HomeMy WebLinkAboutPesticide Sampling Programs 1980-1987DAVZD lUuuTS, ll.D.
AL,DO AIII)IBCJLZ. P-E.
DZ~BGTQB,. I)LVLSZCII Qis* IBIVI3UIIMDFrAT- HE&I,I'H
IM.Y 1988
TA~ O~ m
BACKGROUND ....................................................
SAMPLING PROGRAM ..............................................
CAR BAMATE PESTICIDES ..........................................
DISCUSSION OF CARBANATE PgSTICID~.S ............................
NON-CAR BAMATE PESTICIDES ......................................
NON-AGRICULTURAL RELATED STUDIES ..............................
RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................
1
i
5
ll
13
16
18
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE I - PESTICIDE SAHPLI2/G PROGRAM ..........................
TABLE II - ALDICARS STATISTICAL DATA ..........................
TABLE III - ALDICARB RESIDUE CONCENTRATION FREQUENCY ..........
TABLE IV - CAR~OFURAN STATISTICAL DATA ........................
TABLE V - CARBOFURAN RESIDUE CONCENTRATION FREQUENCY ..........
TABLE VI - OXAHTL STATISTICAL DATA ............................
TABLE VII - OXAMYL RESIDUE CONCENTRATION FREQUENCY ............
2
6
6
7
7
8
8
LIST OF FIGUP. ES
PIGUP,,g I ~ AVERAGE CONCENTRATION OF CARBANATE PESTICIDES ......
FIGURE 2 - MEDIAN CONCENTRATICN OF CARRAMATE PESTICIDES .......
FIGURE 3 - HIGHEST ALDICARB RESIDUES DETECTED .................
FIGURE 4 - HIGHEST CARBOPURAN RESIDUES DETECTED ...............
FIGURE 5 - HIGHEST OXAMYL RESIDUES DETECTED ...................
FIGURE 6 - RATIO ALDICARB SULFOXIDE/SULFONE ...................
9
9
10
10
10
12
Un~l recent times pes~[cides were not considered a major ~Jareat to
groundwater resources. Data from limited tes~.n~ progra~ for chlorinated
pes~c~des ~nd~ca~d ground~aters ~ere not readily suscep~b~e ~o
con~=i~c~on. ~sed upon ~im~ed sa=pZ~ng result, most s~d~es concluded
~hat pes~c~des would no~ ~mpact groundwa~ers. ~d~onally, ~t was
ass~ed ~e reg~s~ra~on process adeq~e[y reviewed a pes~c[de's
po~en~a~ for leach[nS ~n~o gro~dwaters. ~s~or~cal even~ have sho~
~ha~ this is no~ t~ case.
Pesticide con~mina~on was firs~ discovered in Suffolk Coun~ in
Aus~ 1979 when ~ car~ma~ pes~cide aldicarb (Tesik) w~ detec~d in
driniinI ~ater supply wells. ~ a result of Sis findint an extensive
=es~n8 prosram for aldicarb a~ o~er car~ma~ pes~cidas w~ ini~ated.
~i:h ~e detec~on of carba~te pes~cides conce~ was raised ~e
Sroundwater aquifer would ~ s~cep~ble ~ conm~lna~on froa o~er
classes of pes~cide compo~ds. In order =o sddress ~is concern ~e
Suffolk Coun~ Deparment of Heal~ Services ini~a~d a screeni~ proEram
=o dete~ine ii o~er pes~cide compounds have the potential for affec~nE
~ro~dwater resources. This effort has been lisi~d d~ ~ availabiltu of
labora~ry ca~abiliu to :est for the myriad of pes~cide compou~s which
~ve been used In atriculmral a~ no~iriculmral applica~oas. The
purpose of ~is report is ~o upda~ and sumrize ~e risul~ of ~e
Deparmen= of Heal~ Services pesacide samplint prosrams.
Drinkiug water sources have been ~ested for sevent~-t~o specific
pesticide compounds and thirteen metaholi~es. The number of analysas done
for each compound varies from Just a few to over 34,000. The majority of
the asmpling effort has concentrated on carbamat~ compounds, which remain
Re most sitnifican~ o[ the groundwater contaminants. Table I sum~arizes
the tests which have been performed as part of ~he Depar~ent's pesi:tcide
sampling program.
-]-
Number Of To~al Number
Compound Samples Analyzed De~ec~ed? Of De~ec~s**
Aldicarb (Temik) [i] > 34,000 Yes* > 11,000
Aldrin 170 --* 1
Alachlor (Laeeo) 36 --*
Arsenic > 700 No
ACrazine 26 No
Sanomyl (Benlate)
Bu ~yla te (Sutan)
Cap ~ifol (Difolatan)
Carbaryl (Sevin) [2]
Carbofuran (Furadan) [3]
Chlordane
Chlorpyrifoa (Dursban)
Chloro~halonil (Bravo 500) [4]
Cyanazine (Bladex)
Dac ~hal [5]
Diazinon (Spec~racide)
Dibrom
Oicap~hon
Dichlorvoa
Dieldrin
Dinoseb
Disulfoton (Oisyston)
DDD
DDE
OOT(o,p)
DOT(p,p)
Endosulfan (Thtodan)
~ndosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
~ndrin Aldehyde
6 No
12 No
24 No
> 25,000 --* 36
> 26,000 Yes* > 7,000
186 No
12 No
67 Yes* 11
12 No
213 Yes* 56
29 No
32 --*
3 No
6 No
170 No
66 Yes*
3 No
43 No
43 No
102 No
75 No
72 No
43 No
131 No
43 No
-2-
TABLE I (CONTINUED)
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEALTH SERVICES
PESTICIDE SAMPLING PROGRAM
Compound
Number Of
Samples Anslyzed
De £ec~ed?
To ~al Number
Of De ~ec ~s**
Ep~am (EPTC)
E~hyl Parathion
E ~hoprop (Mocap)
EDB (1,2 Dibrouoethane)
Cuthlon (Azinphos-methyl)
Hep~achlor
Hep~achlor Expoxide
Isofenphos (Of~anol)
l~l~hane (Dicofol)
l(ryocide
Lead
Llndane [6]
Linuron (Lorox)
Hala~hion
Mancozeb
Haneb
ltanza ce (EBI)C)
Me thomyl (Lanna~e)
Methyl Parathion (Penn Cap M)
Metolachlor (Dual)
Mirex
Monitor (Methamidophos)
Me~asystox-R
Me Waoxychlor
Organochlorine Screen
Organophospha~e Screen
Oxa~yl (Vyda~e)
Parequat
Para~hion
16 No
24 No
86 Yes*
> 5,000 Yes*
49 No
66 No
110 No
110 No
4 No
28 No
99
> 700
131
28
15
34
49
28
> 25,000
27
4
4
17
3
100
15
15
> 25,000
14
3
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes*
No
23
15
1
8O
900
1
-3-
SUFFOLK Cflt~ D~ ~ OF ~ 3~.~VlCgS
Numbmr Of Total Number
Compound Samples Analyzed Detacted? Of Detacta**
PermeChrin (Pounce, Ambush) 29 No
Picloram 11 --* l
Simazine (Princep) 14 No
Telone 32
Toxapheue 131
Trifluralin
Va[mm (Metam-Sodl~)
Vorlex (methyl tsothiocyanate)
Zineb
1,2-Dichloropropane
4 No
31 No
34 --*
28 No
> 3,500 Yes*
2,4-D 96 No
2,4,5-TP 96 No
> 250
*See text for discussion on pesticide compoumis which have been detected.
**Includes repeat sampling locations.
[3]
[41
[7]
Includes
sulfone.
Includes
Includes
testing for the degradation producta aldicarb sulfoxide and
las:inS for the degradation product 1-napthol.
testia$ for the desradatiom product 3-hydroxycarbofuran.
Includes tastln8 for the desradaten products D5-2787, DS-3701,
DS-19221, DS-46851, DS-47524 and DS-47525.
Includes testing for ~he degradation produc~s DS-1449, DS-954 and
hexachlor obenzene.
Includes cestin$ for o~er si~lar benzene hexachloride (~) isomers
alpha HCH, be~ HCH, a~ del~ H~.
~Jori~y of samples had ~race levels of flourtdes.
-4-
To date, ton pes~icides have been confirmed as being present in
groundwater sources. Nine additional pesticides have been placed In the
unconfirmed category. Although the nine pesticides were detected on
occasion, insufficient data are available W verify their presence in
groundwaters. The following is a listiag of the pesticide compounds which
have been detected:
UNC0~FIR~ED (9)
ALDRIN
ALACh'LOR
CA~aARYL (SEVIN)
DI liROM
~RYOCIDE
LEAD
LINDANE
PARAQUAT
PICLORAH
C~J FESTICII~
In response to the serious groundwater con~amina~ion problems
attributed to carbama~e pesticides and the need for analytical capability
the Suffolk County Public Health Laboratory developed a high performance
liquid chromotography laboratory technique to perform multi-screenin~ for
carbamate compounds. As part of the s~andard carbamate testing program
analyses are performed for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, aldicarb sulfone,
carbofuran, 3-hydroxycarbofuren, oxamyl, carbaryl, methomyl and 1-
naphthol. This in-house laboratory testing capability permitted the
Depar~nent of Health Services to perform a large number of analyses for the
carbama ~ pes ticldes.
-5-
Over 34,000 analyses have been performed for aldicarb and its
degradation products aldlcarb sulfoxide and sulfone. Of the tests, 18.1
percent (6,287 samples) were found to contain total aldicarb residues above
the recommended New York State Health Department guideline level of 7
parts per billion (ppb); 5,472 (15.7 percent) contained traces below the
guideline. A review of the yearly average concentration of positive
samples ran~ed from 11.6 to 24.7 ppb with the overall average being 18.3
ppb. The average and median residue concentrations of positive aldicarb
samples for the period of 1980-1987 are shown in Figures 1 and 2; the
highest detectable concentrations of aldicarb detected for the period are
shown in Figure 3. Data for the aldicarb sampling program are summarized
in the following Tables II and III:
(~-7 ?pb) (ppb) (ppb)
YeaF
-6-
In excess of 26,000 analyses have been performed for carbofuran and
its degradation product 3-hydroxycarbofuran. Results indicate 817 (3.1
percent) exceed the New York State Department of Health guideline level of
15 ppb; another 6,331 (24.1 percent) analyses contained trace levels
between 1 and 14 ppb. The annual average concentration of positive samples
ranged from 5.1 to 12.1 ppb with the overall average being ?.0 ppb. The
average and median residue concentrations of positive carbofuran samples
for the period 1980-1987 are sho~-a in Figures 1 and 2; the highest
detectable concentrations of carbofuran for the period are sho~n in Figure
4. Information on the results of the carbofurao testing program are
summarized in the following Tables IV and V:
(l-Il ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
532 (Xg.0Z) 8.4 4
2,170 270 262 65 55 5
-7-
Only eleven out of 25,486 oxamyl analyses exceeded the New York State
Health Department guideli~ level of 50 ppb. Additionally 966 samples
contained trace levels between 1 and 49 ppb. The annual average
concentration of oxamyl for t~ years 1982 through 1987 ran~ed from 3.9 to
20.5 ppb with the overall average being 7.2 ppb. The average and median
residue concentrati~ of poeitive oxamyl samples for t~ period 1982-1987
are shown in Figures 1 and 2; the highest detectable concentrations of
oxamyl for the period are show~ in Figure 5. Data for c~ oxamyl sampling
program are summarized in the following Tables VI and VII:
(ppb) (ppb)
20.5 3
-8-
30-
0
FIGtIRE 2
HEDIAN CARBAHATE
PESTICIDE CONCENTRATION
-9-
500'
400'
900'
200'
100'
1980
1881
1002 1983 18~4
FTGURE 2)
HIGRESY ALD IUAES
REE IDUES DETR~ED
1988 1~8 I~T
500 '
400-
200 -
100
1980
1981
1982 1983 1984
FIGURE 4
RESTDUES D;TEC~D
1986
400 ·
300'
200'
100'
1980
1981 1982
1988 1984 1 e~9
FIGURE 5
HIGHEST OXANYL
RESIDUES DETECTSD
-I0-
Trace levels of carhar¥1 residues were detected in $6 out of
approxlma~ely 25,000 analyses. Confirmation samples ~aken at locations
where ~he carbaryl was detected were all negative. Since the compound has
been used extensively for the control of gypsy moths ~he positive ~es~s may
have resul~d from taking samples from contaminated ou~ide hose bibs.
Based upon the small percentage of positive samples and the fact that all
resamples were negative, carbaryl is not considered to be a threat to
groundwa lets.
Trace levels of methomyl residues up to 9 ppb were detected in 80 out
of approxima~ely 25,000 analyses. The small percentage of positS, ye samples
and the fact the concentrations found were less than 20 perceut of the
allowable New York Sta~e Health Deperment guideline of 50 ppb indicate
that methomyl is not a major threat to Suffolk County groundwaters. It is
unknown whether the compound readily degrades or if it was not extensively
used in agricultural operations. Unfortunately, adequate records on
pesticide usage have not been maintained in the past.
Aldicarb and carbofurau were withdra~n from sale in 1979 and
regis~ratious were subsequently changed W prohibit ~e in Suffolk Count.
~amyl, in~roduced in 1980 as a subsfl~te for aldicarb and carbofuran, vas
used ~rough 1983 ~hen lC ceased W ~ used after residues ~ere detecM in
drinking ~a~er sources. Testing for aldicarb and carbofuran have ~ken
place since 1979. ~ells adJacen~ ~ trea~d fa~ fields were ~e first to
be impac~d. Ini~al ~s~ns conducted in 1979-80 revealed ~e plies of
con~lna~on w ~ limimd W ~i~in 1500 leer of fa~ fields. Al~oush
movement of ~ro~d~ater from inland areas to the shore is rela~vely slo~,
in the order of one ~1~ ~ one foot per day, it ~ an~cipa~ ~at ~ells
further from ~e fa~ fields ~ould become impacted a: some lucre date. As
predicted recent ~st resul~ tndica~ ~at ~e levels of cat.mate
residues in wells nearest the farm fields which exceeded the drinking wa~er
g~dellne level in ~e early 1980's are now ~low de~c~ble levels or ~ve
subs~n~ally decreased, and wells further from ~e point of pes~cide
-II-
application have now become impacted. In order Co identify ~he ~ovemen~
and assure ~hac residen~s have a ~a~r supply uee~ accep~ble
levels, ~e Suffolk Co~ Depar~nt of Heal~ ~tvices main~ins a
con~nui~ monitori~ program.
Da~ co dace ~ndicaCes ~a~ iu-si~ degrada~on is no~ ~kin~ place a~
any appreciable ra~. A review of ~ ratio of aldicarb sulfoxide ~o
aLdicarb sulfoue for ~e years 1982-1987 sho~ In ~i~ure 6 does not reveal
any situifican~ reduc~o~ in ~be ra~o. If silaificau~ degrada~on were
occurring i~ is hypo~esized chat ~he ra~o would be decreasing a~ a more
rapid ra~e. ~erefore~ iC ~y ~ many de.des before ~e pes~cide
residues eider desrade and/or are fl~hed ~rom ~e aquifer sys~e~. Due
~e presis~uce of a~icarb a~ car~{uran ia ~ gro~dwa~rs,
~es~ng for aest c~po~s will ~ necessary for ~e ~oreseesble future.
Tes~ resul~ for cacbaryl a~ ae~omyl reveal ~ha~ ~ese compounds do no=
pose any siiuificau~ ~rea~ ~ Chi gro~wa~er resources.
Granular ac~va~d ~r~n (GAC) =reamenC uui~ M~ been
dri~iui ~a~er supply wells which exceed ~e ~ev York S~ Healuh
Deparmen~ g~deli~ level of 7 ppb for aldicarb and 15 ppb for
carbofuran. ~e iil=a~o, uui~ are ~i~ supplied by ~e pes~icide
manufac~rers as a resul~ of neso~a~ed sec=lemen~ wl~ ~e Count.
addition ~o ~e Crea~enC sysC~ms ~he manufac~rers are fundiu~
necessary cou~nui~ ~oniCori~ programs. To da~ over 3,000 pr~va~ wells
and six larSe capaciU public supply wells have been provided with
Crea~n=.
z
1.O,
e
e
FIGURE
RATIO ALDICARB
SULFOXIDE/SULFONE
-}2-
In addition to the carbamate pesticides, fourteen non-carbamate
pesticides have been detected in Suffolk County groundwaters. The
following summarizes the findings for each of the compounds detected:
A concentration of .8 ppb was detected in a 255-foot deep public water
supply well. This was the only positive sample in the thirty-six tests.
The public supply well is located in an agricultural area and has traces of
aldicarb. The well is subject to the influence of nearby pesticide use.
Since alachlor has been reported to be found in groundwaters in several
states, additional sampling for alachlor is warranted.
Aldriu
Aldrin was detected in only 1 out of 170 samples. The positive
sample was from a shallow private well (30-35-foot depth) located in the
basement of the home. The coucentration of aldrin vas reported to be .53
ppb. A resample of the well at a minimum detection level of .03 ppb was
uegative.
Hetabolites of chlorothalonil were detected in 11 out of 67 samples.
The concentration ranged from 1.1 o 12.6 ppb for each individual breakdown
product. The highest combined concentration of chlorothalonil degradation
compounds found was 16.3 ppb. The contamination was found primarily in
shallow private wells but was also detected in a 97-foot public water
supply well.
Cryolite a fluoride compound, has been used on potato crops since 1984
as a substitute for the carhemace pesticides. Fluoride has been detected
at levels ranging from .03 to 1.79 mg/l in the vicinity of fields treated
with cryolite. Samples taken at the monitoring locations prior to
agricultural application contained detectable fluoride levels, therefore
the finding of fluorides cannot be, ~ith any certainty, attributed to the
use of cryolite. The concentrations found to date have been below the
drinking water standard for fluoride of 2.2 md/1.
Decthal breakdown produc~s were detected in ~wen~y-six percent of the
analyses. The average concentretton o~ post.ye s~ples was ~09 ppb and
the ~ed~an was ~3,2 ppb. ~e h~s~ coacen~ra~ou de~ec~ed ~s ~03~ ppb.
Residues of dac~al men.lites were found ~n shallow priva~ and public
water supply wells. Sources of ~e dec.al tuclude agricultural and
aon-agricul~ral opera~o~ such ~ s~ fa~8, golf courses a~ residential
la~ ~tnte~nce services. ~e New York S~Ce ~par~n~ of ~alth has
es~bllshed ~ allowable level of 50 ppb for decal a~ lm breakdo~
produc~ in drlnkins va~r so~ces. ~cause of ~e significant percea~se
of wells fou~ posi~ve a~ ~ elevat~ levels of dec.al residues
de~c~d, addl~o~l mo~mrtnS is rec~ed.
Dibros was detected in three shallow private wells near an area which
had been trea~md with dibrms ~o control ~oaqul~e. The highest
concentration found was 7 ppb. Reea~ples of the wells were negative.
Dibrou was also deleted in surface waters. The resa~ples of the surface
waters were also negative.
1,2 dichloropropane is a coeatl~ueut fo,~ in several ~cides,
lmcl~ln~ Telex, Vorlex ~d ~D. ~ pri~u m in Suffolk Coun~ w~ as
a f~nt on po~ fields ~ co~ly ~ U~ S~es ~r~ut of
lgricul.~re ~ req~rt~ trea~nt of q~r~ fa~ fte~ Infested
by ~e golden ne~t~e. In e~es8 of 2~ out of 35~ s~les ~e fo~ to
have detec~ble levels of 1,2 dtchloropropane. ~e highest concen~a~on
detected was 550 ppb. So~ man~ac~urers have volun~rtly withdrawn their
produc~ for sale In Suffolk Count.
Dinoseb reeidues were found in 6 out of 66 analyses. The highest
concentra~on was 4.5 ppb in a shallow test well within 25 feet of
application. Residues ranging from .6-1.7 ppb were also de~cted in
several other private wells.
-14-
Ires (~2 d~broeoechano)
EDB was detected in two locations which may be attributed to
agricultural use. A concentration of .4 ppb was de~ected in a 115-foot
deep well serving a school and 5 ppb in a shopping center well. EDB has
had limited agricultural use in Suffolk County. Levels of i - 14 ppb have
.been found in non-agricultural areas. It is suspected the EDB results from
gasoline contamination where EDB is used as a gas additive. Host analyses
have been perforued to a detection level of 1 ppb, therefore it is possible
that EDB may be more pervasive at levels of less than 1 ppb.
SChoprop (llocap)
Ethoprop, a substitute for the carbamate pesticides, was used on
potato fields since 1985. Residues of ethoprop have been detected in
shallow private wells adjacent to farm fields in low levels ranging from
.18 - .69 ppb. Residues at levels of .05 to 12.6 ppb have been found in
test wells placed directly in the farm fields. The manufacturer has
recently withdra~n the product from the market and has requested that the
label be revised to restrict its use in Suffolk County.
L~ad
Low levels of lead were detected in private drinking water wells in
agricultural areas. The findings were similar to ~est results from homes
in non-agricultural communities. Lead generally results from the breakdown
of lead based solder. Since the survey in agricultural areas did not
indicate any unusual level of lead, it is concluded there is no impact to
the groundwater from the past use of lead based pesticides.
Lindane residues were found in one sample from 283-foot depth public
water supply well at a concentration of .13 ppb. Resample of the well was
negative.
Paraquat residues were found in one sample from a school well at s
concencration of 3 ppb. Resample of the welt was negative.
Picloram residues were found in a shallow test well in a farm field at
a concentration of .$ ppb.
The majority of the pesticide sampling program has focused on the
effect agricultural operations have on drinking water sources. Limited
testing has been performed to determine the potential impact of
non-agricultural pesticide use, such as termiticides, right-of-ways,
maintenance chemicals, lawn care products and other homeowner
applications. A brief discussion of the findings of non-agricultural
related s~udies perfo~ed by the Department follows:
An inves~&ga~ion was initiated to test selected private wells at
residences where chemicals were used ~o control levites. Efforts were
~de to lden~ify wors~ case conditions i.e., shallow wells close to
building founda~ walls. A~lys~ were perfor~d by ~e New York S~tu
Heal~ ~par~en~ la~ra~ory for ~e cyclodtene compounds chlordane,
aldrin, and dieldrin. ~ ~nts~ laboratu~ debt.on level for chlordane
was .l ppb ~lle ~e debt.on level for aldrin and d~eldrin was either .03
ppb or .05 ppb.
T~s~ were perfo~ed at 54 private well loca~ous, ts reported by ~e
homeowners, 45 of the sites were creac~ wi~ chlordane, ~e ~lance ~ith
aldrtn, dieldrin or an unkno~ ~emi~icide. ~sed upon da~ available a
subs~n~al p~rc~n~8e of t~ wells had dept~ less ~an 60 feet. The
dts~nce from ~ well to ~e point of ~ea~nt follows:
No. Wells Dis lance
12 ..................... Within the perimeter of foundation wall
9 ..................... Less than 10 feet from foundation wall
6 ..................... Within 10-25 feet of foundation wall
6 ..................... Within 26-60 feet of foundation wall
21 ..................... Greater than 60 feet to foundation wall
or distance unknown
-16-
The results of lite sampling program indicate that the potan~-~al of
cyclodiene compounds for leaching into groundwaters is limited. All test
results were negative with the exception of one well which was reported to
contain .53 ppb of aldrin. Resamples of this well were negative.
Chlordane has been reported Co be found in groundwaters in other
states. The cause of the chlordane contsminations are generally not
detailed, Past investigation within Suffolk Country where chlordane was
detected in wells reveal the contamination was the result of a direct input
to the well caused by conditions such as a defective sanitary well seal.
There is no evidence in Suffolk CounVy that properly applied chlordane
leached into the groundwater. Intuitively it is reasonable to conclude
that since chlordane termits control treatment is effect/ve for a period of
20-30 years that the compound must be tied-up in the soil, thus not readily
subject ~o leaching.
Chlordane has been detected in sedimenta and fish from several surface
water lakes in Suffolk Count. It is speculated that the chlordane
residues eminate from non-point sources such as past use of the compound on
lands surrounding the lakes to control turf insects.
Cyclodiene compounds for use as tarmiticides were prohibited in New
York State in March 1985 by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) and nationwide by the United States Environmental
Protect/on Agency in Angust 1987. The primary reason for the cyclodiene
ban was related to the potential health risk due to airborne
contamination. The substituts termiticide products being used are
chlorpyrifos compounds such as Dursban. Chlorpyrifos termiticides are more
soluble and must be applied at more frequent rates than the cyclodienes,
thus may have a greater potential for leaching into groundwater sources.
It should he noted that Dursban has been reported to be detected in
groundwatars in California. It would be prudent co determine at the
earliest possible time the impact chlorpyrifos compounds may have upon the
aquifer in Sufolk County rather than find out at some future date a major
groundwater problem exists. The concern is that we do not trade one sec of
environmental health risks for another, namely airborne contemination
versus the potential contamination of drinking water sources.
-17-
Recomuda~'.~ous have b~en ~de ~o ~he N¥SD~C ~o comnce an in-depth
groundwater tes~Lt, ng program for cblorpyrifos compounds, since very little
testing date is available on leaching capabilities.
Limited testing has been performed in Suffolk County to dete~mine if
certain chemical compounds, i.e., ~hose used in ~he maintenance of r~ght-of-
~ays, par~cularly herbicides, affect drinking ~ater sources. A s~ll
n~ber of ~ells ~ve ~en ~mpl~ for 26 com~u~s incl~i~ ~ herbicides
2,4,-D; Si~zine; 2,4,5-TP; and ~e~rachlorodl~nzo-p-dioxin, au i~riU tn
~e herbicides. ~ resulm reveal ~ de~c~b~ ~rac~ o~ herbicid~ were
present In ~e wells ~s~d at minim~ debt,on levels of .2 ppb for
2,4,D; .05 ppb for 2,4,5-TP; 1.2 ppb for simii~; a~ 10 ppb for
teCrachlorodlbenzo-p~toxtn. M~ough ~e resul~ of ~e ~s~ were
nega~ve, there is concern that so~ right-of-way chemicals Mve the
ability ~o leach into gro~waters. ~is concern ls ~sed ~pon the fact
~at several right-ofway herbicides ~ve been iden~flM in grou~waters
tn o~er par~ of ~e co~y. ~e aq~fer sys~s tn S~olk Co~ty is
vulnerable ~ a large array of polnt a~ non-point con~mt~n~, ~erefore
the use of che~cals by u~li~ts, highway a~ park agencies is considered
a poten~al problem, tddi~o~l effor~ are requir~ ~ identify a~ test
for che~cal compounds used in right-of-way o~ra~ons.
The coutemir~ation of groundwaters by pes~tcide residues has only
recently been recognized as being of national significance. In Suffolk
County, wi~h the excepton of ~he carbamate pes~icides, very little date are
available on the impact non-carbama~ classes of pesticide compounds may
have on groundwater resources. From ~he limited tastin~ results for the
non-carbemaCe pesticides, it is obvious that the potential exists for
selected pesticide compounds to leach into drinking water supplies. Not
only are pesticides used in agricultural operations of concern but also
non-agricultural applications such as termite control! la~n care,
maintenance of utility right-of-ways and pesticide products used by home
owners. For Suffolk County £~ is important to address ~he issue of
-18-
non-agricultural pesticide impacts, since unlike agricul~ural uses which
are generally limited tea relatively small segment of the groundwater
resources, the potential of non-agricultural chemicals to affect the
groundwaters may be more extensive.
In order to assure acceptebili~y of drinking water sources and to
protect the vitel groundwater resources of Suffolk County ~he following
actioes are recommended:
e
Da~a indicates that carbamate pesticides will persist in the groundwater
aquifer for the foreseeable future, therefore the existing carbamate
monitoring program should be mainteined.
e
Additional analytical capability is required to test for a broad range
of pesticide compounds to determine potential for leaching. Testing
should be performed for all compounds used in Suffolk County including
those which have non-agricultural applications.
In order ~o assure that new pesticide compounds to be used in Suffolk
County are not suscep~ible to leaching, actual field testing should be
performed prior to marketing. If specific federal or stere regulations
are not enacted to accomplish t-his objective, the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services should seek voluntery cooperation from
pesticide manufacturers to participate in the needed field teste.
-19-