Prevention
United States Pesticides and EPA 734-12-92-001
Environmental Protection Toxic Substances August 1992
Agency (H7507C)
Pesticides In Ground Water Database
A Compilation Of Monitoring Studies: 1971-1991
Region 2
MT
ND
OR
MN
MA
SD
WY
NE
OH
KS
MO
CA
KY
TN
OK
se
NM
AR
MS
NEW YORK
NEW JERSEY
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
rcrT! -ipp'O^ed
C.Vff to
.j'.--1 j-c "¦ ¦* *t* -.- — -•*{ »-"':•'"•at or 3 *3 :r v 3i„'C>*n •»>.*;« ;*-ef jiw«a -• :~ii,
: 1 •*¦¦¦"«:;.* *. „c--; : -:: ~ ; -«r:' a** ".'r'Tjior * 0 : i. • 2 * ^ t*
-1 • -- • ' "" ;;t :• i?z l.zi*'. ^ec.r :;?:t t2. j • - -• •, v ~ . . ; .. : j
PB93- 1637 31 2 report date 3. *eport type and oates covered
August 1992 final report 1971 - 1991
i T T.S -S.'iD :wiT *lc
Pesticides Ir. Ground Water Database
A Compilation Of Monitoring Studies: 1971 - 1991
Region 2
3- uNC..VG M.'.'::
;
i
ncr.e
I
i
i
j
f
s. ajthc=s- A.%0 ACC*sSS;cS)
! "J5 Environmental Protection Agency
j Office cf Pesticide Programs
Enviroa-.cntal rate S Effects Division (H75Q7C)
401 !l. St.
Washington, X 20460
3. ;t-.-: -v -,3 ;\f zh !
4£?0:?* j
EPA 734-R-92-003 j
1
I
¦). i>v-'.IC? NQ Nts AGi.NCV AS3 ADDRESS.IS)
sarnie as above
l
10 S?C.'«SC:t.SC - VCV'CS NG
AC-c.'-ICY -i-'Zi: 1. YoiS
sane as above
1'. -<0"£S
Supersec.es the ,fPes;.icicies Tn Ground Mazp.r Database: 1988 Tncorijn Report"
I
4 ]
|*23 jT -Z.i -A #'-iJi LiT f STATEMENT
j publically available, r.o limitations
i
123- 0:$"~:3uT ON CC-: i
13 \<3S*SAC7 ~ 2 X A-c-rtsi
This' report presents si unary results on pesticide monitoring of ground Wei t.0 L" r c j
19~ 1 to 1991. It was compiled from groancl water monitoring projects performed - j
primarily by federal agencies, rtat? agencies and research institutions. The data
is vei.l ar.d sample specific. The report is broken into a National Sunrcary and
10 3 F.PA reg-0-.a! volumes. The information ispresented as te:ct, r.aps, graphs
and tables on a national.. EPA regional and state/county level.
The Region 2 voluine is comprised of data Iron New Jersey and New York.
14. SwSlECT T-?\1S
database ground water pesticides
national water " pesticide monitoring
report drinking water
S NUM3ER CF PAGES
164
'a. PRICE CODE
17. $eCUR;*Y CLASSifiCAT.ON
OF Ri»CX"
none
18. SECURITY CLASSfF'CATION
O* THIS page
none
19. SECURITY CLASS FlCATlON
Of abstract
none
20. .IMITATION of abstract
none
\SN • 5-0-0' ¦ J3I.S5;o jta'Cti-a :c-~ »«# 2-:9-
Jt- DM e>» its ij9- i
/ . 2??-"; I
-------
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.
t
)
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database -1992 Report
Pesticides in Ground Water Database
A Compilation of Monitoring Studies: 1971 -1991
Region 2
Office of Pesticide Programs
Environmental Fate and Effects Division
Environmental Fate and Ground Water Branch
Henry Jacoby, Chief
Pesticide Monitoring Program Section
Constance Hoheisel
Joan Karrie Susan Lees
Leslie Davies-Hilliard Patrick Hannon
Roy Bingham
Ground Water Technology Section
Elizabeth Behl
David Wells Estella Waldman
August 1992
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report, Region 2
CONTENTS
OVERVIEW OV-1
REGIONAL MAP OV-14
GRAPH: WELLS BY STATE ............... OV-15
STATE SUMMARIES:
NEW JERSEY
State Map 1-NJ-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-NJ-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-NJ-3
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of New Jersey l-NJ-9
Table: State of New Jersey - Wells by County l-NJ-35
NEW YORK
State Map 1-NY-l
Overview of State Legislative and Environmental Policies
Regarding Pesticides in Ground Water l-NY-3
Reported Studies of Pesticides in Ground Water l-NY-3
Table: Pesticide Sampling in the State of New York . l-NY-15
Table: State of New York - Wells by County l-NY-81
APPENDICES
Pesticide Cross-Reference Table . Appendix 1-1
National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells Appendix 11-1
-------
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
I. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Pesticide Programs (EPA/OPP)
is responsible for protecting human and environmental health from unreasonable risk due
to pesticide exposure. Monitoring efforts carried out during the last decade have shown that
the nation's ground water can become contaminated with pesticides, particularly in areas
with high pesticide use and vulnerable aquifers. Therefore, OPP has taken a strong
preventive approach to the protection of this valuable resource. Regulatory activities have
evolved to include, as a condition of registration or re-registration, a more rigorous
evaluation of a pesticide's potential to reach ground water. OPP has also formed strong
partnerships with other federal and state agencies responsible for various aspects of ground-
water protection.
The Pesticides in Ground Water Database (PGWDB) was created to provide a more
complete picture of ground-water monitoring for pesticides in the United States. It is a
collection of ground-water monitoring studies conducted by federal, state and local
governments, the pesticide industry and private institutions. It consists of monitoring data
and auxiliary information in both computerized and hard-copy form. This report, Pesticides
in Ground Water Database -- A Compilation of Monitoring Studies: 1971 -1991, was prepared
to summarize and share the results of the studies in the PGWDB. It consists of 11 volumes:
a National Summary and ten EPA regional summaries. Each volume provides a detailed
description of the computerized PGWDB and a guide to reading and interpreting the data.
The data are presented as maps, graphs and tables.
These data are extremely valuable, but must be interpreted carefully. In general, the
PGWDB provides an overview of the ground-water monitoring efforts for pesticides in the
United States, the pesticides that are being found in the nation's ground water, and the
areas of the country that appear to be vulnerable to pesticide contamination.
When viewed as a whole, it might appear 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 contrary, an active, supported
sampling program generally indicates a high regard for ground-water quality.
OV-1
-------
The database and this report are the result of the efforts of a great many individuals,
significant among whom are the state officials and principal investigators who gave
generously of their time to provide OPP with information concerning their work. In
publishing this report, OPP intends not only to provide data, but also to identify points of
contact, in order to share expertise among those responsible for the protection of the
nation's ground-water resources.
To make this information available to as many decision makers in state and other
federal agencies as possible, the computerized portion of the PGWDB will become a part
of the Pesticide Information Network (PIN),1 The PIN is a computerized collection of files
that contain pesticide monitoring and regulatory information. The PIN functions much like
a PC-PC bulletin board and can be accessed by anyone with a computer and a modem. The
PIN is currently undergoing an expansion that will allow new types of information to be
included and increase the number of simultaneous users. The new PIN will be available in
1993 and will contain the PGWDB, environmental fate chemical/physical parameters for
pesticides, pesticide regulatory information (Restricted Use, Special Review, canceled and
suspended) and a certification and training bibliography.
II. THE ROLE OF PESTICIDE MONITORING
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires EPA to
monitor the environment for pesticide residues [section 20, parts (b) and (c)]. The primary
goal of pesticide monitoring is to improve the soundness of FIFRA risk/benefit regulatory
decisions by providing information on the concentrations of pesticide residues and the
effects that exposure to these residues have on human health and the environment. In
addition, long-term changes in environmental quality can be detected through the analysis
of monitoring data. OPP can use this information to measure the effectiveness of regulatory
decisions and to indicate potential environmental problems.
EPA has directly sponsored some large-scale pesticide monitoring projects, such as the
National Monitoring Programs of the 1970s2 and the recent National Survey of Pesticides
in Drinking Water Wells.3 This type of monitoring is intended to provide information on
a national level involving large numbers of pesticides. It does not provide information
concerning localized problems or long-term trends. This method of data gathering is also
extremely resource-intensive. An alternative approach for OPP is to support and gather
information from monitoring studies performed by others. Since the responsibility for
protecting the nation's ground water is shared by federal and state governments, OPP's data-
handling responsibilities not only include procuring the most current information for its own
needs, but also sharing this information with its partners in state and federal agencies. The
development of the Pesticides in Ground Water Database is a step in this direction.
OV-2
-------
HI. 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
0 IT Cm r ' * 1 J
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 STORET5 or WATSTORE6. While these large databases contain some pesticide
monitoring data and some ground-water data, their primary focus is general water quality.
As a result, these databases contain a great deal more information about water quality, but
lack many of the pesticide focused studies that are included in the PGWDB. Many states
have used STORET to store water-quality data, including analyses for pesticides. STORET
data were downloaded and added to the PGWDB when the data could be directly
OV-3
-------
associated with specific study summaries or reports sent to OPP by state agencies. These
state agencies provided their agency code, station codes, parameter codes, sampling dates
and other pertinent information so that the correct data could be extracted from STORET.
Data from the National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells (NFS)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 NFS
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 I. These data
elements are based on EPA's recommended minimum set of data elements for ground-water
monitoring published in Definitions for the Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground-Water
Quality, July 22, 1990?
FIGURE 1. Data Elements for the Pesticides in Ground Water Database
stucy nit
Wit FtU
sAKPicnu
Study Nunber
Study Nififcer(s)
Study Number
Study Title
Unique Wet I Nintoer^
Unique Well Ninter''
Sponsoring Agsncy< ies)
2
State and County FIPS Codes
Pesticide^
Project Officer(s)
-------
3. Coordinate representations that indicate a location on the surface of the earth using the equator (latitude)
and the Prime Meridian (longitude) as origin. Coordinates are measured in degrees, minutes, and seconds
with an indicator of north or south, and east or west.
4. Wells have been classified as follows:
Drinking water public community - a system of piped drinking water that either has at least 15 service
connections or serves at least 25 permanent residents.
Drinking water public non-community - wells serving public facilities such as fire stations, schools, or
libraries.
Drinking water private - privately owned wells serving a residence or farm.
Non-drinking water monitoring - wells installed specifically for monitoring ground water.
Non-drinking water other • wells used for irrigation, industrial application, etc.
5. This field will allow storage of limited well log or other information about the well, such as construction
details.
6. The vertical distance from the National Reference Datum to the land surface or other measuring point in
meters.
7. Pesticides are tracked by their Chemical Abstracts System (CAS) number. There is also a cross-reference
file that contains all pesticide synonyms and other OPP reference numbers. Any chemical that is currently
or has ever been registered as a pesticide by the USEPA, Office of Pesticide Programs is eligible to be
included in the PGWDB. Some chemicals might be more commonly associated with industrial processes;
however, if these chemicals are now or were previously registered and used as pesticides, monitoring results
will be included in the database.
8. A short name, reference or description of the analytical method which was used. This field is not intended
to hold the entire method.
9. An origin of contamination is listed for each analysis performed as follows:
NFU - Known or suspected normal field use
PS - Known or suspected point source
UNK - Unknown source of contamination
These files will be available through the PIN in 1993. The data management software
for this system is ORACLE running under UNIX. However, OPP will accept and translate
data created in nearly any format, operating system or medium. To access the PIN, contact
User Support at 703-305-7499.
V. THE 1992 PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER DATABASE REPORT
The 1992 PGWDB report is a summary and presentation of all the data OPP currently
has available, both in computerized and in hard-copy form, concerning pesticides in ground
water. The report is organized as a National Summary and ten EPA regional summaries.
Each volume provides background information on pesticide monitoring, a description of the
computerized portion of the database and a guide to reading and interpreting the data
presented in the report.
OV-5
-------
The National Summary contains summary results of the data collection effort for all
states and a discussion of the data. The regional volumes contain data from the individual
states in each EPA Region. Each regional volume contains state summaries, which consist
of: 1) a short overview of the state's philosophy and pertinent regulations concerning
ground-water quality and pesticides, 2) a summary of each study or monitoring effort sent
to OPP, and 3) summary data for each state presented in tables, graphs and maps. In
essence, the study summaries were written by the principal investigators of each study.
Whenever possible, the author's abstracts, summaries and conclusions were reproduced
verbatim, so that the tone and intent of their work would not be misinterpreted.
There are two appendices in each volume of the report. Appendix I contains a
Pesticide Cross Reference Table, which provides pesticide names, synonyms and the
regulatory status and lifetime Health Advisory (HA) Level or Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL)7 for each pesticide. Appendix II provides a brief overview and reference information
for the NPS.
Summary and Presentation of Ground-Water Monitoring Data
The data in this report are presented in three different formats: maps, graphs and
tables. Their format and content are explained below. Each format is displayed at four
different resolution levels: national, regional, state and county. The charts and maps were
intended to provide an "at-a-glance" visual summary of the information collected for the area
in question. The tables provide detailed information concerning sampling dates, numbers
of wells sampled, samples analyzed, concentration ranges, and the relationship between
pesticide concentrations and current EPA drinking water standards.
1. Maps
The maps presented in this report display the number of wells sampled and the number
of wells with pesticide detections. Map legends are consistent throughout the report to
assist in any visual comparison of the maps. A regional-scale map illustrating the
frequency of pesticide detections as a function of the total number of wells sampled is
presented at the beginning of each EPA regional volume. The regional maps display
information for each state in that EPA region. All of the regional maps are included
in the National Summary. In addition, a state- scale map, in which the data are
presented at the county level, is included with each state summary. State maps are also
annotated with a list of pesticides detected in that state.
2. Graphs
Bar graphs, for each state within a region, illustrate the number of wells sampled, the
number of wells with pesticide detections, and the number of wells with pesticide
detections exceeding the MCL or lifetime HA. The graphs present this information
ranked in descending order by the number of wells with pesticide detections. The
version of this graph in the National Summary displays this information for each state.
A similar graph in each EPA regional volume presents data only for the states in that
region. The National Summary contains an additional graph, illustrating the above
information by pesticide. Pesticides for which analyses were performed but were not
detected in any wells are listed alphabetically at the end.
OV-6
-------
3. Tables
Two basic data tables are used throughout this report to summarize ground-water
monitoring information: the "Pesticides" table and the "Wells" table. Figures 2 and 3
provide a detailed explanation of the information contained in each column for the two
standard tables. The numbers that occur in the field descriptors correspond to the
definitions listed below the example table.
The "Pesticides" table is illustrated in Figure 2. In this table, information is organized
by pesticide. The monitoring locations, sampling frequencies, number of wells
monitored, sampling results and concentration ranges are provided. In the National
Summary, this table details the monitoring location to the state level and also includes
the regulatory status for each pesticide. In the regional volumes, monitoring location
is provided to the county level for each state and the table is expanded to include
monitoring data for samples taken from each well.
FIGURE 2. Pesticides Table
PESTICIDE SMPLING IN THE STATE Of
WELL RESULTS
SMPiE RESULTS
RANGE Of
C0HCEK-
T RAHW
OtS/D
8
PESTICIDE
1
COUNT*
2
DATE
3
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
4
* OF
posmve
WELLS
5
torn 0
SAMPLES
6
KUMBE* OF
positive
SAWU*
7
W
m
>
KO.
<
NCt
¦¦ t
. «L
Ma
Pesticide *
County A
1989/
1.3
1990/6
Court y B
1987/
1-5
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS OR SAMPLES
9
10
10
11
12
12
l>estlct
-------
2 County names are listed in alphabetical order for each pesticide that was monitored.
1 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.
jj The total number of samples analyzed for that pesticide within the time period recorded in the date column.
2 Samples with pesticide detections were counted based upon whether the results were above or below the MCL
or lifetime HA as stated in 5 above.
I The range of positive results in ug/L (ppb) for the time period specified in the date column.
j> The total number of discrete wells that were sampled at least once and analyzed for the pesticide listed in
column 1. 'See Note
10 The total number of discrete wells in which the pesticide was detected based upon whether the results were
above or below the MCL. Wells were classified as explained in 5 above, based upon the highest analytical result.
II Total number of samples analyzed for a particular pesticide.
12 The total number of samples in which the pesticide was detected that are > MCL or < MCL as explained
in 5 above.
J3 The grand total of discrete wells sampled in the state for any pesticide. * See Note
J4 The grand total of discrete wells with at least one detection of any pesticide. WeUs are classified above or
below MCL or HA as explained in 5 above. *See Note
11 Grand total of samples taken in the state. *See Note
16 The grand total of samples with any pesticide detection for the state. Samples were classified as > or < the
MCL based upon their highest analytical result as explained in 5 above. *See Note
•Note: Some wells were sampled more than once, (i.e., during several successive years) and some wells were
sampled for more than one pesticide. Therefore, the total number of discrete wells is not necessarily the
arithmetic sum of the wells listed. Similarly some samples were analyzed for more than one pesticide, therefore,
the total number of discrete samples for the state will not be, in all cases, the arithmetic sum for the column.
OV-8
-------
Figure 3 illustrates the "Wells" table. In this table, ground-water monitoring information
is organized by well type, or use, and source of contamination. In the National
Summary, the information is summarized by state. In the regional volumes, the
information is summarized by county for each state in the region.
FIGURE 3. Wells Table
STATf OF
ICUS IT COURTY
COUNTY
TTPES OF WE LIS
SOURCE OF
COtfrAMIMATION
CWJ#8Eft Of VEUS>
osteons UftTEB
KOUTOfUKS
I
OTHER
J
TQTAL
SHPU>
4
*
na
5
<
HO.
5
TOTAl
SKPID
4
J8
Ha
5
<
KU
S
70TAL
WIS
4
ft
na
5
<
Ma
s
6
PS
¦ 7
UK
41
County A
|
|
County a
1
|
TOTAL 9
I
1
2 Drinking Water wells include community (municipal), public non-community, and private wells. Public non-
community wells are those that exclusively serve public buildings such as fire stations, schools, or libraries.
2 Monitoring wells, installed solely to monitor ground water for contaminants,
1 Other wells include: irrigation wells, stock watering wells, springs, and tile drains.
4 Total number of each type of well sampled in each county.
J The number of wells per county in which a pesticide was detected. Wells were classified based upon whether
the results were above or below an MCL for any of the pesticides detected. If a pesticide did not have an
established MCL, the lifetime HA level was used. If neither of these values were applicable, the well was
classified as less than the MCL and it was so noted at the end of the table. Wells were classified based upon
their highest analytical result. Therefore, any well with at least one positive analysis greater than or equal to the
MCL or HA was classified as > MCL. Any well with at least one positive analysis but all analyses less than the
MCL or HA was classified as < MCL.
Contaminated wells were placed in one of the following categories based on the opinion of the study director:
£ NFU = Known or Suspected Normal Field Use.
2 PS = Known or Suspected Point Source.
8 UNK= Unknown source of contamination. Wells were categorized as "unknown" if the study director did not
know the source of contamination, or if there was no information available concerning the source of
contamination.
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 OPP's regulatory mission is to prevent contamination of ground-
water resources resulting from the normal use of registered pesticides. OPP routinely
reassesses the impact that registered pesticides have on the quality of ground-water
resources. The PGWDB will be used to support ongoing regulatory activities, such as
ground-water label advisories, monitoring studies required for pesticide re-registration and
special review activities. In addition, combining the information in the PGWDB with other
environmental fate data and usage data will assist OPP, at an early stage in the regulatory
process, in refining criteria used to identify pesticides that tend to leach to ground water.
On a state or local level, the PGWDB can be used as a reference so that a state may
access data from neighboring states. Evidence that pesticide residues occur in ground water
can be used to target a state's resources for future monitoring and to re-assess pesticide
management practices to prevent future degradation of ground-water quality. The
information presented in this report will also be useful to state and regional agencies when
implementing two pollution-prevention measures being developed by EPA; the Restricted
Use Rule and the State Management Plans outlined in the Pesticides and Ground Water
Strategy. Additional uses for the data in the PGWDB include identification of areas in need
of further study, identification of the intensity of monitoring for particular pesticides, and
graphic display of ground-water monitoring activities and localization of pesticide
contamination.
VII. DATA LIMITATIONS
Despite their apparent value, these data do have limitations and must be used and
interpreted carefully. Differences in study design, laboratory procedures/equipment,
sampling practices, or well use can affect results. Some of the limitations governing the
interpretation of the data in the PGWDB are discussed below;
1) The PGWDB is not a complete data set of all ground-water monitoring for
pesticides in the United States. While we have attempted to include as many
sources as possible, other data exist of which we are not aware or to which we do
not yet have access.
OV-IO
-------
2) Monitoring for pesticides in ground water has not been performed in a uniform
manner throughout the United States. Some states have extensive monitoring
programs for pesticide residues, while others have more limited monitoring
programs. In general, more extensive ground-water monitoring programs tend to
be found in the states where pesticide use is heavy. This creates a picture that does
not necessarily represent the overall impact of pesticides on ground-water quality
nationwide.
3) Differences in ground-water monitoring study design can radically affect the results.
Many monitoring efforts were initiated in response to suspected problems, and
therefore yielded a disproportionately high number of positive samples. These
results cannot be extrapolated to represent a larger region or state. Other efforts
sampled a small number of wells or sampled under conditions in which
contamination was unlikely. Still others were statistically designed studies, intended
to be extrapolated to a specific population of wells. Each of these scenarios
presents a vastly different view of the condition of the ground-water resource
sampled.
4) Analytical methods and limits of detection have changed over time, and also vary
from laboratory to laboratory. Therefore, comparisons between the results of
different studies and across several years must be performed carefully to avoid
errors in interpretation.
5) Differences in construction, depth, location and intended use can greatly affect the
likelihood that a particular well will become contaminated by pesticides. Some of
these issues were addressed in the individual study summaries when such details
were available. However, this information was not always provided and tends to
be obscured when large amounts of data are summarized. The reader is cautioned
to read the study summaries carefully and interpret the resulting data summaries
conservatively.
VIII. THE FUTURE
The vulnerability of ground water to contamination by pesticides depends upon a variety
of factors including depth, topography, soil, climate, pesticide use and pesticide application
practices. In some cases, ground water is shallow or closely connected with surface water
and the results of surface activities can be observed within months. More often,
contamination is not observed for many years, allowing cause-and-effect relationships to
become obscured. This report, for the most part, is a retrospective examination of the
agricultural practices of the 1960s and 1970s, the results of which were observed through
monitoring performed 20 years later. The condition of our ground-water resources for the
next 20 years will be greatly affected by how we are handling our chemicals now. Our
challenge today is clearly prospective.
OV-11
-------
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is planning to publish a summary report of
the data in the PGWDB on approximately a yearly basis. We are interested in presenting
the data in a manner that is the most helpful to as many users as possible. The following
are areas in which we would like to receive comments:
1. Should future reports summarize only "new data" (those received since the last
report) or all of the data? Should we continue to report very old monitoring data
(10 to 20 years), given the fact that some of these studies had very high detection
limits and monitored for pesticides that are no longer of regulatory interest?
2. What changes should be made to the maps, graphs and tables? Are they too
detailed or not detailed enough? Are important pieces of information missing? Is
there a clearer or more useful way to present these data?
3. How are those outside of OPP using the PGWDB?
We appreciate all of those who took the time to comment on the draft version of this
report. Many of the suggestions offered were included in this final version. However, some
very good suggestions regarding changes to the tables could not be included in this report
due to time constraints. These suggestions were taken seriously and will be considered for
future reports.
For the PGWDB to retain its value, OPP must continue to gather and share as much
pesticide monitoring information as possible. Any government agency or private institution
that would like to have its work included in the PGWDB should provide a hard copy of a
final or interim report and the sample and well data in electronic format. PGWDB data
elements are listed on page 0V4 of this report. Electronic media should be accompanied
by a description that includes, hardware compatibility (IBM, Apple etc.), operating system
(DOS, UNIX, OS2), format identification (ASCII or software package name) and a data
dictionary. Anyone wishing to provide comments or data may do so by contacting:
Constance A. Hoheisel
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticide Programs
Environmental Fate and Effects Division (H7507C)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Telephone: 703-305-5455
FAX; 703-305-6309
OV-12
-------
REFERENCES
1. Hoheisel, C. and Davies-Hilliard, L. Pesticide Information Network. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington D.C., 1987. Database:
703-305-5919. User Support: 703-305-7499.
2. Spencer, D.A. The National Pesticide Monitoring Program, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1974, Summary document published by The National Agricultural
Chemicals Association.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking
Water Wells. Washington, D.C., 1990. For Fact Sheets contact: EPA Public
Information Center, 202-260-2080. For copies of reports contact: National Technical
Information Service (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
7439/21219
Total Wells Sampled
per State
501
II
51
1
>
to
to
to
to
1000
1000
500
100
~ No wells sampled
OV-14
-------
REGION 2
WELL STATUS BY STATE
DESCENDING BY NUMBER OF WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
NY
21219
NJ
243
100 200 300
WELL COUNTS
400
500
WELLS WITH DETECTIONS >= MCL L*J WELLS WITH DETECTIONS
BIB TOTAL WELLS SAMPLED
OV-15
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
STATE SUMMARIES
^S.rf
-------
Well Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
New
O
ersey
Pesticides Detected
j2/7i;
8/38;:
Aldicarb
Aidicarb Sulfone
Aldicarb Sulfoxide
Alachlor
Atrazine
Ceurbofuran
DDD
DDE
DDT
Diazinon
Dieldrin
End rin
Heplachlor
3-Hydroxy Car bo fur an
Lindane
Methomyl
Methoxychlor
Metolachlor
Metribuzin
1-Naphthol
Ox amy 1
Prometone
Simazine
Total Wells Sampled
per Coun ty
¦ > ieee
m 501 to 1000
ES 101 to 500
CZJ 51 to 100
m i to 50
~ No wells sampled
2-NJ-l
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
NEW JERSEY
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
The New Jersey Ground Water Quality Standards (NJ.A.C. Title 7, Chapter 9 - Water
Pollution Control, Subchapter 6 - Ground Water Quality Standards; Adopted effective
March 4, 1981; Readopted June 3, 1988) established maximum limits of 0.003 ppb for
Aldrin/Dieldrin; 0.001 ppb for DDT and metabolites; 0.004 ppb for Endrin; and 0.005 ppb
for Toxaphene.
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND-WATER
New Jersey State Department of Health, Environmental Health Program, Tel. (609) 984-1863,
Report On a Survey of Temik Concentrations in Cumberland and Salem Counties, August-
December, 1983. (#H318-83). Study transmitted to EPA via a letter from Loveil, J. S.,
UCAPC, to F. T. Sanders, USEPA (Reported February, 1984, 7 pp.).
Primary Objective
This study was conducted to determine aldicarb ground-water concentrations in New Jersey.
Design
Between August 2 and November 23, 1983, a total of 46 discrete wells (40 drinking water
wells and 6 non-drinking water wells) was tested for aldicarb residues in Cumberland and
Salem Counties. The first set of 22 ground-water samples was taken from 12 potato farms
(six in each county) and neighboring properties where aldicarb had been used for 3 to 8
years. The second set of well samples was taken to confirm the two detectable levels from
the first set of samples, and to expand the sampling of wells on properties adjacent to the
farms with contaminated wells. Samples were analyzed using GC/MS operating in the
chemical ionization (CI) mode with methane. The limits of detection were 5 and 2 ppb for
the first and second set of samples, respectively.
— — - 2-NJ-3
Preceding page blank
-------
Results and Conclusions
Aldicarb residues exceeded the MCL in ground water from one well in Cumberland Co. and
one from Salem County. In the first set of samples residues of aldicarb exceeded the MCL
at 5 and 31 ppb in two wells, aldicarb was not detectable in the other 20 wells. When the
positive wells were resampled to confirm the results, aldicarb was again detected in those
two wells at 3.1 and 19.6 ppb. The other additional samples had no aldicarb detected. The
well with the largest concentrations detected (19.6 and 31 ppb) had an aldicarb detection
of 50 ppb from a test run independently by Union Carbide. No farming practices seemed
to be the cause of the high level of residue in the well; rather, well construction (i.e., the
farmer had increased the size of his well from 12' to 50' and had never encased it) was the
probable cause of the high concentration of aldicarb.
(NOTE: The number of wells sampled in each county during the second round of sampling
was not available. The 46 total wells sampled were divided evenly between Cumberland and
Salem Counties in the State tables.)
Lovell, J.S., letter dated 10/27/83 from J.S. Lovell, Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co.
to F.T. Sanders, U.S. EPA, TEMIK Aldicarb Pesticide Groundwater Monitoring in New
Jersey. Tel (919) 549-2000.
Prapary Objective
The objective of this study was to determine groundwater contamination of aldicarb from
adjacent farms in Salem and Cumberland counties in New Jersey.
Design
Nine "worst case" wells located around three farms with known use of aldicarb were sampled
on October 17, 1983. Two drinking water wells and one irrigation well were located in
Salem County, and four drinking water wells, one irrigation well, and one packing shed well
were located in Cumberland County. Aldicarb residues were analyzed using an unspecified
method with a limit of detection of 1 ppb.
Results and Conclusions
Of the 9 wells sampled in Cumberland and Salem Counties, analyses showed detectable
aldicarb residues in three wells. Aldicarb residues were 3 and 4 ppb in 2 non-drinking water
wells (1 Cumberland and 1 Salem Co., respectively) and 50 ppb in 1 drinking water well
(Salem Co.). However, the 50 ppb aldicarb detection was not confirmed (telecon with
Union Carbide 9/12/91). All of the positive detections of aldicarb were equal to or greater
than the MCL (3.0 ppb).
2-NJ-4
-------
Barton C., Vowinkel E.F., and Nawyn J.P., U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the
Interior, Tel. (609) 771-3925, Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4023, Preliminary
Assessment of Water Quality and its Relation to Hydro geology and Land Use: Potomac-
Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey. Study conducted March-April, 1985
(Reported 1987, 79 pp.). For farther information, contact Eric Vowinkel, Hydrologist.
Primary Objective
This report presents a preliminary estimation of the ground-water quality in the counties of
Middlesex and Mercer pertaining to the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in New
Jersey in relation to hydrogeology and land use. The tested hypothesis is that ground-water
quality is related to land use.
Design
The sampling network consisted of 71 wells, all of which existed prior to this study. Current
use of the water from these wells includes: 20 public supply, 19 industrial, 16 domestic, 2
irrigation, 1 commercial, 1 institutional and 12 wells which are not currently used for water
supply. Ground-water samples were collected from March 11 to April 19, 1985, and
analyzed by GC/MS for the following pesticides with the respective detection limits in ppb:
Pesticide Detection Limit (ppb) Pesticide Detection Limit (ppb)
Aldrin
0.01
Lindane
0.01
Ametryn
0.1
Malathion
0.01
Atrazine
0.1
Nethoxychlor
0.01
Carbophenothion
0.01
Mi re*
0.01
Carbophenothion,
methyl (Hethyl
Trithioo)
0.01
PCB
0.1
Chlordane
0.1
PCM
0.1
Cyanazine
0.1
Parathion, [ethyt]
0.01
DOD
0.01
Parathion, methyl
0.01
DDE
0.01
Perthane Cethylan]
0.1
DDT
0.01
Prometone
0.1
Diazinon
0.01
Prometryrw
0.1
Dieldrin
0.01
Propazirte
0.1
Endosulfan
0.01
Simazine
0.1
Endrin
0.01
Simetryne
0.1
Ethion
0.01
Toxaphene
0.1
Heptachlor
0.01
Heptachlor epoxide
0.01
2-NJ-5
-------
Water-quality characteristics and the concentrations of major ions, nutrients, trace metals,
pesticides, and purgeable organic compounds were compared among groups using the
Kruskal-Wallis test and frequency-of-detection method.
Results and Conclusions
Of a total of 71 wells, 66 wells/66 samples were analyzed (5 well samples were lost),
resulting in 7 wells/samples with detectable levels of pesticides present below the respective
MCL or LHA In Middlesex County, where 51 wells were tested, 5 wells/samples were
positive for atrazine, DDD, dieldrin, and/or lindane. Atraziue was detected in two drinking
water wells at 0.10 and 0.50 ppb, and in one non-drinking water well at 0.3 ppb. DDD was
detected in one monitoring well at 0.07 ppb. Dieldrin was detected in one drinking water
well at 0.02 ppb. Lindane was observed in one drinking water well at 0.09 ppb. In Mercer
County where 15 wells were tested, 2 wells/samples had detectable levels of simazine. One
drinking and one non-drinking water well contained simazine at 0.1 ppb. All of the detected
pesticides were present at levels below their respective MCL or LHA. The ground-water
contamination with pesticides was suspected to be due to the application of pesticides as
normal agricultural practices.
Louis, Judith B. and Eric Vowinkel, Pesticides in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments.
Proceedings of a National Research Conference May 11-12, 1989, Effect of Agricultural
Chemicals on Ground-Water Quality in the New Jersey Coastal Plain, Data available for
1986-87 and 1988. For further information, contact Eric Vowinkel, Hydrologist, United
States Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, New Jersey District, Tel.: 609-771-3900.
Primary Objective
Because of the limited scope of previous studies, a reconnaissance survey of groundwater
quality in agricultural areas in New Jersey was begun. This study was designed to relate the
presence of agricultural chemicals in groundwater to land use, hydrogeologic conditions, and
well-construction characteristics. Sampling was concentrated in shallow sand and gravel
aquifer systems where the hydrogeologic environment is susceptible to contamination by
agricultural chemicals. Because the New Jersey Coastal Plain is an important agricultural
area in New Jersey and contains aquifers systems that are important sources of drinking
water, it was the first area to be surveyed.
Design
Two outcrop areas were selected for study: the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy and Kirkwood-
Cohansey aquifer systems. Samples were collected from the counties of Atlantic, Burlington,
Cumberland, Gloucester, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Morris, Salem, Somerset, and
Warren. Wells were selected in areas in the Coastal Plain that were susceptible to
contamination by agricultural chemicals using the following criteria: wells located within
800 m of agricultural land, wells located in or near the outcrop area of the aquifer where
2-NJ-6
-------
confining beds are thin or absent, wells with depths less than 50 m, and the shallowest well
on farms with multiple wells. A total of 122 wells was sampled during June 1986 through
early September 1987, and June through August 1988.
Samples were analyzed for nutrients, volatile organic fumigants, triazines, acetanilide, and
chlorophenoxy acid herbicides, and carbamate, organochlorine, and organophosphorous
insecticides. Samples were analyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey Central Laboratory in
Denver, Colorado. The pesticides for which data was available, and their detection limits,
are listed below:
PESTICIDE
DETECTION
LIMIT
Cug/l)
PESTICIDE
DETECTION LIMIT
Cua/D
1-Naphthol
1987-88 0.5
Diazinon
1986-88 0.01
2,4-0
1986-87 0.01
1988 0.01-0.05
Oieldrirt
1986 0.01
1987-88 0.001
2,4-DP
1986-87 0,01
1988 0.01-0.05
Endrin
1986 0.01
1987-88 0.001
2,4,5-T
1986-88 0.01
Ethion
1986-88 0.01
Alachlor
1986-88 0.1
Heptachlor
1986 0.1
1987-88 0.001
Aldicarb
1987-88 0.5
Heptachlor epoxide
1986 0.1
1987-88 0.001
Aldicarb Sulfone
1987-88 0.5
Lindane
1986 0.1
1987-88 0.001
Aldicarb Sulfoxide
1987-88 0.5
Malathion
1986-88 0.01
Aldrin
1986 0.01
1987-88 0.001
Methomyl
1986 2.0
1987-88 0.5
Ametryne
1986-88 0.1
Nethoxyehlor
1986-88 0.01
Atrazine
1986-88 0.1
Metolachlor
1986-88 0.1
Benzene hexachloride
1987 0.01
Netribuzin
1986-88 0.1
Carbaryl
1986 2.0
1987-88 0.5
Mire*
1986-88 0.01
Carbofuran
1987-88 0.5
Oxamyl
1987-88 0.5
3-Hydroxycarbofuran
1987-88 0.5
Parath ion, [ethyl]
1986-88 0.01
Chlordane
1986-88 0.1
Parathion, methyl
1986-88 0.01
Cyanazirie
1986-88 0.1
Perthane [Ethylan]
1986-88 0.1
DDT
1986 0.01
1987-88 0.001
Prometone
1986-88 0.1
ODD
1986 0.01
1987-88 0.001
Prometryne
1986-88 0.1
DDE
1986 0.01
1987-B8 0.001
Propamine
1986-88 0.1
2-NJ-7
-------
PESTICIDE
DETECTION
LIMIT
tug/O
PESTICIDE
DETECTION LIMIT
(yg/t)
Propham
1986 2.0
1987-88 0.5
Toxapttarw
1986-88 t
Propoxur
$11vex t2,4,S-TPJ
SitMxina
198? 0.5
Trlfluralin
Trithion ICarbophenothionJ
Trithion, methyl
[Carfcophenothion, iwthyl]
1986-88 0.1
1986-88 0.01
1986-88 0.01
1986-88 0.1
1986-88 0.01
Simetryne
1986-88 0.1
Results and Conclusions : Note - The data discussed here is considered provisional and
subject to revision.
Of the 122 wells, 43 had detections, with residues of pesticides and pesticide metabolites
above the detections limits from 0.001-13 //g/1. A total of 23 pesticides &/or metabolites
were detected in groundwater samples taken in the New Jersey Coastal Plain. Pesticides
with concentrations above their MCLs are: alachlor (1 well, 13,0 fig/1), aldicarb (1 well, 5.0
//g/1), aldicarb sulfone (4 wells, 2.0-4.4 //g/1) and aldicarb sulfoxide (1 well, 5.3 //g/1). One
well in Middlesex County had two compounds detected above their MCLs: Aldicarb sulfone
(2.8 Mg/l) and aldicarb sulfoxide (5.3 //g/1).
Because the purpose of this study was to target sand and gravel aquifer systems in the
Coastal Plain where the hydrogeologic environment is susceptible to contamination by
agricultural chemicals, the results cannot be used as a general indicator of pesticide
contamination in New Jersey.
2-NJ-8
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAKGE Of
awcEa-
TSAUGHS
PESTICIDE
COL^/TY
DATE
TOTAL
VEILS
SAMPLED
t Of
POSJIIVE
WELLS
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
U OF
«3$m«
SAMPLES
TEAR/
MONTH
2
MCL
<
aa
%
MCL
¦'
MCI
»1-Kephthoi
ATLANTIC
1987/7-6
14
0
1
14
0
1
trace
BURLINGTON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CU*©fRlAt4D
1937/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
' ;Mc)utesTE8:i::
1987/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HUHTEftDOK
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1987/8
10
0
0
10
0
0
MIDDLESEX V.
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
D
HARRIS -
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
¦SALE* •
1987/8-1988/8
8
0
0
8
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
90
0
1
90
0
1
trace
"2/4-0
••ATLANTIC' ':;3
1987/7-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
: BURLINGTON ;
1986/6-1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
C0M8ESLAND
1987/6-8
12
0
0
12
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
«RCER
1986/6-1988/8
9
0
0
9
0
0
:lidD''iEseV''::-:
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
SALEK
1986/7-1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
WA RS EH
1988/7-8
a
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
81
0
0
2.0 T
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
BURUNGTON
1986/6-1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CUMBERLAND '
1987/6-8
12
0
0
12
0
0
-ClOUCSSTIR
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
2-NJ-9
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF KEU JERSEY
1 -Naphthol to Lindane
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
8AHGE Of
•ICbMCEH-
rsAtions
mnctDE
COWTT
OATS
TOIAL
V£lt$
SAMPLED':
» Of
POSITIVE
VELLS
' TOTAL «
SAMPLES
# OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YEAR/
MONT#
e
net
<
MCL
I
KU
•: «
act-'
(2.4.5-T)
:.?iiUNTERDOM
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
¦ 'KERC'R
1986/6-1988/8
9
0
0
9
0
0
" MIDDLESEX
1986/6-1987/6
5
0
0
5
0
0
iSALEM
1986/7-1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
: Carres
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRITE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
81
0
0
?,4,5-TP
(SiU«)
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
I"cw«erlah6
1987/6-8
12
0
0
12
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HUtiTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
«RC£8
1986/6-1988/8
9
0
0
9
0
0
.MIDDLESEX
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
•SALEM
1986/7-1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
"SOMERSET"-"
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
- SUSSEX
1988/7-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
¦ VARHEN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
total discrete
wells/samples
81
0
0
81
0
0
Alschlor
ATIANTiC
1987/7-8
14
0
1
14
0
1
0.1
BURtrNGTOM
1986/6-1987/8
2
0
2
4
0
3
0.3*
OJM3ESLAHO;
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
'Gloucester;--
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HUNTESOOM ;
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
¦¦'.Mercer
1986/6-1988/8
10
1
0
11
1
1
13*
•.;Mj6oL'Esek: :::
1986/6-1987/8
4
0
3
6
0
3
0.1A
¦MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
¦SALEM -
1986/6-1987/9
8
0
2
10
0
3
p
>
: SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NJ-10
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE Of HFU JERSEY
1-Nsphthol to Lindane
¦:f. t/ri» wr« a'Te' .
SAMPLE RESULTS
RA#K OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
WJRLINCTOM
1986/6-1987/8
Z
0
0
2
0
0
CUMBERLAND
1983/8-11
25
2
0
28
3
0
3-31
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6*1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
-HUSTERDOIT
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
''«R"CE8
1986/6-1988/8
10
0
0
10
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1983/10
4
0
0
8
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
morris
1988/7-8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SAIEH
1983/8-11
26
3
0
30
4
0
3.1-50
1986/7-1988/12
8
0
0
8
0
0
/mkersetV ;;':
1988/6-8
6
1
0
6
1
0
5
sussex
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
: iMRRE^-
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
145
6
0
156
8
0
3.0-50
!Aidicarb suiforne'
Atlantic:: - v
1987/7-8
14
2
3
14
2
3
tr-3.6
^RtlNSTON-
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
' CUMSERLAND}:
1987/6-8
13
0
2
13
0
2
1.3-1.5
-GLOUCESTER^
1987/6-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
' HUNTEWOK^
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
WRCER
1987/8-1988/8
10
0
0
10
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1986/6-1987/8
6
1
1
6
1
1
1.1-2.8
' MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
-Mem ;
1986/7-1987/8
8
1
2
8
1
2
1.3-4.4
• SOMERSET"'
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NJ-ll
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE Of MEV JERSEY
1-Naphthot to Lindane
VELl RESULTS
SAWPtE RESULTS
RANGE Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
J
PESTICIDE
cowm
DATE
TOTAL
K£LIS
SAN PLED
« Of
POSITIVE
¦WELLS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
* OP
POSITIVE
¦ SAMPLES
TEAR/
M»JTH
i
KCl
<
KCL
'
1
HCL
#CL
(Aldicsrb
sulfone}
SUSSEX
1988/7*8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
tr-4.4
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
90
4
8
90
4
8
Aldiesrfe
sulfoxide
AtUMWC
1987/7-8
14
0
2
14
0
2
1.7-2.6
BURIW8TON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
Q
CUK8ERLAND ^
1987/6-8
13
0
2
13
0
2
tr-0.7
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HUNTERDON ^
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
¦MERCER^.:"—!
1986/6-1988/8
10
0
0
10
0
0
HiEDLESfX
1986/6-1987/8
6
1
1
6
1
1
2.1-5.3
MORRIS '
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
¦:sale*
1986/7-1988/12
8
0
3
8
0
3
0.7-1.5
';:'sdwns6t
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
. UAR'ftEN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
90
1
8
90
1
8
tr-5,3
Atdrin
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
D
0
14
0
O
B4JRLINSTQN::
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
aJWSERLAtfiD
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
¦ GLOUCESTER-
1987/7-8
7
0
0
9
0
0
HUHtERDOR
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
/'WERCER •
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1988/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/B
21
0
0
26
0
0
HCNHDUTK
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SCHCRSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NJ-12
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF KEU JERSEY
1-Nepbthol to Lindane
WELL RESULTS .
SAMM-t RESULTS
JUWGE Of....
XONCEM-;'':
tRATUWS
pesticide
cownr
oAre
TOTAL
VELLS
SAMPLED
* Of
POSITIVE
' ' WELLS •'
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
# OF : '
posmvg
SAMPLES
tEAB/
MONT*
*
MCL
* <
VCL
X
MCI
<• :.
MCL
(Altjrjn)
SUSSEX
1988/7-B
5
0
0
5
0
0
WCR8I «
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
186
0
0
200
0
0
- taietryn -
ATUNnC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
-:BURltN6TO<":;
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUM3 SSLANb
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
' MERCE*
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
16
0
0
19
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
11
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
25
0
0
.«ONMOUT« . -
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
: SALEH
1986/7-1987/8
11
0
0
13
0
0
-SOtCRSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
a
0
6
0
0
VARREH
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
a
TOTAL DISCRETE
ViELLS/SAMPlES
188
0
0
201
0
0
Atrazinc
AJLAKIIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLINGTON^
1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
-CUMBERLAND:
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
-StQUCESlM
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
2
9
0
3
0.1-0.8
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
1
11
0
1
0.2
tfERCES
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1988/8
16
0
1
19
0
2
0.1
; MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
3
51
0
3
0.1-0.5
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
2
25
0
3
0.5-0.9
:«CNM0UTN
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/6-1987/8
11
0
2
13
0
2
0.1
2-NJ-13
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OP MEW JEHSET
1-Naphthol to lindane
WELL KESytTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
BANGS Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
PESTICIDE
COUNTT
DATE
TOTAL
VEILS
SAMPLED
t Of
POSJT1VE
WELLS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
« Of
POSITIVE
" SAMPLES
YEAR/
MONTH
i
MCt
<
«CL
i
MCI
<
HCl
CAtraiine)
SOMERSET
1988/6*8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-B
6
0
0
6
0
0
VARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
3
8
0
3
0.1-0,6
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
187
0
14
200
0
17
0.1-0.9
MC
ATLANTIC
1987/7
6
0
0
6
0
0
CUMBERLAND
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
' SAIEH
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
10
0
a
10
0
0
Csrbai yt
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
::GU«ERLAND
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
: GLOUCESTER'
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
' WRCER
1986/6-1988/8
16
0
0
19
0
0
MIDDLESEX '•
1986/6-1987/8
20
0
0
26
0
0
«®nmojt«: ¦::
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
fcQRRtS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
• 'SUSSEX
1988/7*8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
121
0
0
136
0
0
' Carbofurarv
AHAN? IC -
1987/7-8
14
0
2
14
0
2
0.6-2.3
; BURL-tNGTOt:
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CUMBERLAND
1987/6-8
13
0
1
13
0
1
trace
GLOUCESTER: ¦
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
1
5
0
1
0.8
¦ -MUMTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
: KSRCES
1986/6-1988/8
10
0
D
10
0
0
2-NJ-14
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING 1H THE STATE OF MEW JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
VELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL
VEILS
SAMPLED
* Cf
posmve
UELLS
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
n of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YEAR/
MONTH
5
MCt
<
MCL
X
MCL
MCL
(Carbofurnn)
H50DLESEX
1986/6-1987/8
6
0
2
6
0
2
0.6-1.4
-iwRats
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
sale#
1986/7-1987/9
8
0
3
8
0
3
0.5-6.6
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARDEN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WILLS/SAMPLES
90
0
9
90
0
9
trace-
6.6
:*-3-Hydroxy
''-Cs'rbofuran
AfiAxnc
1987/7-8
14
0
1
14
0
1
trace
BURLINGTON : ::
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CUMBERLAND
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
S
0
0
5
0
0
• HUMTERDGK ^
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER:
1987/8
. 10
0
0
10
0
0
MIDDLESEX !¦
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
*S0RR!S
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1987/8-1988/8
8
0
0
B
0
0
¦SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPIES
90
0
1
90
0
1
trace
Carfcopfiertothior,
ATlAUTtC
1987/7-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
: CU*3ESLAHD
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
: HUKTEftDCN
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
' -tftRCES
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
2-NJ-15
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW JERSEY
1 -Naphthol to Lindane
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE-RESULTS
RAUGE Of
COHCES-
TfcATJOtiS
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IH THE STATE Of HEU JERSEY
1-Maphthol to Lindane
WELL RE SILTS
SAMPLE RESULTS ;'
'SANK W-;-
rRAT IONS
PESTICIDE
cxmrr
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
# Of
poscnvE
WELLS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
« OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES •
' • TEAR/
XONTtf
S
MCL
<
MCt
I ¦
MCL
< .
MCL
(Chtordane)
QtOOCESTIH:
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
NUMTERDOI*
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
HERCE8
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
*
1986/6-1988/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
KltJDLESE*
1985/5-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
«JHK0UT#
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
mmit
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
\SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
•WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
186
0
0
200
0
0
: tyanazjrw'
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURUNGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUKSERLANO
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
BUNTEROOIt
1988/6-B
11
0
0
11
0
0
ICRtER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
16
0
0
19
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
25
0
0
• HONMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
H0R8IS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEH
1986/7-1987/8
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
¦SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
- WARREN
19BB/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL PISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
201
0
0
2-NJ-17
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING II THE STATE OF MEW JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAUGE Of
CONCEH-
TRATlONS
(M9/U
PESTICIDE
couan
BATE
TOTAL
WELLS
* SAMPLED
9 Crf
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL f
SAMPLES
* OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
moui#
£
MCt
<
MIL
.
t
MCL
*
MCl
~DDT
"
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
2
14
0
2
0.004-
0.006
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
'GWSEfcLMitS^
1987/6-9
13
0
2
13
0
2
0.002
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
7
0
2
9
0
2
0.001-
0.020
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
•CRCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
16
0
0
18
0
0
iMiDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
KQfcMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
HORRrS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SAL£K
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET :
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
'"'SUSSEX-:
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
UARSEM
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
187
0
6
200
0
6
0.001-
0.020
*-tDD
:*t
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
SURHNGTOW
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
Gloucester
1987/7-8
7
0
0
9
0
0
¦ MUNTEftbOS:1
1988/6*8
11
0
0
11
0
0
- MERCER.:
1985/5-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1966/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
1
51
0
1
0.07
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
HOHMCOT# r
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
•mi»
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
2-NJ-18
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN TIE STATE OF KEU JE1SEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
:':-:'':';:""WELt---*fSULTS .::V
' SAMPLE RESULTS
RAW (2 Of
COttCEN
TRATIOUS
<«/o
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
# Of .
POSITIVE
'¦ WELLS
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
M Of
POSITIVE
' SAMPLES
YEAR/
MONTH
e
mcl
<¦ ¦
MCL
t
MCL
MCL
(ODD)
•SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
B
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
186
0
200
0
1
0.07
Atlantic U'v-:
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BWRLIKSTOK;:
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUMBERLAND
1987/6-9
13
0
2
13
0
2
0.001
^&lOUC£STER'-;
1987/7-8
7
0
2
9
0
2
0.001
:iHUMT68DO»:
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
McR ER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
1
18
0
1
0.001
•WODtESSX-Y-
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
1
26
0
1
0.001
MONMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
:M0RRtS:;':^r;
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SQ(CRSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
':SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
UARftEN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
186
0
6
200
0
6
0.001
• atLantVc--.^ ¦
1987/7-8
13
0
1
13
0
1
0.01
BURLINGTON ^
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUM8ERIAND
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
i HUNJERuOH
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
2-NJ-19
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE Of
' CONCEtf
{RATIONS
{«/o
PESTICIDE
cowry
DATE
TOTAL
VEILS
SUNPLED
« w
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
# OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
HOHTX
i
net
<
HCL
t
¦¦¦¦ MCL
<
ML
(Oiazinon)
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORS IS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
-SALE*
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
a
5
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
1
8
0
1
0.09
TOTAL DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
184
0
2
198
0
2
0.01-
0.09
. SicHtofprop
':M;ANT1£'W;'
1987/7-8
13
0
0
13
0
BURLINGTON
1986/6-19B7/B
2
0
0
2
0
0
CUM8ERLAH0
1987/6-8
12
0
0
12
0
0
:&btiC£STER
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
i HUNTERDON :
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
'! *£RCER
1986/6-1988/8
9
0
0
9
0
0
-.*i'0DL£SEX :.v:
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
1986/7-1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
1988/7-8
4
0
0
4
0
0
/ WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
81
0
0
81
0
0
*PielcJrin
AILAKI1C
1987/7-8
14
0
3
14
0
3
0.001-
0.029
'JURL7NGTON- •
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
OVERLAND
1987/6-9
13
0
4
13
0
4
0.001
;:ttOUreSTE»'V
1987/7-8
7
0
3
9
0
4
0.001-
0.043
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
: KERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
1
18
0
1
0.003
2-NJ-20
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MEW JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
WELL KESULTS
$SMPIE RESULTS
RANGE Of
concen-
TftA? tcus
fSSriCIDE
cowm
CATE
TOTAL
VELIS
SAMPLED
« Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
# OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YEAR/
HONTN
*
• m •
X
HCL
I
MCI
<
ML
(Oieldrin)
HIODLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
1
51
0
1
0.02
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
3
25
0
3
0.001-
0.03
KONHOUr*
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
2
13
0
2
0.001-
0.033
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
-SUSSEX ¦¦¦¦:
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
'WARREN"'i?;
1988/7-8
8
0
1
8
0
1
0.001
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
186
0
18
199
0
19
0.001-
0.043
''itn&'fiulfan
«€RCEft
1985/3-4
15
a
0
15
a
0
}*:OOLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
wells/samples
66
0
0
66
0
0
: Endrin
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
^BURLINGTON'*
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUWSE8LAKO: -
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
7
0
0
9
0
0
fHUNTESOOS -i::
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
' MERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
1
18
0
1
0.001
*iim£SEX
1985/5-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
iMONHbClTN
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WQRRtS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SAlfH
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
1
13
0
1
0.011
"'SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NJ-21
-------
PESTICIDE SAW LING IN THE STATE OF KEU JERSEY
1-Maphthol to Lindane
WEIL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
fiANIX Of
COHCEK-
TSATIOUS
pesticide
coDurr
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
« Of
positive
WELLS
¦ TCTAi, #
SAMPLES
n of
posrn«
SAMPLES
«AR/
MONTH
i
MCL
HCL
I
MCL
. ¦«
MCL
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLING IN TIC STATE Of MEU JERSEY
1-Naphthol to Lindane
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAKGE Of
COKCEM-
TMtlPMS :
I *18/1)
PESTICIDE
COUtfTT
date
TOTAL
VELLS
SAMPLED
# or
POSITIVE
wells
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
n of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
tear/
MOKT*
e
NCL
net
\
MCt
<
*CL
(Ethylvi)
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
¦ SALEM
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7*8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WARREtf
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
185
0
0
199
0
0 |
: H«ptewNtor
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
H
0
0
¦BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUMBERLAND
1987/6-9
13
0
1
13
0
1
0.001
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
fty«tTE#?obft: :
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
HJflDLESSX
19B5/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
tfONKOUTN
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
/MORR IS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
: SALE"
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
:SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
HELLS/SAMPLES
185
0
1
199
D
1
0.001
HtptecKor
epoxfde
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUtfflEftLAKD
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
HUHIEROOHr ii:.
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
2-NJ-2 3
-------
PESTICIDE SAKPLI KG IN THE STATE OF NEW JEESET
1-Naphthol to Lindane
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
OATS
TOTAL
- SAMPLED.
# Of
POSITIVE
WEUS
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
ft OF
posrnvs
SAMPLES
BANS Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
<«/u
tear/
MONTH
e
..MCt..
«
MCL
.MCI.
<
MCL
(Keptachlor
epoxide)
MERCER
1983/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1983/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
HQNHOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SAL E H
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
(SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX -
1998/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
: iWRREV
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAKPLES
185
0
0
199
0
0
Lirtdrrfie
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
6
14
0
6
0.001-
0.003
BURUNGTOH ::
1986/6*1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUKSEaLAKD -
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
' 'GLOUCESTER-'1
1987/7-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
';«Onterook 1
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
'merges
1985/3*4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
3
18
0
4
0.004-
0.14
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
1
51
0
1
0.09
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
HOts MOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
' SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-9
5
0
0
S
0
0
warren
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
185
0
10
199
0
11
0.001-
0.14
2-NJ-24
-------
PESTICIDE SMTLIHC IH THE STATE OF MEW JERSET
(Malathiort to Tr1fluralin)
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
fiAMGE Of
CQNCEN-
TRA1 IC»S
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
- KUNTERDON^v-
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1986/6-1988/8
16
0
2
18
0
2
0.5-0.6
MIDDLESEX t:t
1986/6-1987/8
20
0
1
26
0
1
trace
M3N»K30TIJ
1966/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
1
13
0
1
0.8
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NJ-25
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLIRG IN THE STATE OF NEV JERSEY
(Nalathion to Trtfluralin)
WEIL RESULTS
$ AH PIE RESULTS
BANCS or
CQNCEtl-
TRAtlOKS
WD
pesticide
couw
DATE
TOTAL
VEILS
SAHPIEO
« W
POSJTlVt
WELLS
TOTAL. $
SAMPLES
« OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
tear;
HOKTa
#a
f
NCL
i
HCl
<
*CL
{Hethooryl)
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
'ummn
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL D1SCRE1
UILLS/SAMPLS5
i
120
0
5
134
0
5
tract-
1.0
fcethoxWhler
ATLANTIC
1987/7*8
14
0
0
14
0
0
SlffiLiKGTOK
1986/6-1987/8
?
0
0
9
0
0
CUH8ERIAX&
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
. GLOUCESTER "i:
1987/7-8
6
0
1
8
0
1
0.05
WWTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
FIERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
" HrDOtE"SEX ': : ¦
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
;mwhout»
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
•':HOR«IS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
• SUSSg* .
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WARREN7 : . •
1988/7-8
8
0
0
ft
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UELLS/SAMPIES
185
0
1
199
0
1
0.05
Jtetolaehlar :
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
1
14
0
1
1.0
«*LiNCTQIt '
1986/6-1987/8
3
0
0
4
0
0
"/C0MB£Ri«#
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
Gloucester
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WJTSRDQT V
1988/6-8
11
0
1
11
0
1
1.1
MESCfR
1986/6-1987/8
11
0
a
13
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1986/6-1987/8
11
0
1
12
0
1
0.4
:SALEM'
1986/7-1987/8
10
0
0
12
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NJ-26
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW JERSEY
(Nalathion to Trifluralin)
WELL RESOtTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
8AKGE Of
CONCE#
trahws
PESTICIDE
COUKTr
OATE
TOTAL
SAMPLED
* Of
POSITIVE
yeas
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
n of
posm«
SAMPLES
YEAR/
nan#
"£
HEL
<
MCL
t
MCI
HCl
(MetoUchlor)
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
UEUS/SAMPIES
98
0
3
104
0
3
0.4-1.1
^itsWbuzfri •
•¦*TWNT(t:
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
SWUNG TON
1986/6-1987/8
3
0
0
4
0
0
.-¦CtWBEW'Atlb-r-:
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
""ctdwistiR'iH
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
M6SCER
1986/6-1987/8
11
0
0
12
0
0
- MIDDLESEX
1986/6-1987/8
11
0
0
12
0
0
5A1.EH
1986/7-1987/8
10
0
1
12
0
1
0.1
'SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
98
0
1
103
0
1
0.1
M'irex'-':
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BUftLINGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
Gloucester •
1987/7-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
"iKUNTCRDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
Amercer'
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
Middlesex
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
monmouth *
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
:morris
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
m em
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
"SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NJ-27
-------
PESTICIDE SANPLIHG IK THE STATE OF HEW JERSEY
(Halathion to Trifluralin}
WELL fttSUtTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE Of
"COfKEM
mtioMS .
wsticide
count*
CAIE
TOTAL
WELLS •••:
SANPLED
« Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
# OF
POSITIVE
• SAMPLES
YfeAR/
HONTH
. . . . .tt
K
WCL
I
MCI
¦ «: ¦
*CL
(Nfr«K)
SUSSEX
19B8/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
OARREH
1988/7-B
8
0
0
e
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
185
0
0
199
0
0
"Oxwwl
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
- BURLS NCTOIt ""
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CtfHB*RiA?i&
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
Gloucester
1987/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HUNTEROON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
- *ERCf R
1987/8
10
0
0
10
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
'MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
' SALE*
1987/8-1988/8
8
0
1
8
0
1
1.4
¦ SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
-SUSSEX-';::^
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
¦warreh;:-:--'
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
90
0
1
90
0
1
1.4
Parathvon,
ethyl ¦' ¦
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
8URLINGT0W ^
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUHB6RLAN0;?i:
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
KWTERPON L:
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
MJ03LESEX
19B5/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
MONMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
-MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SAL EH
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NJ-28
-------
PESTICIDE SMCLIMG IN THE STATE OF NB1 JERSEY
(Malathion to Trifluralin)
WELL RESULTS
SAflPte RESULTS
RANGE Of
Concen-
trations
PESTICIDE
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAHPtEO
P Of
POSITIVE
UELLS
TOTAL *
SAMPLES
'* Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
VEAft/
MONT* '
2
net
<
MCL
1
MCI
<
KCL
(Parathion,
tthyl)
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
D
WARREK
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
1B4
0
0
198
0
0
: fPirathton,
methyl
ATIAKT1C
1987/7-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
BWLtHGTON
1986/6-1987/8
7
0 *
0
9
0
0
'-'CUMBER1AN&
1987/6-9
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1987/7-8
6
0
0
8
0
0
HWTERDO#
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MeRCEft
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
HONMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
Morris
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1988/12
11
0
0
13
0
0
-'Somerset
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
iiossEX
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
WA&REK
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
184
0
0
198
0
0
' ?p'0(Petort;:'-:3;:s;'
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
2
14
0
2
0.1-0.3
BURUHGTQN
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
. CUN3SRIAX0
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
¦:OLOU(C6STER::^:
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
:^WT£R0CW:-:::;-:-:;:
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1983/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1988/8
16
0
1
19
0
1
0.1
HfDOlESEX
1983/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
1
25
0
2
0.1-0.2
MCWMOUTIiii.ri:.-1
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
2-NJ-29
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW JERSEY
(MalatMon to Tr1fluralin)
4*
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
SANS Of
CONCEN-
TRA1lows
PESTICIDE
COJKTT
GATE
TOTAL
VEILS
SAMPLED
f W
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL i
SAMPLES
0 OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YEAR/
MONTH
£
#C1
<
MCL
MCt
«
MCL
(Prometon)
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
0
13
0
0
sc*ess£i
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
syss?*
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARREK
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
total discrete
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
4
201
0
5
0.1-0.2
" Prometryn '
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
««L-i»€TONr'-
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CLWBERtAJffi : :- 5
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER ""
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
: 8U«TERr>0«
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER *
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1988/8
16
0
0
19
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
25
0
0
MONMOUTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET .
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WARREK
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
201
0
0
ATtANT 5C
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
: BU^LIHOTON1 ;i:
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUMBERLAND''"?
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MESCtR
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1988/8
16
0
0
19
0
0
2-NJ-30
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE Of NEtf JEESET
(Mb lath ion to Trifluralin)
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANK Of. ..
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
wl!
PESTICI&E
COUHTV
DATE
TOTAL
VELLS
SAMPLED
f Of
POSITIVE
WEILS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
. V Df
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YEAR/
MONTH
-*•
~tct
<
MCL
I
MCI
<
MCI
(Propazine)
MIBDilSEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
25
0
0
HON KXiT «
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS '
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SAtEM
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
: -sysscx
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WAftftEK
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
201
0
0
BORllHSTOt}
1986/6-1987/8
3
0
0
4
0
0
;^LOOCESTER:i;:
1986/6-1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
yflUNTERDQN :?i:
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCEfi
1986/6-1988/8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MIDDLESEX "r
1986/6-1987/8
11
0
0
12
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1987/9
4
0
0
6
0
0
1 SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WASREM
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
63
0
0
67
0
0
" r obootuir ;=-=;-v:
i ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
'CUMBERLAND
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
' GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
SAtEM
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
36
0
0
36
0
0
y'Simeiifie =
'ATLANTIC^
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
8WLJNGT0N
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUMBERLAND- S
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER v;:
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
2
9
0
2
0.1-0.2
2-NJ-31
-------
PESTICIDE SAWLIHG IN THE STATE OF NEV JERSEY
(HaUthion to Trifluralln)
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
8AWGE Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
:
i>esriciPE
COUNTr
OATE
TOTAL
VELIS
.SAMPLED
0 Of
POSITIVE
¦ DWELLS¦
TOTAL *.
SAMPLES
tf OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
MONTH
KCL
HCL
ii
HCt
V
*CL
(Siiwxlne)
HUWTERDON
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
MERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
2
15
0
2
0.1
1986/6-1988/8
16
0
1
19
0
1
0.1
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
1
25
0
1
0.3
KOHWCWTH
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
0
13
0
0
• iSOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
D
6
0
0
"ms:$£x
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
¦WARREN
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
188
0
6
201
0
6
0.1-0.3
ATLANTIC'
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
?gORlisOTO^:i:-
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
CUHBEftLAWD
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
:GLOUCESTER::
1986/6-1987/8
7
0
0
9
0
0
; HUNTERDON
1986/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
HERDER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1988/8
16
0
0
18
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
25
0
0
MOMKOUTK
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
-SALEM'
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SJS5EX
1988/7-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
tiAKREU
1988/7-8
8
0
0
a
0
0
TOTAl DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
188
0
0
200
0
0
2-NJ-32
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING II THE STATE Of HEV JERSEY
(Malathion to Trifluralin)
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
SMS Of
concen-
trations
<«/U
^Esricipf
COOWTIf
OATE
total
tms
SAMPLED
* Of
POSITIVE.
UEILS
TOTAL #
SAMPLES
* Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLE®
tEAR/
MONTH
t
MCt
<
Ma
' 1
MCL
<
MCL
Tcxaohcrtt
ATLANTIC
1987/7*8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BU*LfNCTON
1986/6-1987/8
1
0
0
9
0
0
- CUMBERIAN6
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
GLOUCESTER
1986/6-1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
¦ HUNTERDON
1988/6-8
11
a
D
11
0
a
MERCER
1985/3-4
15
0
0
15
0
0
1986/6-1988/8
15
0
0
18
0
0
MIDDLESEX
1985/3-4
51
0
0
51
0
0
1986/6-1987/8
21
0
0
26
0
0
- MWMWT#
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORR5S
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM ¦ '
1986/7-1987/9
11
0
0
13
0
0
SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUSSEX-
1988/7-8
5
0
0
5
0
0
¦VWREN-'-
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
18S
0
0
197
0
0
Trifiijralin
ATLANTIC
1987/7-8
14
0
0
14
0
0
BURLINGTON?
1986/6-1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CUMBERLAH0
1987/6-8
13
0
0
13
0
0
-GLOOCES'f ER
1986/6-1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
HUNTERDON :
1988/6-8
11
0
0
11
0
0
'MERCER
1986/6-1988/8
10
0
0
10
0
0
MlPBftESEX
1986/6-1987/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
MONMOUTH
1988/6-8
1
0
0
1
0
0
MORRIS
1988/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
SALEM
1986/7-1987/9
6
0
0
8
0
0
/SOMERSET
1988/6-8
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NJ-33
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEU JERSEY
(Malathion to Trifluralin)
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAW <2; Of
COHCE8-
fRATIONS
«sriqiDE
caim
SATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
• Of
POSITIVE
VEUS
TOTAL #
vSAMPUS ^
# OF
posmvs
SAWPtfS
TEAR/
HCWTft
2
HCt
' « 1 : 1 .
HCL
*
na
<
MCL
(Trifluralin)
sussfx
1988/7*8
6
0
0
6
0
0
WA*RE#
1988/7-8
8
0
0
8
0
0
TOTAL DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
89
0
0
89
0
0
GRAND TOTAL
DISCRETE
wells/samples
243
11
a
268
13
552 ||
» No NCL or Lifetime HA available.
tr * trace
* One of the tests for alachlor was qualitative only, no concentrations Mere reported, all
listed in this table as less than the HCl.
NOTE; Data from Louis and Vowinkel (1989) is provisional data, subject to change.
2-NJ-34
-------
STATE OF NOJ JESSEY
UELLS BY COUNTY
TYPES Of VELtS
SCUSCf Of
COKTAMEMAttOH
<»IU*KR OF VEILS*
CRIKKHtC UAJii
MOKITORiHC
other
TOTAi
smo
£
m
<
na
TOTAL
SHPLD
jt
HQ.
<
mi
TOTAL
SWUJ
»
• mi
<
wx
*FU*
Atlantic
2
0
0
0
0
0
12
2
7
9
0
0
Burlington
3
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
1
2
0
0
Cimbertsnd
25
1
0
0
0
0
13
1
6
8
0
0
Claucftster
3
0
1
0
a
0
4
0
4
5
0
0
flutter don
10
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
H«rcw
26
0
3
0
0
0
s
1
1
5
0
0
Middlesex
61
1
7
0
0
0
15
0
3
11
0
0
Moraouth
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HorHfc
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Satert?
28
2
2
0
0
0
9
2
3
9
0
0
Somerset
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
Sussex
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Warren
8
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
TOTAL
176
4
19
0
0
0
67
7
25
55
0
0
NFU * Known or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS - Known or Suspected Point Source
UNK » Unknown
2-NJ-35
-------
Weil Sampling by County
(Total Number of Wells with Pesticide Detections / Total Number of Wells Sampled)
:b'/6:
0/4
0/4
;0/S:
>1/7:
'A/A
i/S
o/i
¦¦0/2
0/3:
,<)/5
0/3
0/5:
0/1
:0/i
0/1
0/8.
:Q/6:
£/ii
Total if ells Sampled
per County
u > 1000
S3 501 to 1000
K2 101 to 500
JZ2 51 to 100
fr'ff'ra a ^ T—flt
E53 1 t o 50
~ No wells sampled
Carbaryl
1, 2-D
1, 3-D
2,4-D
3—CH Carbofuran
Alachlor
Aldicarb
Aldicarb Sulfone
Aldicarb Sulfoxide
Aldicarb, Total
Atrazine
Carbofuran
Cyanazme
Endosulfan Sulfate
Methiocarb
Methomyl
Metolachlor
Naphthol
Oxamyl
Propoxur
Simazme
2-NY-l
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
NEW YORK
OVERVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
REGARDING PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Public awareness of general organic chemical [including pesticide] contamination in the
environment has greatly increased throughout the country in the last decade. Because of
the potential for serious, long-term health effects, this problem has led to a high level of
concern by public health officials. The need for development of standards and/or guidelines
to be used in the surveillance and regulatory control of organic chemical contamination of
the State's drinking water has been recognized by the New York State Department of
Health. A Department report Organic Chemicals and Drinking Water prepared by Dr.
Nancy Kim and Daniel Stone, P.E. addressed the need to provide a rational basis for
developing a regulatory posture to control the level of synthetic organic chemical in the
State's drinking water. (Slade, K. 1987).
REPORTED STUDIES OF PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
Water Resources Institute Center for Environmental Research (1988) Assessment of Pesticides
in Upstate New York Groundwater-Completion Report and Appendix Three: Summary of
Information for Sampled Sites. Water Resources Institute, Cornell University (607-255-
7535), Ithaca, New York.
Primary Objective
This sampling survey was designed to assess the potential for regional ground water
contamination by testing shallow supplies immediately adjacent to treated areas with shallow
ground water and permeable soils. The results of limited sampling in these vulnerable areas
were designed to provide the basis for judging the potential for widespread contamination
in Upstate aquifers and to provide the type of information needed to design a ground-water
protection strategy.
Design
The survey examined a limited number of sites to gain insights about likely concentrations
of leached pesticides immediately beneath, adjacent to and near treated areas. It
concentrated on sites judged to be most vulnerable, particularly because of soil and subsoil
textures.
2-NY-3
-------
Criteria for choice of sampling sites;
Soil Properties-sandy soils low in organic matter, overlain with coarse textured soils; those
classified as being in hydrologic groups A and B, using the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation
Service's system of describing internal soil drainage.
Ground Water Occurrence
-in an identified primary or potential principal aquifer;
-depth to ground water would generally be less than 20 ft, below the land surface;
-within, immediately adjacent to, or topographically downgradient from treated
agricultural areas.
Seventy-three ground-water sources were sampled at twenty-nine sites in nineteen counties.
These included nineteen monitoring wells, thirty-eight existing wells, fourteen temporary
piezometers and two tile drains.
Interviews with farm operators and field inspections provided information about individual
plots of land, cropping and pesticides use histories and likely patterns of ground-water flow,
based on topography. Crops planted near chosen sites are; corn, wheat, dry beans, carrots,
cabbage, potatoes, grapes, oats, hay, and alfalfa.
One hundred and forty-eight samples were collected. Of these, one hundred and eleven were
tested for pesticides and nitrate-nitrite/nitrogen, eighteen were tested only for pesticide
residues and nineteen were tested for nitrate-nitrite/nitrogen only.
The eight pesticides tested for are:
Pesticide Limit of quantitation for
Samples were collected throughout the project by first purging the well or piezometer and
then using a stainless steel bailer to collect the sample. Samples to be analyzed for
pesticides were then transported on ice to cold storage. Pesticide samples were extracted,
either using organic solvents or a solid-phase process, and analyzed by one of the two
project laboratories-the New York State College of Veterinary Medicine, and the New
York State Agricultural Experiment Station at Geneva.
laboratory analyses
Alachlor
Atrazine
Carbaryl
1 ppb
1 ppb
10 ppb
5 ppb
1 ppb
1 ppb
1 ppb
1 ppb
Carbofuran
3-OH carbofuran
Cyanazine
Metolachlor
Simazine
2-NY-4
-------
The extraction and subsequent analysis was not done using an approved U.S.E.P.A. method.
However, it allowed for efficient isolation and stabilization of the pesticides under study,
which was important given laboratory scheduling constraints. Quality control work
performed throughout the project suggest that the methods used were reliable and accurate.
To ensure that the project produced reliable results, many quality control procedures and
checks were built into the sampling design. This included repetitive and confirmatory
sampling ground water to allow for temporal variation in pesticide concentrations in the
event of leaching.
Results and Conclusions
J. .rr'TV YY"T*
Of the 129 ground-water samples analyzed for pesticides, 21 were reported to contain
residues. Of the 21 reported detections, one sample contained residues of three pesticides,
four contained residues of two pesticides, and the remaining 16 samples contained residues
of one pesticide.
Twenty-one of the detections must be qualified according to laboratory and field quality
assessments. Not all of these detections could be attributed to leaching. Fifteen of the 21
may be the result of adulterated samples, either because of influence in the field or during
sample processing and analyses.
Field investigations at two sites suggested that single detections at three sampling points
were contaminated by pesticide solutions that ran in to ground water, [i.e. point source
contamination by carbofuran and atrazinej. Ten detections of alachlor must be qualified
with analytic quality assessment results that revealed detections of alachlor in concentrations
of one ppb in submissions of blank samples of distilled, deionized water. These are
significant because the detections in ground water samples were in the same range.
Seven early detections of 3-hydroxy carbofuran may have been due to labelling ink
contamination-including three that appeared to be in concentrations over ambient water
quality standards. All samples reported to contain these residues before a change in sample
processing must be regarded as potentially spurious.
Significance of Detections
The survey must be considered incomplete with respect to alachlor, primarily because the
high number of low parts per billion detections cannot definitively be attributed to either
suspect laboratory or sample processing procedures or to actual concentrations of alachlor
residues in the samples. The same observations must be applied to carbofuran residues
detected early in the sampling survey.
2-NY-5
-------
The sampling program conducted as the basis for this report is far from being a complete
assessment of pesticides in ground water in Upstate New York. Because of the small suite
of pesticides which served as the focus of this study, the limited number of samples and
difficulties encountered in analytic work, the information cannot be taken as being
representative of all pesticides used in Upstate New York.
The four types of sampling points offered some spatial and temporal basis for evaluating the
likely concentrations of leaching pesticides, though no single site offered all three spatial
perspectives and only monitoring well sampling offered a minimal temporal perspective.
Because of these constraints, the data cannot support reliable predictions about the
frequency and expected concentrations at different distances from treated areas. The few
combinations of hydrogeologic settings and soil types cannot represent all of Upstate New
York.
The results suggest that contamination of Upstate New York ground water from areas
treated with the seven studied pesticides is not likely to be a widespread problem, based on
current standards and health advisories. Despite having selected sampling sites in
vulnerable areas and having sampled shallow ground water beneath or very close to treated
areas, there were few detections and reliable detections were in low concentrations.
Because similar results from repetitive sampling create confidence in the overall results,
those which must be considered most informative in this study are the repeated
nondetections of the five most reported used chemicals, despite the fact that every effort was
made to select sampling environments where leaching seemed likely. The non-detections
were repeatedly confirmed by resampling, especially for the monitoring wells.
The low concentrations noted in this and other surveys suggest that extensive downgradient
contamination from residues transported with ground-water flow may be less a concern than
localized, low level contamination near treated areas.
Slade, Kenneth E. (1984-1985) (1985-1986) (1986-1987) Report(s) of Statewide Surveillance
of Organic Compounds in Selected Community Water Systems, New York State. New York
State Department of Health (518-458-6742), Albany, New York, 12237.
During 1985, 1986 and 1987 the New York Bureau of Public Water Supply Protection
conducted three surveys to determine the occurrence of organic chemical contamination at
selected community water systems in the state. Although this survey focused primarily on
the detection of purgeable halocarbons and purgeable aromatics, the occurrence of
herbicides and pesticides at a limited number of locations was also studied. A total of 142
ground-water systems was tested for up to 35 pesticides.
2-NY-6
-------
Purpose of the study:
1) to define the extent of organic chemical contamination of community water systems in
New York State,
2) to sample community water systems in New York State having a potential for organic
chemical contamination,
3) to provide data for future standard setting.
Study design:
Only community water systems were selected for this survey. Actual sample locations were
selected by Health Department field staff as those which were, in their opinion, most
vulnerable to organic contamination. This resulted in selection of sources of supply that
were located near a landfill, toxic substance industry, pesticide distributor or agricultural
area; from areas with complaints about chemical or petroleum tastes and odors; or subject
to other types of indicators of potential organic contamination. Overall, site selection
resulted in a statewide distribution of system types and ranges of population served.
Each sample consisted of four (4) one-quart mason jars filled to overflowing and capped
with a teflon liner and screw top ring so that no air space existed. Samples were iced in
transit to the laboratory and refrigerated upon arrival. Extraction for the herbicide portion
of the analysis was started within seven days and for the pesticides portion within 14 days
of the collection time. Samples were analyzed in the Laboratory for Organic Analytical
Chemistry of the WCL&R in the New York State Department of Health. Criteria were
established for follow-up sampling at those sites showing organic chemical contamination.
Compounds Analyzed for (by groups):
Group I
Analytic Testing Methods: Herbicides, DES 310-3; Insecticides, DES 310-4
Analyte
Detection A
Detection
Detection
Limit
Limit
Limit
1984-1985
1985-1986
1986-1987
2,4-D
0.5 ug/1
0.7 ug/1
0.7 ug/1
2,4,5-TP
0.1
0.5
0.14
Endrin
0.02
0.2
0.03
Lindane
0.04
0.4
0.06
Methoxychlor 1
1.4
1.4
Toxaphene
1
1.4
1.4
2-NY-7
-------
Group II
Analytic Testing Method: DES 31-23
Analvte
Atrazine
AJachlor
Azinphos-Methyl
Butylate
Chlorpyrifos
Cyanazine
Diazinon
EPTC
Isofenphos
Malathion
Metolachlor
Trifluralin
Detection
Uirni
1984-1985
lug/1
1
NT (Not Tested)
1
NT
1
NT
1
NT
NT
1
NT
Detection
Limit
1 ug/l
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Detection
Limit
1986-1987
2 ug/l
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Group III
Analytic Detection Method: DES 310-2
Anjilytg
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDD-Para,Para
DDE-Para,Para
DDT-Para,Para
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan
Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin
Aldehyde
HCH, Alpha (BHC)
HCH, Beta (BHC)
Detection
Limit
1984-1985
0,5 ug/l
0,1
0.02
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.04
Detection
Limit
1985-1986
0.7 ug/l
0.5
0.2
1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.6
02
0.6
0.4
0.4
Detection
Limit
1986-1987
0.7 ug/l
0.14
2
10
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2
5
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.2
4
4
2-NY-8
-------
(1984-1985) (1985-1986) (1986-1987)
HCH, Gamma 0.04
(lindane)
0.4
4
HCH, Delta (BHC) 0.04
Heptachlor 0.05
Heptachlor 0.05
0.4
0.6
0.6
4
5
5
Epoxide
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Toxaphene
1
1
10
NT
10
10
05
10
aNOTE: Detection limits may vary between samples for each analyte. The value shown
is the highest detection limit reported. If the value shown is 0.04, some samples may have
a detection limit of 0.03, 0.02, etc., but never higher than 0.04 for that analyte.
Discussion of results:
1984-1985: In community water systems using ground water as the sole water source five
systems were found to have detectable pesticide residues, none of which had detections
above the MCL. Endosulfan sulfate was detected in four of the systems with concentrations
ranging from <0.05 to 0.14 ug/1. The pesticide 2,4-D was detected in two ground-water
systems, ranging in concentration from <0.5 to 0.56 ug/1. The frequency of detections in
both ground water and surface water systems was greater than expected but at very low
levels of contamination.
1985-1986: In community water systems using ground water as the sole water source only
one system had detectable pesticides. Alachlor was found at a concentration of
0.8 ug/1. The frequency of detections in both ground water and surface water systems was
about as expected but at very low levels of contamination.
1986-1987: No pesticides were detected in any ground or surface water system tested.
2-NY-9
-------
Neubeck, William S. (1986) Groundwater Contamination at Eagle Bridge, New York New
York State Department of Law (518-474-7233), Environmental Protection Bureau, Albany,
New York, 12224.
Purpose of Study
Site investigation pursuant to hazardous waste litigation.
Location
Eagle Bridge is located close to the eastern border of New York State (Rensselaer Co.)
near the southwest corner of Vermont (42° 56' 58" N, 73° 23' 42"W). The village is located
on a terrace on the south side of the Hoosic River and is underlain by approximately 20 feet
of unconsolidated sand and gravel.
The water table fluctuates around the top of bedrock, or about 20 feet below the surface.
The aquifer is unconfined. Bedrock has essentially no primary porosity and ground water
is confined to vertical and horizontal fractures that become fewer and tighter with depth.
Ground-water flow is generally to the north from the higher elevations in the south toward
the Hoosic River.
Contamination History
Ground water beneath Eagle Bridge is contaminated with, primarily, two pesticides:
atrazine and alachlor. The contamination was not the result of field application although
many local fields receive them. In the case of the village, the contamination resulted from
the disposal of pesticide residues and wash water to the surface soils in a limited area.
Analytical Data
Two sets of data are included with this report. The first contains early data indicating the
relative extent of contamination around 1980. At that time, alachlor was not being tested
for due to lack of analytical methods.
The second set of data includes 1985 quarterly sampling results for atrazine and alachlor.
All samples and State splits were taken from household taps following adequate purging of
the systems.
All samples were collected under strict chain of custody. Samples were collected in glass
and transported to the laboratory on the day of collection in a 4° C cooler. Samples were
solvent extracted and concentrated within 7 days. The extract was examined by gas
chromatography using a nitrogen-phosphorus detector. This method was used for the 1985
analyses by both the Agway lab and the New York State Department of Health.
2-NY-10
-------
Detection limits: Agway lab: 0.01 ug/1.
NYS Department of Health: 1 ug/1.
QA/QC information: Spikes and duplicates were used to determine percent recovery; the
results were variable but generally good.
HssvHs
Most of the wells tested in this study had positive results for atrazine and alachlor. The
results varied from near the detection limit to over hundreds of times the allowed MCL for
drinking water. Older, more highly contaminated wells were replaced in many instances by
newer, deeper wells which generally had lower levels of contamination but often were still
positive.
Moron, Dennis (1991) Pesticide Monitoring in Suffolk County, New York. Department of
Health Services, Bureau of Drinking Water (516-348-2776), Hauppauge, New York 11788.
Aldicarb was widely used on Long Island, New York between 1976 and 1979 to control
insects on potato crops. In 1979, significant aldicarb residues were detected in ground water
and the product was removed from the local market. A subsequent survey sampled over
8,000 area wells, of which over 2,000 were found to contain detectable residues of aldicarb.
More than 1,000 wells also exceeded the New York State health guidelines of 7 ppb.
Between 1980 and 1985, nearly 25,000 drinking water samples were collected and analyzed;
7,880 (31%) of which contained aldicarb residues. Of these, 4,100 (16%) samples exceeded
the state guideline, and 223 samples (0.9%) contained more that 100 ppb (ten times the
previous federal MCL).
Early assessments by the registrant predicted that aldicarb levels in ground water would
drop below the N.Y. State Health guidelines (7 ppb) as early as 1987. For most wells, this
has not been the case; it has remained in the aquifers of northern climates many years
longer than anticipated. Data reviewed by the State of New York for sampling between
1982 and 1987 found no significant degradation of aldicarb in ground water. Large numbers
of drinking water wells in Suffolk County still exceed the previous federal MCL of 10 ppb.
Continuous monitoring for aldicarb residues is expected to be necessary in Suffolk County
for many years.
The monitoring data for aldicarb on Long Island, New York is the most comprehensive set
of data for any pesticide in the United States. The Suffolk County Department of Health
has provided OPP with the results of all monitoring information on magnetic tape. Besides
aldicarb itself, the Department of Health has analyzed for aldicarb sulfoxide, aldicarb
sulfone, total aldicarb, carbofuran, hydroxycarbofuran, oxyamyl, carbaryl, methomyl,
naphthol, propoxur, and methiocarb.
2-NY-ll
-------
Loria, K, Eplee, R.E., Baier, J.H., and Martin, T.M. (1986) Efficacy of Sweep-Shank
Fumigation with 1,3-Dichloropropene Against Pmtylenchus penetrans and Subsequent
Groundwater Contamination. Department of Plant Pathology, Cornell University, Ithaca,
NY 14853, (607)255-7831.
Abstract
Populations of Pratylenchus penetrans in plots treated with a 92% solution of 1,2-
dichloropropene (1,3-D) at 47, 70, 94, 117, or 140 L/ha of formulated material increased
less than in control plots when this fumigant was injected under an untilled winter cover
crop with a sweep-shank injector, linear regressions of posttreatment P. penetrans
populations or population changes against 1,3-D rates were significant (P< =0.01) at one of
two locations. Fumigation at 140 but not 94 L/ha resulted in contamination of ground
water by cis and trans 1,3-dichloropropene within 68 days of application. Water samples
taken 83 days after fumigation also contained 1,2-dichloropropane (1,2-D). Peak
concentrations of these chlorinated hydrocarbons in ground water occurred 83 days after
fumigation. Abnormally heavy rainfall (11 cm) that occurred within 6 days of fumigant
application probably reduced fumigant efficacy and enhanced pesticide leaching.
Design
Both plots were fumigated on 6 April 1983. Four wells were installed on the periphery of
the field at each location: one upstream to monitor incoming ground water and three
downstream of the anticipated flow of ground water from the treated fields. On each
sampling date, wells were pumped for 30 min. before water samples were collected. The
samples were immediately stored at 0°C and analyzed within 30 hours of collection. The
protocol suggested by the EPA for purgeable hydrocarbon analysis (Method 601, Federal
Register, Vol. 44, No. 233.3 December 1979) was followed to determine concentrations of
cis and trans 1,3-D and 1,2-D, an impurity in the Telone II formulation.
Results and Discussion
Neither 1,3-D nor 1,2-D was found in pretreatment water samples or in upstream wells at
either location. Levels of these materials in all water samples taken after fumigation with
1,3-D at 94 L/ha were also below the detection threshold of 2 ppb. However, both 1,3-D
and 1,2-D were found in ground water after fumigation with 1,3-D at 140 L/ha. Both cis
and trans 1,3-D appeared in one downstream well 68 days after fumigation. The
concentrations of these stereoisomers peaked at 83 days and were still found in ground
water samples 138 days after fumigation. Water samples taken from the same downstream
well 83, 104, 138, and 188 days after fumigation also contained 1,2-D. Rainfall immediately
after fumigation was unseasonably high; 10.6 and 18.5 cm of precipitation occurred within
5 and 12 days, respectively, of 1,3-D application. A total of 32.1 cm of rain fell after
fumigation and before the pesticide was first detected in samples of ground water in wells
on the peripheries of treated fields.
2-NY-12
-------
Though leaching of 1,3-D was demonstrated only under conditions that were very favorable
for movement through the soil, these data show that the potential for ground water
contamination by 13-D exists.
Kotcon, J.B. and Loria, R. (1987) Fall Fumigation of Potato with 1,3-Dichloropropene:
Efficacy Against Pmtylenchw crenatus, Yield Response, and Groundwater Contamination
Potential. Department of Plant Pathology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, (607) 255-
7831.
Plots in two commercial potato fields infested with Pratylenchus crenatus were fumigated in
September 1984 with 94% 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) at 0, 94, 117, or 140 L or formulated
material per hectare. Population densities of P. crenatus 2 weeks after fumigation were
reduced by all rates of 1,3-D at both locations, and up to 96% control was obtained with 140
L/ha. In a separate experiment, plots in fields with shallow water tables (<4 m), were
fumigated with 1,3-D (94 or 140 L/ha). Ground-water samples were taken from wells
adjacent to fields and analyzed for 1,3-D and related hydrocarbons 1 day before, 1 week
after, and at about 3-week intervals for 1 year after fumigation. No detectable levels (>2
ppb) of 1,3-D or related hydrocarbons were found in ground water samples after fumigation
at either 94 or 140 L/ha. About 0.6 cm of rain fell during the first 17 days after fumigation,
and a total of 89.7 cm fell during the sampling period. Relatively low levels of precipitation
immediately after fumigation may have reduced the potential for ground water
contamination by 1,3-D and related hydrocarbons.
2-NY-13
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE Of HEW YORK
1,2-Dichloropropane to Butylate
WELL SE5ULTS ,
SAMPLE *ESW,T3
RAKCE OF
CCWCEH-
IfiAllWS
i»g/i i
PESmiftE
COUrfTV
DATE
TOTAt
WELLS
SAMPLED
#0f
POSITIVE
WELLS
total #
OF
SAMPLES*
KUKBE* Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
<
TEAft/
*0»T8
t
#Cl
<
*Cl
-
t
ncu
«
«cl
: .
CfcMoro-
proper*
SUF tQLK
1985/
4-11
8
1
0
35
4
0
5-10
>
1984/
9-12
9
0
0
54
0
0
1985/
1-9
9
0
0
117
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
17
1
0
206
4
0
5-10
2,4-0
AlMtir
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
au.ec a# r
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
8R00ME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1985/9
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1985/7
1987/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CHEMUNG
1985/5
1986/
6&8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CUHTOM
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
C0RTIAX&
1985/9
1986/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
pftAWAR£
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTWIESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERIE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
GENESEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
GREENE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
JEFfERSON
1985/10
2
0
0
2
0
0
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
rtlWtNSSTOHr-;;
, ___ _ 2-NY-15
Preceding page blank
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF IBi YORK
1,2-D(chloropropane to Butylate
Mil RESULTS
SAKPIE RESULTS
RARCE OF
CONCEH-
TfiATfOMS
0
pestjcsos
counn
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLES
M Of
POSITIVE
WEllS
total «
OF
SAMPLES
«UH8£S Of
POSITIVE
¦SAMPLES
TEAR/
HOTtB
2
HCL
<
net
t.
Jttl
<
mi
C2.4-D)
noma*
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
MONTGOMERY
7/1985
8/1987
2
0
0
2
0
0
VJACARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
0*£1DA
1985/9
1987/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
CKCWOAGA
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
tm«io
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORAKGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
osyrco
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
OTSfOO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
WT»jM)
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
XEMSSEIAER
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ROCKtAW
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
steuws .
1985/8
1986/
6,8
3
0
0
3
0
0
ST.
UUREKte
1985/10
1987/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
SUF FOLIC
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUlLlWff
19B7/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
JJtSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASMSWCTOK
1985/9
4
0
1
4
0
1
0.56
WAYNE
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
1
6
0
1
0.5
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
2-NY-16
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATS Of ICU YORJC
1,2-Dichloropropir* to Butylate
UEU RESULTS
SAJWIE SSE.StA.TS
RANGE OF
CCKCEtt-
TRATIOHS
f«?/l>
kstjcjm
COJHTY
PAIS
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLES
# Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
total #
OF
SAMPLES
Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAS/
mmn
2
«
*a
t
#a
«
MCI
(2,4-D)
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
I SAMPLES
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
139
0
2
139
0
2
0.5-0.56
5-TP
(SilvwO
K9mt
1985/6
1987/8
5
a
0
5
a
0
ALLECAk'T
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BROOME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAtQU
1985/9
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CKAUTAU9UA
1985/7
1987/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CHEHUKC
1985/8
1986/
6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CLI»T<»
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTiAHt>
1985/9
1986/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
deuuase
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
CWTCJfiSS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERIE"
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
CENPSEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
GREENE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
JEFfERSON
1985/10
2
0
a
2
0
0
LtVlHSSTO*
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
MONROE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
HONTGOMERr
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
2-NY-17
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPUN6 IH THE STATE OF KM TCWC
1,2-Diehloropropir* to Butylatc
UEU RESULTS
' SAWL£ RESULTS
RARGE OF
COHCEK-
TRATtWS
Otg/u
PESTICIM
COUNT*
date.
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
f Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
total «
OF
SAMPLES
WJM3E* O#
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
Veto/
mrr*
St '
KC U
<
#CL
t
*CL
HO.
(2,4,5-
TP)
| OHSiM
1985/9
1987/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
ohohmsa
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
Qt.rms
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORABSE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OSWEGO
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
OTSEfiO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PUTKAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
RENSSELAE*
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ROOtlAHD
1987/10
4
0
0
4
O
0
SCHOHARIE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STEUBEH
1985/8
1986/
6,8
3
0
0
3
0
0
$T.
LAWRESCE
1985/10
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
Stilt1VAX
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ulster
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHINGTON
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
UATNE
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
UYOHiSC
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
139
0
0
139
0
0
2-NY-18
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IM THE STATE Of NEU YORK
1,2-Dichloropropane to Butylate
UEU RESUITS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
COfCEK-
1*A7JO#*
UVfU
ptsricias
COJtffY
0AT£
tOTAS.
veils
SMILED
f Of
posnivE
WEILS
TOTAL #
OF
SAMPLES
KUMfiE* Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
ysa«/
: MOMTH
e
m.
<
MCI
t
hcl
<
MCI
Aiactitor -
aibasy
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
Au.ec/wr -
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
9R00HE
*¦986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/
7,10
1987/4
4
0
0*
5
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1986/9
1987/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CHEMUtiC
1985/8
1986/
6-9
1987/
2,4,6
11
0
0*
17
0
0
CHEHAUGO
1986/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
CLIKTON
1985/8
1986/10
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
CORIUlW
1985/9
1986/1,
5,7,8,
10
1987/
2,4
10
0
0A
22
0
0
DELAWARE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERIE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
FRAHKUK
1986/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
FUtTOH
1987/
2,4
3
0
0
4
0
0
CEfESEE
1986/5,
6,9
1987/2,
4,7
a
0
0
21
0
0
GREENE
1986/7
i
0
0
1
0
0
2-NY-19
-------
PESTICIDE SAMHJNC IN THE STATE OF HEU YORK
1,2-Dichloropropane to Butylate
- .
WE It SKULTS
SWU HE3W.TS
RAHGE OF
COHCE#-
TRATIWS
OtS/O
ptsnci&c
CCUtfTV
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
i Of
POSITIVE
WEILS
TOTAL *
OF
SAMPLES
NUMBEft Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
/
TEAR/
Hons
z
net
«
«L
t
act
<
net
chlor)
JfffERSOK
1985/10
1987/6
3
0
0
i
0
•
UVTKOSTQH
1985/7
1987/2
1986/9
5
0
0
6
0
0
MADISON
1986/
4,10
4
0
0*
6
0
0
K0BR06
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
MONTGOMERY
1985/7
19B7/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/4
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONE1&A
1985/9
1987/4
7
0
0
7
0
0
QHOXDAGA
1985/10
1986 /9
1987/2
4
0
0
5
0
0
OK7MUO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORANCE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OSWCGO
1985/10
1986/6
1987/
2,4
7
0
0
12
0
0
OTsteo
1985/8
1986/
7,10
1987/
2,8
13
0
0*
15
0
0
PUT WW
9/1987
5
0
0
5
0
0
REXSSEIAE*
1985/3,
6,9,12
1986/7
1987/8
29
7
8
58
11B
31
0.04-16
SQCIOAW
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHASTE
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
SENECA
1986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
STEVEN
1985/8
1986/
6,8
1987/
2,4
6
0
0
17
0
0
2-NY-20
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IM THE STATE OF « YORK
1,2-Dichloroproparve to Butylat*
UEU SfSULTS ¦
SAKPLfi HESUiTS
RAKGE OF
CONCEN-
IJiATlOKS
ptsriciat
COUMTV
DATE.
TOTAL
WELLS
SAHPLS)
f Of
POSITIVE
VEILS
TOTAL *
OF
SAMPLES
K0H8ER Of
KBITIYE
SAMPLES-
¦
TEAS/
X0HT8
2
#CL
<
*Cl
t
net
KCl
(Ate-
cMor)
sr.
UyKIKF
1985/10
1967/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
SUFFOLK - -
1966/9
3
0
1
3
0
1
O.B
SUJ.UVAK
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
tioga:
1987/2
6
0
0
6
0
0
utsre*
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASH fltC row
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
UAYKE
1985/7
1986/
9,10
1987/2,
4,6
8
0
0
12
0
0
uestcHtsrts
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WTOMKfi
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
214
7
9
311
11
32
0.04-16
Aldicarb
su«ou '
1980
8121
1534
718
8595
1615
752
0,20-
515.00
1981
644
314
134
680
333
140
0.20-
161.00
1982
2793
0
6
2906
0
6
1.00-
2.00
1983
4341
2
5
4667
2
5
0.08-
45.00
1984
3696
15
1
3989
15
1
0.08-
62.00
1985
3783
28
2
4240
30
2
2.00-
57.00
1986
2743
7
0
3804
8
0
3.00-
27.00
''
1987
4590
17
0
7083
30
0
8.00-
47.00
1988
3411
2
3
4611
2
3
1.00-
16.00
1989
3165
9
0
4278
9
0
8.00-
47.00
2-NY-21
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING II THE STATE OF HEU YORK
1,2-Oichloropropar* to Butylate
UEIL RESULTS
SAW IE RESULTS
RAHW Of
€<*«*•
tSAtlOKS
(#«/*>
p£$r«ci«
CCUKT*
PATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
* Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
tOTAL #
OF
SAMPLES
HUKBEft Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
ye as/
mohts
2
kcl
<
*Cl
t
MCL
<
net
(Aldi-
carb)
1990
3081
9
10
4100
9
10
1.00-
66.00
1991
43
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
20955
1723
731
49022
2053
919
0.08-
515.00
Aldicerb
sutfone
SUPfQLK
1980
8121
0
0
8595
0
0
1981
644
2
1
680
2
1
1.00-
91.00
1982
2793
517
70
2906
540
72
1.00-
124.00
1983
4341
1105
157
4667
1196
174
0.01-
153.00
1984
3696
903
139
3989
987
149
0.01-
81.00
1985
3783
1347
153
4240
1462
169
0.01-
97.00
1986
2743
1031
121
3804
1327
176
0.01-
70.00
1987
4590
1572
186
7083
2250
324
0.07-
97.00
1988
3411
1161
134
4611
1393
208
1.00-
58.00
1989
3165
1021
129
4278
1236
177
1.00-
51.00
1990
3081
1029
138
4100
1184
199
1.00-
58.00
1991
43
18
2
60
19
4
1.00-
8.00
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
20955
4529
440
49022
11399
1653
0.01-
153.00
2-NY-22
-------
PESTICIDE SAWLIHfi IH THE STATE Of HEW YORK
1,2-Dichloropropane to Butylate
UEU SESULTS. . .
SAWLE RESULTS
ftAKGE OF
COHCEK-
TjWTJOM
(*«/t>
tCVKll
PATE
TOTAt
WCLLS
SAMPLEE
* Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL f
OF
SAMPLES
tttMBi* Of
POSITIVE
SAHPIES
W«/
MOKTM
• KCl.: "
c
MCI
KCl;
<
m
Aldtcarb
sulfoxide
StfFfOtK
1980
8121
0
0
8595
0
0
1981
644
2
0
680
2
0
11.00-
84.00
1982
2793
378
199
2906
394
207
0.11-
266.00
1963
4341
817
474
4667
868
540
0.02-
132.00
1986
3696
649
405
3989
690
459
0.01-
87.00
1985
3783
941
536
4240
989
615
0.01- •
107.00
1986
2743
748
431
5804
902
648
0.03-
83.00
1987
4590
1092
642
7083
1513
1032
0.01-
75.00
1988
3411
765
505
4611
876
688
1.00-
69.00
1989
3165
625
490
4278
723
645
1.00-
86.00
1990
3081
601
549
4100
670
6865
1.00-
65.00
1991
43
12
8
60
12
10
1.00-
9.00
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
20955
3414
1505
49022
7640
5533
0.01-
266.00
*lriiearb,c
-total.
1980
8121
1534
718
8595
1615
752
0.20-
515.00
1981
644
316
135
680
335
141
0.20-
175.00
19B2
2793
532
87
2906
555
90
1.00-
283.00
1983
4341
1174
174
4667
1277
191
0.01-
268.00
1984
3696
962
158
3989
1048
170
0.01-
167.00
ms
3783
1390
193
4240
1508
216
0.01-
181.00
2-NY-23
-------
PESTICIDE SAWLIHC li THE STATE Of IEU TORT
1,2-Dfehloropropane to Butylat*
«ll SE6ULTS
SES&TS
RARCE OF
GONCEN
t«ATIO«S
0
-------
PESTICIDE SMPltNG III THE STATE OF NEW YORK
1,2-Dichtoropropane to Butyl«te
UEU 8ESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAftGE Of
COMCEIf-
t*attons
iw/t >
P£ST!C!0C
COUNTY
om
T0T«.
WELLS
SAMPLED
# Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
OF
SAMPLES
KUKdtt Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YEAR/
honth ,
2
HCt
<
feCL
8
«L
<
*CL
(Aldrln)
kcnrqe
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
MONTGOMERY
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OKTARIQ
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORANGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PUT HAH
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
REHSSEIAEK
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ROCKLAND
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STEW8EH
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST.
LAWRENCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
3
0
0
StiLliVAH
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
VtASKlWCIOK
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
MAYBE
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WQHttfG
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WEILS/
SAMPLES
122
0
0
119
0
0
Atrsziw
ALBANY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALIEGAUY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
''BROOME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
2-NY-25
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEW YOtX
1,2-Dichloropropene to Butylate
UtLL RESULTS
SANPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
COtCEK-
T#A7tCW$
(*«/1>
PfUTItl&S
COUNTY
DATE
TOTAL
UE11S
SAMPLED
i or
POSITIVE
WELLS
total $
OF
SAMPLES
wa or
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
re as/
HQKfH
2
MCI
«
wt
t
ttCl
<
MCI
CAtr«-
zf rwe)
CATIASAUWS
1987/4
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/
r, 10
1987/4
4
0
0
5
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1986/9
1987/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CMMUM
1985/8
1986/
6-9
1987/2,
4,6
11
0
0
17
0
0
CHEHANGO
1986/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
tlllROK
1985/8
1986/10
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
CORTiAND
1985/9
1986/1,
5,7,8,
10
1987/
2,4
10
0
0
22
0
0
DELAUASE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUtCKESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
emf .
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
fRAWKLiK
1986/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
FULTO#
1987/
2,4
3
0
0
4
0
0
GENESEE
1986/5,
6,9
1987/2,
4,7
8
0
0
21
0
0
SREENfT
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
JEFFERSON
85/10
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
LIVINGSTON
1985/7
1986/9
1987/2
5
0
0
6
0
0
HADtSON
O
eo
g o
4
0
0
6
0
0
MONROE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
2-NY-26
-------
PESTICIDE SANH.ING li THE STATE OF IEU YORK
1,2-Dichloropropane to Botylate
I
WEIL 8FSUITS
SAWL£ RESULTS
RANSfc OF
CONCEtt*
TSATIOHS
l*g/t>
PESTICIDE
CCUKTV
DATE
tOTAt
WEILS
S*W>LSJ
i Of
POSITIVE
wetis
total'#
OF
SAMPLES
NUMSE* Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAft/
«WTB
2
KCL
<
~JCL '
2:
#CL
<
HCL
(Atra-
ilr*)
HQMTQCM£fir
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OttftM
1985/9
1987/4
6
0
0
6
0
0
WWKOAGA
1985/10
1986/9
1987/2
5
1
0
5
1
0
3
OKWro
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
OftAKSF
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
osweso
1985/10
1986/6
1987/
2,4
9
1
0
14
1
0
4
orsE.$o
1985/8
1986/
7.10
1987/
2,8
13
0
1
15
0
1
1
PUTNAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
RENSSELAER
1979/10
-1987/8
42
16
12
103
36®
47
0.12-
1500
ROCKLANO
1987/10
4
0
0
4
O
0
SCtfWARIE
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
SENEGA
1986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
STEUSEN -
1985/9
1986/
6,10
1987/
2 A
6
0
0
17
0
0
ST.
LAURENCE
1985/10
1987/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SOLI JVAN
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
TTOGA
1987/2
6
0
0
6
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
O
0
'WASHINGTON
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
2-NY-27
-------
PESTICIDE SAWL1KG I* THE STATE Of MEV YORK
1,2-Dichloropropane to Butylite
I
UEU RESULTS
SAMPLE RES&tS
RANGE OF
C0NC£N>
tHATIWS
U«/i>
ffcSTICiDE
county -
t>ATE
lOTAt
VCUS
SAftPLEO
* Of
wsitive
WELLS
10TAL f
OF
SAMPLES
mjHBUt Of
POSITIVE
3AKPLES
tSA*/
MOTh
E
MCL
<
feci
fc
MCL
<
mi
-------
PESTICIDE SAM>LIN£ IH THE STATE OF KBJ TOR*
1,2-Dichloropropaoe to Butylate
iff It RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAKGE OF
CONCEK-
TftAtlWS
(nam :
P£$TJtlW
COUNTY
WT£
TOTAL
WEILS
¦fcAMPLS)
* Of
POSITIVE
WEILS
tOTAL #
OF
SAMPLES
ttCMBEft Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
-
TEAR/
MOUTH
e
HCL
<
KCL
t
MCI
<
*CL
AlBAUT
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALIEGW
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
8ROONE
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUOUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
umm '
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CkAUfAUOJA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CK£KU*C
1985/8
1986/6,
8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
cliktqn
1985/8
1987/8
I
0
0
3
0
0
cosnand
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
DEtw^e
1986/7
5
0
0
5
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERIE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
SENESIE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
2-NY-29
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW VORK
1,2-0ichtoropropane to Butyl ate
WEIL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAKCE OF
COXCES-
IftATiONS
ln<3/i)
M&Tldi*
COUHTY
DATE
total
VEILS
SAMPLED
* Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TflfAL #
Of
SAMPLES
KUMSEJ) Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAS/
*0#T8
t
HCL
<
MCL
t
HCL
<
MCL
(BHC)
fiftEEKf
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
L1V1HGSTO#
1965/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
Mtawoe '
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
MONTGOMERY
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OUTASJO
1965/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORAKBE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
1965/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PUTNAK
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
rensselaer
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ROCRLAliD
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STEWBEN
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST„
lAWREUCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
StfFFOLK ;
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SOIL IVA#
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHINGTON
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
WAYNE
19B5/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WFSTCHESTES
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
UYDHJHS
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
122
0
0
122
0
0
2-NY-30
-------
PESTICIDE SAWL1NG IN THE STATE OF KEU YORK
1,2-Dichloropropane to Butylate
UEIL RESULTS
SAMPLE SESUITS
RAKGE OF
CONCEN*
1SATIOBS
m n>
pesncite
CCUKit
MTE
TOTAi
WEILS
SAMPLED
# Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
total #
OF
SAMPLES
m of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAS/
nofffa
2
HCt
<
*CL
I
#cu
<
MCL
9utyl«x«
mm
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
AUECAST
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
8R00NE
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CArr*HAyc?js
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYtffiA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CRAUTAUOUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CKEWJKC
1985/8
1986/
6-8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CL1KT0W
1985/8
1987/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
CCRTLMI&
1985/9
1986/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
OEUWARf
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERIE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
6EKESEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
GREENE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
vEFfERSOH
1985/10
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
tmNtjsro#
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
KONR0E
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
HCftlTGOHERY
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
UMCARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONEIDA
1985/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONONDAGA -
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
OKTAB 10
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
0RAW5E
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
2-NY-31
-------
PESTICIDE SMCH.IHG It TNE STATE OF IEU YORK
1,2-Diehleropropar* to Butylate
WEIL RESULTS
BAWLE RESULTS
RANGE" OF
COHCEH-
trat sons
(*sm
p&srjciM
DATE
TOTAL
ueiL$
SAMPL8D
# Of
POSITIVE
UEUS
TOTAL f
OF
SAMPLES
KUMB&X Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YE Aft/
*>rfa
S
KCL
<
ttCL
I
mclT
<
' Ml
{8uty-
late)
oswtso -'
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
oisreo -
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
9
0
0
9
0
0
POttAK
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
«EilS$£U£D
1985/3,
6.9
1986/7
1987/B
21
0
0
29
0
0
tectum
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
scaoittati
1985/8
1967/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
STEU8E*
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST.
LAURENCE 1
1985/10
1987/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
SUffto.lt
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SUUIVAH
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
Q
0
9
0
0
WAStMHGTO#
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
UAYKS
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WfQNIHG
7/1985
6/1987
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
| SAMPLES
146
0
0
154
0
0
2-NY-32
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING II THE STATE Of HEW YORK
Carbaryl to Dieldrin
«LL RESULTS
SAMPLE MESt&TS
8AUSE Of
COXCEN- :
TRATfONS
MeStlCIW
cowr
PATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
f Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
OF
SAMPLES
NUMBED OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
tsm/
KG»T*
2
KCL
<
MCL
£
m.
<
MCL
C#r&#ryl' '
CAttJCA
1986/10
1987/4
3
0
0
4
0
0
CHAVrAUOUA
1986/9
2
0
0
2
0
0
CHEMUNG
1986/7,9
1987/2,4
4
0
0
10
0
0
CHEKAHGO
1986/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
CLlNTOS
1986/10
2
0
0
2
0
0
C0RTLA»4>
1986/7,
10
1987/2,4
6
0
0
12
0
0
FfcAmiN
1986/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
FULTO#
1987/2,4
3
0
0
4
0
0
CESESCE
1986/6,9
1987/2,4
7
0
0
17
0
0
imUGSTQU
1986/9
1987/2
2
0
0
3
0
0
HABTSOH
1986/10
1987/4
4
0
0
0
0
ONEIDA
1987/4
6
0
0
6
0
0
0MCMM6A
1986/9
1987/2
3
0
0
4
0
0
OSWEGO
1966/6
1987/2,4
6
0
0
11
0
0
OTSEGO
1986/10
1987/2
4
0
0
6
0
0
SEXECA
1986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
STEUBEB
1986/6,
10
1987/2,4
4
0
0
15
0
0
SUFFOLK
1980
8121
0
0
8595
0
0
1981
644
0
0
680
0
0
1982
2793
0
s
2906
0
5
1.00-
48.00
1983
4341
0
4
4667
0
4
1.00-
3.00
2-NY-33
-------
PESTICIDE SMCH.M& IM THE STATE Of HEU VOBC
Car beryl to Dieldrirt
VEU SESULtS
SAWH.E results
8AHGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
<«JA>
PESTICIDE
ca»Tr
mi
TOT At.
WEILS
SAMPLED
f Of
POSITIVE
UEUS
TOTAL *
OF
SAMPLES
KUN&Eft Of
POSITIVE
SAWLES
«a*/
2
«a
<
fcCL
i
HCt
<
HCL
(CBrbaryl)
1984
3696
0
7
3989
0
7
1.00-
61.00
1985
3783
0
15
4240
0
16
1.00-
46.00
1986
2743
0
8
3804
0
8
0.11-
14.00
1987
4590
0
11
7083
0
13
1.00-
610.00
1988
3411
0
16
4611
0
16
1.00-
21.00
1989
3165
0
8
4278
0
8
1.00-
41.00
1990
3081
0
6
4100
0
8
1.00-
47.00
1991
43
0
0
60
0
0
TIOGA
1987/2
6
0
0
6
0
0
UAWE
1986/10
1987/2,4
2
0
0
6
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAKPLES
21027
0
69
49144
0
85
0.11-
610.00
Carbofurwt
CArUfiA
1986/10
1987/4
3
0
'
1
0
0
ChAUTADOUA
1986/9
2
0
0
2
0
0
CTE«U»iG
1986/7,9
1987/2,4
4
0
1
10
0
1
1
CHEHAMGd
1986/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
CLJKTOK
1986/10
2
0
0
2
0
0
COftTLAHD
1986/1,
5,7,10
1987/2,4
6
0
0
18
0
0
FRA«Ktl«
1986/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
BATON
1987/2,4
3
0
0
4
0
0
GEKESEE
1986/5,
6,9
1987/2,4
7
0
0
20
0
0
2-NY-34
-------
PESTICIDE SWUNG IN THE STATE Of KIf YORK
Carbaryl to Dleldrtn
,
WEU RESULTS
SWPLE KESW.7S
SANK Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
«st jcter
count*
DATE
tOTAS.
WEILS
SAILED
* Of
POSITIVE
WEILS
TOTAl #
Of
SAf&lfS
tWNBE* OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAS/
aorrs
£
*cu
<
K£L
£
Ha
<
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING 1« THE STATE OF Bl YORK
Carbaryl to Di«ldrin
j
-
WELL RESULTS
SAHPLE RESULTS
SA#S£ OF
COHCEN-
TfUTICfflS
| pssnciee
coAtir
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
# Of
POSITIVE
WILLS
TOTAL *
OF
SAMPLES
auMstft of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES -
' TEW!/
KOtfTK
2
HCl
' • u
2
*CX
<
MCL
(Carbo-
furan)
TfOSA
1987/2
6
0
0
6
0
0
WAYNE
1986/10
1987/2,4
2
0
0
6
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
21027
72
3959
49153
&3
9271
0.01-
176.00
5-Hydroxy
Csrfaofui'sn
CAYUGA
1986/10
1987/4
3
0
0
4
0
0
CHAMAUOUA
1986/9
2
0
0
2
0
0
CHEMUNG
1986/7,9
1987/2,4
4
0
1
10
0
1
2
CHE* Mi GO
1986/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
CLiKTOK
1986/10
2
0
0*
2
0
0
CQTFLAKD
1986/1,5
,7,10
1987/2,4
6
0
0
18
0
0
FSANKLW
1986/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
FULTON
1987/2,4
3
0
0
4
0
0
CfltES££
1986/
5,6,9
1987/2,4
7
0
0*
13
0
0
LIVIW1STON
1986/9
1987/2
2
0
0
3
0
0
MA51S0M
1986/10
1987/4
4
0
0
6
0
0
CwEJOA
1987/4
6
0
1
6
0
1
2
OKONDAGA
1986/9
1987/2
3
0
0*
4
0
0
OSWEGO
1987/2,4
6
0
0
8
0
0
OTSEGO
1987/10
1987/2
4
0
0
6
0
0
SENECA
1986/9
3
0
0*
3
0
0
STRJBEH
1986/10
1987/2,4
S
0
1
11
0
1
3
2-NY-36
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE Of NEW YORK
Carbaryl to Dieldriri
WELL RESULTS •
SAHPLE RESULTS
SAMGE Of
COhCEH*
TRAIN**
«STIC*CE
COLWt*1
OAT 6
tot A3.
WELLS
SAMPLED
# Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL $
Of
SAWLES
NUMBER OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAS/
MOHTft
*
act
<
*a
2.
KCt
<
KCL
(3-OH Carbo-
furan)
SWFQUC
1980
8121
0
0
8595
0
0
1981
644
0
0
680
0
0
1962
2793
0
5
2906
0
5
1.00-
6.00
1983
4361
0
1
4667
0
1
1.00
1984
3696
0
4
3989
0
4
1.00
1985
3783
0
4
4240
0
4
1.00-
10.00
1986
2743
0
3
3804
0
3
1.00-
3.00
198?
4590
0
2
7083
0
2
1.00-
2.00
1988
3411
0
6
4611
0
6
1.00-
2.00
1989
3165
0
4
4278
0
4
1.00-
2.00
1990
3081
0
8
4100
0
8
1.00-
8.00
1991
43
0
0
60
0
0
TIOGA
1987/2
6
a
0
6
0
0
UAYHE
1986/10
1987/2,6
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WEILS/
SAMPLES
21028
0
37
49126
0
41
1.00-
10.00
CfUordane
ALBANY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALLEGAWY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BROOME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
"CATTARAUGUS: ¦
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
. CHAUTAUQUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHEHUHC
1985/8
1986/6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
2-NY-37
-------
PESTICIDE SNPLING !¦ THE STATE OF KW TOM
Carbaryl to Dieldrin
VEIL 8FSULU
e*m.e resats
«A«GE Of
CONCEN-
humous
-------
PESTICIDE SMPUIIG IN THE STATE OF KM YQRX
Carbaryl to Dfeldrfn
JESUITS
SAMPLE KESUU5
RANGE Of
COHCES
TftATIONS
•
p«ncic«
COLBirr
DA7£
tOTAl.
wau
sawieo
$ Of
POSITIVE
WEUS
TOTAL M
or
SAMPLES
«wn&e& of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
, TEAK/
~WHTB
t
*Cl
<
HCl
«L
<
Ml
(Chlordane)
wESTCMESTEft
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
VYQKJSG
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
• I
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
1 SAMPLES
122
0
0
122
0
0
Chlw
pyrifos
ALBA OT
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
alugaht
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BROOME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
cjtn«i*ittus
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUfiA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHAU1AU0UA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHEKLWG
1986/6,8
1987/6
4
0
0
4
0
0
CLIHtOH
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTLAND
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
OELAUAftE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
GtKEStE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
GREENE -
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
¦JEFFERSON
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MONTGOMERY
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
WlAGAUA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONTARIO
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
OKAKGt
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
KftNAM
1987/9
5
0
0
S
0
0
KOCKUB3
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
19B7/B
1
0
0
1
0
0
ST.
LAWREJiCt
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
2-NY-39
-------
resticioc sm«>liw: ih the state of m vonc
Carbaryl to Ditldrin
well sesuirs
SAKPLE RESUUS
fiA*G£ Of :
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
pssncioe
COUNtf
DATE
tOTAl
WEUS
SAMPLE!)
f Of
POSITIVE
IrtLlS
TOTAL #
OF
SAWLES
WJHSER Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
MHT*
2
#CL
«
m.
2-
KCl.
<
K£L
CChlor-
PYrifos)
WfFQlK
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SAL (VAN
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WATfcE
1986/9
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
VESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WTTCK5il6
6/1987/
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
79
0
0
79
- 0
0
Cyanazire
AL9AXY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALL£GA»T
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
8S00ME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7,
10
1987/4
4
0
0
5
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1986/9
1987/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CHEMUNG
1985/8
1986/6-9
1987/2,
4,6
11
0
0
17
0
0
CHEHAtlGO
1986/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
CLINTON
1985/8
1986/10
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
CORTLAK)
1985/9
1986/
1,5,8,10
1987/2,4
10
0
0
22
0
0
DELAWARE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHtSS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERIE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
FRAkKLIN
1986/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
2-NY-40
-------
PESTICIDE SAW LI KG IN THE STATE OF NEW TORX
Carbaryt to Dieldrin
WEIL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESUITS
SAUGE Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
pssticide
CQyutr
PATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLE©
* Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL «
OF
SAMPLES
Nt#B£R OF
POSITIVE
-V-'-x SAMPLES
teas/
*amn
2
MCL
<
HCL
£
Ma
<
MCL
(Cyanaifne)
FULTON
1987/2,4
3
0
0
4
0
0
GENESEE
1986/5,
6,9
1987/2,
4,7
8
0
0
21
0
0
GREEKE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
JEfFEBSOM
1985/10
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
UVTKGSTOH
1985/7
1986/9
1987/2
5
0
0
6
0
0
HADISON
1986/10
1987/4
4
0
0
6
0
0
HOHROE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
MONTGOMERY
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
Niagara
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OliEIOA
1985/9
1987/4
7
0
0
7
0
0
ONOtiDACA
1985/10
1986/9
1987/2
4
0
0
5
0
0
ONTARIO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
; ORAWGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OSWEGO
1985/10
1986/6
1987/2,4
7
0
0
12
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7,1
0
1987/2,8
13
0
0
15
0
0
PUTHAN
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
RENSSELAE-R
1985/3,
6,9
1986/7
1987/8
22
1
0
28
1
0
1
ROCKLAND
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
2-NY-41
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MEW YORK
Carbaryl to D
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
COHCEM-
TRATItaS
(08/1)
wsrjcioe
county
OATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLES
*Of
posmvE
WELLS
TOTAL *
OF
SAMPLES
«j«&£R Of
POSITIVE
SWLfS
TEAS/
NOHtS
t
#CL
<
-feCL
: 2
no.
<
MtL
(Cyartazine)
;;SEB€CA...
1986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
51EOBEK
1985/8
1986/6,
10
1987/2,4
6
0
0
17
0
0
rr.
LAURENCE
1985/ 10
1987/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SUJ.IIVWI
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
TIOGA
1987/2
6
0
0
6
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASH"UGTOW
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
WAY«E
1985/7
1986/9,
10
1987/2,
4.6
8
0
0
12
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
UVORIHB
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
total
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
219
1
0
284
1
0
1
DOT
AL8AKY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALLS OAKY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BROOME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUSJS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHAUTAUOUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHEMUNG
1985/8
1986/6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CLttlTO#
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTLAND
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
2-NY-42
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Carbaryt to Dieldrin
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
KAKGE OF
CONCEU
THATTONS
L£S
YE Aft/
*0#T«
t
*CL
<
MCI.
. t
KCL
«
*CL
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Carbaryl to Dleldrin
WEIL RESULTS
' SAMPLE RESUITS
SANK Of
COHCEN*
TMTIQNS
t«/l>
1 PESTICIDE
«x«Tr
DATE
WAS.
WELLS
SAWLS)
* or
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL «
Of
SAMPLES
nunres of
£035 TIVE
SAMPLES
-
YEAS/
mowr
2
MCL
m.
£
*Cl
<
»cl
(DDT)
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
: VYOKIM
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
122
0
0
122
0
0
POD
AL8AHY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALIEGAHY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BROOME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAHARAIKSUS
1987/6
%
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHEMUNG
1985/8
1986/6,6
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CUUTOH
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTLAIH)
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
DELAWARE
1986/7
5
0
0
5
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERIE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
CEKESEE
1987/7
1
0
a
1
0
0
GREERE ,
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
irVIKCSTON
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
HOW? 06
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
KOtfTGOKERY '
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
KIACARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONTARIO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORANGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
1965/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
2-NY-44
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING II THE STATE OF NEU YORK
Carbaryt to DitldHrt
WELL RESULTS
, SAKPLE RESULTS
RANGE Of
CONCEN-
TRATfONS
. pestiooe
coy*™
PATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLES
# Of
POSITIVE
WEILS
TOTAL «
. OF
SAMPLES
tWMER Of
sPosmvE
SAMPLES
TEA*/
NOMTX
z
*CL
<
*CL
*
#Ct
<
kCL
(DM)
PV1NAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
REHSSELAE8
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ROClTtAtfi)
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCWWARLE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STEUBtt
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST.
LAWRENCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUtLIVAtl
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHNGTCW
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
*MA*»E
1985/7
1966/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
westchester
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WYOMING
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
122
0
0
122
0
0
DOE
ALBANY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
AILEGANT
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BSOOHE
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
iCATTA^AUOtfSi
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
/CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
;CH«JTAJJOUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHEWJIIG
1985/8
1986/6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CLIHTC8
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
2-NY-45
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLING IN THE STATE OF HEW YORK
Carbaryl to Oieldrin
WELL SESULTS
S/WIE RESULTS
SANGE OF
CONCEM-
TRAttQHS
pcsnciOE
cotaty
DATE
TOW
WELLS
SAKPLH5
f Of
POSITIVE
WEILS
TOW *
OF
SAWIES
NUMBER Of
JPOSJflVE
SAKPLES
TCAR/
wrra
i
HCL
<
XCl
2
MCI
<
KCL
(DOE)
CORTtttO
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
OEtAUXRt
1986/7
5
0
0
5
0
0
OOTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
E8!€
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
SE^ESSE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
8REEKE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
LIVJRGSTQH
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
mqsscs
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
WlMM!* *
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONTARIO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
OHA1GS
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PUTHAK
1987/9
S
0
0
5
0
0
RERSSELAER
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
*OCKU«>
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHORR re
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STeuseH
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST.
UUfiEUCE
1987/5
2
0
Q
2
0
0
SWFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SUUfVAM
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTEfi
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
UASHS4STOM
198S/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
wane
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTER.
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
2-NY-46
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN TIC STATE OF KV YORK
Carbaryl to Dieldrin
-
1*U. RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE Of
concen-
trations
Hsncm
COWJtr
PATE.
total
UEUS
SAKflED
# Of
POSITIVE
VEILS
TOIAI M
OF
s/mits
SUHKR OF
POSITIVE
SAWLES
s w
ii
*
»a
<
HCL
i.
mi
%
*a
(DDE)
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
HELL/SAMPLES
122
0
0
-
0
0
Biazlnon
At bah r
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
ALLS6AKY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WiQOHE '
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHEMUKG
1986/6,8
1987/6
4
0
0
4
0
0
CLWTO*
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CWTLANO
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
PELAWARE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHESS -
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
GENESEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
GR6EKE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
JffFEgSG#
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
WChtGCMERY
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
NIACASA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OiiTARlO
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
ORANGE'
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ttiT#AK
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
ROCKLAND
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
sr.
LAURENCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
a
0
SUfFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SULHVAM
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
2-NY-47
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING II THE STATE OF KV VOUC
Carbaryl to Dieldrin
WELL RESULTS
fAKHE RESS.TS
RANGE Of
amceu-
jftATrd#$
pesticide
CQUHTf •
OATE
TOTAL
WEILS
SAMPLED
f Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL *
OF
SAMPLES
«UX8tR OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
teas;
WORTH
2
*a
<
K£t
*
*CL
<
KCL
(Dlazinon)
ULStTES
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
UAYH6
1906/9
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
W£5TCKS$t£fc
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
UTOKWC
1987/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WILL/SAMPLES
79
0
0
79
0
0
HJlchloro-
pfoper*
SUFFOLK
1983/
4-11
8
0
1
35
0
4
18-140
1984/
9-12
9
0
0
54
0
0
1985/1-9
9
0
0
117
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
17
0
1
206
0
4
18-140
Dieldffo
. AL6AKY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALUliAHY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
6ROOKE
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1 1
0
0
CHEMUMG
1985/8
1986/6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CLtMTOK
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTIAKO
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
DELAWARE
1986/7
5
0
0
5
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ESlf
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
gekesee
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CTEfttE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
2-NY-48
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATI Of KV VORK
Carbaryl to Oieldrin
-
WELL S£SULTS
SAMPLE *€S&tS
*AHG£ Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
pesticioe
couw
tun
TOTAL
WEILS
SAMPLES
f Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL *
OF
SAflPLK
WA8£R OF
POSITIVE
SAWLES
' /? ' "•
TEAS/
H0HT8
1 t \
*CL
«
- *CL
i
net
<
feet
(Oi«ldrin)
UV1IKSTCU
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
HOWiOE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
MOXTGOHEItt
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
H1AGABA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONTARIO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
OKAlist
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PUTNAK
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
RHWSSStAtt
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ROClCUto
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCMORARIE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STEU81H
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST.
tAMREtfCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SULLIVAN
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTEa
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHINGTON
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
UAY«£
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WYOMING
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
HELLS/
SAMPLES
122
0
0
122
0
0
2-HV-49
-------
PESTICIDE SMPUN& IN TIE STATE Of MEM TORK
Endosulfan 1 to Heptachlor Epoxide
«E1A RESULTS
SANPLE RESULTS
RAH a- Of
COfcCEH'
7RATI0«S
PSSTJCICI
COWtTT
, OAlf
TOTAl
WEtlS
SAMPL£0
# OF
POSITIVE
VEILS
TOT At f
OF
SAMPLES
*l*8£Sl OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
-
s*
II
i
mi
*
Ha
-
2
MCL
<
mi
Endosulfan I
AU***
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALLEWWT
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
&&*£
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTAftAlftUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
C8ADTAIXKM
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
C8EttJ»tt
1985/8
1986/6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CltKTOtt
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTIMD
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
DELAWARE
1986/7
5
0
0
5
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERt£
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
CENESES
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CREENE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
LiVIWSSTO*
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
MONROE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
MONTGOMERY
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
,1
0
0
OKTAfitO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORANGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
KTTKAH
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
REXSSeiAER
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ROCKLAND
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
2-NY-50
-------
PESTICIDE SAWLIKG III THE STATE OF NEU TOK
Endosulfan i to Keptachlor Epoxide
tea results
SAW IE RESULTS
mss of :
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
ptsncioe
COWlT*
CATt
TOTAL
UELLS
SAHPLCD
# OF
rosnm
WELLS
TOTAL 9
OF
SMPtES
tiUMBCR OF
PQSITJVE
SAMPUE
; -
Y£WV
MONTH
s
xct
«e
*a
£
mcl
<
*cl
(Endosulfan
I)
$T£U8EH
1985/8
2
0
0
I 2
0
0
ST.
I.AWREBCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
suFfou
1966/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SULtm*
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
UtSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHINGTON
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
WAYNE
19B5/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
"WESTCftESYEftv:
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
ITfOKIklG
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WEILS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
122
0
0
Endcsulfftn 1t
AiBANT
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALLEGANY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BftOOHE
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUBUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHAUTAUffljA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CK€*U#G
1985/8
1986/6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CUKTOH
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTIAN0
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
OPlawasE
1986/7
5
0
0
5
0
0
OUTCHBSS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERIE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
. €ESESEE . ,-
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
2-NY-51
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING II THE STATE OF MEW YORK
Endosglfan I to Heptachlor Epoxide
WELL RESULTS
SWPLE SE301T3
RAXOS OF
COWCEJJ"
THAT J OH 5
itsncicc
COWT
OATE
mm
WEILS
SAWLEO
• OF
POSITIVE
WEILS
TOfM 9
OF
SAHPiES
«U*8£R Of
POSITIVE
' SAMPLE5
VtM/
MONTH
-
a
UCl
* '
MCt
6
feCL
<
net
(Endosulfan
11)
1966//
1
0
0
1
0
0
HViNCSTOH
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
K08R06
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
HCNtSWEftt
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONTARIO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
GRANGE
1987/9
6
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/8
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
WJTHAH
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SEHSSELAER
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ftOClCLAND
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHAS1E
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STEUErW
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
$T>
LAWREKCe
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOFFOCtf
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SULLlVA*
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
UtSTEfc
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
UASHIHGTOH
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
WAYNE
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCKESTES
19B7/10
7
0
D
7
0
0
vromNfi
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WEILS/SAKPIES
122
0
0
122
0
0
2-NY-52
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF m YORK
Endosulfan I to Kepuehlor Epoxide
*Ll 6ESULTS
SAXPL6 RESULTS
*A*G£ OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
-------
PESTICIDE SMPllNS IN TIE STATE OF MEU YORK
Endosulfan I to Heptachlor Epoxide
*£Ll BESULTS
S««PLE RESULTS
rank of
CO#CEK*
TftATfQNS
inaH)
pesncioe
COW*
totm.
UEUS
SAMPLED
# OF
POSITIVE
VELLS
TOW f
OF
SAMPLES
*L*8£R OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAS/
tfCWK
i
MCI
.....
Ntt
fc
fcCl
<
*u
(Endosulfan
sulfate)
STEU9E*
19B5/B
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST.
umtmt
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
WffWC
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SULLTVAR
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OUTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
UASflCHGTDN :
1985/9
4
0
4
4
0
4
<0.05-
0.14
UAYKE
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WYOMING
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
122
0
4
122
0
4
<0.05-
0.14
E*K)r5f5
ALBANY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
D
AUEGAHY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BROOME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1985/9
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CKAUTAUSUA
1985/7
1987/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
¦CKEWWG
1985/8
1986/6,8
1987/6
7
D
0
7
0
0
CUMTQH
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
COSTL.AWD
1985/9
1986/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
DELAWARE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
2-NY-54
-------
PESTICIDE SMVUH6 IH THE STATE OF HEW YORK
Ertdosulfart I to Maptaehlor Epoxide
WELL SEStETS
SAKPlE RESULT'S
8ANGE Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
OW/l>
WStlttM '
COUSTY
t>AT£
tern
WEtlS
SAM>L£D
~ or
POSITIVE
VEILS
WAl f
• OF
SAMPLES
NUMBER -OF
possrsvf
samples
YEAS/
#0*tK
%
MCI
«
«a
2
M£L
<
XCL
CEndMn)
CUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERIE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
C&iESEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
6R€BIE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
JEfFEftSOM
1985/10
2
0
0
2
0
0
LIVmCSTOI
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
#o*?oe
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
JUWTSCftifif
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
HIAGAR*
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONEIDA
1985/9
1987/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
mcm*&k
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
0MTARI6
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORANSE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OSVECO
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
GTSECO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
KEtlSSElAEIl
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
80CICLAKD
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STEU3E#
1985/8
1986/6,8
3
0
0
3
0
0
ST.
LAWRENCE
1985/10
1987/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
SlIfFOuC
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SULLlVAH
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
tflSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASKINSTOH
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
2-NY-55
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF IKU YORK
Endosulfan 1 to Heptachlor Epoxide
mil 8E&&7$
SAMPLE RESULTS
SANGE Of
COKCEU-
TWttrois
<*8/1 >
WESTiaoe 1
couwtt '
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAWLEfc
i Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
MTAl 9
Of
SAMPLES
tfiAKft OF
posmvi
SAMPLES
YEAfi/
HWTH
; i.
XCL
<
*0.
£
MCI
<
*Cl
(indrfri)
WAYX£
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WYOMING
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
139
0
0
139
0
0
EndrJn
aldehyde
ALBANY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALLEGANY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
8ROOME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUCA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CsEHJNft
1985/8
1986/6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CLINTOti
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTLAN& '
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
OELAWARi
1986/7
• 5
0
0
5
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
"4
0
0
EWE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
GENESEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
amm
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
ISVMGSTQK
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
HCVSOf
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
HCNICOHE#*
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
UfAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONTARIO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
2-HY-56
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE Of MEW YORK
Erdosulfan I to Heptaehlor Epoxide
UEU RESULTS
SAW IE HESUIT3
SAKGE OF
COMCEU
TRATfOHS
«snc*6e
COWTT
OAt£
TOtAl
WELLS
SAW LEO
§ Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOtAl #
OF
SAMPtES
number of
POSITIVE
SMILES
YEAif
£
MCI
*
Utt
i
XCL
<
HCl
(Ertdrin
aldehyde)
(*AKG£
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEW
1985/8
1986/7
1937/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PUTRAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SEJiSSELAEK
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ROCKLAND
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STEUBtti
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
61,
LAWRENCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SULUVAK
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
VASHJfiGTOH
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
VA*«E
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
«srcHts:es
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
VTOHIHU
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
UIUS/SAHPIES
122
0
0
122
0
0
EPTC
AL8AJJY
1985/6
1987/8
5
Q
0
5
0
0
At LEGAlIt
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
8ROOHE
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
2-NY-57
-------
PESTICIDE SWUNG IN THE STATE OF HEW TDRJC
Endosulfan ! to Heptachlor Epoxide
WELL BESO.TS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RAX EE Of
COttCEil*
Tenons
town?
DATE
totai
WELLS
SAWICO
# Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOtAt #
Of
SAMPLES
*U*8£ft OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
yw/
HO*fH
1
MCI
<
*a
i
*a.
<
MCI,
CEPTC)
CSAUTAUOW
1987/7
0
.
,
0
0
CllEKMC
1985/8
1966/6-6
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CLINTON
1985/8
1987/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
COR TLAUD
1985/9
1986/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
oeiAwAae
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHES?
1987/10
4
a
0
4
0
0
£*IE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
cexestt
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
GREENE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
JEFFEfttOll
1985/10
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
LtVlKCStOtf
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
MONROE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
HONTCOHERT
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OfflOA
1985/9
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONONOAGA
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONTASEO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORANGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OSWEGO
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
9
0
0
9
0
0
PUTNAM
1987/9
5
0
0
S
0
0
REUSSELAER
1985/3,6,
9
1986/7
1987/8
21
0
0
29
0
0
SOCKLAWD
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
2-NY-58
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MEW YORK
Endosulfan i to Heptachlor Epoxide
UEU RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEIi'
rwnoHs
<«A)
f
cgwirt
OAt£
TOW.
WEILS
SA#Pl«>
* Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
torn #
Of
SANW.ES
*UH6£ft OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
KEAB/
HOST#
I
*a
«
*a
£
HCL
<
Mtt
(EPTC)
SCHQHA*tE
1985/B
<987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
$TEl®EK
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
$r,
LAVKERCE
1985/10
1987/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
SUFFQU
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SULUVAK
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
VASBIKGTOK
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
VATRE
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
. «£$TC»inE8
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WCMIKC
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAHPLES
146
0
0
154
0
0
Heptachlor
ALBANY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALLEGAN*
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BROOME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
•CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
; Chautauqua
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
C*EPW#G
1985/8
1986/6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CLINTON
1985/8
1987/8
3
a
0
3
0
0
COStLAND :•
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
OELAVAKE
1986/7
5
0
0
5
0
0
WJTCHESS
1987/10
&
0
0
4
0
0
'ERIE:
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
2-NY-59
-------
PESTICIDE SMPONG II TIE STATE OF NEIi YORK
Endosulfan I to Keptachlor Epoxide
mi RESULTS
SMVLE RESULTS
RAHGE Of
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
<£9/1)
resTicioe
cousrT
OATI
TOTAL
WEILS
SAWIEO
# OF
POSITIVE
WEILS
TOTAL #
OF
SAMPLES
SiJHttft OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLE8
tEAS/
MOUTH
i
*ct
<
MX
i
MCI
<
ML
(HeptachLor) |
: «#ES£E
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
GftfEilE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
Ltvivcsroft
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
NONROe
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
MONTGOMERY
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
D
1
0
0
OKTAStO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORANGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PUT MM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
RENSSELAER
1985/6
1986/7
1987/fl
12
0
0
12
0
0
80CKLAOD
1967/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STfUBEtt
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST.
LAWREBCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SOFFOUC
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SULL1VAH
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
UtSTE*
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHINGTON
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
WAT BE
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WYOMING
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
122
0
0
2-NY-60
-------
PESTICIDE SMPLIHS IN THE STATE OF KEV TOW
Endosulfan t to Heptachlor Epoxide
WELL (JESUITS
SAKPLS JESUITS
SAMS OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
w-sncioe
COUUTT
DATE
TOTAL
WEILS
SAWLEO
# OF
POSITIVE
UEtLS
total *
OF
SAW PIES
WJM8ER OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
YUB/
XCfcTH
i.
*CL
<
*a
i
KCl
<
*a
#«pt#chior
Epcjode
AUMY
1985/6
1917/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
MLE6ANY
19B7/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
8 WOKE
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHEKUKG
1985/8
1986/6,8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CUSTOM
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
COmAND
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
DELAWARE
1986/7
5
0
0
5
0
0
"
DUTCHESS
1987/10
6
0
0
4
0
0
JRlf
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
GENESEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
S*EE«E
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
LtVUIGSTO#
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
MONROE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
: HONTSGNE**
1985/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
HI AGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONTMfO '
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORANSE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PUTNAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
ftEHSSELAER
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
R0CKLAM0
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
2-NY-61
-------
PESTICIDE SMVL1NG !N TIC STATE Of IEU TORIC
Endosulfan I to Heptachtor Epoxide
UEU RESULTS ¦
SAXPl£ RESULTS
SAXQE Of
CONCEV-
TRATfOHS
PESTICIDE
town
TOtAl
WEILS
SAMPLED
* or
'POSITIVE""
UEtlS
TOTAL f
OF
SAMPLES
aUHtt* OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
-
YtAfi/
Mtwrx
i
MCI
<
NO.
i
HCL
<
litl
(Keptachlor
epoxide)
$T£U86*
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
ST,
UURERCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUFfOU
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SULUVAH
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHINGTOM
1935/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
WATKE
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WtSTC«rt£«
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
V*OrfIW»
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/SAMPLES
122
0
0
122
0
0
2-NY-62
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE Of ICV YORK
isofenpfcos to Iriflurilin
WEIL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
COKOEtf-
TSATJOKS
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IH TIE STATE OF KM TCRJC
Isofenpfios to TMfluralin
WEIL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE 0*
CONCCR
TRATtONS
PESTICIDE
courrr
BATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SA*PLH>
* OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL §
Of
SAW>t€S
WJ»ffiER Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
«*Y»
I
MCI
<
NCI
t HCL
4
HCL
Clsophen-
fos)
wesicsesre*
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WY0HJH6
1987/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
78
0
0
78
0
0
Lindane
<7-8*0
A18AH*
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALLEGAHY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
8ROOME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
tArwiA
1985/9
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CHAUTWJfflM
1985/7
1987/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CKEMUKG
1985/8
1986/6,
8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CLINTON
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
COST LAW
1985/9
1986/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
DELAVABE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERIE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
GENESSTE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
GREENE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
JEFfERSOti '
1985/10
2
0
0
2
0
0
LtVIHCSTCH
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
HONROE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
HONTCONERT
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
2-NY-64
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MBi YORK
Isofanphos to Trifluratin
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESJLTS
RAKGE OF
COKOEK-
WATtOBS
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING li THE STATE OF IEV TORI
Isofenphos to Trlfluralfn
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE Of
COSOEK"
TSATJOHS
WD
«Srjcit>E
CttWT*
fiATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
# OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
rom f
Of
SAMPLES
RftffiER OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
WAR/
NCHftt
£
net
<
*a
2 MCL
<
KCL
Hsl«thion
mm
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
ALLECAUT
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
SRsXl*
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
ttWUTAOOUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
O&WM.
1986/6,
8
1987/6
4
0
0
4
0
0
CIINT08
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTLAUD
1986/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
DELAWARE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
GENESEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CREENE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
JEFFERSON
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MONTGOMERY
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
KIACARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONTARIO
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
ORANGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
PUTNAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
ROCKLAND
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
ST.
LAWREKCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SULLIVAN
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WAYNE
1986/9
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
2-NY-66
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF KW TCRK
Isofenphos to TrifluraUn
w*
WEIL *£SULT*
SAHPLF RESULTS
:--wwrW;
-«8ICE«-:v.
T5ATI0KS
<£B/D
wsiiciee
CtXSTfY
6 ATE
KflAL
WELLS
SAILED
# at
POSITIVE
WELLS
tout #
Of
SAim.ES
HUWEfc Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
KOUTN
£
m.
<
HCt
I wet
<
met
(Malathion)
WEStCWSTCT
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
VrOMlRC
1987/6
2
0
0
2
0
0_
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
"
c
0
79
0
•¦MetMoiarb
sufpotr
1980
8121
0
0
8595
0
0
1981
644
0
0
680
0
0
1982
2793
0
0
2906
0
0
1983
4341
0
0
4667
0
0
1984
3696
0
0
3989
0
0
1985
3783
0
0
4240
0
0
1986
2743
0
0
3804
0
0
1987
4590
0
0
7083
0
0
1988
3411
0
0
4611
0
0
1989
3165
0
0
4278
0
0
1990
3081
0
1
4100
0
1
1.00
1991
43
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
20955
0
1
49022
0
1
1.00
.Hethorvl
SUffOU
1980
8121
0
0
8595
0
0
1981
644
0
0
680
0
0
1982
2793
0
16
2906
0
17
1.00-
4.00
1983
4341
0
20
4667
0
21
1.00-
9.00
1984
3696
0
7
3989
0
7
1.00-
4.00
1985
3783
0
20
4240
0
20
1.00-
3.00
1986
2743
0
10
3804
0
10
1.00-
8.00
2-NY-67
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF KEU YORK
Isofenphos to TMf lurslin
WEIL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
COKCEK .
rSAT!QKS;
ctumr
tWTE
total
WELLS
SAMPLED
# 6F
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL *
Of
SAMPLES
(AMES Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
mouth
2
net
<¦
Mtl
t MCI
<
HCL
(Hethcmyl)
1987
4590
0
10
7083
0
10
1.00-
2.00
1988
5411
0
0
4611
0
0
1989
3165
0
6
4278
0
6
1.00-
20.00
1990
3081
0
8
4100
0
8
1.00-
7.00
1991
43
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
20955
0
81
49022
0
85
1.00-
20.00
Heth-
: oxyctUer
AL8AMY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALLEGAN*
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
8R00ME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
. CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAWQfs
1985/9
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1985/7
1987/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CBEHUKfi
1985/8
1986/6,
8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CUNTOH
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CCRTLANO
1985/9
1986/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
SllAWASE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERIE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
CENFSEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CREFHE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
jeFFeescsi
1985/10
2
0
0
2
0
0
2-NY-68
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN TIE STATE OF HEU TORJC
Isoftr^ios to TrifluraKn
WEIL RESULTS
SAKPtf RESULTS
RANCH OF
CONCEK-
mnws
# Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOW #
Of
SAMPLES
NUMSES OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
MONTH
t
m.
<
Mtt
* MCL
4
mi
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING li THE STATE OF Ml YORK
lsofonphos to TrlfluraHn
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
MHCB OF
CONCEH
WAtiONS
SfSTICIPE
ccwrr*
PATE
tOTAL
VEILS
SAKHEB
* Cf
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL 0
or
SAMPLES
nurses of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
*oura
£
MO.
«
- net '
i m.
*
#CL
(K«th-
oxychlor)
WE$1C«S$TE*
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
I
VtWJRS
1985/7
1987/6
1
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
HELLS/
[ SAMPLES
139
0
0
139
0
0
Metoletftlor
ALBANY
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
AttEfiAKt
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
S^OONE
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
: ¦CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATIWA
1986/7,
10
4/87
4
0
0
5
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1986/9
1987/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CHEHWS
1985/8
1986/6-
9
1987/2,
4,6
11
0
0
17
0
0
CHEHASUO
10/86
1
0
0
1
0
0
CitNTOH
1985/8
10/86
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
CORTLAND
1985/9
1986/1,
5,7,8,
10
1987/2,
4
10
0
0
22
0
0
DELAWARE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERIE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
PRASKtl*
1986/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
2-NY-70
-------
PESTICIDE MMtlHG IN THE STATE OF KW fORK
Isofenphos to Trifluralln
WEIL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
range of
CONOEK-
WATIOSS
tw/t>
wsrtctoE
COWT*
OATt
KJTAl
WEILS
SAHPL©
# OF
POSITIVE
tfLLLS
TOTAL f
OF
SAKPUS
KM8EK Of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
; TIM/
MMTM
e
net
MCI
t DCt
<
net
(Hetola-
chlor)
FULtO*
1987/4
3
0
0
4
0
0
GE3IESEE '
1986/5,
6,9
1987/2,
4,7
6
0
0
21
0
0
GREENE
1986/7
1
0
.
i
0
0
JEfrSWW
1985/10
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
LtVlMCSTW
1985/7
1986/9
1987/2
5
0
0
6
0
0
KADJStW
1986/10
1987/6
4
0
0
6
0
0
MONROE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
WWTCOHEfiY
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
ONE IOA
1985/9
1987/4
7
0
0
7
0
0
OHOKO ASA
1985/10
1986/9
1987/2
4
0
0
5
0
0
ONTARIO
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
ORANGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OSWEGO
1985/10
1986/6
1987/2,
4
7
0
0
12
0
0
OTSEGO
1985/8
1986/7,
10
1987/2,
8
13
0
0
13
0
0
PUTNAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
RENSSELAER
1985/3,
6,9,12
1986/7
1987/8
21
1
6
28
1
10®
0.13-112
2-NY-71
-------
PESTICIDE SWUNG IN THE STATE OF mi YORK
Isoftnphos to Trlfturalln
WELL RESULTS
SAHPIE RESULTS
RAKCE OF
MUCEH-
TSAt IONS
(fta/l)
PESTICIDE
CtX«TY
CAU
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
~ Cf
POSITIVE
WELLS
TOTAL #
Of
SAMPLES
NUWE8 OF
POSITIVE
SJWPtES
YEAR/
«0«T#
i
wl
<
.*a
t net
*
KCL
(Hetols-
chlorj
#OCKLAW
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCH0HA8IE
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
SENECA
1986/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
STEUBEtt
1985/8
1986/6,
10
1987/2,
4
6
0
0
17
0
0
ST.
LAURENCE
1985/10
1987/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
SUFFOLK
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
SULUVA*
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
TIOGA
1987/2
6
0
0
6
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASM1HGTOS
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
WAYME
1985/7
1986/9,
10
1987/2,
4,6
8
0
0
12
0
0
l«STC*£ST£fi :
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
imxw
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
218
1
6
282
1
10
0.13-112
Hire*
AL3AMT
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
AilECAUT
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CHAUTJWOUA
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CH£«JNG
1987/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
CLINTON
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
CORTLANB
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
2-NY-72
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING lit THE STATE Of KU TOR*
liofefiphos to Trifluraliri
y*
WELL -RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEIT-
TSATtONS
t«»/U
«sncic*
CftWT*
0AT£
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
# Of
POSITIVE
WELLS
WW *
OF
SAMPLES
«**£* OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
NONTK
I
net
«
KCt
fc «t
* .
HCl
6EIAUARE
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
6UTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
GEHESEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
MQITQQNEftY
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
OftAKGE
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OTSEGO
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
PUTKAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
REHSSELAER
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
BOOCLAMD
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ST.
LAWRENCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
suffcaK
1987/9
3
0
0
3
0
0
•SULLIVAN
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WAYNE
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
VESTCHESTES
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
VYOMJIrt
1987/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
65
0
0
65
0
0
SUFFOLK
1980
8121
0
0
8595
0
0
1981
644
0
0
680
0
0
1982
2793
1
29
2906
2
32
1.00-
314.00
1983
4341
3
105
4667
3
112
1.00-
395.00
1984
3696
0
104
3989
0
112
1.0-39,0
1985
3783
0
199
4240
0
210
1.0-64.0
1986
2743
0
196
3804
0
220
0.01-
38.00
2-NY-73
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE Of HEW YORK
Isofenphos to Trifluraliri
WEU RESULTS
SAHPlf RESULTS
RAI*GE OF .
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
PESTICIDE
axmr
DATE
TOTAl
«US
SAMPim
f GF
POSITIVE
wau
TOTAl #
OF
SAK?tfS
HUK8E8 OF
POSITIVE
SAM PIES
-
TEAR/
MOUTH
t
Ktt
<
*ct
. t m.
<
KCL
(Oxarryl)
1987
4590
0
254
7083
0
334
0.03-
29.00
1988
3411
0
194
4611
0
212
1.0-30.0
1989
3165
0
173
4278
0
197
1.0-39.0
1990
3081
0
172
4100
0
184
1.00-
114.00
1991
43
0
2
60
0
2
1.0-2.0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
Z0955
3
894
49022
5
1615
0.01*
395.00
¦ 'Pfiapd^iir
SUFFOLK
1980
8121
0
0
8595
0
0
1981
644
0
0
680
0
0
1982
2793
0
0
2906
0
0
1983
4341
0
0
4667
0
0
1984
3696
0
0
3989
0
0
1985
3783
0
0
4240
0
0
1986
2743
0
0
3804
0
0
1987
4590
0
0
7083
0
0
1988
3411
0
0
4411
0
0
1989
3165
0
0
4278
0
0
1990
3081
4
1
4100
4
3
2.0-35.0
1991
43
0
0
60
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
20955
4
1
49022
4
3
2.0-35.0
Slmaz
-------
PESTICIDE SMFLIMG III THE STATE Of NEW VORK
Esofenphos to Trif lunlin
WELL RESULTS
SAAPLt RESULTS
RAWS OF
COHCEN-
TRA ft Out
P«$nci6E
CtWT
DATE
TOTAt
WEILS
SAMPLES
f OF
POSITIVE
WEILS
TOttt §
or
SAMPLES
HUMBE* OP
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
Y£A*/
KOkTN
t
MCI
<
*a
t HCt
<
*a
(SfmazIrM)
C»E#A*«
19B6/10
1987/2,
4
2
0
0
6
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WEILS/
SAMPLES
74
3
0
122
3
0
1-4
2-NY-75
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE OF MEW YORK
Isofenphos to Trifluralin
HEU RESULTS
SAKM.E RESULTS
RAKSS OF
CONCEk-
WATtONS
PSSTKM6E
count*
WT£
TOT At
WELLS
«ma>
* Of
POSITIVE
WELL?
TOTM #
Of
SAMPLE£
KUfeatR OF
POSITXtt
SAHf>trS
¦ -¦
-¦
TEAR/
w»th
2
*Ct
<
t net
<
*a
Touphene
AU)A#Y
1985/6
1987/8
5
0
0
5
0
0
ALLEGANY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
BROOME
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTAftAUflUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAWGA
198S/9
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
CHAUTAUQUA
1985/7
1987/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
C8EHLW5
1985/8
1986/6,
8
1987/6
7
0
0
7
0
0
CLINTON
1985/8
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
CORTLAND -
1985/9
1986/8
4
0
0
4
0
0
DELAWARE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
DUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
ERIE
1985/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
CEHESEE
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
CREEJIE
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
JEFKRSO*
1985/10
2
0
0
2
0
0
UVIIiSSTON
1985/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
W3NRQE
1985/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
HOHTMHEW
1985/7
1987/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
NIAGARA
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
©#EIDA
1985/9
1987/7
2
0
0
2
0
0
QNOWJAGA
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
CMTAStO '
1985/7
1986/7
3
0
0
3
0
0
1
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
2-NY-7 6
-------
PESTICIDE SMPIIMC IN THE STATE OF KEV YORK
Isofenphos to Triflur«lin
* WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE DF
COICEK-
TSATldHS
pesticide
COWTY
DATE
TOTAL
WELLS
SAMPLED
« OP
POSITIVE
WELLS
WM. §
OF
SAMPtfS
or
posmvc
¦SAMPLES
1 (Toxaphene)
TEAB/
W»T«
*
act
KCl
t MCL
4
tKl
OSV1SO
1985/10
1
0
0
1
0
0
CTseso
1985/8
1986/7
1987/8
7
0
0
7
0
0
PUTBAM
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
RENSSELAER
1985/6
1986/7
1987/8
12
0
0
12
0
0
ROCKLAND
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1985/8
2
0
0
2
0
0
STEUSEti
1985/8
1986/6,
8
3
0
0
3
0
0
ST.
LAVRESC1
1985/10
1987/5
4
0
0
4
0
0
SUffOU
1986/9
1987/9
6
0
0
6
0
0
SULUVAW
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
ULSTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WASHINGTON
1985/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
WAY HE
1985/7
1986/9
1987/6
6
0
0
6
0
0
WESTCHESTER
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
VT0H1RS
1985/7
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
TOTAL
DISCRETE
VEILS/
SAMPLES
139
0
0
139
0
0
Trlf lurslrfn!
ALBAHY
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
ALLEGANY
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
8ROOHE
1986/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CATTARAUGUS
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
CAYUGA
1986/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
2-NY-77
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN THE STATE Of KM YORK
Isofenphos to Ttifluralin
WELL RESULTS
SAMPLE RESULTS
KAWIE OF
COHCEH-
r«Atte*&
pisnctoc
CfiUtfTY
9A1E
TO? At
WEILS
SAMPLES
# OF
POSITIVE
WELLS
YOIAI f
Of
SAMPLES
NUK8EK OF
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/
HOMtH
£
net
-MCI
i HCL
< '
pa
CTri-
fluralin)
CHAUrJWOUA :
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
OSHUNC
1986/6,
8
1987/6
4
0
0
4
0
0
CtlMTOM
1987/8
3
0
0
3
0
0
COR1LANB
1986/8
2
0
D
2
0
0
DELAWARE
1986/7
1987/8
6
0
0
6
0
0
OUTCHESS
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
GENESEE • •
1987/7
1
0
0
1
0
0
GftEEKE
1986/7
1
a
0
1
0
0
JEFFERSOti
1987/6
1
0
0
1
0
0
MONTGOMERY
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
JiUGARA
1987/6
1
a
D
1
0
0
art ario
1986/7
1
a
0
1
0
0
OftANCP
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
*>UT«AK '
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
ftOCKLAWD - -
1987/10
4
0
0
4
0
0
SCHOHARIE
1987/8
1
0
0
1
0
0
ST.
LAWftEKCE
1987/5
2
0
0
2
0
0
mrfout - '
1986/9
1987/9
5
0
0
5
0
0
•suit IVAN
1987/9
4
0
0
4
0
0
OUTER
1987/10
9
0
0
9
0
0
WAYXE
1986/9
1987/6
3
0
0
3
0
0
|
2-NY-78
-------
PESTICIDE SAMPLING IN TIE STATE OF HEW TOR*
tsofenphos to Trifluralin
WELL RESULTS .
SAMPLE RESULTS
RANGE OF
CONCEN-
TRATIONS
CM/l>
.
PESTICIDE
tOtfXT* •
CATt
TOTAL
WELLS
¦-'SAHPL®:-!
# OF
POSITIVE
W£ltS
TOTAL 0
OF
SAHPLCS
number of
POSITIVE
SAMPLES
TEAR/ ,
HONTH
i
MCl
*-
net
t MCL
<
MCL
{Tri-
fluralin)
WeSKBESTEK
1987/10
7
0
0
7
0
0
WQMHG
1987/6
2
0
0
2
0
0
|
TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
79
0
0
79
0
0
CRAN0 TOTAL
DISCRETE
WELLS/
SAMPLES
21218
5763
1676
49592
13773
4822
~ No MCI or HA available
&
Some of these results were determined to be positive, but quality
assessment experiments indicate that these detections are unreliable.
O
Split samples, sent to two different labs, resulted in sarples which
have both positive and negative results. The positive results could
b« both above and below the MCl. Such samples were counted as one
sample and placed in the category corresponding to the highest result.
C
In this table Total Aldicarb, as defined in the Suffolk County data from Moran. Dennis
(1991), equals the sun of Aldicarb sulforte plus Aldicarb sulfoxide.
2-NV-79
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
STATE Of MEW TOBK
UELLS BY COUNTY
TYPES Of WCUS
souscf or
COKTAKIXATIOK
{*U*SEft OF WELl$>
COUWT*
©8l«KiK0 UAllt**
XQNJTOSJttC
OTHEK
TOTAL
SWU)
*
MCI
<
net
TOTAL
SHPCO
z
Ha
<
#CL
TOTAL
SHPil)
£
*a
<
MCL
NRI*
*
PS
war*
Albany
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
All«s*ny
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Broome .
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
€att*r*ugus
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cayuga
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
Ctioutauqua
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chemursa
7
0
0
3
0
1
1
0
1
0
2
0
Cberwogo
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Clinton
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cortiartd
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Del aware
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dutchess
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Erie
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
franklin
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fulton
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Genesee
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Greene
1
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Jefferson
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Livingston
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
• Kadifion
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Monroe
2
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- .Montjofflery
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Siaflars
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oneida
8
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Onondaga
2
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Ontario
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Or»ng«
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oswtgo
4
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Otsego
11
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
Kit nam ;
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rensselaer
42
17
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
; Preceding page blank
-------
STATE OF HEW YORK
UELLS BY COUNTY
COUKK
TfPEs of vms
SOUSCX OF
CONTAMINATION
(NUMBER Of WEUS)
ORtNKsHG WATER**
NWrTORJNG
OTH£S
TOTAL
SKPLD:
*
. MCI
<
KCL
TOTAL
. :SMPLO
fc
' XCl •
<
KCt '
TOTAL
SHPU3-
i
: «CL
UFO*
*
PS
UNK*
Roclt 1 and
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Schohwfe
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Senses
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Steuben
3
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
St, Laurence
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Suffolk
20961
5737
1655
17
4
1
0
0
0
7397
0
0
Sullivan
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T ioga
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ulster
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Washington-
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
Ueyne
6
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Westchester
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wyoming
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TCHAt
21168
5756
1672
48
7
3
3
0
1
7,40«
31
0
*
NFU=Known or Suspected Normal Field Use
PS *ICnown or Suspected Point Source
UNK=Unknown
Human l/or stock drinking water
2-NY-82
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
APPENDIX I - PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CH8HCAL KANE
6EFERENCE
HCL
roetharie
5
Fumigant
s
1,2-&ichidf«tftytanf Hne
Atachlor
Degradate
: S-Hydroxycarbofuran
Carbofuran
Degradate
3-Ketoearbofuran t
3;^etocarbafijran
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CH£*!CAl «AJ«
fiEfEREWCE
L«ci
3
1
Insecticide
Acarlcide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S,R,SRP
Aidicarb Sulfone
Aidicarb
2
1
Oegradate
Aidicarb Sulfoxfde
Aidicarb
4
1
Degradate
Aidicarb, Total
Aidicarb
3
Parent ~
degradates
SRP
Aldrln
Insecticide
C,SRC
ABetryn
60
60
Herbicide
S
Aminocarb
Insecticide
u,c
AkiUpbi
Insecticide
Acarlcide
S,R,SRC
Amitfole
Herbicide
S,RP
Am Iszine
Fungicide
S
¦ Arsenic ¦
50
Arsenates, Arsenites
Arsenic
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
c c
str
Arsenic acid
Arsenicals
: Arsenic
Defoliant
Insecticide
s.J
SR
Atraton
experimental
discontinued triazine
Herbicide
C
Atrszlne
3
Herbicide
S,R
Atrazine,pNos-ethyl
Insecticide
C
:Aztrpll09:-«9thyl
Insecticide
S,R
Banvel
Dicamba -
APPENDIX 1-2
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CKEHICAL KAKE
8E FESEWCE
MCI
tug/I3
t«A
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHfcMJCAl, NAHS
f?EPE(?ENC£
NCI,
«g/l>
Utt
(l8/U
pesticide
CATWoRv
RECURATORY
STATUS
Cerboxin
700
Fungicide
S
. C8EC
Herbicide
c
: Chtoramben
100
Herbicide
UlC
Chtordare
2
Insecticide
Termiticide
c,src
Chlordecortc
Insecticide
c,src
Chiordireform
Insecticide
Acaricide
Ovacide
C(SRC
Chlorfcnae
Herbicide
u.c
Chtopftraan
Acaricide
u.c
Cbtoroatlyt alcohol
Insecticide
c
Chtorobe/ijiUt*
Insecticide
Acaricide
C,SRC
f>-Ctiloro-«'cre9o(
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
s
p-Chi oro-o-cresot
Chloroform
100
Funigant
C,SRP
CMoroneb
Fungicide
S
Chtoropicrin
Funigant
Warning agent
S,R
ChlororhelonfI
Fungicide
S
Chtoroxuron
c
Chlorprophasi
Herbicide
S
Chlorpyfifoi
20
Insecticide
5
Cblorpyrifofi, methyl
Insecticide
S
Chlersulfuron
Herbicide
S
Chlorthal dimethyl
0O»ft
: Copper'' \ ;.Y i .!is
Copper salts
Copper
Insecticide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
Fungicide
some S
some U
Copper oxides
Copper
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
S
Cowaphos
Insecticide
s
! Crtiforate
Insecticide
cyarwzine
1
Herbicide
S,R,SRC
APPENDIX 1-4
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL «ft&
EEFEftEHCE
MCI
I HA
PESTICIDE
CATI60RY
ftCOAATOfcr
STATUS
Cyanide
200
200
Cyanide, calcium or
potassium
Cyarwfde
Rodenticide
U
Cyarwide, sodium
¦Cyanide
Rodenticide
S,R
Cyeiotte
Herbicide
s
CypermethHrt
Insecticide
S,R
Cypraziw
Herbicide
C
Dacthal
DCPA
Dacthal diacid
DCPft acid jwtabolltes
Dalapon
200
200
Herbicide
U,C
DBCP
0.2
Funigant
C,R,SRC
DCBA
\2j 4 • D (c h t e robenio i c
W •
DCP
¦•'1 n^bichloreprcpan®
DCPA
4000
Herbicide
S
DCPA acid metabolites
DCPA
Degradate
D-D Kix
¦; 1,2-Oich\oropropane ;;:
' and ¦ D i chl eroprapene \ -
OUT
Insecticide
c
DOT
Degradate
SRC
TOE
DPT
Degradate
DDVP
DTchWvos
DEP
fribufos
Insecticide
Acaricide
C.R
Oemetoft
Insecticide
Acaricide
C
Demetor.-mettiyl
Insecticide
Acaricide
c
Oecneteo-S'
Degradate
Demet«**S sutfofw
Demeton-S
Degradate
Des*«thyl atrazine
Atrazine
Degradate
Des-1soprof>yt atratine
Atrazine
Herbicide
C.R
Dfaltate
Herbicide
C,R,SRC
Dfazinon
0.6
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S,SRC
D i bromochloropropane
APPENDIX 1-5
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL KAHE
fiEFESENCE
#Cl
<*¦5/1)
1.KA
resnctoe
CATEGORY
*ECia>TORr
STATUS
Oibutyl phtlwlate
Insect
repel Iant
U,C
Mcamba
200
Herbicide
s
DfcfclobertH
Herbicide
s
o-Oiehloreb«u*ne
600
600
Antimicrobial
u
p- 0 ichl or obenzene
75
75
Insecticide
Furtgicide
Rodenticide
Antimicrobial
s
DSchtoropropans*
Dichtoropropene
Nematicide
Funigant
S,MRP
Oichlerprop
Herbicide
S,SRPre
Dichlorprop, butoxyethanol
ester
Dtchtorprop
ftfehlorvos
Insecticide
S,SRP
Dicofot
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,SRC
Oicrctophos
Insecticide
S,R
Dteldrin
Insecticide
C,SRC
Oiethylhexyl phthalate
Dfoctyl phthalate
Dimathoat*
Insecticide
Acaricide
s,sac
Dlnoseb
7
7
Herbicide
C,SRC
Dini trocresol
' 0«0C : : :
Mocryt phthalate
Acaricide
c
Dioxacarb
c
Diaxathion
Insecticide
c,*
Oiphenaoid
200
Herbicide
c
Diquat
20
20
Herbicide
s
Diquat dibromide and
various salts
Diquat
Oisulfoton
0.3
Insecticide
Acaricide
S.R
Oisulfoton aulfona
Oisulfoton
Degradate
Oisulfoton sulfoxide
Oisulfoton
Cegradate
Dsoron
10
Herbicide
s
DKPA
Fly larvicide
c
APPENDIX 1-6
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL tIAHE
REFERENCE
KCL
<*g/l>
IM
Otg/l)
' PESTICIDE „
CATEGORY
tteajLAmr
STATUS
OJWC
.
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
u,c
DNOC, soditn silt
DNOC
EDB
Ethylene dibromide
EBDC compounds
Haneb, Maricozab,
Zineto
SRC
Enctauifan
F trig icicle
Antimicrobial
S
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan
Isomer
Endofiutfan II
Endosulfan
Isomer
Endosutfan sulfate
Endosulfan
Degradate
EridothaU
100
100
Herbicide
s
Endrin
2
2
Insecticide
U,C(R,SRC
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin
Degradate
£P*
Insecticide
Acaricide
C,R
EPTC
Herbicide
S
£thalfturatin
Herbicide
S,SRC
Ethioo
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R
Ethoprop
Insecticide
Fungicide
Hematicide
S,R
Ethyl alcohol
Disinfectant
S
Ethylon
Insecticide
u,c,src
Ethylene
bi sdithi ©carbamate
compounds
Haneb,, Wancffzeb,
Zineb
".EthyfaneTd1 brcmda
0.01
Insecticide
C,R,SRC
Ethylene dichloride
1,2-DicMoroetharie
Ethylene thiourea
ETU
Ethyl pa rath ion
Parathion/ ethyl ;
Etridia2ole
Fungicide
s
ETU
Maneb
Degradate
Fenac
Chlorfenac
Fenamiphos
2
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide
S,R
APPENDIX 1-7
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL NAME ' '
REFERENCE
XCl
<*g/l>
LHA
restjciOE
CATEGORY
REGULATORS
STATUS .
Fenamipho* &ulforw
Fenaraiphos
Degradate
fenarotptos sulfoxide
Fenami phos
Degradate
fcwinal
Fungicide
S
Insecticide
Acaricide
S
fensulfotMon
Insecticide
Fungicide
Nematicide
C,R
fenthton
Insecticide
C
fenurcrv
Herbicide
C
fenvalerate
Insecticide
S,R
nuatNop-butyl
Herbicide
S
FluchtoreHn
Herbicide
s
flumetratSn
Herbicide
s
ptuometurav
90
Herbicide
s
fluri done
Aquatic
herbicide
s
Fonofos
10
Insecticide
S,R
For«wldehy
HCH (D
lindane
Heptactilor
0.4
Insecticide
C,SRC
-Heptacfclar epoxide.*»
Heptaehlor
0.2
Degradate
Kcxachl orobcracne
1
Seed
protectant
Hdxszfnone
200
Herbicide
s
Hydrocyaiachlor*
Atachtor
Degradate
1prodione
Fungicide
s
Isobomyl thiocyanoaeetate
Insecticide
c
ieoferphcB
Insect icide
Herbicide
S,R
'.sopropalm
Herbicide
C
APPENDIX 1-8
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
| €t£M!£AL fcAKE
REFERENCE
KCt
Z
CATEGORY
ftFGUUTOftr
STATUS
KeporM
Chfordecor*
Lindane
0.2
0.2
Insecticide
S,«,SRC
Linuron
-
Herbicide
p
s,sr
Hal nthion
200
Insecticide
s
ttalaaxon
Ma lath ion
Degradate
Mancozeb
Fungicide
s
Maneb
Fungicide
s
MCPA
10
Herbicide
some C,
some S
MCPA acids, salts, esters
: -i ; :, ;--:v S;; S j % V ; j
MCPB
Insecticide
s
HCPB salts, esters
MC?& '
MCPP salts, esters
Mecoprap
HCPPA
Ma«ciprs|5:i::\:'
Keeoprop
Herbicide
s
Mercury
2
2
SRC
Kerphos
Fungicide
Herbicide
U.c
Metalaxyt
Fungicide
s
Methamidophw
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R
Methanols
Herbicide
S
Methldathion
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R
Hethiocsrb :
*¦
Insecticide
Acaricide
Hoiluscicide
Rodenticide
Bird repellent
S, R
HethomyL
200
Insecticide
S,R
Hethoxychlor
40
40
Insecticide
Acaricide
S
Methyl fcromfde
Insecticide
Antimicrobial
S,R
Methyl earbophenothion
Cirbcphenothion,
" twtthyl- ::-1
Methyl fsothlocyanate
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
S,R
Methyl paraoxon
Parathion, methyl
Degradate
APPENDIX 1-9
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
1.
CHEMICAL «AM£
REFERENCE
MCI
<#g/l)
tHA
C£3/l>
PESTSCJOE
CATEGORY
REGULATORY
STATUS
Methyl parethion
ParatMon, aethyt
Methyl trithion
iiCarbophwotftlon, •_
methyl
Methylene ehloride
Insecticide
U
Mecoiochlor
100
Herbicide
s
MetHbwin
200
Insecticide
s
Metrfbuiln OA
Metribuzin
Oegradate
Hetribut in 6*0*
Metribuiin
Otgradate
HetHburin OX
Metribuzin
Degradate
Mevinphos
Insecticide
Acaricide
S,R
Mexacarbat®
Insecticide
u,c
M) rex :
Insecticide
C,SRC
Kolinate
Herbicide
s
Molinate sulfoxide
Hoiinate
Degradate
Monocrotopfios
Insecticide
Acaricide
C,R
Monuron
Herbicide
C,SRC
Waled
Insecticide
Acaricide
s
Naphthalene
20
Insecticide
s
Ifapropamide
Insecticide
s
Xaptalam
Herbicide
s
Neburon
Herbicide
c
Nemagon
•::08cp:'-:;
rNitfofen
Herbicide
c
p* N11rophenoI
i-Nf troptienol
fconachlor
Chlordane
Impurity in
formulation
Norflurazon
Herbicide
s
Qctyi bicyclot^eptena-
:cJ}cspboxJin1de
Insecticide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
s
Ortho-dichlorobenzen#
¦:'«'-Dlchtbrobenierta::-
Oryialm
Herbicide
s
Ove*
Chlerfensoft
APPENDIX 1-10
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CKEMCAl. KAMS
REFERENCE
KCl.
(«/l>
i,KA
tfrB/U
¦ PISTtCIOe :
CATEGORY
REGULATORY
STATUS
Oxasvt
200
Insecticide
Acaricide
Fungicide
Nematieide
S,R
teyciilorthBTc
Chlordarve
Animal
metabolite
Oxydeoetan-Mttiyl
insecticide
Acaricide
S,R,S*P
Qxydisulfotqn
Insecticide
Acaricide
c
Qnyfluorfen
Herbicide
S,SRC
Pare-chlorometacresol
-'p-ChloFO-a-creabJ -::
para-D i chlorobenzene see
p-Oiehtorobenzene, listed
at dichlorobeniene
p-Chtoro-o-cresol
• Paraquat
30
Herbicide
S,R
Paraquat di chloride
Paraquat-
Parathion
-Parathion, ethyl - ••••:;
Parftthi on, -ethyl: •
Insecticide
$,R,SRC
Fa a'thion, methyl
2
Insecticide
S, R
POJB
Fungicide
S,SRC
PCP
Pentaehtoraphermt
Pebulate
Insecticide
Herbicide
s
• fendimethetin
Herbicide
s
Pentach lorophervol
1
Insecticide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
S,R,SRP
Pemtetfipin
Insecticide
S,R
Perthane
.-'£'tHyi^H: :; :'h '
Phorate
Insecticide
S,R
Phorate suHon*
Phorate
Degradate
Phorate sulfoxide
PhorBte
Degradate
Pboratoxon
Phorate
Degradate
Phoretoxon 4ui fane
Phorate
Degradate
jphoratoxon1 -sulfoxide
Phorate
Degradate
Phosalone
Insecticide
Acaricide
U.R
Phosmet
Insecticide
S
APPENDIX 1-11
-------
Y^T""*yrvT** APf' n T^1 *"!** Jk T%T "^*
riLOilUlUC LKUjO"K£i KKhNI .h 1 AJdJLjd
| CHBNICA1. «AW
REFERENCE
s r
¦ ¦1 ¦
1HA
PEsnctoe
CATEGORY
fircuuroar
STATUS
Plwsmet oxygen analog
Phostset
Degradate
Plwsjjhiwldor)
Insecticide
C,R
Pictorw*
500
500
Herbicide
S,R
PiH*ic»rb
Aphidicide
C
Pirtisicai'b sulfone
Pirimicarb
Oegradate
Pfoferiofos
Insecticide
S,R
Profiurai in
Herbicide
C
PtGMatrb
Insecticide
NR {in US)
Prometon
100
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
S
Proflwtryn
Herbicide
s
Pronainlde
50
Herbicide
S,R,SRC
ProMchtor
90
Herbicide
S
prspanil
Herbicide
s
Proparft'tt
Insecticide
Acarlclde
s
Propazin*
10
Herbicide
c
Propham
100
Herbicide
c
Propoxur
3
Insecticide
s,s*p
Propyiamide
Pronafflide
Prothiofos
Prothibphos
Prothiophos
Insecticide
NR
Pyrethrins
Insecticide
Fungicide
Antimicrobial
U
Pyriclcr
Herbicide
C
Rowel
Insecticide
U,C,SRC
Xotenoione
Rotenone
Degradate
Sotenone
Insecticide
Acericide
Piscicide
S
Seefcwneton
Herbicide
C
$ethoxytiim
Herbicide
s
Sfduror*
Herbicide
s
S iI vex
2.i.5-TP
Stmazine
1
4
Herbicide
s
APPENDIX 1-12
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL NAM;
REFERENCE
: nci
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
CHEMICAL M«£
REFERENCE
MCI
Us/U
I. HA
P£$TS«DE
CATEGORY
REGULATORY
STATUS
Tribufo*
Herbicide
S
Trichlorfon
Insecticide
s
TrieMoroacstfc acid
Herbicide
u
Trichlorobenieoe
.. -tr.t cfci.«fobenlem."'
TH6»Vlorc*th«>#
THchleroethylene
; Tn&Ueroethir#
5
Fumigant
c
tricJU«r©r«tCB)
Insecticide
c
tricfilorophervoX
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
u,c
Trichlorophon
TrliSh lor fon \/: HJ HP
Trictopyr
Insecticide
Herbicide
s
tricyctsiotd
Fungicide
NR
Trifluralin
5
Herbicide
S,SR,C
Trithion
¦.::Ci'rbo^'efl6thi on
Tunic
H Hi
Umcit/Orea
Antimicrobial
u
Verrwiate
Herbicide
s
Vorlex
1 2 Dfchtoropropane,
DicMoropropene,
-Methyl: IsotH iocyanate ¦ ¦
Xyt ene
10000
10000
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Antimicrobial
u
24neb
Insecticide
Fungicide
c
2 i rant
Insecticide
Fungicide
u
SRPrePresently in Pre-Special Review
p
SR Special Review in progress
r
SR Special Review completed
S Supported: the producer(s) of the pesticide has made commitments to conduct
the studies arid pay the fees required for reregistration, and is meeting
those commitments in a timely warmer.
APPENDIX 1-14
-------
PESTICIDE CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE
U Unsupported: The producer}s) of the pesticide has not made or honored •
comiiitiTient to seek reregistration, conduct the necessary studies, or pay
the requisite fees for reregistration of the product.
C Canceled: The active ingredient is no longer contained in any registered
pesticide products.
R Restricted Use: The pesticide Has been classified as a Restricted Use
Pesticide under 40 CfR Part 1, Subpart 1. It is therefore restricted to
use by a certified applicator, or by or under the direct supervision of a
certified applicator.
* In Hawaii both dtchioropropane and 1,2-dichloropropane appear in the data.
APPENDIX 1-15
-------
Pesticides in Ground Water Database - 1992 Report
APPENDIX II - NATIONAL SURVEY OF PESTICIDES IN DRINKING
WATER WELLS
-------
NAtlOMAt SURVEY OF PESTICIDES IN DRINKING WATER WEfES
At this time the Pesticides in Ground Water Database does not contain data from
the National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells (NPS). These data have been
recently analyzed and published.3 OPP is currently working on importing the results of
the pesticide analyses, so that they will be available when the PGWDB becomes part of
the Pesticide Information Network. The following is a short description of the NPS and
a summary of findings from the NPS.
The NPS is a joint project of EPA's Office of Drinking Water and Office of
Pesticide Programs. This survey is the first national study of pesticides, pesticide
degradates and nitrate in drinking water wells. The Survey has two principal objectives:
1) to determine the frequency and concentration of pesticides and nitrate in drinking
water wells nationally; and 2) to improve EPA's understanding of how the presence of
pesticides and nitrate in drinking water wells is associated with patterns of pesticide use
and the vulnerability of ground water to contamination. The focus of the Survey was on
the quality of drinking water in wells, rather than on the quality of ground water, surface
water or drinking water at the tap. The Survey was designed to yield valuable
information on both the frequency and levels of pesticides, pesticide degTadates and
nitrate in rural domestic (private) and community (public) drinking water wells on a
nationwide basis. The Survey was not designed to provide an assessment of pesticide
contamination in drinking water wells at the local, county or State level.
More than 1300 wells were sampled, some in each State, for 127 analytes. Nitrate
was the most commonly detected analyte in these wells. Based upon the NPS results
EPA estimates that nitrate is present at or above the analytical minimum reporting limit
of 0.15ug/L in about 52.1% or community wells, and 57% of rural wells nationwide.
The survey detected pesticides and pesticide degradates much less frequently than
nitrate. Twelve of the 126 pesticides and degradates were found in the sampled wells.
EPA estimates that 10.4% of community wells and 4.2% of rural domestic wells in the
United States contain pesticides or pesticide degradates at or above the analytical
minimum reporting limit. The two most commonly found pesticides were DCPA acid
metabolites (degradate of dimethyl tetrachloroterphthalate) and atrazine. The following
is a list of the pesticides found in each type of well in alphabetical order.
Community: atrazine, DCPA acid metabolites, dibromochloropropane,
dinoseb, hexachlorobenzene, prometon, simazine.
Rural Domestic: alachlor, atrazine, bentazon, DCPA acid metabolites,
dibromochloropropane, ethylene dibromide, ethylene thiourea,
gamma-BHC (lindane), prometon, simazine.
Appendix II-1
------- |