987/5*6
25
0
0
50
0
0
'
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
Q
ttmt
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
wmti*
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
TEUBT
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
199
0
0
411
0
0
Arsenic, .
•':-fnonwf
-------
PESTICIDE SNVtlNG 1H TIC STATE OF TEXAS
UEU W5W.TS
swu nesutis
RANGE «F
C0HCEK-
uunou*
u»/i;
«rritH>e
- RXJMTT
WTE
TOTAV
VEtU
SAMPLED
#a»
fttsmvE
WEUt
TOTAL t
sums
f OF
PQtttltt
UJW.ES
tE4fcr*K?K
t
NCi
: Ha
I
net
<
JCL
(Arsenic,
inorganic)
it r*a>
1988/4
5
0
t
10
0
2
27.0
H.OTO
1985/3
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
tttKJ
1985/2
2
0
2
2
0
2
15-16
swy
1985/2
1
0
0
1
0
0
KALE
1985/3
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
#AU
1985/?
3
0
0
3
0
0
C
jttsmi
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
KE»HILL
1985/2
1
0
0
1
0
0
HIDALGO
1988/7
8
4
1
16
8
2
29.0-
160.0
HOOClET
1984/12
5
0
4
5
0
4
10-13
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
KHAXP
1983/12
61
14
11
68
15
11
30.0-
600.0
1984/1,2
26
20
1
134
97
6
29.0-
680.0
1984/6
3
2
1
3
2
1
29-81
-
1985/2
I
0
0
3
0
0
1988/4
20
10
4
40
19
9
28.0-
124.0
1990/9-10
1
1
0
1
1
0
50
-UWtt
1985/1
1
0
«
0
1
0
0
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
tUBBOCK
1984/12
2
0
1
2
0
1
12
1985/1-3
10
0
4
10
0
4
10-17
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
tTKK
1985/2,3
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/7,8
14
0
1
27
0
1
31.0
6-TX-25
-------
FtSTICiOE SMPLING IN TIE STATE Of TEXAS
UEU RESULTS
SAMPU JESUITS
XAttE Of
C0KEXK-
nurtORS
«rrjciot
eoumr
» TE
TOUt
i£tU
' SAMPLED
4 OP
Wt|«
HELLS
TOTAt r
$AMPl£ti
IW < :
posmvs ;
SAHP1E5
YfAR/HOJITK
K
«L j
,fc
*CL
<
Met :
(Arsenic,
inorgirtic)
wutria
19S3/12
39
10
"
8
45
11
9
30.0-290
1984/1,6-11
10
8
0
89
72
12
29-420
1985/2,3
2
1
0
2
1
0
100
1988/4
14
9
1
28
17
3
36.0*
154.0
1990/9-10
1
0
1
1
0
1
42.5
HCTtfT
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
c
<10 MAN
1985/2
1
0
0
1
0
0
#M«8
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
*OTT«
1985/2
2
0
2
2
0
2
13-16
1988/8
1
0
0
1
a
0
SAKOJU.I
1985/2
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
AftEHEft
1985/2
2
0
1
2
0
1
15
TESCT
1985/2
2
0
1
2
0
1
33
,
1988/8
10
2
1
20
2
4
29.0-64.0
SSKELEK
1985/2
2
0
0
2
0
0
WitUCY
1984/3
1
0
1
1
0
1
33
uisraciri®
• cowmss* •
1984/3
60
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
247
50
41
743
249
84
10.0-
680.0
Atrtxine
AJM&TBMG
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
Uiisr
1988/8
2
O
0
2
0
0
CA5TTO
1988/8
3
0
\
3
0
1
0.23
: CflCMtt
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
i CONMiCHE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
1990/9-10
6
0
0
6
0
0
am*
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
DMKOtf
1986/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
DEAF SM1TM
1988/8
2
0
1
2
0
1
1.08
6-TX-26
-------
PESTICIDE SMCliae IN TME STATE OF TOM
URl KE9ULT9
'*s»m ttiuttt
ftAgGE Of
CONCtK-
TW tCW
.. (m?l> -
| nnrriooe
COUNT)
< * ' 1
rwi
tens
SANPL®
' *Qf,
KsruvE
VEILS
TOIAir
SAXPU5
#<*
Kwmw.
(MPIQ
-
S -
: WX
<
net
£
no.
*
mu :
;
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
6
1
0
16
2
0
183.1-
200. J
1990/9-10
39
1
2
39
1
2
2.5-17
UM
1968/8
3
0
1
3
0
1
0.21
u»so«
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
urn
1988/ft
14
0
0
27
0
0
MMTZr
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
1990/9-10
1
0
0
1
0
0
rmm*'-
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
POTtZK
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
fttNMLL
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
$TOf£UU.L
1990/9-10
7
0
1
7
0
1
B
raw
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRiTI
WELLS/SAMPLES
279
3
7
483
7
7
0.21 -
200.3
Artoph®*-
•Mftyl '
. CCHttOff .
1987/5-6
25
0
0
SO
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
DAWSON
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
I
6-TX-27
-------
PESTICIDE SMPUKG II THE STATE Of TEXAS
' i
WELL RESULTS
SWLT RESULTS
wet of
conceit*
TSAT10MS
PESTICIDE
GOUKTY
' '
DATE |
TOtAt
ME LIS
SAMPt.CC
• OF
positive
sett*
TOTAl *
SAMPLES
tOF
POSITIVE
SAW PUS
tttt/WtfTH
/ "> ,
HCt
i
*C£ :
*
*a
«¦
MCL
CAjinphos
-¦ethyl}
£L PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
HASttli
1987/6
25
0
0
30
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8 1
8
0
0
16
0
0
#1CA150
1983/6-8
11
0
c
19
0
0
- .. .
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
1KWW0
1988/4
20
0
0
I 40
0
0
KNOX
1987/5-6
25
0
c
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
4.TM
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
a
HMtfR-
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
T»#t
1988/8
10
a
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEllS/SANPLES
199
0
0
411
0
0
ganctfn
CONASCHE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
BAMSC*
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
£1 MSG
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
HASKELL
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
,
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
•» v ¦" *• %
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
wcu.ee
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
1968/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
mw
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
LYUtf
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
6-TX-28
-------
PESTICIDE SNPLIH6 II TIE STATE Of TEXAS
II
NELL RESULtS
SAMftf RESULTS
nAwr Of
COKC3*-
TSAllQttt
c*s/o
PESTICIDE
C5UKIT
MTS'
fOTAt
UCU.S
SAXM.E&
* Of
MttllVE
WEILS
TOTM. # '
fiiMH.ES
tor
KBWW
SAXPltS
' t£AR/*0#Tff
-
I
#CL
' <
*Cl
i
Ma
ft£l
(Befwfin)
KttTW
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
: TEHIFf
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES |
188
0
0
392
0
0
SMHRitftfe
CONMiOC
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
BAUSON
1981/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
£L PASS
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
KASXElt
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
XI ML GO -
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
tiowo
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
tsat '
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
,
t««
1988/6-7
13
Q
0
26
0
0
WHIT J «
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
TE8RY
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
•ue c«, t, it
40MAMCNE
1987/5-6
25
0
0 •
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
MWSOR
1988/6
10
0
.
20
0
0
itm»
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
ItASEU,
1987/6
21
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
KtMLSO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
6-TX-29
-------
PESTICIDE SMrtilK IN TIC STATE Of TEXAS
MEii «£StH1$
• ' UMPtf
MWt Of
- cckce*-
T8ATUMS
og/i) '
PfSTIClSE
ccuurr ¦
OATf
lOTAi
if US
ttM>l£0
# 0?
Fosrnvc
UCU3
1CTJU. #
lupta
t Of •
Ksnm
SAMPLES
i
WJtAtMl*
£
*CL
< ..
na
«a
• '«
NCI
(BMC)
MOlftKt)
1988/4
20
0
0 1
40
0
0
: wot
1987/S-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
v w ' < ** :
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
= * v
1988/8
8
0
16
0
0
LTMI
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
w*n»
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
tounr
1988/8
10
0
0 1
20
0
0
rOTAt DISCSITE
VEILS/SAMPLES
188
0
01
392
0
0
IrcMcit
M96TKMG
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
fiAtttT
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
: CASW
1988/8
3
0
1
3
0
1
0.10
COCS*A«t
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
GGKMCHE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
¦
0
0
CSOSST
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
XtHRO*
1986/6
to
0
0
20
0
0
o£*f s*na
1988/8
2
0
1
2
0
1
0.10
UfMSO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
nam
1988/8
3
0
1
3
0
1
0.10
HALB
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
HAttZU
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
> ..
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
—
1988/8
8
0
e
16
0
0
M l DALCO
1983/6-8
11
0
0
19
0
0
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
floaacr
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
KOMftft
1988/4
20
0
1
40
0
2
1.77-2.0
6-TX-30
-------
PESTICIDE SMCLIHG la THE STATE OF TEXAS
'
«EU RESULT*
SAHPtf ttSULTS
tAHCE tf
CONCEk-
TRA710KS
LP9/U
«STlCJOt
coutrrr
DATE
"TOTAL
WE LIS
SAMP1ED
# OF
positive
WEILS
tout f
tAMM.es
t OF
POSITIVE
SAHPtIS
' TEAR/HOIfTtf
I
net
<
«a
*
na
<
Met
(BromciU
KNOX
1W/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
UM
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
LUBBOCK
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
L«»
1988/8
14
0
0
27
0
0
HMtT»
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
W8H6B
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
potter
1988/8
1
0
1
1
0
1
0.11
SAKDAil
1988/8
2
0
1
2
0
1
0.27
' ra*r
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UlllS/SAHPlES
230
0
6
442
0
7
0.10-2.0
C*ptafOl
COKAXCHE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
BAWSOH
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
El PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
SO
0
0
HASKELL
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
M6AIQ0
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
itCMttD -
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
WO* .
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
e
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
L.TXR
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
HARtlH
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL ptSCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
168
0
0
392
0
0
6-TX-31
-------
PESTICIDE SMFLMG IN TIE STATE OF TEXAS
l
WELL SESUL1& '
SAMPLE tESULtS
MXGE OP
CONCEfc-
ISATiaiS
* t*9fV}.
PESTICIDE
eawinr ^ :
DATS
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLES
1 OF
POSITIVE
wells
TCTAl 9
SAMPLES
• #cr
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
HMtfloitn
'
t :
Met.
' <
m.
• X
wet
<
mi
Capt«n
COKATCME
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
QAMSOM
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
EL PJISQ
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
a
0
KASCELt
1987/6
2S
0
0
50
0
0
1987/1Z
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
#mieo
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
MOMM
1988/4
20
0
c
40
0
0
«wx
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
CTXM
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
KASTIK
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
?«itr '
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELIS/SANPLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
1 Otrfetrvt
carncm'
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
titotstM
1968/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
si Paso
1988/4-6
20
0
0
40
0
0
•haskell
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
;
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/1
8
0
0
16
0
0
»»kss
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
torn
1987/5-6
2S
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
c
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
lt*x
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
6-TX-32
-------
PESTICIDE SMPL116 !¦ THE STATE OF TEXAS
«U RESULTS ~
SAMPLE KESW.TS
URGE or
CONCSK-
TMUOttC
<*«/l>
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
SATE _
TOTAL
VEILS
SAMP1E0
# Cf
POSITIVE
tetut
HWAl *
.om.es
#«F
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
Y£A*/»CttTK |
t
t*CL
<
MCI
.
*
NO.
(Carbaryl)
Hwnn
1988/4
11
0
0
26
0
0
TEJfBT
1988/8
ID
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES |
182
0
0
380
0
0
Cfcrboftiran
CCK**CHE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
O
0
2
0
0
SAU6QK
1988/6
10
O
0
20
0
0
Si. PASQ
1988/4-6
20
0
0
40
0
0
JtASKEU
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
•XWALSO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
MOBMD
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
KKOX
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
tTINf
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
WtttTB
1988/4
15
0
0
26
0
0
TOTAt DISCRETE
| UEILS/SAXPIES
7SI*Y
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
183
0
0
380
0
0
5-Hysfe-«xy
1 carbofurart
COMAMCNE
1987/5*6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
?
2
0
0
8AIS0K
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
ft PASO
1988/4-6
20
0
0
40
0
0
XASKEU.
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
WBALGO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
HOWADD
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
6-TX-33
-------
PESTICIDE SMVLIHG II TK STATE OF TEXAS
mu. RESULTS
SAXPLf KESJI.TS
«StfCIOI
touwr
DATE
IftTAL '
UEUS
*Of
NSITtVE
«eas
torfe «
OlWiJ
~ Of
posm*
8AXR.ES
UMZ Ol* :
CONCEK-
T8ATT0KS
TCAMOftR
* -
MCI
<
*CL
*
KO.
<
net
(3-Hydroxy
carbofur an)
t
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
..
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
-
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
tnn
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
teutriH
1988/4
13
a
0
26
0
a
ro»r
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
182
0
0
380
0
0
CArtao-
pher»tf»foo
' COWWOK '
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
e«*o«
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
EL PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
HASKELL
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
*
HlMiSO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
MQMftb
1988/4
20
a
0
40
0
0
lOKBC
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
ITNM
1988/6-7
13
0
o •
26
0
0
MRTU
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
raw
1988/8
10
0
8
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UEILS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
Chlenterw
COHMOE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
,
0
0
2
0
0
EHUACM
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
€1
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1
mxeu.
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
6-TX-34
-------
PCSTICIM SMVtMS IN TK STATE Of TEXAS
ttli. ftES&tt
lAMPlf JKSVtTS
KSTICIOE
COUHTT
\ DATE
TOTAL
WCU9
SAMPLES
wmw
«EU8\V
TOTAL *
CAMPUS
t or
WSIUW
bums
KAJKX &
CttCEH-
TRATIOHS
ttAft/ionrfi
.
*•
NCt,
¦ ¦¦ *-.<
NCI
*
*ct-
net
(Chlordane)
CHASttU)
1987/12
2
0
•
1 .
0
0
1988/#
8
0
•
16
0
0
HlftAlflG
1983/6-8
11
0
0
19
0
0
'
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
HOUtBB
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
KNOX
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
. ,
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
im
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
KMtTiK
1988/4
14
0
0
a
0
0
Tsutr
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
199
0
0
411
0
0
Chloroth*lon!1
CORMOg
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
DJUSOK
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
EL PASO
1988/4-6
2S
0
0
50
0
0
HttttU '
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
KiCAllSO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
: «£M«»
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
torn
1987/S-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
b
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
' tf**
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
.
[ iMiritf
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
I tewr
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAl DJSCSETE
VEILS/SAMPLES
|
188
0
0
592
0
01
chlorpyrlfo*
[ amstkm
1988/8
1
0
. 1
1
0
0 I
6-TX-35
-------
PESTICIDE SMVL1N6 !¦ THE STATE OP TEXAS
WELL RESULTS
SttVLC K£ SULtS
nmt or
COWCEU-
TXAT1MS
PfSTiCtOC
. CQUKff
*
"tOTAL
UEU.S
SAMPLED
» Of
POSITIVE
'UEitS ,
TOTAL f
trncs
- #«r
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
; jfitMcii
t
MCL
«t ¦
NO.
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING II TIC STATE OF TEXAS
•- «Ll 8FSULTS
SAMPLE *ESUITS
RAXC6 OP
gfttXtf-
TKAT10HS
Cw/O
PESTICIDE
COUNT?
<*
MTI
IWAt '
CELL'S
SAMPLED
" # XX-
POSITIVE
' WELLS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
- "r«f -
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
T£AK/*WTH
/
¦«
act
e,
HCt
< ¦
KCL
(Cyanazirte)
ta*A*cwr>
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
bMfSXM
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
ft PASO
1988/4*6
25
0
0
50
0
0
HASKELL
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
KIOAIGO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
*om>
1988/4
20
D
0
40
0
0
KMX
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
-¦i
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
LYKH .
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
MAKT1M
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
TEWT
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
CyparaetfcMn
: COKAUCKE
1987/5*6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
OAV30*
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
$i pm
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
KASKEIL
15*87/6
2S
0
0
50
0
0
¦
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
«MLGO
1968/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
ftOMtO
1988/4
20
0
V
0
40
0
0
KftQK
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
LV3W
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
xJMflTIM
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
^T«R7
1988/8 .
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
6-TX-37
-------
PESTICIDE SMVtlBG II W STATE OF TEXAS
i
„ vcu. wEsait /
¦ SAJPte KSOtTS
muse or
catc&i-
TftATlQK* i
i*an>
PE5TICIM
©ATE
IfiTAL "
«U?
SAMM.ES
* t'w - i
ttstme
teas
rOTAC M
HNHti
-~fif
K*iTm ;
SAMPLES
•
YEAR/H0RT8
,' ,
-------
»_
«Lt RESULTS
sum ttSULK
toWSE'OF
COUCH-
T*ATi0*S
,WD
PttlfClCE
ca*rc -
- Wtt?
- Wtt.
; '.Kit*
KKinVE
tens
TOTAL f.
8AWH.1S
# OF-
mutiw
SAMPLES -
: .
,s
N i
Ml
*¦ ;
—
- '*
*a
*
Ma
roo
KIMLGO
19S3/6-8
11
0
0 I
. r.
0
0
TOTAL DISCKTE
UELLS/SAHPLES
11
0
• I
19
0
0
tot
COMAMCKe -
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
- • -
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
Mwsas
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
EL PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
i tUSKELt
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
a
16
0
0
HIMLfiO
1983/6-8
11
0
0
19
0
0
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
HCUUO
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
OK»
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1
- ,
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
1
tW*
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
NMtTlK
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
jewY
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL 0ISC8ETE
WEILS/SJWPIES
199
0
0
411
0
0
CONMCHE
19S7/S-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
: ustsm
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
iL 1»ASD
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
ouaa
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
WMWO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
'naum
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
BMX
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
6-TX-39
-------
;t<.. -
UEU KESU.T&
SAMPLE HESUtT*
tMGCOF
KWCEK-
nunons
OW/O
p&nxztx
aw
OUTI
ros«, '
5AXPLO
«*rn«
- wau
TOW. f
SMPttS
POSITIVE
SMPLS
. YEtt/WKTH
' fc
*ct-
4
wa
i
*a
<
COeraeton-inethyl)
iwi
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
WUtTJ*
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
TtWT
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES |
1
1
158
0
0
392
0
0
PlMtlll S-
Sallfth*
caancae
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
iUiSGR
1988/6
ID
0
0
20
0
0
ft'Mse
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
KA«£L1
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
mmss
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
HCHM®
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
; om
1987/5-6
25
0
a
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
'.I'm
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
^ MXttM
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
mm'
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
Marfnen
wuerww
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
BAlLfT
1988/6
2
0
• 0
2
0
0
CMtKO
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
: axsittiM
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
CRosxr
1988/8
2
0
0
2
9
0
MJtr SKHB
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
Fum>
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
KALE
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
KiOALOO
1983/6-8
11
0
0
19
0
0
6-TX-40
-------
'UELL RESULTS
SAMPU HE SUITS
RAW£ Of
CONCEN-
TRATION
COUW
DATE
TOTAL
WILL'S
SAMPLE©
. < CP
posrnw
WELLS
TOTAL |
SAW PUS
0-OF
posruvt
CAMPLES
; TEA*/**ra .
t
MCI
<
MCt
I
Ha
<
MCL
(Oiaiinon)
HOCKLEY
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
IAMB
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
tVSBQCX
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
P*3M£»
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
o
KJTtf*
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
lUWMil
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
42
0
0
50
0
0
0>bWtyt
pfrthalata
MMU»
1983/6-8
11
0
0
19
0
0
I
TOTAL 01 SCHEIE
WELLS/SAMPLES
11
0
0
19
0
0
I
Olcaote
AJMSTDOMC
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
8AILET
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CASTSO
1988/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
COOtSA*
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
COKAMCHE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
1990/9-10
6
0
0
6
0
0
CWS8T
1988/8
2
0
1
2
0
1
0.06
DAWSON
86/6
10
a
0
20
0
0
OBtf SK1T«I '
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
£1 PASO
1988/^-6
24
0
0
48
0
0
nm
1988/8
3
0
, 0
3
0
0
HALE
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
nkmti
1987/6
25
a
1
SO
0
2
0.82-0.94
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
1990/9-10
6
0
1
6
0
1
D
*
HiOALGO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
HOCKLEY
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
6-TX-41
-------
1
*u tfsotrs
SAKPU HE SUITS
KJUfcfe «
C0UCE8"
TMTlOtt
pesttcros
axmr
" W«£
TOT At
VEU.3
1AKRO
« Of
posrnvf
imxt
TOTM. f
um£9
' *Qf '
POSrrtvE
SAKHJ3
tEtt/HOMH
» '
HCl
«
Ma
*
Ha
«et-:
(Dicaoba)
uwm
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
1990/9*10
i
0
0
1
0
0
1
am
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
1990/9-10
39
0
0
39
0
0
Utt
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
iWBQOt
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
; tW* ••
1988/8
1*
0
0
27
0
0
KAKTK
1988/6
14
0
0
28
0
0
•
1990/9-10
1
0
0
1
0
0
MS**
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
*emt
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
UitOAU
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
SICWUU-l
1990/9-10
7
0
0
7
0
0
. TBR*
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
0.06-0.94
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
278
0
3
481
0
'I
BleMcf-prcsp : -
COttHDC
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
DAUSOM
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
ft mso
1988/4-6
24
0
0
48
0
0
HASK21L
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
-
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
19SB/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
ttMMB
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
am
1987/S-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1986/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
tVM
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
6-TX-42
-------
«BU 8EStt.fi
SAmt RESULTS
-MMEOf :
' CCMCEK*
t*ATJ08S ;
ctg/ty
rcsncuft.
awn'
TOTAU
*u*
SAMPLES
- #0f
foattrn
HELLS
TOMl # .
SAMPLE*
# OF
- wsmve .
SAMPLES
-
I
MCI
<
'act
' -2
NO.
«
MCI
(Bichlorprop)
NMT»
1966/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
jb»t
1982/3
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
187
0
0
590
0
0
oicefet
COWOE
1987/5-6
2S
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
ttatsm
¦¦¦
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
a pun .
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
«WKEU-.
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
.
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
wo*iso
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
mma
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
am
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
'' l-
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
- _ ~
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
' tw»
1988/6-7
15
0
0
26
0
0
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
"mm
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL 01SCIETE
1 UELLS/SAWLES
188
0
0
192
0
0
' comtrn ¦
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
Vv
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
$Msai
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
. ftSSKZU. , ,
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
- - ,
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
MM190
1983/6-8
11
0
0
19
0
0
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
•wo*'-"
1987/5*6
25
Q
0
50
0
0
-
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
6-TX-43
-------
.
-
. ueti Rt SJtTS '
SMPlS.SiaitTC
fcu&E or
«*«*•
TftATlQH*
rone u>e
CO*?!
WTf
10TAL '
*U* .
UMN.CS
POSITIVE
UEU3
TOTAL •
ware*
#'«r
mum
' * SAWtlf '
YEM/KMTB
I
JCL
i
Ma j
Z,'/
Ma
'><
net 1
(DieldHn)
(mox>
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
1TW
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
until
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
TERRY
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
[ TOTAL DISCRETE
1 UELLS/SAMPIES
188
0
"1
411
0
0
OtntftmU
QXMOf
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
M&M
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
EL PASO
1988/4*4
25
0
0
50
0
0
XASSL1
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
MtOALGQ
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
1968/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
Oiax
1987/5-6
25
0
0
SO
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
t
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
tY*M
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
MASTIK
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
TBUtr
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SMPLES
188
0
0
592
0
0
Otoetyl
pfethrtat*
#JWt»
1983/6-8
11
0
0
19
0
0
WELIS/SAWLES
I
"
0
0
"
0
0
1
Diouiftton
COWWCKS
1987/5-6
25
0
0
SO
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
6AW0S
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
EL PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
6-TX-44
-------
J
•
4*U RSili
SWU KSDUS .
MURE OF :
. KKCEJl- :
Tfi*ri<*» :
mmu*
caairf
MTf
.TOTAL
-*u«
SMPiES
#0*
POSITIVE
HELl*
"TOTAL 9
«wiis
0 09 '•
,-posmw
SAMPLES ;
vw/tom
-
i ¦
MCL
1
«
: m.
i
«
mx
{Disulloton)
HKKIU.'
1987/4
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
WflALOO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
i totem
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
; wo*
1987/5-6
25
0
0
SO
0
0
V * e*
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
iwa
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
MARTIN.
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
TUWT
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAHPLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
Ditrtitlfrton
culfone
CCWUiCHE ¦¦
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
t
0
0
2
0
0
¦ MtfSQR
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
1 EL MSB
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
haskiu
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/6
8
0
0
16
0
0
: MMLflf) 1
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
: NCHHD
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
OKK
1917/5-6
25
0
0
so
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
mm
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
MMTiK
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
1
rewr
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCSITE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
6-TX-45
-------
VEIL RHUtrS
SttPtf RESULTS '
SXNGE OF
CO.QEH-
TWTSOHS
(M/O
pemcrwr
ccwNty
WE .
TOT At
WEILS
SAXPUD
• OF
posmve
VEUS
TOTJO. §
SAHPlPS
* 0*
posmve
*«NWL€S '
r&ut/«*ra
$ '
mt'
• «
ICt
*
net
<
«L
Dfurori
: ARXSTKORC
1988/5
1
0
0
1
0
0
IAILSC
ma/6
.2
0
0
2
0
0
CASTSO
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
eoosuui
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
• <*mt
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
OBAf SMITH
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
nmo
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
MAIE
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
HOCKIET
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
um
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
lussxr
1988/8
3
0
1
3
0
1
0.01
tTKM
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
WWW-K
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
W3TTW
1988/8
1
0
1
1
0
1
0.02
8AN0AU.
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCSETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
31
Q
2
31
0
2
0.01-0.02
Enfcsulfan J
COKAIOE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
: 8MK9N
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
it MSS
1988/4-6
2S
0
0
50
0
0
: MASKS Li
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
: OTMlOO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
HOUASD
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
' kw*
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
'
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
LtNN
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
WttTTH
1988/4
U
0
0
28
0
0
6-TX-46
-------
WELL RESULT*
SAMPLE "RESULTS
ftAHQE OF
. COriCEh-
1 RAT i C*iS
0t$/u
PKTfClOE
coat?
OATf
TOTAL I * OF ..
WE LIS | POSlTfVf
SAMP1EO I WEILS
TOTAL #
$MPU*
*Of
POStTIVf
SAMPLES
tEAK/NOMTS
i l
1 HCL
«
na
* .
Ma
«
Ma
(Endosulfan 1)
TE8M
1988/8
10 | 0
0
f 20
0
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188 j 0
0
392
0
En£ocuti*ri ft
CQHAMCHE
1987/1-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
mrm
1
0
0
2
0
0
MWSQM
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
EL PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
ttUKELl
1987/6,12
27
0
0
54
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
fUOAlGO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
HQMK&
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
VtGX
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
imt
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
nUTtM
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
fair
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
Enrfosutfmn
: suifatv
CWMICHE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
&MSGK
1958/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
EL PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
SO
0
0
*A«Skt
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
• 0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
KtOAtfiO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
HCWURB
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
otcz
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
IfW
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
6-TX-47
-------
PESTICIDE SAMH.1NC IN TK STATE OF TEXAS
'tCll ftES&TS
SAMPLE *SSUIT$
f«ticrw
COUNTY
OATE
TOT At
weus
SAMPLED
i CP
posmvE
«EUS
mm 9
SAMPile
1 «
posmvE
SAMPLES
HAHCE Of
CQNCfK-
mrtONS
(W/i>
rEA*/K0*T»
MCI
lKL
I
wet '
. '<
let
(lmiosulf«n
sulfate)
MMttN
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
rautv
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UEUS/SAKPLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
EndMn
COHAUDlE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
6AWSOB
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
H. PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
wuicm
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1968/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
rneAWo
1983/6-8
11
0
0
19
0
s
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
HtMAO
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
UMX '
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
LfM
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
KARTW
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
tm*
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISOtETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
199
0
Q
411
0
0
EUi»tf turalin
¦ CQMWCMS
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
, 0
2
0
0
mm
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
et paso
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
HASKEUL
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
XiGAlQO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
«W«b
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
6-TX-48
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLJNS II THE STATE OF TEXAS
t.
UEIL RESULTS
SAMPLE SESULTS
RANGE Of
C0MC£K>
TRAflON*
w»nci«r
ca&vf
am
TOTAL.
«L18
sawu»
' U Of
w*n m
VEILS
TOTAL 0
SA»tf9
#.CI»
w«rtive
SAKW.E3
s ^
rEAWHOWTB
t
act
%
mi
<
I
MCI
< .'
ttCL
CEthslf lur#l iri)
mac
1987/3-6
25
0
.
50
0
0
w; J <
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1968/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
iwui- ' --
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
'iwttl*
1986/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
r«*r < \ '¦
1988/8
10
o.
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
Ethion
CCKAXCkE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
WBttOK
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0 ^
0
ft PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
XA5«U.
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
HiSALDO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
HOW©
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
%
*0tW!0
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
' ;XMQK
1987/S-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
r '' - *•* .
1987/11
2
0
0
*
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
LTNR
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
MARTI* -,
1988/4
14
0
c
28
0
0
: mrf '
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEUS/SAMPLES
199
0
0
411
0
0
fonvtfpfeot
COW* CHE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0 ~
DAWOS
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
CL MSO <
1988/4-6
25
0
0
SO
0
0
6-TX-49
-------
PESTICIDE SWUNG II THE STATE Of TEXAS
: v ma mm.* ¦ i
. SAHH.E. RESULTS /
' mtiem
caum
9m.
TOTAL
SAMPLED
<>» "
wni*
UELL.S
TOTAL f
SAMPLE*
'i
rasrvm
owpi.es i
tm/mitt
t '
: Ml
< ,
Met
;
i
net
, <.
tet.
(Fernmiptios)
1987/4
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
• * ¦»:
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
8IM.60 V
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
UK* '
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
tnw
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
M8TI8
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
: Taw
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
wells/samples
188
0
0
392
0
0
/eomiiCME
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
JMSOR
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
EL fASO
1988/4-6
25
0
o
50
0
0
.mmuL
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
4 '
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
ttlPHGQ -
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
¦ MHASO
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
; tm
1987/5-6
2S
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
. 0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
If**
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
Mi&rii
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
mm
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
6-TX-50
-------
PESTICIDE SANPUNS II THE STATE Of TEXAS
¦
UEtl KE9ULTS
:: SAMPLE MSUITS
- > :
p&iitftt
fitWKtV -
CATE
TOTAi
VEUS ~
SAMPLES
' # or
wsntve
VEILS
TOTM. *
SAWUTS
* OF
POSITIVE
SUH.Q
WOWS'w
COHCtli-
TSAnats
w/i>
t&Ut/HOKTS ''
t
net
¦ «
id
i
<
net
fonoftm
ttKWCHE
mm-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
m?/i2
1
0
0
2
0
0
DAMON
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
£1 PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
>.
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
; *ibaig» *
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
«0UM8
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
OHK
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
L*tt
1988/6-7
IS
0
0
26
0
0
KWTI*
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
TlftRT
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELIS/SWLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
•*iyphOtat»
A**T*ORC
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
9*1 LEY
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CASTSfi
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
^ atom
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
OEAf SHIT*
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
: fLOTO
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
mt
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
mrnri
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
um
1988/8
3
0
1
3
0
1
150.0
aasax
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
41TM
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
W8*£ B
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
WTTM
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
6-TX-51
-------
pesticide mpiim iv tk state of tbus
. V
- -
«ti IES&1S
. SMPLf ttSUtT* ¦ -
fcAMCOF
«*«*•
tSATJOW
o*«m
mrtcioc
€0»f¥
' 'am I \
TOTtt.
"mtxs
SAMPLED
, #OF
posurvt
WEtUt
tOTAl. «
v*«r
fOSlTWE
. IMW2«
nm/mmn
fc 1 <
tCL | NCI
* I <
Ma i act
(Fanaaiphos)
jummu
1988/6
2
. | .
2
0 | 0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
31
0 | 1
31
0 | 1
150.0
COKMfCKl
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
, ,
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
ttusm
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
«uau
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
HIMUM
1983/6-8
11
0
0
19
0
0
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
XOUUfe
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
max
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
t988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
trw* - -
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
KARTiR
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
t sar
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
——
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
199
0
0
411
0
0
»apt«cJjl©r
cooxl
-------
PESTICIDE SWUNG IN THE STATE OF TEXAS
-
UEtl BEJUtli
SAMPtE XESULTS
;
PttTfClOC
COUNTY
mk
TOTAL
*m«"
SMPtED
miTlVE
UK.L3
TOTAJ. 4
<$Of
. POSWWE
SAMPLES
RAfiSE Of
COKCEIi
TflATJOSS
(*9/1)
YUt*/*K?n
i ,
Ml
<
*x
-
- X
Ma
«
xct ;
(Heptachtor
epoxide)
KBDK
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
: ' ,
1967/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/S
8
0
0
16
0
0
ITKB
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
MMTIM
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
TFXRT
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES |
199
0
0
403
0
0
HexMzlflorM
COMMICHE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
BAUSON
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
ft NSC
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
HASttU.
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
D
0
16
0
0
S1DAIGD
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
lOUARfi
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
WWt
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
a
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
I
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
i!W8
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
MAATIM
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
Tttmf
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAl DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
i inetM* to***-
SHC)
comm
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
-¦ mist*
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
o
ei p*m
1988/4-6
25
0
0 i
50
0
0
mmx
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
6-TX-53
-------
PESTICIDE SMSH.IH6 II TK STATE OF TEXAS
-
- -
«u sEsuns
iUPlg Sf BITS
«wn
HAt£
TOTAL
SMPieo
#0F
KttiTIVC
JfctlS
TOTAL #
MAKES
#«F
wsirn*
SAMPlZff
JIANCE Of
CONCEK*
TJATJOS#
wo
yuu/xxn*
- It
let
! *<• :
I'NCt
X
Ma
<
Ma
¦ 1 ™ ¦ lj-
(Lindane)
41QAIGD
1983/6-8
11
0
0
19
0
0
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
WMB
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
»Qtf-
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
a
0
vtm
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
nmi*
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
wm'
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL OtSCSETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
199
0
0
411
0
0
NalBthtop
CQMKCKE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
I
0
0
CAltSOli
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
£t MSO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
ItAfflCELt,
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
4HBALQD
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
HOUAM
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
mm
1967/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
-- .
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
trrt
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
s
0
WMHffB
1988/4
14
0
, 0
28
0
0
taw
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL PISOtETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
KCPA
' COMUtCHS
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
. ¦
1987/12
%
0
0
2
0
0
wmk
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
' a wao •
1988/4-6
24
0
0
48
0
0
6-TX-54
-------
KST1CIME SMPLMC IM TIE STATE OF TEXAS
I: WU. *KUm *"
lAMPif MSOtTS
:: MMSE OF "
catcett-
tftATia*
COUfTY
.
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN TIC STATE Of TEXAS
«eti sesjli* - -
¦
SAKP1€ RESULTS
ftAKBE or
COUCgM-.
THAT 1 <*8
twm
mnctsE
coan
MIC
law,
. mm
SAJtPilS
SW Y ;
POSITIVE
SEID •
' tot*, f
SWtt* -
- •# er ; ¦
wsmvr
WW£S
¦s
luxjmm
i.
to,
s4 <
net'
4
*a
<
(Mecoprop)
ttusxx
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
EL PASO
1968/4-6
24
0
0
48
0
0
HASttll
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
: ' *
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
Kiwaoo
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
now
1988/4
20
9
0
40
0
0
Ktftt
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
1 IfW
1988/6-7
15
0
0
26
0
0
MAXT1M
1988/4
14
0
0
20
0
0
1
TSW
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
I WELLS/SAMPIES
187
0
0
390
0
0
pittjwiwrt' 7 , .
COMANCHE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
6AUX*
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
' CtPASO r-
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
Msmi. <
1987/6
2S
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
3
0
16
0
0
'uii&AU# ' '
1988/7
8
0
Q
16
0
0
feOUMtO
1988/4
20
D
0
40
0
0
IMODC
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
VlHB
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
o
NAXTOi
1988/4
15
0
0
26
0
0
TERRY
1988/8 I
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL D1SCSETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
I
182
0
0
390
0
0
6-TX-56
-------
PESTICIDE SMM.1HG II THE STATE Of TEXAS
1
mu. «esw.is -
SAMPLE RESULTS
kAX6f Of
CCNCEN*
tftATiore
U%'1\
OOtKtt
<
6Atf
TOTAL
WELU
SAMPLES
# Of
KfclTJVI
WELLS
TOTAL §
SAMPLES
#or
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
s <
- TEWi/XO«T»
< s
- i
mi
<
act
MX
«
;*ct
Krtfv&xyciiior
COHMiCHE
1987/5-6
25
c
0
50
0
0
<
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
DAWSON
1968/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
EL PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
mxzit
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
HIMLCO
1983/6-8
11
0
0
19
0
0
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
mom&d
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
<**
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
-
198S/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
iw*
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
ftK&TlR
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
rear
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETi
UELLS/SAHPLES
199
0
0
411
0
0
Hrtei*chlisr
- AntsnasMC
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
iAILCT ' ' -
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
' CASTRO
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
¦ cochra*
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
: COKAHCHf
1987/5-6
25
0
1
50
0
2
5.3-5.7
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
¦ •• " . <>,
1990/9*10
6
0
1
6
0
1
2
CXOCt¥
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
DttSO* '
86/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
DEW SMITH
1968/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
EL PASO
198B/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
FLOYD
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
: MALE
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
HASKELL
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1
:
1987/12
2
0
0 I
»
0 .
0
6-TX-57
-------
PESTICIDE SMKIN IN T* STATE OF TEXAS
UEU RESUUS
SAftPte RfSUITS
MUSE or
«aifce*>
tMTJOB .
i*sm
CBnTY
MTf
; iotw.
CMH.C0 ^
• or
ftMUIVE
¦ yavt
TOTAL • .
MM***
~ OF -
waurvf
"MWIK '!
i£JU/*iOfrrB
-i
*
Ma
4
>'
Ma
net.:
(M«rol»chlor)
(HASKELL)
1988/8
B
0
0
16
0
0
1990/9-10
6
0
0
6
0
0
HIOALQO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
#0QCUtf
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
D
UflMM©
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
1990/9-10
1
0
0
1
0
0
otox
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
~
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
r ' ' - •
1988/8
8
0
a
16
0
0
-
1990/9-10
39
0
0
39
0
0
itm
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
' 1VMOOC
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
im
1988/8
14
0
0
27
0
0
MMttilt
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
1990/9-10
1
0
0
1
0
0
wow-*
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
wraa •
1988/8
| 1
0
0
1
0
0
SMMU.
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
: mtrnvm. ¦
1990/9-10
7
0
0
7
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UEUS/SAMPUS
1988/8
1 10
0
0
20
0
0
279
0
2 .
483
a
3
5.3-5.7
10fftw«0rt
: COMMCHE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
OWE** •
1988/6
1C
0
. 0
20
0
0
U PAS*
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
itttKELt
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
mwaco
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
tfOMftft
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
6-TX-58
-------
PESTICIDE SMPU1K II TIC STATE Of TEXAS
YELL BESUUt
SAMPLE RESULTS
UJtOf Of
tfttCEK-
UtATJCW
1*9} l>
PESTICIDE .
- caxn
. am
: W*l
: *LU
SAMPLED
#Of,
POSITIVE
HELLS
TOW *
WPUtt
.... #or
mum
SAMPLES
<
ytMjmtrtn
*
mi
<
KCL
-
wa
'< ¦
net
(Korf tumor*)
KRQX
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
tTVM
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
KMTfM
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UEILS/SANPLES
TEMir
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
188
0
0
392
0
0
COMUtCHE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
CAUSOM
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
SI PASCS
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
HASKELL
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
. ¦. •
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
HIDALGO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
mat
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
.
1986/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
inn - '
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
KAST1K
1988/4
13
D
0
26
0
0
tfitfcT -
1988/8
10
0
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
182
0
390
0
0
Bxyfluorfen
tOMOE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
DAVKW
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
El PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
HASKEU
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
•
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
6-TX-59
-------
PESTICIDE SMVUHG IM TK STATE OF TEXAS
WELL RESULT*
SAMPLE «SUUS
KAttE OF
COKE*-
THAT IONS
tW/U
tXXMTf
CATS
TOTAL
UEU.J
'SMPiSO ¦
#OF
POSITIVE
UE1L5
total *
emo
~ OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
; v..
yEAfc/AOtfTH , |
*CL
< " :
m.
,fc
MO.
c
*ei
(Oxyfluorfan)
woalw ¦
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
KOMftS
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
KNOX ' s ' 1
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
: U1I ,
1988/6-7
15
0
0
26
0
0
wni
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
tew
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE I
WELLS/SAMPLES fl
188
0
0
392
0
0
Psraauat
AWSTROW
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
Wilt* '
1988/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
CASTSfi
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
' COCiSUUt
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
DEM sins ^
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
tior»
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
: HALE ' •' 1'V
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
¦ iwaaiir
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
UM
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
' inmcK ' \ .
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
'tlKM ' " \
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
. WMHfE
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
wnat
1988/8
1
0
' 0
1
0
0
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL D1SC8ETE
UELLS/SMIPLES
51
0
0
31
0
0
ethyl ;
: COW*CUE :
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
smsm ¦ .
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
\ El FASD"
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
6-TX-60
-------
PESTICIDE SNPUIK IN TK STATE OF TEXAS
well Reran
SAMPLE «SUL«
UNO? OF
C8MCEX-
TSA7J0HS
tnm
mnciM
«um}.
WIS
TOTAL
UELL5
SAMPLED
tot
POSJTIW
vet. 15
TOTAL 9
SAMPLES
- * or
POSITIVE
SAXPUS
;
- >
YEM/NMTl
. . <
; t
*CL
-
.. V . . .. .
fc
xa
«r
NCI
(Partthlon,
•thyl}
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
¦:
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
W0AL6O
1983/6*8
11
0
0
19
0
0
|
<
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
ONX
1987/5*6
25
0
0
50
0
0
v
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/S
8
0
0
16
0
0
J.TOB
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
man*
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
tewtr
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
411
0
•I
get Kyi
CWWC« ¦
1987/5*6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
MUM* *
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
EL PASO
1988/4-6
2S
0
0
50
0
0
^1A«EU
1987/6
25
0
0
SO
0
0
- '
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
•
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
»»AIG0
1983/6-8
11
0
0
19
0
0
• —
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
MOUM&
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
OKIX
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0 I
16
0
0
tm
1988/6-7
13
0
0 1
26
0
0
KWTIB
1988/4
14
0
0 II
28
0
0
6-TX-61
-------
KSTICIM SMrtliB IN TIC STATE OF TEXAS
WELL RESULTS
' SAMPLE RESULTS .
fEsncwe
caum .
SMS
lOTAt
: i£US :
SAWLBi
• Of
POSITIVE
kelu
TOTAL #
SMM.ES
»«r
msikw: :
SAKPULS :
RMtEOF
tCWCE*- ,
THAT JOBS
-
IWymtn
: *-•
; «t
• - ¦<
¦ mv
*
Id
> 5
mt :
(W/U
(Par«thi en,
methyl)
rsur
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL OISCKTE
UELLS/SAWLES
I
0
0
411
0
0
1 Paw
CWAHCKE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
m?/iz
1
0
0
2
0
0
BM50R
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
El fASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
MASXELt
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
Q
16
0
0
XiCALGO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
»aum
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
max
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
mo
1988/6-7
13
0
0
I 26
0
0
MtitnB
1988/4
14
0
.
»
0
0
TB«y
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
-oMMcatt
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
DAWSON
1988/6
10
0
, s
20
0
0
«. ?ASO
1918/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
4U&XU
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
<4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
kicaiw
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
6-TX-62
-------
PESTlCtOC SWiliB II TO STATE OF TEXAS
well ftesum -'
SAMPLE IttSULtt
'WW6E Of
EON Of-
TKA1S0K5
PESTICIDE
- !- COMVt
BATE
TOTAL
UEtLJ .
: SMPiSJ
#«F
POSITIVE
weiLS
total #
SMP1ES
#0F
POSITIVE :
SAMPLES
IfEMSmiTB"
' i
HCL
X
MCL
wx
<
act
(Pendinethalin)
*iux
1987/5*4
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
iWM .
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
HA8TIB '
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
?HRY
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
HELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
192
0
0
'Pwmtfertn
CQHMiOtE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
MitSON
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
ft PASO
1986/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
*Att8u.
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
¦¦' . • • ¦» ¦¦
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
JUDALCG
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
SOUW©
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
KMX
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
iw*
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
KttTIR
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
ra*r
1988/8
«i£=.
188
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
392
0
0
Pfxw-*t«
Aiserexc
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
ttlUT
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CASTRO :-
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
"CQCMM
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
OSStT
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
&£AF SK1TB
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
6-TX-63
-------
PESTICIDE SMniH IM THE STATE OF TEXAS
*U RESULTS
SAMPLf AfWttS
SAKE or
CCNCEM-
TRATitSS
PESTICIDE
ca*rsr
OATS
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLES
*or
POSITIVE
WEILS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES.
*or
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YEAR/KXTS
m.
'<
m.
i -
*a
<
XCL
(Phonte)
ao*o
19S8/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
MALE
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
KOCtLCY
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
UM»
1986/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
tisaoix
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
Ira*
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
POTTEI
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
ftttSAU
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
U€LIS/SAMPLES
31
0
0
31
0
0
Ptwwrtcnr
: tOMiCKE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
SttSOM
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
11 PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
HASXEH.
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
%
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
HI 5 ALSO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
tfCMftt
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
act
1987/5-6
75
0
0
50
0
0
,, - '
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
: im
1988/6-7
13
0
' 0
26
0
0
HUHK
1988/6
U
0
0
28
0
0
TBtAT
1988/8
188
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCSETE
UELLS/SAKPLES
0
392
0
0
PiCiOTflB
ARMSTRONG
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
M1LET
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CASTRO
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
6-TX-64
-------
PESTICIDE SAMHJKC II TK STATf Of TfXAS
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE SSSUtTS '¦
PESTI«0£
COMVf
OATS
fWAt,
UELLS
SAMPLED
#'OF
POSITIVE
UtLLS
1WU.*
oMPi.es
#0F
POSITIVE.
SMVIU
CF
CONCEtf-
TM1J0W
(M9/11
. -
YtAfe/MQHTB
t
net
<
: *1
t
wx
*
mi-
CMcicram)
COCWA*
1?38/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
CONtfCHE
1937/5-6
25
0
0
so
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
CSOS8T
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
DAWSON
86/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
d£a* »n>
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
U PASO
1988/4-6
24
0
0
48
0
0
aoto
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
MALE
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
HASKELL
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
Q
16
0
0
: MPM.BO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
HOCKLEY
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
; wmad
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
tXK
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
um
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
' UBtGCX
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
trim
1988/6
14
0
1
27
0
2
1.48-3.15
: HMHR
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
1 P«J«R
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
; porrct
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
ftttMU.
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
T»m
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL' DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
218
0
1
421
0
2
1.48-3.15
: Ni^inofo#
COKAVCHC
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
dtmm
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
.
I
6-TX-65
-------
PESTICIDE SUVUMC 1M IK STATE OF TEXAS
UELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
fcM€£ OF
CONCEN-
rjuTioss
tfs/n
F&TJCIK
COKTY
DATE
KUS
SAMPtEO
f OF
POSITIVE
WEILS
rem *
SW1.ES
tflF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YEAft/NWTS
X
HCL
<
KCL
t
NO.
«l :
(Profenofos)
CI PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
HASkXU
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1917/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
ttSOAl®
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
HOMMB
1988/A
20
0
0
40
0
0
MO*
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
LYNB
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
*ww*
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
TERRY
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES |
188
0
0
392
0
0
Fraerton
COWICHE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
SO
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
1990/9-10
6
0
0
6
0
0
OAWSOtf
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
Et PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
HASttU
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
1990/9-10
6
0
0
6
0
0
: HTDAIGD
1988/7
8
0
' 0
16
0
0
HOWARD
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
1990/9-10
1
0
0
1
0
0
KNOX
1987/5-6
25
0
2
50
0
4
5.2-28.4
1987/11
2
0
2
4
0
4
23,3-29.6
1988/8
8
0
2
16
0
4
1.9-4.6
1990/9-10
39
0
12
39
0
12
0
I. VMM
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
6-TX-66
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLIII6 IN THE STATE OF TEXAS
KU RESULTS
SAMPLE results
RAffC? OF
conceit-
TSATiOKS
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
OATS
TOTAL
VEILS
SAMPLED
« OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
total *
SAMPLE3
»0F
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YEAR/MOTS
: t
net.
<
XCl
X
Ma
*
net :
(Praneton)
MMT1H
1986/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
1990/9-10
1
0
0
1
0
0
tTOMEUAU
1990/9-10
7
0
2
7
0
2
0
1 Taw
1988/8
10
248
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
1
0
-
| 452
0
26
1.9*29.6
C9MNCHE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
DAUSt*
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
El PASO
1988/4*6
25
0
0
50
0
0
HASKELL
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
X3&ALGO
19S8/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
H0UA8B
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
KNOX
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
in*
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
iwn«
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
TEMT
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
MELIS/SAWLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
;*roi»rttlw
CWANCHfi
1987/5-6
25
0
» 0
50
0
a
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
OAWSO*
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
ft PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
' «A5«Ll
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
#10ALOO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
6-TX-67
-------
PtSTlCIDC SUM.1IS IN TIC STATi OF TEXAS
1
WEU RESULTS
SAW.? JESUITS •
RAftGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
(*9/0
PESTICIOf
COMITY
^ CAT?* -
TOTAL .
was
SAMPLES
i Of
POSITIVE
WU.IS
TOTAi *
SAJW.ES
• #fir
positm -
SMMXS
*
YEM/*WIT«i:
i V ;
MCI :
< .¦
*a
*a
<
wet
(Propachlor) 1
KDWPO
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
KHK
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
' * *
1987711
2
0
0
4
0
0
-1 >
19M/S
8
0
0
16
0
0
: LTNIi
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
MARTIK
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
TESRT
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
VEILS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
I
:iPr«p«irv*
ABtS?ftM6
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
' MILE?
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
1988/8
3
0
a
3
0
0
cdcwuyr'
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
COMMiCKE
1990/9-10
6
0
0
6
0
0
: cross* •
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
DEAF SMITH
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
FLOYD
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
HALf '
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
HASKEU
1990/9-10
6
0
8
6
0
0
NOCtXEV
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
H0WW0
1990/9-10
1
0
0
1
0
0
max
1990/9-10
39
0
1
39
0
1
0
' UM
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
tunaix
1988/8
3
9
¦ 0
3
0
0
tTIW
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
MARTI*
1990/9-10
1
0
0
1
0
0
PWWER
1988/8
3
0
c
3
0
0
WJTTE* .
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
WWMU
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
6-TX-68
-------
PESTICIDE SAM* IK 1H THE STATE Of TEXAS
McU. RESULTS
SAMPLE ttSJLtS
FESTICH*
tasrrr
MT£
Tftttt
¦ WEU.S
SAMPLED
#01
posnrvs
WE US
TOTAL *
SAKW.CS
*«r
POSITIVE
SMOH.ES
ftAKCE OF
CONCEK-
TRAUORS
?E*RV**TB
*
" e
KX
! <
let
t
na
<
net
(08/i>
(Prooazfne)
tTONEUAU
1990/9-10
7
0
0
7
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
|
91
0
•I
91
0
1
D
Simstinc
COHMCHE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
- -
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
OAifSOH
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
£1 PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
ws«it
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
HIDALGO
1983/6-8
11
0
0
19
0
0
• ^ <"
1988/7
8
0
»
16
0
0
KOWSP .'
1988/4
20
0
.
40
0
0
woe
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
%
iy«s
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
MAT IK
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
TEJiirr
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAl DISCRETE
| WELLS/SAMPLES
199
0
0
411
0
0
T«butMwon
NCtEMiAK i
1975/3-7
2
0
2
16
0
13
tr«ce-
380.0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPLES
2
0
2
16
0
13
trac«-
380.0
Tr*l<*»ethrin
CMAKCHE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
•
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
' 8JWSO*
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
£1 PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
: wsratA-
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
,
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
6-TX-69
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING II IK STATE Of TEXAS
— 1 " -
*LL RESULT*
SM0t£ «£SUttS
1
. CCHCEN-
TWT10W
CM/U
PESTICa*
COUNTY - .
©ATE
tottl
WEU»
SM»LE8
#Of
POSITIVE
UCXIS
TOTAi #
SAW1B
wsmw '
uwui
\
y&Jt/NQNTR
: t
: fCl
• <
: ttS.
* -
xa
Met
CTPilomethpin)
(«sai)
1988/8
I «
0
0
16
0
0
#IWKGO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
MOUMO
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
)odk
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
LWK
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
HMtm
1988/6
14
0
0
28
0
0
T8W
T988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UEUS/SAKPlES
188
0
0
392
0
0
fritvfo* ¦
CttttHCHE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
OttBM
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
ft PASO
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
. •
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
ttlBALGO
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
««8W& '
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
ttKBt
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
"
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
vm
1988/6-7
13
0
t
0
26
0
0
mm . '
1988/4
14
0
0
28
0
0
jaw
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL'DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
392
0
0
iHrJcioew
GONMOE
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
M»K)R
1988/6
10
0
0
20
0
0
6-TX-70
-------
PCST1CIDC SWUNG II TIE STATE Of TEXAS
weu. naum
3AMPU «»Lt*
RAttOEOF
CpNCEB*
TM71GKS
(wm
TCSTICtME
COJVTY
DATE
: -"TOTAL .
MEU.S
UVLtD
t OF
yosmvE
UEU»
toxjy. *
SAXPtES
#«F
MstrrvE
sax fh.es :
TEM/miTB
£
HCL
<
Ma
c
*a :
(Trielopyr)
a pko
1988/4-6
24
0
0
48
0
0
HASKELL
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
-
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
KIOAIBO ' 0
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
MttMUi
1988/4
20
0
0
40
0
0
' HKK
1987/5-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/11
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
t**S
1988/6-7
13
0
0
26
0
0
MAATJK
1988/4
14
0
1
27
0
1
0.58
TKIHf
1988/8
10
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UtLLS/SAWLES
187
0
1
389
0
1
0.58
Tr1floral 1ft
JUMSTMXtt
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
BAILEY
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CASTSO
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
COQBWJt
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
C0NUCM£ '
1987/5-6
2S
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
1
0
0
2
0
0
CBOS6T
1988/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
MWKM
1986/6
10
0
0
I 20
0
0
iuf SHtra
1988/8
2
0
0
.
0
0
tl PAS)
1988/4-6
25
0
0
50
0
0
fioh>
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
MALE
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
HAWfU
1987/6
25
0
0
50
0
0
1987/12
2
0
0
4
0
0
1988/8
8
0
0
16
0
0
1988/7
8
0
0
16
0
0
xoacLEr
1988/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
6-TX-71
-------
PESTICIDE SAMtlKG IN THE STATE V TEXAS
1
• - ma Jteaws
MMPli RESETS
fcUtt OF
- CQNCE*"
TJUTCJOKS
tw/t>
PESTICIDE
COUNT*
S*TE
TOTAL
litis
SAMPLED :
#0f
POSITIVE
wett*
tor At «
SAJIRfS
9EM/WNT«
- -
£ '
-------
STATE OF THUS
wells ST oaamr
COUHTY
1YPSS OF «Ltt
SOJW6 Of
CONTAMIKATUH
{HUMES <& WEILS)
DfilNKIKC wrat
NOKnoe;«t
oratt
TOTAL
tffPLD
s
XCL
<
NCL
rOTAl
9#>L0
t
MCi
K
MCI
TCUl
9»U>
e
Ma
ita
#W
•
M
~
UMC
J
Anofrwi
.
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
Anwtronv
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
#©rd«n
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
tffKde
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
1
0
0
Carson
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Castro
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
2
0
2
0
Cachran
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Coronet*
24
0
1
0
0
0
7
0
1
0
1
1
Cotri*
0
a
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
trosby
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
1
0
Oawson
9
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
0««f Snitti
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
2
0
2
0
Sickens
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
ttantay
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Ector
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
£t Pas©
22
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
Floyd
0
a
0
0
0
0
6
0
2
0
2
0
€aines
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
, ,
ttai*
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
1
0
Hail
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
a
HaakeU
26
i
0
0
0
0
11
0
2
0
1
2
KanpMU
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
1
0
0
0
0
0
K<
-------
STATE OF TEXAS
WEILS IT COUNTY
COUNTY
t*«S Qt wll-s
SQUKCt «f
CONTAfUMATlOK
(KJMBSt OF iff LIS)
OSIKKTXS UATBl
MOKlTOftiMC
QTBEtt
tOTAi.
SWLB
it
mi
<
KCL
TOtAt
SNPLO
*
NO.
<
¦ wx
TOtAt
SHPLS
t
mo.
<
ICt.
HHi"
•
w
urn*
Lynrr
12
0
1
0
0
0
6
i
1
1
1
1
Ktrt^n
54
16
7
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
20
2
• #cl«m*fi
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
Hot ley
0
0
0
0
0
Q
2
0
0
0
0
0
OfdM
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
- .Paraer -
0
0
0
a
0
0
3
0
0
a
0
0
fetter
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
2
1
0
(Mdtti
0
0
0
Q
0
0
5
0
1
0
1
0
$wi»h*r
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
stonewsli
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
Q
3
0
0
3
Terry
10
2
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
3
hhrciar
0
0
0
0
0
D
2
0
0
0
0
0
WSUacy
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
Unspecified
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
0
0
TCFTAl
252
45
28
7
0
2
252
28
31
25
77
32
NFU * Know or Suspected Noras I Field use
PS ¦ Known or Suspected Point Source
UNK » Unknown
Note: In Pesticide Sapling Effort Described <1988) it «u noted that four of the
90 well* were drinking water Hells, the rest were irrigation wells. At it Mas
not stated precisely which well were the drinking water veils, it was impossible
to locate then by county. Therefore, in this table, the distinction is ignored
and alt 90 wells were considered irrigation wells.
In the TO* news release, 10 of 16 wells with detections are drinking water,
however the specific wells are not noted. For the purposes of this table,
ell 16 wells are listed as non-drinking water.
6-TX-74
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL MNC
KFSKKCC
MCL
o
Mtt
PESTICIDE
CATCGOAT
RfOULATQRT
3I>TU$
1-Ka(*thol
Insecticide
C
1,2,frfchiorobeniene
9
9
Herbicide
u,c
1,2-0
•1 .i'Cf ckloroprofjana
1,2-01 cfi lofoettane
s
Pirigant
s
yi:, £•© I:idh loroprap«na
s
Funigant
c
1,3-0
frichiomproperw
1,3*DichIerepropen#
IM cMeropropane
2-Chloroallyl-
di ethyldith iocartxmate
CDfC
2<2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)
propionic acid
OJchlorprpp
2(2,4-DP)Diethylamine salt
DiefHfiroprop
2,4-0
70
Nerbicide
S,SRPr*
2,4-CS
Herbicide
S,SRPre
2,icblof«b«ru9ic acid
Possible
degradate or
iupurity
2,4-Dichlerophenoxyaceti c
acid
2,4-a
2,4-tHn 5 trophenot
Acaricide
insecticide
U,C
2,4-DP
vBi«Hi©fpr«p
70
Herbicide
C,S*C
2,4,5'Trichlorophenoxy-
acetic acid
2,4,5-t
2.4.S-T?
50
Nerbicide
C,S«C
2,4.6-TrieMorophenol
Tfiefcteraphtrol
1 2,6-diathylaniUr*
Alachlor
| Degradata
3-KydP{acire>rbof«r»n
Carbofuran
1 Oegradate
3-*!«t«:afbc»furirt t
3-**t«e»rtoofuran (phanon
Carbofuran
* I
Dagradatt
3,5-©iel*loro6en»ic acid
Pronamide
I Oegradate
ParetMon, aethyl
60
Dagradatt
Fungicide
s
4 < 2,4 -0 i ch I oroplienoxy )
butyric acid
2,4*98
4(2,4-DB), Butoxyethanol
ester
2,4-M
1
APPENDIX 1-1
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
OiEMCAt lUMg
ttFEQUtt
*a
U«/l>
LHA
WO
*»Trci«
CATEfiOMf
HBKJtATOR?
STATUS
4(2,4-DB), Dinethylamine
salt
S-uydroxy dicart*
Dieanfca
Begradate
Acawpfcthene
Insecticide
Pinsicide
S
Hciphit*
Insecticide
s
Ariftoerfen
Herbicide
s
Acrolein
Fwgicide
Narbicida
Antimicrobial
S,R
AerylortftrHe
Fusigent
c
c,«,sir
Aiachtor
2
Herbicide
S,R,SR*
Aldiearb
3
1
Insecticide
Acaricida
Fung i c f da
Nemticide
Atdicarb Sulfone
Aldiearb
2
1
Oegradate
Atdicarfc SuMoalde
Aldiearb
4
1
Oegradate
Aidicarb, Total
Aldiearb
3
Parent ~
degradetes
S8*
At drin
Insecticide
c.ac
JUmtryn
60
60
Herbicide
s
¦ Mlnoe«fb
Insecticide
u,c
Aaitnuc
Insecticide
Aearteide
S,R,SRC
Anntr«t»
Herbicide
S.R1®
Ani l Mine
Fungicide
S
Arsenic
50
Arsenates, Arsenites
Atactic
insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
SRC
Arsenic acid
Arsenicels
*r«eni«
«
Defoliant
Insecticide
S,K
S*
Atratcn
expeHnantal
discontinued triaiirie
Herbicide
c
Atrttfrw
3
Herbicide
S.R
Atr«1fw„ dtelkyltted
Atrazir*
Oegradate
Atinphos-erftyl
Insecticide
c
Aiinpfcwocthyl
Insecticide
S.R
Banvel
Dfciafce
APPENDIX 1-2
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL OWE
«fF5R£»«£
act
Or*m
tHA
pencil*
CATSSORT
RfSXATORT
status
Barbon
Herbicide
c
taygon
*repo*ur
Insecticide
s,*
B«ne#
. -."ayir *
•. :w*ii3pn®
tfanacii
90
Herbicide
s
trotirtcfc
Sodium bromide
fcrewayrrfl
Herbicide
s
Buferteerb
Insecticide
c
BotaeMw
Herbicide
c
ButyUta
3S0
Herbicide
s
Captefol
Firigicide
c
Captart
Fmgieide
S,S*C
Cerberyl
700
Insecticide
s
Carbtndaii*
Finsicide
c
Cerbofuran
40
40
Insecticide
Acaraeide
Firigicide
Nemtieide
S,8,SRC
Carfaof urtfk pharat
Carbofunn
Degredate
Carbefuran* total
Garbofuran
•
Parent ~
degredates
«c
Carbon disulfide
Fuaigant
Fungicide
u
Carbon tetrachloride
5
Fire retardant
in fiarigant
ferwilatlera
s«c
Cartwphencrthion
Insecticide
Acaricide
c
CartjophenotfjJon, wThyl
Insecticide
Acaricide
u
APPENDIX 1-3
-------
"DTSCTTfTrVE PDACC DEECDEKTrr TAUT E
r£o 1 lUlUE LKUa5-Kr.rcKilN ur, 1 Adi*&
CX£MIC*l «A«
SPFEfiOitt
net
Acaricide
u.c
CMoroellyt elcehot ¦
Insecticide
c
Diioroberoitat*
Insecticide
Acaricide
C,SRc
p-Chtt»ro-a*cre3oi
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
s
t>-CMoro-©*ert?s&*
Chlorofona
100
Funigant
C.SR*
ChCoroneb
Fungicide
S
CMorspierin
Funigant
Warning agent
S,R
CMlarothalonH .
Fungicide
S
Chtoroxuron
C
Ch i orprophan
Herbicide
S
CMarpynfos
20
Insecticide
s
CMowif**.
Insecticide
s
CMor*ulfuro«
Herbicide
s
Chlorthal dimethyl
DCPA
toooor
Copper salts
Copper
Insecticide
Herbicide
AntiMicrobial
Fwaicide
sone S
some U
Copper oxides
Copper
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
S
CoUBBphOS
Insecticide
s
Cmfoeete
Insecticide
Cy
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
chemical iuw
«fEB£K«.
m.
ua/u
IMA -
WU
pesticide
CATEQOftT
HEGUUTOftT
sxmxt
':£y*nfcfe
zoo
200
Cyanide, calciun or
potassi in
Cyanide
¦edemicide
u
Cyariaide, sodius
Cyanide
Rodenticibe
s,»
tyctoate
Herbicide
s
CypwiwrthHn
Insecticide
S,R
Herbicide
c
Dacthal
9CM
Dacthal diacid
-iSCM::«fif
«
Degradate
Owwton Vmtf cue
Demeton-S
Degradate
©et-ethyi atrailne
Atrazine
Degradate
Svfriaopropyl vtraZina
Atrazine
Herbicide
C,R
ftiailate
Herbicide
C,R,SRC
Cl*2if»OR
0.6
Insecticide
Fungicide
Neneticide
s,s*c
D i bromoch(oropropane
>Msr>
APPENDIX 1-5
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL NAME
XEFESEMCE
HCL
o*m
<«/!)
WESTJCIDt
GATE GOUT
JfOilATORY
STATUS
Oi butyl fabthaUts
Insect
repel lint
u,c
eieadba
200
Herbicide
s
IHcMcbenH
Herbicide
i
«-Ofcti torbbentine
600
600 H Antimicrobial
u
iHHefclofttoerttem
75
75
Insecticide
Fungicide
Rodanticide
Antimicrobial
5
tH cMoropropane*
Otrfilwoprcperw
Memtieide
Fu#i sane
s,»,sap
Oirfi iorprop
Herbicide
s,s*Pre
Diehlorprep, butoxyethanol
ester
fcteWorprop
fifdhlorvo*
Insecticide
I
fticafot
Insecticide
Acaricide
s,«c
D1erot«pho»
Insecticide
S,«
Oitldrln
Insecticide
c,»c
dethylhexyl phthalate
tri oetyt statist ate
Diavtfeoate
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,SSC
OiTKHWfe
7
7
Herbicide
C,S*C
Dinitrocresol
9H0C
IMoctyt p*tft**«te
Acaricide
c
61nxte*rb
c
M«x«tfcfen
Insecticide
M
phenawfd
200
Herbicide
c
20
. 20
Herbicide
s
Diquat dibromide and
various salts
»n*wt
Disulfowr
0.3
Insecticide
Acarieide
s,»
Oi aulfotan aulfane
Disulfoton I
Oegradate
MnHfoton sulfwtde
Disulfoton
Oegradate
Mwcn
10
Herbicide
5
WI>A
Fly tarvieide
c
APPENDIX 1-6
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL iUMS
MCL
Km&Cl (*8/»
LMA
mircu*
cAwam.. .
MtGUUttt**
STATUS
MOC
Insecticide
Herbicide
Ftmgicide
Antimicrobial
u,c
DttOC, sodiun salt
MOC
EDB
Ethylene tfibroaide
EBOC compounds
ttaneb, ttancttuto,
linab
s*c
tndMuitift
Ftxtgiclde
Antimicrobial
s
Endwurtfw I
Endosulfan
Isomer
Endoswlfw il
Endosulfan
! saner
Endoeulfen sutfate
Endosulfan
Degradate
Endotfial t
100
100
Herbicide
s
iwdrtn
2
2
Insecticide
y,c,«.Mc I
Endrtn aldehyde
Endrin
Degradate
IP«
Insecticide
Acarieide
C,R
EPIC
Herbicide
S
Ettwrtflaraltn
Herbicide
S,SRC
:
. fithioo
Insecticide
Acarieide
S,R
Ethepr«p
Insecticide
Fwgicide
Noaaticide
S»R
Ethyl •tcotol
Disinfectant
s
£thyl«n
Insecticide
U,C,SRC
Ethylene
bi sdi th i ocarfaamte
compounds
ftmife, Kancowto,
Jlneb
fthylene dffcroirid*
0.05
Insecticide
C,R,S8C
Ethylene dichloride
S/Z-OfctiUraeflw*
Ethylene thiourea
WW
|
Ethyl parathion
^aratMcn, «thyl .
1
CtritfvzoU
Ft**icide
s 8
ETU
Martefc 1
Degradate
|
Fenac
Oii«rfw»ae I
|
Feroaiphos
|
2
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nenaticide
S,R I
APPENDIX 1-7
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL MK6
KFEKKt
HCI
Cn8/t>
UK*
<«/U
rcsnctot
CATEGOItr
ftEOUUTOItT
STATUt
fcnsai phca •ulfone
Ferumiphos
Degradate
fenwtfphoj cutfoxide
fenamiphos
Oefradate
Ftmrin»l
Fungicide
S
fenbutetirt-oxfde
Insecticide
Acaricide
s
Fcnsul-tetltiort
Insecticide
Fingicide
Nematicide
c,«
¦ Fancttiert
Insecticide
c
Fwuroft
Herbicide
c
fawal erata
Insecticide
M
FluaiHop-tutyl
Herbicide
s
Huchi cretin
Herbicide
s
fiiiMtralln "
Herbicide
s
: FtuMfrtur&fl
90
Herbicide
s
Fluridm
Aquatic
herbicide
s
f orofos
10
Insecticide
M
tarmtdahyd*
1000
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
u
Ct votoute
700
700
Herbicide
s
Gtypfcosate iso(x*opytamine
salt
filyptome
Cuthior
Mtnpfcoa-atthyt :
NCH <
hch
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMOU. tUKE
KF?ttWX
na
OT0/O
tin
mticroe
CATEGORY
tNECUAtORT
STATUS
Kepon©
CMordbeone
ti«J«ne
0.2
0.2
insecticide
S,8,$#C
Liflurort
Herbicide
s,s«' [
Malathifln
200
Insecticide
s
Mitotan
Halathion
Oegradate
¦ Htncatafc
Fungicide
s
Mf .ml,
Fungicide
s
10
Herbicide
sea* C,
SOB* S
NCPA acids, salts, esters
MCPA
ICPt
Insecticide
s
MCPB salts, asters
NCP6
HCPP salts, esters
: itocbproc
HCPPA
Ntcoprcp
Meoprap
Herbicide
s
M*eury
2
2
S8C
Marpta*
Fungicide
Herbicide
U.C
Mtaltxyl
Fingieide
s
Hetfctaridophos
Insacticida
Aearieide
$.8
MethKzalc
Herbicide
S
: NettiidMltiM
Insecticide
Aearieide
s,«
Hatfeiocarb
Insacticida
Acaricida
Molliscicide
Rodenticide
Sird rapallant
s,«
Hath any!
i
•200
Insecticide
s,*
Hathoxjchlor
40
40
Insecticide
Aearieide
s
Methyl broad de-
Insecticide
AntiMicrobial
M
Methyl carbophenoth i ari
CtrtpphanotlifaB,
Methyl iMtMocyarwte
Insecticide
Fwgteide
Herbicide
s,«
•etfcyl partoxen
Parathien, diethyl
Degradate
APPENDIX 1-9
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CKEMtCAt UAME
KFEtttCt
no.
Ca*/l>
mTict&e
CATEGOAT
*EaAAtORT
STATUS
Methyl parathion
Parathfon, nethyl
Hethyl trithfon
CarbopJrtnoth ion,
watfeyl
Ketfryiene chloric
Insecticide
u
ttetolacMw
100
Herbicide
s
Metrites ifi
200
Insecticide
s
Mfrtrftasln DA
Netribuzirt
Degradate
Netribuzfn DADC
Netribuzin
Degradate
Metrfbuzfn BK
Hetribuxfn
Oegradate
Hevinph©*
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,*
M«»acaftate
insecticide
u.c
Hire*
Incacticide
e.$*c
Kotinate
Herbicide
$
Kotlnat* autfwride
Molirvate
Oegradate
Mongerotop^os
Insecticide
Acaricide
C,*
Nonuron
Herbicide
c.s*c
ttalad
Insecticide
Aearicide
s
20
Insecticide
$
.: Jispropasttde
Insecticide
s
tfaptaiaw
Herbicide
5
ttetwron
Herbicide
C
Ncmgon
MCP
Herbicide
C
p-Mitrophenol
*-*lrroph«ne»t
ttanaebler
CM order*
•
lapurity in
foimilatiori
' «0fffUf*ZQA
Herbicide
S
Octyi Wcyclohtptere-
di cortex Utide
Insecticide
fungicide
Antimicrobial
s
Ortho-dieh Iorobeniene
efc torobeftz an*
-Orywiliri
Herbicide
s
Ovex
: Osiof^anaon >
APPENDIX 1-10
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CKIM1CAL BAM6
«FERC«%
xa
utwo
m ;
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
QicNIW tUNE
tfrettwa "
Ma
OH/i)
l*A
iH/n
resnctw
CATS MKT
SEOCJMTOftT
STATU*
Hhosaet axyQBR analog
f>hos*et
Degradete
Phftspfimtdan
Insecticide
C.R
Pielww
500
500
Herbicide
S,R
^irhrfcarfc
Aphidieide
C
KHtrfearb euffone -
Piriaicerb
Oegradate
Proftmfw
Insecticide
s,«
tt-afluraUn
Herbicide
c
frar*c*rb
Insecticide
lit (in US)
trametan
100
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
S
Prawtryn
Herbicide
s
PronsnriA
50
Herbicide
S,K,S*C
?ropechIar
90
Herbicide
S
P-r ootnll
Herbicide
S
?rep*raUe
Insecticide
Atarieide
s
trg&tii*
10
Herbicide
c
Ptathm
10Q
Herbicide
c
ffsuwur
3
Insecticide
S,S8P
Prtpfzmxde
Prorwalde
P roth 1" of os
^r«dtfephM
PmMopfcet '
insecticide
Nft
Pyr«thrfa»
Insecticide
Firigieide
Antimicrobial
U
<"yr*cler
Herbicide
c
fertsel
Insecticide
U,C.SRC
totvnolatw
Kotenone
.
Desradate
Katmom
Insecticide
Acaricide
Piscicide
s
t«dbwton
Herbicide
c
Setfcoxvrff*
Herbicide
s
dduron
Herbicide
s
s iivex
1 S4*u1*w
1
4
Herbicide
s
APPENDIX 1-12
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHWtCAt MW
1 Ma
JJ <**m
IM -
<*«A)
v " mTfCIM -
cAteaoftT
tfGUUTOM
status
$wetone
Herbicide
Mt
Slurry*
Herbicide
NR
Sodiwi breoide
|rctti(h
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
S
Sodii** cyanide
CymiA?
•: Sutprofo#
II Insecticide
s,«
: ***
Herbicide
c
rCA and salts
TriChlcr-oecetlc acid
TCE
Trt chtoroa tfrene
f'jSgfeBtMwron <
500
Herbicide
s
Telone
Oichtwwceene
TerbecU
90
Herbicide
s
Tertoufci
0.9
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nenetieide
s,«
Tcrbufos eul-fcoe
Terbufos
Degradate
TertwthyUxfne
Herbicide
Algaeeide
s
Terfautryn
Herbicide
c
Terraiole
£tridfatote
|
TetraeM oroatKyi tm
1
1 Fgnrigant
c
I Insecticide
s
t«trtdifcp
I
u.c
Thanite
Igatooryt
tlrioenMKttitt
TMobenearti
Herbicide
s
TMobencarb sulfoxide
Degradate
TMophanata
•
Fungicide
c
TMapftanatt-aetftyl
Insecticide
Fwgicide
S,S8C
Tordcrt
Pfcierow
Tcxiphene
3
Insecticide
U,R,»C
Tralasefhrfn
Insecticide
S,«
Trawnenaefclor
cfclorderie
1 purity In
forwlatisn
THadfoefon
Fungicide
s
APPENDIX 1-13
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL lUMe
«FCRfHCe
na
j iM9/l> ;
IKft
PKTICIWE
CAtCttftY
«ajUTC*T
STXM
Iribufo*
Herbicide
S
tplehtorfon
Insecticide
s
1rlehl«ft»ee*r« Kid
Herbicide
u
Trichlorotoeraene
'W-' A ' ¦ • •:
^Hcht«rbbanz4n*
rrieMwdetiw**1 " '
Trichloroethylenc
1r iehtoroetfcene
5
Fusigant
c
TricMorarartie}
Insecticide
c
TricMoroetmnol
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
U.c
Trichlorophon
THchlorfon
Tridnpyf
Insecticide
Herbicide
s
Trtcyct»»U
Fungicide
MR
IHfluratlrt
5
Herbicide
S.SR.C
Trithion
¦Csrbeoh«n»tiiion
Tunic
Hethstole
: Uraeti/Ore*
Aritiaierebial
u
¦ v*rflot*s« " ""%
Herbicide
s
Vertex
I^HBtchtorapropane, 1
{Hofeloroprape*,
Metlnrt laotfcioeyanete
Xytwvr
10000
10000
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
AnfiMicrobial
u
. ,
Insecticide
Firgicide
c
Zirm
Insecticide
Fungicide
u
S*PrVresently in Pre-Special Review
p
S8 Special Review in progress
S*c Special Review completed
S Sieported: The producer(s) of the pesticide has arte eomltaants to conduct
the studies and pay the fees required for registration, and it Meting
those comitMnts in a tinly Banner.
APPENDIX 1-14
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
U Unsupported: the producer
-------
NATIONAL SURVEY OF PESTICIDES IN DRINKING WATER WE115
At this time the Pesticides in Ground Water Database does not contain dam 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 42% 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
------- |