United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(WH-550)
EPA 570/9-91-039
September 1991
vvEPA
Ground Water Indicator
Pilot Study
In The State Of Minnesota
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
GROUND-WATER INDICATOR PILOT STUDY
IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
September 1991
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW)
is investigating the use'of indicators to track progress and trends in ground-water protection efforts. This
report presents the results of a pilot study in the State of Minnesota to identify the availability and
usefulness of existing ground-water data to support the use of these indicators. EPA chose Minnesota
for this pilot study for three reasons: 1) the State has collected ground-water data over time, 2) the State
has established waste site and drinking water programs, and 3) approximately 75 percent of the State's
population relies wholly,-or in part on ground water for their drinking water supply.
Five ground-water quality indicators were investigated in this pilot study:
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) exceedances in ground-water
based public drinking water supplies;
On-stte and Off-site contamination at hazardous waste sites;
Nitrate concentration in ground water;
Volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations in ground water; and
Pesticide use.
EPA conducted this pilot study to determine whether the criteria for reporting ground-water indicators, as
developed by a 1986 EPA workgroup, could be met with data collected for the State of Minnesota. These
criteria include the following:1
indicators should be based on actual data measurement;
indicators should lend themselves to graphic display to convey trends
and other information readily;
whenever possible, existing data should be used rather than requiring
new data collection;
data should be collected over time at the same locations; and
data can have limitations and still be useful as an 'indicator1 of ground-
water problems or progress.
In general, this study found that data characterizing four of the five indicators are available and that these
data do lend themselves to graphic display, as depicted in this report. EPA determined that sufficient
data were not available to characterize the pesticide indicator adequately. EPA used only existing data
for this analysis, although EPA noted the need for additional data collection to better characterize several
of the indicators. EPA also found that much of the ground-water monitoring data compiled for this study
did not fully support trend analyses because samples were not always taken from the same locations over
time. Nonetheless, EPA concluded that if the limitations are understood, data are available in Minnesota
to at least partially characterize four of the five ground-water indicators.
1 U.S. EPA Office of Ground-Water Protection, April 1989. 'Indicators for Measuring Progress in Ground-Water
Protection." EPA 44016-88-006.
-------
IV
Indicator Data Sources in Minnesota
One or more sources of data were identified to characterize each indicator. After reviewing these sources,
EPA identified one or more principle data sources for each indicator as follows:
MCL and drinking water data were compiled from the U.S. EPA Federal
Reporting Data System (PROS).
Waste site data was"gathered primarily from paper records maintained
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and EPA Region V.
Nitrate data were retrieved from the U.S. Geological Survey National
Water Information System .(NWIS) and the Minnesota Ambient Ground-
Water Monitoring Network.
VOC data were also retrieved from the NWIS and the Minnesota Ambient
Ground-Water Monitoring Network.
No pesticide data were collected for this study.
Analysis of the Data
The data drawn from the above sources are summarized in this report in graphical format. The raw data
are also presented in tables in appendices to this report. Analysis of these data was complicated by
differences in data format and organization among the data bases. In addition, some of the agencies
participating in this study which maintain identified data bases did not have sufficient resources to support
the study fully. Therefore, the Pilot Study focused on the use of readily available data although additional
relevant data sources are noted in this report.
Achievement of the National Objectives for the Indicators
In an April 1989 report, U.S. EPA identified specific national objectives for each of the five indicators
examined in this Pilot Study. EPA's ability to achieve the objectives for each of the indicators varied:
Maximum Contaminant Levels: Data from the FRDS-II data base are sufficient to support the national
objectives for this indicator. Although EPA limited this analysis to county-level summaries of MCL violation
information, the analysis could be focused at different geographic levels and could include analyses of
the populations potentially at risk from the violations. However, the population data maintained in FRDS
may not entirely reflect the actual size of the population exposed to a particular MCL violation.
On-SKe and Off-Site Contamination at Hazardous Waste Sites: Sufficient data are available in
Minnesota CERCLA files to characterize the level of contamination, the status of off-site contaminant
migration, and the populations at risk for specific sites or facilities. These data are also available for RCRA
facilities, but they were not provided by the State for this analysis. Minnesota has not recorded CERCLA
or RCRA data in automated data management systems. Therefore, the data presented in this study were
collected by the State and EPA from paper files and organized manually to format for presentation.
Information in this report was compiled from 104 of the 166 sites on the Minnesota Permanent List of
Priorities. Therefore, the on-site and off-site hazardous waste site data presented in this report represent
only a portion of the extent of contamination at waste sites in Minnesota.
Volatile Organic Compounds: EPA accessed data maintained in the USGS National Water Information
System and the Minnesota Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network to characterize this indicator. EPA
was able to organize the available data at the county level and display trends in VOC levels graphically.
However, EPA determined that the lack of consistent repeat analyses at many of the sampled wells limited
-------
the usefulness of the data to support a state analysis. A more thorough and consistent VOC sampling
and'analysis program should be developed to better support analyses of trends in VOC levels State-wide.
Nitrates: EPA accessed data maintained in the USGS National Water Information System and the
Minnesota Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network to characterize this indicator. EPA was able to
organize these data at the county level and display trends in nitrate levels graphically. However, EPA
determined that the lack of consistent repeat analyses at many of the sampled wells limited the usefulness
of the data to support the national objectives fully. A more thorough and consistent nitrate sampling and
analysis program should be developed. However, the current effort by the State to generate maps
displaying mean nitrate levels should meet the objective to 'identify the pattern and level of ground-water
quality with respect to the area-wide sources throughout the country,' at the State level. In addition,
continuation of the Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network Program should allow, with time, trend
analysis at the county and State level.
Pesticide Use: Sufficient data are not available in Minnesota to characterize this indicator. Therefore,
EPA could not collect data to assess the extent of pesticide use State-wide. It is recommended that the
State collect and automate data to characterize pesticide use.
Additional Indicators: Minnesota personnel identified tritium analyses as an additional indicator of
ground-water vulnerability. Minnesota has completed a tritium study in one portion of the State and has
developed a proposal for completing tritium analyses in 400 public water supply wells.
The following discussion presents a summary of the general lessons learned during the course of this pilot
study. The discussion first addresses the technical issues and data management practices encountered
in this pilot study. The discussion then outlines suggested revisions to these existing practices that can
be adopted by the State to better support future ground-water indicator reporting. Finally, the resources
needed to further support indicator reporting and next steps are briefly discussed.
Existing Practices
In completing this pilot study, EPA encountered a number of problems relating to the quality and
availability of the compiled data which limit their application to support the indicator objectives. The
problems concerning the quality of the data related both to the representativeness or geographic
coverage of the data and to the procedures used to collect the analytical results. In particular, EPA
identified the following technical issues:
data are limited in geographic coverage;
sampling is not consistent in geographic coverage;
sampling is not consistent over time;
securing and analyzing samples was not uniform;
limited repeat sampling is conducted at the same location; and
there is an insufficient volume of data particularly regarding pesticide use.
In addition to these technical issues, EPA also identified problems with regard to the way in which the
collected data were managed. These data management issues limited EPA's ability to access and use
the information provided by the State:
data sources were fragmented;
several data files were received with insufficient documentation (e.g., file
format information and identifiers for specific contaminants were not
provided);
-------
VI
data bases were originally organized to support different objectives from
those the indicators were designed to address; and
several data files did not include Federal Information Processing
Standard identifier codes as geographic locators.
Suggested Revisions to Existing Practices to Support Indicator Reporting
EPA is strongly promoting the wider use of indicator data collection across all Federal and State
programs. An EPA Task Force, with State participation, developed concrete principles and objectives to
ensure effective and consistent decision-making in all Agency decisions affecting ground water, and will
also institute State Comprehensive Ground-Water Protection Programs2. Monitoring and data collection
is one area that will be addressed.
As Minnesota continues its monitoring and data collection efforts and begins to develop its comprehensive
program, it is important to keep the issues noted in the pilot study in mind. For example, sampling and
analytical consistency may be promoted by establishing consistent scientific and data collection protocols
and by expanding their ground-water monitoring network, as appropriate, to provide trend data Data
management activities that employ standard data collection formats for each of the indicators are already
underway in Minnesota to maintain standard data management protocols between agencies. Cooperative
efforts between EPA and Minnesota will ensure that information collection activities support the objective
of protecting the nation's ground-water resources.
To begin moving toward data consistency, EPA along with the States and other Federal agency work
group participants developed a set of the most critical data elements for ground-water quality information.
These data elements form the foundation upon which ground-water data users may build their own data
base, adding elements to meet their specific needs. The use of this minimum set of data elements
(MSDE)3 will ensure that EPA and the States can share and manipulate ground-water data to support
better environmental decision-making, and facilitate cross-program integration.
Once adopted, these revisions could support the collection, management, and reporting of indicator data
needed for future 305(b) reports.
Resources For Implementing
Initially, the resources required at the State level to implement national indicator reporting may be
extensive. Minnesota cannot significantly improve its data collection and reporting without expending the
necessary resources to correct deficiencies. As the State expands its Ambient Ground-water monitoring
network and integrates their information systems, data will become more accessible for use in indicator
development. Furthermore, after the information is collected and the data elements and data reporting
formats for including ground-water indicators in 305(b) reports are identified and applied, the effort
expended for completing the 305(b) report will be greatly reduced.
2 U.S. EPA, Office of the Administrator, "Protecting the Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy for the 1990s," EPA
21Z-1020, (Washington, D.C.) July 1991.
3 U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, "Definitions for the Minimum Set of Data Elements for
Ground-Water Quality," (Washington, D.C.) Jury 1991 (draft final).
-------
VII
Next Steps
This pilot study is one of three studies EPA completed investigating the use of ground-water indicators
in 305(b) reports. A Findings Report has been prepared which outlines and summarizes the information
and knowledge gathered in Idaho, Minnesota, and New Jersey. The Findings Report also makes
recommendations regarding the implementation of indicators in future 305(b) reports. Based on these
recommendations, EPA is developing a Technical Assistance Document (TAD)4 to provide technical
guidance to the States on how to gather and use indicator data as part of their 1992 305(b) Reports. The
TAD is also intended to help set the stage for those States that are moving toward developing
comprehensive ground-water monitoring and information systems, particularly in relationship to ground-
water indicator reporting, and to assist those which are already in the process. The TAD is expected to
be completed by early 1992.
4 U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Technical Assistance Document," (Washington, D.C.)
September 1991 (draft).
-------
IX
Table of Contents
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY lii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Overview and Purpose of the Report 1
B. Description of the General Research Approach 4
C. Outline of the Report 6
II. SUMMARY OF MINNESOTA HYDROGEOLOGY AND GROUND-WATER USE 7
A. Hydrogeologic Setting 7
B. Populations Relying on Ground-Water 9
III. GROUND-WATER INDICATORS 11
A. Maximum Contaminant Levels 11
B. On-Site and Off-Site Contamination from Hazardous Waste Sites 16
C. Volatile Organic Compounds 21
D. Nitrates 30
E. Extent of Agricultural Pesticide Use 36
F. Additional Indicators Identified by Minnesota Personnel 38
IV. STUDY CONCLUSIONS 39
A. Existing Practices 40
B. Suggested Revisions to Existing Practices to Support Indicator Reporting . . 41
C. Resources for Implementing 41
D. Next Steps 42
BIBLIOGRAPHY 43
-------
XI
Appendices
Page
Appendix A: Number of MCL violations for Selected Counties in Minnesota A-1
Appendix B: Environmental Indicator Questionnaire B-1
Appendix C: Summary of Hazardous Waste Sites for Minnesota C-1
Appendix D: Summary of VOC Data for Selected Counties in Minnesota 0-1
Appendix E: Summary of Nitrate Detections for Selected Counties in Minnesota E-1
Appendix F: Summary of Agencies that Track Indicator Data in Minnesota F-1
Appendix G: Supplementary Publications for Minnesota G-1
-------
XIII
Ust of Tables
Page
Table A-1: Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Violations of the Federal
MCL for Arsenic, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency A-2
Table A-2: Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Violations of the Federal
MCL for Nitrate, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency A-3
Table A-3: Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Violations of the Federal
MCL for Total Coliform, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency A-4
Table A-4: Number of Public Water Systems Reporting Violations of the Federal
MCL for Combined Radium, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency A-5
Table C-1: Summary of Hazardous Waste Sites for Minnesota C-2
Table D-1.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Anoka County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-2
Table D-1.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Anoka County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-3
Table D-2.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Brown County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-4
Table D-2.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Brown County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-5
Table D-3.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Carver County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-6
Table D-3.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Carver County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-7
Table D-4.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Cass County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-8
Table D-4.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Cass County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-9
Table D-5.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Dakota County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-10
Table D-5.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Dakota County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-11
Table D-6.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Dodge County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-12
Table D-6.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Dodge County (1985-1989). Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-13
-------
XIV
Ust Of Tables (continued)
Page
Table D-7.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Fillmore County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-14
Table D-7.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Fillmore County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-15
Table D-8.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Goodhue County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-16
Table D-8.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Goodhue County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-17
Table D-9.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Hennepin County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-18
Table D-9.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Hennepin County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-19
Table D-10.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Houston County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-20
Table D-10.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Houston County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-21
Table D-11.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Hubbard County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-22
Table D-11.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Hubbard County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-23
Table D-12.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Morrison County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-24
Table D-12.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Morrison County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-25
Table D-13.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Mower County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-26
Table D-13.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Mower County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-27
Table D-14.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Olmsted County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-28
Table D-14.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Olmsted County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-29
Table D-15.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Ottertail County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-30
-------
XV
List Of Tables (continued)
Page
Table D-15.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Ottertail County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-31
Table D-16.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Pine County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency D-32
Table D-16.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Pine County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency D-33
Table D-17.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Pipestone County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-34
Table D-17.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Pipestone County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-35
Table D-18.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Pope County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-36
Table D-18.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Pope County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-37
Table D-19.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Ramsey County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-38
Table D-19.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Ramsey County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-39
Table D-20.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Renville County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-40
Table D-20.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Renville County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-41
Table D-21.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Scott County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-42
Table D-21.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Scott County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-43
Table D-22.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Sherbume County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-44
Table D-22.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Sherbume County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-45
Table D-23.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Steams County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-46
Table D-23.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Stearns County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-47
-------
XVI
Ust Of Tables (continued)
Paae
Table D-24.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Wabasha County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-48
Table D-24.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Wabasha County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-49
Table D-25.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Wadena County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-50
Table D-25.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Wadena County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-51
Table D-26.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Washington County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-52
Table D-26.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Washington County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-53
Table D-27.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Winona County (1980-1984), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency , D-54
Table D-27.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Winona County (1985-1989), Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency D-55
Table D-28: Summary of VOC Detections for Anoka County, U.S. Geological Survey .... D-56
Table D-29: Summary of VOC Detections for Cass County, U.S. Geological Survey .... D-57
Table D-30: Summary of VOC Detections for Hennepin County, U.S. Geological Survey . D-58
Table D-31: Summary of VOC Detections for Ramsey County, U.S. Geological Survey .. D-59
Table E-1: Summary of Nitrate Detections (1980-1984), U.S. Geological Survey E-2
Table E-2: Summary of Nitrate Detections (1985-1989), U.S. Geological Survey E-3
Table E-3: Summary of Nitrate Detections (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency E-4
Table E-4: Summary of Nitrate Detections (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency E-5
-------
XVII
List of Exhibits
Page
Exhibit 1 (a) County Map of Minnesota '.... 5
Exhibit 1(b) County Populations and Locations for County Map in Exhibit l(a) 10
Exhibit A-1 Summary of Federal MCL Violations in Minnesota, U.S. EPA 15
Exhibit B-1 Summary of Hazardous Waste Site Contamination Concentration Levels in
Minnesota 19
Exhibit C-1.1 Summary of VOC Detections for Selected Counties in Minnesota,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 24
Exhibit C-1.2 Summary of VOC Detections for Selected Counties in Minnesota,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 25
Exhibit C-1.3 Summary of VOC Detections for Selected Counties in Minnesota,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 26
Exhibit C-1.4 Summary of VOC Detections for Selected Counties in Minnesota,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 27
Exhibit C-2 Summary of VOC Detections for Selected Counties in Minnesota, U.S.
Geological Survey 29
Exhibit D-1 Summary of Nitrate Analyses for Selected Counties in Minnesota,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 34
Exhibit D-2 Summary of Nitrate Analyses for Selected Counties in Minnesota, U.S.
Geological Survey 35
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) is
responsible for ground-water policy coordination and planning for the Agency. OGWDW is also
responsible for working with the States to develop and implement State ground-water policies and
guidelines, enhance ground-water data management, and initiate and conduct special studies of
ground-water contamination.1
As part of this overall ground-water effort, U.S. EPA has been investigating the use of indicators to
track progress and trends in ground-water protection efforts. In April 1989, EPA published the report,
Indicators for Measuring Progress in Ground-Water Protection, which presented the results of a three
phase process used to develop a set of ground-water indicators. The process stressed a number of
principles that should be considered when choosing and verifying potential indicators, including:
indicators should be based on actual data measurement;
indicators should lend themselves to graphic display to convey trends
and other information readily;
whenever possible, existing data should be used rather than requiring
new data collection;
ideally data should be collected over time at the same locations; and
data can have limitations and still be useful as an 'indicator1 of ground-
water problems or progress.
The indicators, which are described below, can be used by States as part of their biennial National
Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress under the Clean Water Act, Section 305(b).
EPA selected three states (New Jersey, Minnesota and Idaho) as part of a pilot study to investigate
the usefulness of these indicators to track progress in ground-water protection efforts. This report
presents the results of the investigation in the State of Minnesota to identify the availability and
usefulness of existing ground-water data EPA selected Minnesota for this pilot study for three
reasons:
the State has collected ground-water data over time,
the State has established waste site and drinking water programs, and
approximately 75 percent of the State's population relies wholly, or in
part on ground water for their drinking water supply.
EPA collected the data presented in this report with the assistance of the State of Minnesota; City of
Rochester, Minnesota; and U.S. Geological Survey personnel. While EPA discusses a number of data
bases in this report, only selected data are presented due to problems in data acquisition and
resource limitations. Additional supplementary publications regarding indicators are listed in
Appendix G.
1 U.S. EPA Office of Ground-Water Protection, April 1989, 'Indicators for Measuring Progress in Ground-Water
Protection,' EPA 44016-88-006.
-------
Rationale for Ground-Water Indicators
EPA developed a set of indicators that EPA and the States can use to track progress and set priorities
in ground-water protection efforts.2 The initial set of ground-water indicators includes:
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) - This indicator measures quality
of ground-water used for public drinking water supplies, the
effectiveness of ground-water protection efforts, and the population at
risk from contaminated supplies.
On-Site and Off-Site Contamination from Hazardous Waste Sites -
This indicator tracks contamination in and around hazardous waste
sites as a measure of the effectiveness of ground-water protection
programs, potential risk to drinking water supplies, and the population
served by those supplies.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) - This indicator measures
ground-water contamination from industrial and non-industrial activity.
Nitrates - This indicator measures area-wide ground-water
contamination from sources such as agricultural activity and septic
systems.
Extent of Agricultural Pesticide Use - This indicator measures pesticide
usage in agricultural areas. "
These indicators encompass existing data and data that can be collected by the State over time. The
indicators also lend themselves to graphic display to convey trends in ground-water quality and
vulnerability.
Reporting Indicators Under the 305(b) Process
An important application for the indicator data will be in developing State Water Quality Reports for
inclusion in the biennial National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress under Section 305(b) of
the Clean Water Act Section 305(b) mandates that States develop and report information concerning
the quality of the nation's water resources to EPA and the U.S. Congress. The 305(b) process is an
essential aspect of the national water pollution control effort. It is the principal means by which EPA,
Congress, and the public evaluate water quality, the progress made in maintaining and restoring water
quality, and the extent to which water quality problems remain. Many States rely on the 305(b)
process to gather the information needed to conduct program planning and to report to their
legislatures on progress in ground-water pollution control and resource protection programs.
The Minnesota 1990 State Water Quality Report (305(b) Report) is the eleventh in a series of State
Reports prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) since 1974. The Report
presents an assessment of current water quality conditions in the State's major rivers and lakes;
describes which waters are attaining State designated water uses and national clean water goals;
identifies pollution problems in surface waters; and identifies the suspected and known sources of
water pollution.3 The 305(b) report describes the quality of both surface and ground-water supplies
within the state, although the primary emphasis is on surface water quality. The report presents a
discussion of ground-water quality and quantity conditions in the State and the current management
2 U.S. EPA, February 1989, "Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1990 State Water Quality Assessment (305(b)
Report),* page 23.
3 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1990, Minnesota 1990 State Water Quality Report.
-------
efforts for the resource. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency presents the following conclusions on
Minnesota's ground-water quality.
Reliance on Ground Water and Overall Ground-Water Quality
Approximately 75 percent of the state's population relies wholly, or in
part, on ground water for their drinking supply.
Public water supplies draw 55 percent of their supplies from ground
water and account for 40 percent of the total volume of ground water
withdrawn Statewide.
The natural quality of Minnesota's ground water is generally quite
good, with contaminant concentrations usually falling far below primary
drinking water standards.
While Minnesota's ground water appears to be only beginning to show
the impact of human activities, significant problems have been found
in some local areas.
Sources of Contamination
The five sources of contamination of greatest concern include septic
tanks, municipal landfills, underground storage tanks, abandoned
hazardous waste sites, and agricultural activities.
The MPCA has identified the most serious localized or point sources of .
anthropogenic pollution as State Superfund sites and has added them
to Minnesota's Permanent List of Priorities (PLP). The PLP included a
total of 165 sites as of December 1989.
Between 1985 and the end of 1989, MPCA recorded more than 36,000
underground storage tanks from more than 13,000 sites around
Minnesota MPCA staff estimate that more than 40,000 tanks will be
registered when the inventory is complete. Of these thousands of
tanks, many are known or are suspected to be leaking and causing
environmental damage.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Since 1978, MPCA has detected VOCs in 11 percent of the 375
samples collected from the State's 450 monitoring points.
Trihalomethanes were the most commonly detected group of VOCs in
this sampling, followed by 1,1,2-trichloroethylene.
The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) detected VOCs in nearly 8
percent of Minnesota community water systems, with nearly 2 percent
at levels exceeding acceptable drinking water standards.
Minnesota Department of Health indicated in a December 1988 study
of 300 non-community water supply systems at risk of contamination
that VOCs were present in approximately 25 percent of these wells.
Only 2 percent exceeded acceptable drinking water standards. More
representative sampling of non-community water systems finds VOCs
at a level more similar to community water systems.
-------
Nitrates
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency found that the most common
constituents exceeding State standards for waters used as drinking
water supplies were, in order of decreasing frequency, iron,
manganese, sutfate, nitrate, and chloride. MPCA attributed the
elevated levels of iron, manganese, sulfate, and chloride to the natural
composition of the aquifer material. < Studies found elevated nitrate
concentrations most frequently in surficial aquifers in areas of intense
agricultural development and/or animal feedlot proliferation.
Pesticides
Minnesota Department of Health conducted a sampling program to
detect pesticides in wells located in sensitive areas, and found one or
more pesticides in 39 percent of the 725 wells sampled. Although the
percentage of detections was relatively high, the concentrations found
were low, with 83 percent of all detections below 1.0 jig/I.
B. DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL RESEARCH APPROACH FOR THE STUDY
EPA compiled this study to demonstrate the manner in which ground-water indicator data are and
can be collected and reported in the State of Minnesota The activities included on-site interviews,
follow up contacts, preparation of a project plan, collection and analysis of data, and final report
preparation. EPA conducted on-site interviews with Minnesota personnel on December 18 and 19,
1989 to discuss the project, review supporting documentation, identify available information, discuss
data formats, determine data management requirements, identify responsible parties and key
contacts, and request assistance in preparing the specified information. Personnel responsible for
each of the major data bases were present at the meetings. EPA scheduled follow-up contacts to
discuss specific comments and to review data availability and usefulness. EPA developed a written
Project Plan to document the results of the interviews and follow-up contacts and to identify specific
characteristics for each of the data bases to be used to collect indicator data4
Following distribution of the Project Plan, personnel responsible for each of the key data bases were
contacted by EPA to review any specific questions, respond to data requests, and set time frames to
collect the data State and Federal Agency personnel provided indicator data on tape, computer disk,
and in hard copy. This report presents the results of the analysis of those data and discusses the
methodologies used and the concerns identified during the data compilation efforts.
EPA collected indicator data State-wide by county, where available, for each of the five indicator
parameters. Because of limited resources, EPA chose to limit its analysis of the indicators to a subset
of 29 of Minnesota's 87 counties; these counties are highlighted on the State map presented in
Exhibit 1 (a). The other 58 counties, by and large, will have far fewer data available.
To develop this subset of counties, EPA considered the following factors:
The subset should represent most, if not all, of the geographic,
hydrogeologic, urban, and agricultural regions of the State;
4 Please note that since completion of these initial activities, Minnesota personnel have developed a summary of
ongoing monitoring activities entitled, '1990 Catalog of Ground Water Monitoring Programs and Projects in Minnesota."
Please refer to this document for additional information.
-------
EXHIBIT 1 (a)
County Map of Minnesota
Counties included in the report
-------
The subset should include those counties for which data are available
in as many of the data bases that were evaluated for each indicator as
possible.
Where possible, EPA evaluated this subset of counties for each data base that it assessed across all
of the indicators. Data were not available, however, for each county in each of the data bases.
C. OUTLINE OF THE REPORT
Section I presents an introduction to the indicator concept for measuring the progress of
ground-water protection efforts. Section II of this report presents a summary of the hydrogeologic
setting in Minnesota and characterizes ground-water use and the populations that rely on this
resource. Section III presents detailed information on each of the ground-water indicators analyzed in
Minnesota Each indicator discussion presents information on the national objectives of the indicator;
a description of the indicator; a discussion of relevant sources of ground-water data in Minnesota and
the data management for each of these sources; the approach used to characterize the data and the
results of the data collection efforts; suggested revisions to the data collection process; and a
conclusion regarding the availability of sufficient data to address the national objectives. Section III
concludes with a discussion of additional indicators identified which may be applicable to measure
progress in ground-water protection efforts. Section IV presents the study conclusions including a
summary of the findings for each indicator, a discussion of the technical and data management
factors limiting the availability of data to support the study, suggestions for modification to technical
and data management practices, and, finally, a brief discussion on resources needed and the next
steps EPA is planning to implement ground-water indicator reporting.
-------
II. SUMMARY OF MINNESOTA HYDROGEOLOGY AND
GROUND-WATER USE
A. HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency identified 13 primary aquifers, important on both regional and
local basis, in the 1987 report 'An Appraisal of Minnesota's Ground Water Quality*. The aquifers are
described briefly below in reverse order of the aquifer's geologic age.
Surflclal Sands
Surficial Sand aquifers predominate throughout much of central Minnesota and are present, although
not as extensively, in many other pans of the State. These deposits were laid down when continental
glaciers covered much of Minnesota. The aquifers are generally unconfined and sustained well yields
range from 10 gallons per minute (gpm) to 1,000 gpm. These deposits, which consist of fine to
coarse sand and gravel, are usually less than 100 feet thick, but may reach a maximum of 500 feet
thick in places.5 The ground water in these aquifers, which have been moderately developed, is
easily obtained in quantities suitable for domestic and agriculture use. Surficial Sand aquifers are
susceptible to contamination from non-point sources of pollution since their recharge areas are
extensive and the aquifer materials are highly permeable.
Burled Sands
Buried Sand aquifers were generally formed as a result of continental glaciation, which covered much
of Minnesota for many thousands of years. Buried Sand aquifers occur throughout the State, with the
exception of the 'driftless' areas of southeastern Minnesota and are usually less than 10 feet thick but
may be as much as 150 feet thick in isolated areas.6 They are generally not extensive and may be
found at depths of a few feet below the land surface or just above bedrock. These aquifers yield 10
gpm to 1,000 gpm and are a major source of water for municipal and domestic supply wells in central
and southwestern Minnesota
Cretaceous Sandstone
The Cretaceous Sandstone aquifer is composed of sand and silt which was deposited in a variety of
ancient environments including: swamp, and floodplain deposits-and marine type environments
which include beach, offshore, and other high energy conditions/ The Cretaceous Sandstone
aquifer is used as a source of water for homes and municipalities in southwestern Minnesota The
deposits consist of gray, soft, clayey shale that contains sand beds which are nearly continuous in the
western half of the State. The aquifer is not widely used and typically yields 5 gpm to 50 gpm.
Cedar Valley-Maquoketa-Dubuque-Galena
This aquifer, also referred to as the Upper Carbonate aquifer is composed of limestone, dolomite, and
dolomitic limestone.8 These types of rocks are characteristic of warm shallow water, low-energy
environments such as those found in the Bahamas today. It is the youngest in a series of
5 U.S. Geological Survey, 1981. 'Designation of Principal Water-Supply Aquifers in Minnesota' Water Resource
Investigation 81-51.
6 Ibid.
7 Matsch, C. and R. Ojakangas, 1982. 'Minnesota's Geology.' Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, p.250.
8 U.S. Geological Survey, 191. 'Designation of Principal Water-Supply Aquifers in Minnesota' Water Resource
Investigation 81-51.
-------
sedimentary Paleozoic formations and extends approximately 80 miles northward into Minnesota from
the Iowa border. Wells generally yield from 200 gpm to 500 gpm. In many places material thinly
covers the bedrock, which makes the aquifer very susceptible to contamination from human activity.
St. Peter Sandstone
The St. Peter aquifer was probably formed by sands deposited in a shallow water low energy
environment and is composed of white, fine to medium grained sandstone. The aquifer extends as far
north as the Twin Cities, but, because more productive aquifers are available, the St. Peter is not
widely used as a municipal supply. Yields typically range from 10 gpm to 100 gpm with the maximum
amount reported being 1,000 gpm.
Prairie du Chlen-Jordan
The Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer consists of two distinct rock types: the Prairie du Chien Group
carbonates and the sands of the Jordan Sandstone. These rock units are considered a single aquifer
because they are hydraulically connected. The aquifer covers the southeast portion of Minnesota.
The Prairie du Chien Group carbonates, which have been compared with modem deposits found in
Sharks Bay, Australia, probably had a wide range of depositional environments, from shallow water,
low energy offshore setting to a higher energy environment closer to shore. This is the most widely
used aquifer in the Twin Cites and southeastern Minnesota and yields as much as 2,700 gpm in wells
in both units.10 Karstic conditions exist in the Prairie du Chien Group in southeastern Minnesota
where it occurs at or near the surface. These karstic conditions make this aquifer very susceptible to
surface derived contamination.
Franconla-lronton-Galesvllle
The Franconia Formation consists of sandstone, shale, and dolomite which is reflective of depositional
environments ranging from shallow water-nearshore with moderate energy to offshore-low energy.
The Franconia-lronton-Galesville is an important aquifer in areas adjacent the Mississippi and
Minnesota Rivers, particularly in Anoka, Hennepin, Scon, and Carver counties.11 Yields commonly
range from 40 gpm to 400 gpm.
Mt. Slmon-Hinckley
The Mt. Simon-Hinckley aquifer is composed of two separate sandstone units representing a high
energy marine type environment. This aquifer supplies about 15 percent of the ground water used in
the Twin Cites metropolitan area, especially in the northern suburbs. This relatively thick unit is
composed of sandstone, siltstone, and shale that underlies all of the southeast part of Minnesota as
far north as Duluth12. The aquifer commonly yields 500 gpm, however, local yields may be as high
as 2,000 gpm. The Mt. Simon-Hinckley aquifer is present under much of east central and
southeastern Minnesota.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Sabel, G. and E. Porcher, 1987. 'Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program: An Appraisal of Minnesota's Ground
Water Quality," 1987. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste, p.23.
12 U.S. Geological Survey, 1981. 'Designation of Principal Water-Supply Aquifers in Minnesota" Water Resource
Investigation 81-51.
-------
Preeambrlan Age Aquifers
The locations of the Biwabik Iron Formation, Fond-du-Lac, North Shore Volcanics, Sioux Quartzite,
and Precambrian Undifferentiated are scattered throughout the State.
The Fond-du-Lac Formation is believed to have been deposited by rivers flowing through areas which
were highly erodible. Very little is known about the area) extent of the Fond-du-Lac aquifer.
The North Shore Volcanic aquifer is the major bedrock aquifer along the north shore of Lake Superior.
It is composed of a series of basaltic flows interbedded with sedimentary rocks. Yields obtained from
wells less than 300 feet to 400 feet deep are usually less than 25 gpm, however, they may be as high
as 100 gpm.
The Sioux Quartzite aquifer, which may have been formed in either a stream or beach type of
environment, underlies most of southwestern Minnesota and furnishes water to several municipalities
as well as numerous domestic and stock wells. Yields range from 1 gpm to 450 gpm and are usually
obtained from fractured and weathered zones of sandstone.
The most productive source of ground water in the Mesabi Iron Range is the Biwabik Iron Formation.
Individual yields range from 250 gpm to 750 gpm and are obtained from zones of bedrock altered by
faulting or leaching.
The undifferentiated Pre-Cambrian aquifer, which underlies the entire State, consists of igneous and
metamorphic rocks such as granite, greenstone, and slate. These rocks are generally not considered
aquifers except in the southwest, central, and northeastern parts of Minnesota where they yield small
quantities of water in fractures, faults and weather zones.13
B. POPULATIONS RELYING ON GROUND WATER
Ground water is the drinking water source for approximately seventy-five percent of the State's
population or about 3.2 million people, based on the 1986 total State population reported in
Exhibit 1(b).
13 Ibid.
-------
10
Exhibit 1 (b)
County Populations and Locations
for County Map in Exhibit 1 (a)
County
Name
Aitkin
Anoka
Becker
Beltrami
Benton
Big Stone
Blue Earth
Brown
Cartton
Carver
Cass
Chippewa
Chisago
Clay
Clearwater
Cook
Cottonwood
Crow Wing
Dakota
Dodge
Douglas
Faribautt
Fillmore
Freebom
Goodhue
Grant
Hennepin
Houston
Hubbard
Isanti
Itasca
Jackson
Kanabec
Kandiyohi
Kittson
Koochiching
Lac Qui Parle
Lake
Lake of the Woods
Le Sueur
Lincoln
Lyon
McLeod
Mahnomen
Population
1986
13,600
221,200
29,500
33,000
27,100
7,300
51,000
28,000
29,900
40,900
21,500
14,200
28,100
47,800
8,700
4,100
13,900
44,600
228,300
15,300
29,100
18,400
21,400
34.500
39,400
6,700
987,900
19,000
14,900
25,300
42,500
13,200
12,600
38,100
6,200
15,400
10,000
11,500
3,800
23,400
7,600
25,000
31,200
5,300
Location
on Map
J-7
M-7
I- 3
G-4
L-6
M-2
P-6
P-5
J-8
N-6
I- 6
N-3
M-8
I- 2
G-4
G-12
P-4
J-6
O-8
P-8
L-4
Q-6
Q-9
Q-7
P-8
L-3
N-7
Q-10
I- 4
M-7
H-6
Q-4
L-7
N-4
E-1
F-6
N-2
G-10
E-5
P-6
0-2
O-3
N-6
H-3
County
Name
Marshall
Martin
Meeker
Mille Lacs
Morrison
Mower
Murray
Nicollet
Nobles
Norman
Olmsted
Otter Tail
Pennington
Pine
Pipestone
Polk
Pope
Ramsey
Red Lake
Redwood
Renville
Rice
Rock
Roseau
St. Louis
Scott
Sherbume
Sibley
Steams
Steele
Stevens
Swift
Todd
Traverse
Wabasha
Wadena
Waseca
Washington
Watonwan
Wilkin
Winona
Wright
Yellow Medicine
Population
1986
12,200
24,500
21,100
18,900
30,200
38,900.
10,600
27,600
20,600
8,500
98,000
52,200
13,800
20,700
11,000
33,400
11,400
474,000
5,000
18,500
19,600
47,500
10,400
13,200
201,900
50,200
34,200
15,000
113,800
30,000
10,600
12,100
25,400
5,100
19,500
13,900
18,100
128,300
11,900
7,900
46,300
64,500
13,000
Location
on Map
F-2
Q-5
N-5
L-7
K-6
Q-8
P-3
P-6
Q-3
H-2
P-9
K-3
F-3
K-8
P-2
G-2
M-4
N-7
G-2
O-4
0-4
P-7
Q-2
E-3
G-8
O-7
M-6
O-6
M-5
P-7
M-3
M-3
K-4.
L-2
P-9
J-4
P-7
N-8
P-5
J-2
P-10
N-6
O-3
Total
4,213,900
-------
11
III. GROUND-WATER INDICATORS
The following section discusses the data availability and findings related to the five indicators
investigated in the State of Minnesota
A. MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS
This section presents the national objectives, approach and findings of the study of maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) as an indicator of ground-water quality in public drinking water supplies in
Minnesota
National Objectives
EPA designed the MCL indicator to address the following national objectives:14
identify the degree to which ground-water based water supply systems
meet all applicable MCLs,
identify the size of the population at risk from systems in violation,
provide an understanding of the geographic distribution of populations
potentially at risk,
identify specific contaminants for which systems are failing to meet the
MCLs, and
identify those contaminants which are responsible for the greatest
number of MCL violations.
The following discussion describes the data sources identified in Minnesota to address these
objectives and presents and analyses the data results.
Description of the Indicator
Maximum contaminant levels are water quality standards set under the authority of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). The Act authorized EPA to establish a cooperative program among local, State,
and Federal agencies to protect drinking water quality and to ensure that human health is not
adversely affected by water-borne pollutants. Maximum contaminant levels are set for inorganic,
organic, microbiological contaminants, radionuclides, and turbidity.15
An MCL is the highest amount of a specific contaminant allowed in the drinking water supplied by a
public water system. Primary MCLs are established for contaminants that are known to occur in
drinking water, cause adverse health effect, and can be measured with existing instrumentation. As
one of the indicators of ground-water quality, MCLs are useful determinants of the quality of the
ground water that is used for public drinking water supplies.
14 U.S.EPA Office of Ground-Water Protection, April 1989, 'Indicators for Measuring Progress In Ground-Water
Protection/ EPA 44016-88-006.
15 Data characterizing turbidity violations are not described in this report because this parameter is generally not
considered relevant to analyses of ground-water based supplies.
-------
12
Indicator Data Management In Minnesota
Water-quality data for finished (i.e., treated) water from community public water supply systems are
collected and compiled by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). These data are compiled on a
cumulative basis each year. The Minnesota Department of Health reviews these data for MCL
violations but does not record violations in the data base; moreover, MDH maintains no automated
tracking system for MCL violations.
A majority of the water-quality data compiled by MDH is maintained in WordPerfect files. Laboratory
identification and sample numbers for bacteria analyses are logged into a dBASE III Plus data base
management system; however, no contaminant concentrations are recorded in the data base.
Community data to the late 1800s are on microfiche, filed by Public Water Supply identification
number.
Although MDH manually tracks MCL violations, violations are not recorded in the MDH WordPerfect
files. Instead, MDH reports MCL violations to the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS) each quarter
via EPA's FRDS-DE II data entry program. The Federal Reporting Data System serves as the
national data base for tracking MCL compliance data provided by the States. FRDS-DE II is a menu-
driven PC-based program written in Clipper that prints a copy of a Data Transmission Format, a
summary of the MCL compliance results that will be entered into FRDS. The Minnesota Department of
Health has used FRDS-DE II since 1988, and keeps this summary (electronic and hard copies) until
they receive confirmation that the compliance results have been entered into FRDS; the summary file
is then erased. Thus, automated historic data are not maintained for Minnesota.
EPA's Office of Drinking Water maintains the FRDS data base to support the Agency's information
collection requirements established under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Federal Reporting Data
System tracks a number of data elements, including:
the Public Water System (PWS) identification number;
the location of the PWS;
the population served by the PWS;
the sources of drinking water (ground and/or surface water);
the MCL constituent violated;
the concentration reported;
the Federally mandated maximum allowable concentration level;
the date of the violation;
the number of months that the system was in violation; and
the number of reporting violations (i.e., PWS not reporting annual
water quality information).
The data from FRDS, however, contains the following deficiencies.
FRDS data reflect the analysis of finished drinking water and therefore
do not represent ground-water quality at the well.
The locations of PWSs are provided in longitude and latitude of either
the drinking water source (as provided by the owner) or the centroid of
the zip code of the system mailing address. Either of these data may
be erroneous, as the owner may provide inaccurate information, or the
mailing address of the water system may be miles away from the well
source.
-------
13
« Systems that are served solely by ground water are designated as
ground-water based systems, but those systems that are served by
both ground and surface water are designated as surface-water
based systems, regardless of the degree to which the system relies on
ground water.
Population data provided by FRDS are total populations served by
PWSs. As a PWS may use several sources to serve this population, it
may be.difficult to estimate the size of the population exposed to MCL
violations.
FRDS provides no information on the location of actual exposure
points, the proportion of reported population served by each source,
or the term for which each source is used.
Data on location of private wells and the population using private wells
for drinking water are not collected in FRDS; and
FRDS personnel support are likely to be overburdened with requests if
States cannot access data themselves.
Furthermore, the use of the FRDS-DE II program requires knowledge of codes used in FRDS to
identify MCL violations. Although an interactive retrieval system for FRDS does exist, MDH personnel
have not used it.
The City of Rochester Department of Public Utilities monitors the quality of raw (unfinished) water from
the 22 municipal wells that serve its public water supply system. Rochester treats its ground-water
supply with fluoride, chlorine, and a corrosion inhibitor. The Minnesota Department of Health samples
finished water, analyzes for all constituents of concern except for bacteria, and monitors MCL
violations for the supply. Rochester Public Utilities performs bacteriological analyses and reports the
results to MDH. Rochester Public Utilities maintains its data on unfinished water quality in the data
base management system RBASE. The Rochester data base includes chemical analyses of untreated
water for more than 50 parameters, including major cations and anions, some metals, Kjeldahl
nitrogen, BOD, TOC, redox potential, a suite of VOC compounds, and base neutral pesticides. Not all
available data for the Rochester data base have been entered into the RBASE system, and the system
is not yet suitable for public use (i.e., not 'user friendly*). It is not possible at this time to evaluate
temporal trends in concentrations.
Approach for Characterizing the Indicator
EPA's review of the data sources described above revealed that the Federal Reporting Data System
(FRDS) would provide the most consistent State-wide source of data for the federal MCL constituents.
The MDH data base was not used because it does not contain information regarding MCL violations.
The Rochester RBASE system also was not use because it was not readily available and was limited
in geographic coverage. Furthermore, EPA believed that the data available through FRDS were
consistent with those maintained on the MDH data base. Therefore, FRDS served as the sole data
source for characterizing the indicator.
EPA obtained data by county from FRDS on the number of ground-water based public water supplies
that meet applicable quality standards and the specific contaminants responsible for the violations as
well as their concentrations. FRDS data was provided in a machine-readable format on three-and-a-
half inch diskettes for the last ten years.
-------
14
Data items received from the PROS data base are as follows:
date and identification of the MCL of violations for each of the past ten
years,
well or system ID number for all Public Water System (PWS) in each of
the twenty-nine counties summarized,
number of public water supplies relying on ground water in each of
the twenty-nine Minnesota counties,
number of public water supplies reporting MCL violations by
constituent for each of the twenty-nine counties for each of the past
ten years, and
specific contaminants responsible for violations as well as the
contaminant concentrations.
Study Results and Interpretation of Data
The FRDS data base listed a total of 11,955 PWS systems served by ground water in the State of
Minnesota A total of 175 MCL violations were reported statewide in these systems since 1980, and a
total of 57 MCL violations were reported for the twenty-nine county subset over the past ten years.
More than half the violations (32) were for total coliform. Pipestone and Hubbard counties were the
only counties reporting violations for nitrates. Pipestone, which is located in the southeastern comer
of Minnesota, had ten of the thirteen nitrate violations, reporting at least one violation in ever year
except 1987 and 1988. Hubbard County is located in north central Minnesota The only county to
report a violation of the arsenic MCL was Renviile county, reporting violations in 1981 and 1982.
Violations for combined radium were reported in seven counties. Two counties/Scott and Anoka, are
found within the seven-county metro area No violations for combined radium were reported prior to
1987. Total coliform appears to be a more ubiquitous contaminant than the other three constituents,
with more then half the counties (18) reporting violations. Maximum contaminant level violations for
total coliform were reported in at least one county for every year during the 1980's.
Maximum contaminant level violation data are reported in Appendix A. The data represent all reported
violations in each of the twenty-nine county subset for the past ten years. Tables A-1 through A-4
present the number of PWS reporting violations of the Federal MCL for arsenic, nitrate, total coliform,
and combined radium. A summary of Federal MCL violations in Minnesota between 1980 and 1989 in
the twenty-nine county subset is presented in Exhibit A-1.
The pilot study did show that:
MCL data are reported statewide and available at the county level,
MCL data lend themselves to visual representation, and
MCL data allow for comparison among counties and within a county
across time.
Hence, the data available from FRDS-II data base support a portion of the national objectives for the
MCL indicator described above. However, this pilot study did not collect sufficient data either to
characterize the geographic distribution of the MCL violations beyond the county level or to identify
the sizes of the population at risk from these violations. Nonetheless, such an analysis could be
supported because the FRDS-II data base does record the location of public water supply systems
-------
EXHIBIT A-1
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL MCL VIOLATIONS
IN MINNESOTA, U.S. EPA
NUMBER OF MCL VIOLATIONS
8
6 -
4 -
2 -
1980
1981
1982
1983 1984 1985
YEARS
1986
1987
1988 1989
TOTAL COLIFORM
(1/100 mL)
COMBINED RADIUM
(5 pCi/L)
ARSENIC
(0.05 mg/L)
Source: Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS-II)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NITRATE
(10 mg/L)
-------
16
and the populations served by these systems. As a result, the geographic distributions of the public
water supply systems could be developed. Nonetheless, there are limitations to the usefulness of the
population data recorded in FRDS:
Population data represent the total population served by a PWS. As a
PWS may use several sources to serve this population, it may be
difficult to estimate the extent of exposure to MCL violations.
Population data are recorded only periodically and, thus, accurately
represent only certain years of the period of record.
Despite these limitations, EPA believes that the population data maintained in FRDS can give a broad
brush representation of the national objective to 'provide an understanding of the geographic
distribution of populations at risk." Populations at risk were not analyzed in this pilot study due to
resource limitations. In addition, data on populations served by PWSs were not supplied in a timely
manner. Despite these limitations, EPA believes that the population data maintained in FRDS can give
a broad brush representation of the national objective to 'provide an understanding of the geographic
distribution of populations at risk.' Populations at risk were not analyzed in this pilot study due to
resource limitations. In addition, data on populations served by PWSs were not supplied in a timely
manner.
Another uncertainty inherent in the data from FRDS is that they reflect the analysis of finished drinking
water rather than raw ground water, and therefore, do not necessarily represent the quality of ground
water at the wellhead. This uncertainty is generic to the characterization of the indicator and is not
solely a function of the available data
Revisions to the Indicator Data Collection Process
In order to asses the geographic distribution of populations at risk for MCL violations, future studies
could utilize public water supply population information available through FRDS.
Conclusions
Data from the FRDS data base are sufficient to support the national objectives described above. EPA
limited the analysis of supply system geographic distribution to aggregate data organized at the
county level, and did not analyze populations potentially at risk. However, data on geographic
distributions and populations served by PWSs are available from FRDS and are believed to be
sufficient to provide a general understanding of the geographic distribution of the populations at risk.
B. ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE CONTAMINATION FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
This section presents the national objectives, approach, and findings of the study of on-site and off-
site contamination from hazardous waste sites as an indicator of ground-water contamination in
Minnesota
National Objectives
EPA designed this indicator of on- and off-site contamination from hazardous waste sites to support
the following national objectives:16
16 U.S. EPA Office of Ground-Water Protection, April 1989, 'Indicators for Measuring Progress in Ground-Water
Protection," EPA 44016-88-006.
-------
17
identify the number of Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites with ground-water contamination on-
site and off-site;
provide an indication of the risk posed by such contamination to the
population in the vicinity of off-site contamination; and,
identify the relative frequency with which various types of contaminants
are responsible for ground-water contamination at CERCLA and RCRA
sites.
The following discussion describes the manner in which this study was able to address these national
objectives with the waste site data collected in Minnesota
Description of the Indicator
Active and abandoned hazardous waste sites can serve as significant sources of ground-water
contamination and may pose serious risks to human health and the environment. The level of ground-
water contamination at these hazardous waste sites, the potential risks to drinking water supplies, and
the risk to the populations served by those supplies are each assessed under this indicator.
This indicator also tracks changes in the number of CERCLA and RCRA sites with on-site and off-site
ground-water contamination over time as a measure of the progress in managing waste sites. Such
indicator data could also be used to monitor progress made in dealing with contaminated sites by
evaluating changes in site identification, remedial investigations, remedial design implementations, and
site closures.
Indicator Data Management in Minnesota
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency tracks progress on investigations of 166 hazardous waste
sites through its Permanent List of Priorities (PLP). Forty of these sites are on EPA's National Priority
List. The Permanent List of Priorities is a written list (not an automated data base) of hazardous waste
sites and progress made in their investigation under Minnesota's Environmental Response and
Liability Act. Sites include inactive sanitary landfills, industrial disposal lagoons, impoundments and
pits, buried drums, and underground storage tanks. Approximately 125 of the 166 sites are in some
phase of cleanup and have ground-water quality data available.
For each site, the PLP includes the township and county where the site is located; its priority, which
specifies the level of investigation at which the site is under (e.g., Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study); whether or not the site is on the National Priorities List; the site's score through the Hazardous
Ranking System (MRS); a description of the site, including defined ground-water contamination; staff
assigned to the site; actions taken to date; and actions needed.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is also responsible for issuing permits and inspecting 43 active
RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities. Eight of these 43 sites are land disposal
facilities, and the remainder are mostly storage facilities. Most of these facilities do not monitor
ground water at their sites; however, all of the land disposal facilities are required by permit to monitor
ground water at the site, and each has undergone a RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA). Two of the
storage facilities are required to monitor ground water, one of which has undergone a RFA, and one
of which has completed a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI). Fifteen of the 43 active sites are in some
phase of corrective action. There are no automated data bases for the TSD facilities or other RCRA
facilities regulated by the State. All data are maintained in paper files.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency tracks waste volumes generated by approximately 350 large
quantity generators (LQGs), 2,000 small quantity generators (SQGs), 6,000 very small quantity
-------
18
generators (VSQGs), and the 43 active TSD facilities. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency inspects
LQGs annually. County hazardous waste staffs inspect SQGs annually or biannually in the seven-
county metropolitan area
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has also compiled an Open Dump Inventory that includes
information on 1,300 open dumps throughout the State. Many of these dumps are listed on the PIP.
Because sites on the Inventory are located by latitude and longitude, the Inventory may be cross-
referenced with the PLP to locate some of the sites on the PLP. The following elements are included
in the Open Dump Inventory: facility name, facility type (e.g., solid waste, mixed municipal, industrial
waste), identification number (either permit number or Agency-assigned number), county, facility
status, public land system coordinates, type of map location was digitized from, latitude/longitude,
area of site, date surveyed, and MPCA and owner/operator contacts. Columns are also available for
type of waste and the availability of water quality information, but this information is not available for
most sites. The Open Dump Inventory have been transferred to the MPCA's VAX mainframe
computer. Ground-water quality information appears to be unavailable for many sites listed in the
Open Dump Inventory.
Approach for Characterizing the Indicator
After reviewing the above data sources, EPA chose to use data characterizing the PLP sites for the
indicator analysis. The Open Dump Inventory was not utilized as a data source in this pilot study.
Information tracked in the Open Dump Inventory is insufficient to assess the extent of on-site and off-
site contamination at these sites. Instead, an Environmental Indicator Questionnaire, presented in
Appendix C of this document, was sent to State officials to compile information on ground-water
quality at approximately 125 of the 166 sites on the Minnesota Permanent List of Priorities. EPA also
requested data for Minnesota RCRA facilities; however, those data were not supplied in a timely
manner. Therefore, RCRA facility data were not included in this analysis. Specific data requested for
the CERCLA/PLP sites on the questionnaire included the following:
site number, name and location;
concentration level status of PCBs, Pesticides, other organics, metals,
and bacteria; and
the extent of ground-water pollution at the sites, as determined by
detection of the plume off-site, and an estimate of the population at
risk and whether contamination has been detected in drinking water
tualle
Wollo.
Study Results and Interpretation of Data
Information was compiled on 104 hazardous waste sites across a subset of 26 counties. Fifty-eight of
the 104 sites are located within the seven-county metro area Hennepin county alone has 26 sites.
With the exception of Hennepin county, the number of sites per county statewide range from one to
nine, averaging approximately three sites per county. Populations range from zero in Dodge, Filmore,
Hubbard, Morrison, and Pipestone counties to approximately 650,000 in Ramsey county and
1,400,000 in Hennepin county. Contamination has reached drinking water wells from 27 of the 104
hazardous waste sites, ranging from zero to five sites per county. Information gathered from the
Environmental Indicator Questionnaires on contamination from hazardous waste sites is summarized in
Exhibit B-1. Summary data from the Environmental Indicator Questionnaire is presented in
Appendix C to this report.
-------
EXHIBIT B-1
SUMMARY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE CONTAMINATION
CONCENTRATION LEVELS IN MINNESOTA
CONCENTRATION LEVEL
PCBs
PESTICIDES Pr2
SYNTHETIC ORGANICS
METALS
BACTERIA
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
20
40 60 80 100 120
NUMBER OF SITES
0=unknonw/not analyzed / 1 =at/below detection limit
2=above detection limit [\] 3=above level of concern
Source: Permanent List of Priorities,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1990.
(O
140
-------
20
The pilot study did show that:
data are available at the county level,
data lend themselves to visual presentation, and
data allow for comparisons among and within counties.
However, the data presented in this pilot study does not allow for comparisons across time, and
therefore, temporal trend analysis is not possible. In order to facilitate future tend analysis, biennial
surveys, similar to the Environmental Indicator Questionnaire, could be conducted for on- and off-site
contamination. By comparing the information compiled in these biennial surveys, data would
eventually be suitable for trend analysis of the impact of hazardous waste sites on ground-water
quality.
Additional problems associated with the hazardous waste site data include:
over estimation of populations within three miles of all sites in a
county, and
the lack of quantitative information available to describe the extent of
contamination.
Analysis of hazardous waste site data meets all three national objectives described earlier in this
section. The data clearly identifies the number of PLP sites, which include CERCLA sites, with on-site
and off-site ground-water contamination. In the 26-county subset analyzed in this report, 104
hazardous waste sites were identified. The data also provides an indication of the risks posed by
such contamination to the populations living in the vicinity of sites with off-site contamination.
Approximately 2.7 million people are estimated to live within three miles of at least one hazardous
waste site in the 26-county subset. No graphics were completed regarding the populations at risk
due to the potential for over estimating populations at risk. Finally, the relative frequency with which
various types of contaminants are responsible for ground-water contamination at CERCLA and RCRA
sites have been identified. Although similar data were not provided for RCRA facilities, EPA believes
those data do exist in hard copy.
While data gathered from the questionnaires can meet the national objectives, the approach of using
questionnaires to obtain information from paper files requires substantial human resources.
Suggested Revisions to Indicator Data Collection Process
In order to meet the national objectives and effectively track trends in the 305(b) reporting process the
following recommendations are made on the experience gained in this pilot study:
compile data on an annual or biennial basis,
refine methodology for estimating populations living in the vicinity of
hazardous waste sites to more accurately depict the actual population
size, and
develop a more precise method of categorizing contaminant
concentration levels and defining the extent of ground-water
contamination.
If these recommendations can be implemented on a statewide basis, with time, trend analysis would
be possible.
-------
21
Conclusions
The Minnesota hazardous waste site data can be used as a broad description of the extent of
contamination from hazardous waste sites in the State. Data are available in paper files that meet the
national objectives; however, temporal trend analysis is not possible. If data are compiled on a
regular basis, and if data limitations are corrected, in time, more efficient data retrievals and trend
analysis will be feasible statewide.
C. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
This section presents the national objective, approach, and findings of the study of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) as indicators of ground-water contamination in Minnesota.
National Objective
EPA designed the VOC indicator to address the following national objective:17
identify the frequency with which various VOCs are found in ground
water.
The following discussion describes the data sources identified in Minnesota to address the objective,
and presents and analyses the data results.
Description of the Indicator
Volatile organic compounds typically include solvents and other chlorinated hydrocarbons. They
serve as indicators of ground-water contamination resulting from industrial and non-industrial activities.
These activities or sources can include landfills, septic systems, spills, hazardous waste sites, leaking
underground storage tanks, underground injection control wells, industrial sites generally, and other
potential point sources. Volatile organic compounds can reach the ground water from improper
material handling, and leakage of tanks and industrial equipment at the ground surface.
There is an interest in the level and frequency of VOC contamination due to possible health hazards
posed by VOCs, and other contaminants from similar sources. As a result, measuring changes in
VOC concentrations over time may provide a valuable indicator of future trends in drinking water
quality resulting from industrial and non-industrial activities.
Indicator Data Management In Minnesota
Data on VOC concentrations in ground water are collected and maintained in five data bases:
USGS District NWIS data base;
Minnesota Department of Health reports;
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Ambient Ground Water
Monitoring Network data base;
17 U.S.EPA Office of Ground-Wetter Protection, April 1989, 'Indicators for Measuring Progress In Ground-Water
Protection," EPA 44016-68-006.
-------
22
Tanks and Spill Section of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's
Hazardous Waste Division records; and
City of Rochester Department of Public Utilities records.
The USGS, Water Resources Division, Minnesota District has collected VOC data for several
Minnesota counties for various projects such as hazardous waste studies, county-level water quality
studies, and regional aquifer assessments. These data are maintained in the National Water
Information System (NWIS).18 As part of these studies, ground-water samples are collected at the
wellhead and tested for as many as 72 constituents. Information recorded for each sample includes
location (e.g., latitude and longitude), data reliability, primary use of water (e.g., public, industrial), and
aquifer code information. Most of the VOC data within the data base were reported during the last
five years, and most wells tracked in the data base were sampled and analyzed only once for VOCs.
The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) collects water quality data for community and
non-community public water supply (PWS) wells and public and private drinking water wells. The
community PWS well data were collected from samples taken between October 1982 and June 1985
for all 2,050 community PWS wells within the State. These samples were analyzed for 48 VOC
compounds. Water quality data for non-community PWS wells represent a state-wide sample of 300
wells between 1985 and 1987. Selection of wells for inclusion in the survey was based on their
proximity to one or more of the following potential sources of VOCs: landfills or dumps, underground
storage tanks (especially petroleum tanks), hazardous waste spill or disposal sites, and industrial or
commercial VOC use sites. Samples were analyzed for 55 VOC compounds. Minnesota Department
of Health also assesses water quality in public and private drinking water wells located within one mile
of 132 mixed municipal solid waste disposal sites in the seven-county metropolitan area. This on-
going study began in 1986; the most recent summary of survey data was completed in 1989.
Samples collected from wells near solid waste disposal facilities in the metropolitan area were
analyzed for 54 VOC compounds and seven parameters indicating solid waste leachate (ammonia,
chloride, iron, sulfate, nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen, pH, and specific conductance).
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has collected ground-water samples at 450
monitoring points (wells and springs) throughout all of Minnesota's 87 counties in its Ambient Ground
Water Monitoring Network. These samples have been analyzed for a suite of inorganic,
bacteriological, and physical parameters. Data from the Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Network
can be organized by county, township, drainage basin, and aquifer. Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency has collected ground-water samples in the Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Network since
1978. As of the end of 1989, 375 of these samples had been analyzed for VOCs. Most of these 375
samples were collected in geologically sensitive areas. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is
currently redesigning the Program to provide more complete and useful data than is now available.
The Tanks and Spills Section of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Hazardous Waste Division
maintains data on ground-water quality near 2,500 petroleum and chemical storage tanks.
Approximately ten years of data have been collected; however, a majority of the data have been
collected since 1988. Most samples have been analyzed for benzene, toluene, xylene, and
ethylbenzene.
The City of Rochester Department of Public Utilities has consistently monitored untreated water from
the 22 municipal wells that serve its public water supply system for VOC's since 1988; some VOC data
exist from the late 1970's and early 1980's. These data are maintained in a data base written in
RBASE.
18
The NWIS data base was previously referred to as the Water Data Storage and Retrieval System or "WATSTORE."
-------
23
Approach for Characterizing the Indicator
After reviewing the data sources discussed above, EPA concluded that the data retrievals from USGS
NWIS and the Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network data bases would provide the best available
information to track trends in VOCs in Minnesota. The NWIS and Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring
Network data bases were chosen because, they provide:
the greatest amount of data per data base;
sites identified with geographic locators;
the greatest number of sites per data base;
the greatest consistency in collecting, analyzing, and reporting of data;
the broadest State coverage;
the broadest temporal coverage;
existing data base documentation; and
existing data base personnel support.
The other data sources were not evaluated due to the limited geographic area or number of wells
represented by the data or difficulty in retrieving or interpreting the data The analysis of VOC data
focused on samples collected in twenty-seven of the twenty-nine selected counties analyzed in the
MCL indicator study. EPA requested the following information from NWIS for the counties analyzed:
the number of wells monitored for VOCs;
the number of wells in which VOCs have been detected;
the number of wells in which MCLs have been exceeded; and
yearly trends in VOC monitoring practices and detections.
Study Results and Interpretation of Data
The Ambient Ground-Water Monitor Network data provided a more comprehensive geographic
distribution than the NWIS data. The Ambient Ground-Water Monitor Network included twenty-seven
of the twenty-nine selected counties where VOC analyses were completed over the 1980 to 1990
period (data were not available from NWIS for years 1980, 1981, and 1989). The analysis indicates
that there were 15 samples with VOC concentrations that exceeded health-based thresholds collected
in Anoka, Cass, Hennepin, Hubbard, Morrison, Pine, Wabasha, Wadena, and Washington Counties.
The other twenty-counties had no detections that exceeded health-based thresholds. A total of 33
detections were recorded for all twenty-nine counties out of a total of 5,694 sample analyses. A
number of counties had no wells sampled in certain years (e.g., Hubbard County for the years 1982,
1983, and 1985 through 1988 and Morrison County in years 1982, 1986, 1987, and 1988). Summary
VOC data for individual compounds are provided in Appendix D (refer to Table 0-1 through
Table D-27).
Exhibit C-1 graphically presents the VOC detections for the twenty-seven counties. Trends in VOC
detections over time cannot be made based on these data since samples were taken from wells that,
for the most pan, were tested only once. Therefore, increases or decreases in VOC detections may
result from samples being taken in different regions of a county. In addition, the number of wells
sampled and the number of samples analyzed varied from year to year and from county to county.
Most of the variation in the number of sample detections from year to year and between counties
(shown in Exhibits C-1.1 through C-1.4) can be explained by the differences in the number of samples
analyzed. For example, in Anoka County in 1983, 2 wells were sampled and a total of 54 analyses
were completed on the 2 samples collected. In 1984, 3 samples were collected from 3 wells and 89
analyses were completed. The percentage of VOC detections per the number of analyses completed
-------
EXHIBIT C-1.1
SUMMARY OF VOC DETECTIONS FOR SELECTED COUNTIES
IN MINNESOTA, MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
NUMBER OF VOC DETECTIONS
10
8
I
01
I
I
I
ANOKA BROWN CARVER
CASS DAKOTA
COUNTIES
DODGE FILLMORE GOODHUE
1982
1983
.1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network
Minnestoa Pollution Control Agency
-------
EXHIBIT C-1.2
SUMMARY OF VOC DETECTIONS FOR SELECTED COUNTIES
IN MINNESOTA, MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
NUMBER OF VOC DETECTIONS
10
8
to
Ol
HENNEPIN HOUSTON HUBBARD MORRISON MOWER OLMSTED OTTERTAIL
COUNTIES
1982
1983
.1984 |jj 1985 H 1986 [H] 1987 [ :] 1988
PINE
1989
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
-------
EXHIBIT C-1.3
SUMMARY OF VOC DETECTIONS FOR SELECTED COUNTIES
IN MINNESOTA, MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
NUMBER OF VOC DETECTIONS
0.3
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
ft
-
-
\
-
-
-
I I
r
I I I
-i
I
x;
\
N
\
s
s
\
s
\
\
\
\
I
PIPESTONE RAMSEY SHERBURNE WABASHA
POPE RENVILLE STEARNS WADENA
COUNTIES
1982
1983
. 1984
1985
1986 [H] 1987 [ ] 1988
1989
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
-------
EXHIBIT C-1.4
SUMMARY OF VOC DETECTIONS FOR SELECTED COUNTIES
IN MINNESOTA, MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
NUMBER OF VOC DETECTIONS
1.5
0.5
^_L
WASHINGTON
WINONA
COUNTIES
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987 gj 1988
1989
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
-------
28
was 0.0 percent and 2.5 percent for the years 1980 and 1981 respectively, which is not a significant
change. Based on the above relationship, the frequency of specific VOC detections and hearth-based
threshold exceedances may be a function of the number of samples analyzed. However, if multiple
samples were frequently collected from the same wells that were suspected of contamination, the
results may be biased. As a result, the distribution of VOCs in ground water at the sample locations
may not adequately represent the actual distribution of VOCs in ground water county-wide or state-
wide.
Exhibit C-2 graphically presents VOC detections for the four counties where USGS VOC data were
available. This exhibit indicates that no historic trends in the VOC data are evident, since well
samples were taken in only one or two years over this period. Moreover, the nominal span of years
does not lend itself to inferring any long-term trends.
The USGS NWIS data, (see Tables D-28 through D-31 in Appendix 0) provided limited insight into any
trends for VOC detections or MCL threshold exceedances between 1986 and 1989, due to: (1) the
small number of counties in which VOCs were monitored, and (2) infrequent sampling of wells that
occurred over this period. For example, wells in Hennepin and Ramsey were sampled onfy in 1986
and 1988, respectively. In addition, only four of the subset of twenty-nine selected counties (Anoka,
Cass, Hennepin, and Ramsey) had any VOC well monitoring data
The pilot study did show that:
VOC data are available at the county level,
VOC data lend themselves to visual representation, and
the frequency of detection of individual VOCs remained consistent
across several of the counties.
*
However, there are many uncertainties regarding the data and the ability to make valid interpretations
concerning significant trends. Conditions that contribute to this include:
data are limited in geographic coverage;
sampling is not consistent in geographic coverage;
sampling is not consistent over time;
sampling, for the most part, is on a one time basis;
non-uniformity in securing and analyzing samples;
sample depths vary; and
number of samples with detections and the number of samples in
which MCLs have been exceeded were recorded instead of the
number of wells with detections or MCL violations.
Thus, the usefulness of these data are minimized as indicators of ground-water quality within the
counties themselves, as well as across the state. The frequency of specific VOC detections and MCL
exceedances as a function of the number of samples analyzed can be determined, but this analysis
does not completely meet the national objective to 'identify the frequency with which various VOCs are
found in ground water,* because of the uncertainties inherent in the data.
Revisions to the Indicator Data Collection Process
The ambient ground-water monitoring network is a good system to analyze State-wide the extent of
ground-water contamination due to VOCs. However, in order to make valid analyses of temporal
trends, a systematic sampling program with repeat sampling conducted over time at the same
wellheads should be implemented.
-------
EXHIBIT C-2
SUMMARY OF VOC DETECTIONS FOR SELECTED COUNTIES
IN MINNESOTA, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
NUMBER OF DETECTIONS
14
12
10
8
I
ANOKA
CASS HENNEPIN
COUNTIES
RAMSEY
| 1986
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
US Geological Survey
1987
1988
1989
-------
30
The approach to characterize this indicator could also be expanded to include VOC information that is
currently managed in computer data bases or paper files for CERCLA and RCRA waste sites and
MPCA permitted facilities to expand the data base.
Other information on VOCs provided to MPCA could be sorted and included in the analysis for the
305(b) report. This information may include testing from private drinking water wells, ground-water
data collected during the design of new septic systems, results of the cleanup of underground storage
tanks, and ground-water data at industrial sites.
Conclusion
Data on VOCs are available at the county-level; however, certain counties appear to have a greater
quantity of VOC data than others. Furthermore, apparent trends in VOC detections in some of the
counties may be explained by differences in the number of samples taken and analyzed. Thus, data
on VOCs maintained in the NWIS and the Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network data bases are
not sufficient to support the national objectives fully. A more thorough and consistent VOC sampling
and analysis program should be developed to determine trends in VOC levels State-wide.
D. NITRATES
This section presents the national objectives, approach, and findings of the study of nitrates as an
indicator of area-wide ground-water contamination sources in Minnesota.
National Objectives
EPA designed the nitrate indicator to support the following two national objectives:19
identify the pattern and level of ground-water quality with respect to
the area-wide sources throughout the country by identifying the
geographic pattern of contamination on a county-by-county basis over
a given time span, and
display State-by-State trends over time in the area-wide quality of
ground-water by identifying the number of counties, State-by-state
where ground-water concentrations of nitrates are improving versus
those where they are deteriorating.
The following discussion describes the data sources identified in Minnesota to address these
objectives and presents and analyzes the data results.
Description of Indicator
Nitrates are commonly found in ground water in regions that are affected by area-wide sources of
contamination, such as agriculture and septic systems. Nitrates can leach into ground water from
normal agricultural practices (e.g., the use of nitrogen fertilizers) and wastewater disposal because of
their high solubility in water and their inability to adsorb to soil particles. The detection of nitrates also
can often indicate the possible presence of other ground-water contaminants. For example, a
correlation between areas susceptible to nitrate contamination and those susceptible to pesticide
contamination has been suggested. This is likely because chemicals that leach into ground water
tend to be water soluble, poorly adsorbed by soil, and have a partial or full negative charge at
ambient pH. Some pesticides (such as the triazine and acetanilide herbicides and carbamate
19 U.S.EPA Office of Ground-Water Protection, April 1989, 'Indicators for Measuring Progress In Ground-Water
Protection,' EPA 44016-88-006.
-------
31
insecticides) share these properties with nitrates. In one study completed in New Jersey, the samples
collected showed higher nitrate concentrations in wells where pesticide residues were also
detected.20
Approximately 75 percent of the population in Minnesota relies wholly, or in part on ground water for
their drinking water supply. As a result, measuring changes in nitrate concentrations over time may
provide a valuable indicator of future trends in drinking water quality. In addition, high nitrate
concentrations in drinking water supplies are a recognized human health concern, especially for
young children. Exposure to high levels of nitrate can result in methemoglobinemia or 'blue-baby
syndrome.' As a result, the primary drinking water standard for nitrate has been set at 10 mg/l (as
nitrogen).21
Indicator Data Management In Minnesota
Data on nitrate concentrations in Minnesota's ground water are collected and maintained in six data
bases:
USGS District NWIS data base;
Southeastern Minnesota Cooperative Well Testing Program reports;
Brown-Nicollet Community Health Service voluntary testing program;
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Ambient Ground Water
Monitoring Network data base;
Minnesota Department of Agriculture data bases; and
Minnesota Department of Hearth reports.
The Southeastern Minnesota Cooperative Water Well Testing Program, which serves six counties in
southeastern Minnesota (Dodge, Fillmore, Goodhue, Houston, Olmsted, and Wabasha), has provided
water-quality analyses of private well water since 1986. The Olmsted County Health Department
serves as the regional laboratory. In 1986, the laboratory expanded its capabilities, adding nitrite,
chloride, sutfate, phosphate, and fluoride to its list of analytes; in 1988, the laboratory began analyzing
samples for atrazine.
The Brown-Nicollet Community Health Service has sampled more than 3,000 private wells in Brown
and Nicollet counties and adjacent townships in south-central Minnesota through a voluntary testing
program. In this program, private well owners submit samples for analysis of nitrates as well as fecal
colrform, sulfate, and chloride. Many of these wells have been sampled up to ten times; approximately
100 wells have been sampled four to five times since mid 1988.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has collected ground-water samples at 450 monitoring points
(wells and springs) throughout all of Minnesota's 87 counties in its Ambient Ground Water Monitoring
Network (refer to Section C for description of this data source). Nitrate data were also collected in
four recently completed MPCA studies, one in western Minnesota (Beardsley in Big Stone County), a
second in the Garvin Brook Area of Winona County adjacent to Olmsted County, and two others in
central Minnesota (Benton and Steams Counties).
20 State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, 1989. Effect of Agricultural Chemicals on Ground-
Water Quality in New Jersey Coastal Plain, presented at a conference entitled 'Pesticides in Terrestrial and Aquatic
Environments,' sponsored by the Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University Richmond, Virginia.
21 40CFRPart 141.11
-------
32
The MPCA and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) are currently combining nitrate data
from several data bases to create SAS-readable files that will be used to generate State maps
displaying mean nitrate concentrations, land use, and hydrogeologic sensitivity to nitrate loading in
ground water at the section level of the Public Land Survey system. The MPCA estimates that the
SAS files will be complete by the end of 1990.
Between 1985 and 1987, MDA and the Minnesota Department of Health conducted cooperative
surveys of water wells for selected pesticides. As part of this study, the authors determined nitrate
levels in a portion of the wells and evaluated whether those levels positively correlated with the
presence of the pesticides. Only 43.3 percent of the wells with detectable nitrate also had detectable
levels of pesticide, and pesticides were found in 32 wells in which nitrate was not detected.
Approach for Characterizing the Nitrate Indicator
A review of the data sources described above indicated that the NWIS data base and the Ambient
Ground Water Monitoring Network data base would provide the best available source of information to
track trends in nitrate concentrations in Minnesota The NWIS and Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring
Network data bases were chosen because, of the six data bases examined, they provide:
the greatest amount of data per data base;
sites identified with geographic locators;
the greatest number of sites per data base;
the greatest consistency in collecting, analyzing, and reporting of data;
the broadest State coverage;
the broadest temporal coverage;
existing data base documentation; and
existing data base personnel support.
The other data sources were not evaluated due to the limited area or number of wells represented by
the data or difficulty in retrieving or interpreting the data necessary to analyze nitrate concentrations.
In addition, the SAS files being created to generate State maps of nitrate concentrations were not
available for this study.
Data retrievals were collected from the NWIS and Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Network data
bases for the entire state; however, only data from the subset of 29 counties described at the
beginning of this report were selected for the analysis of nitrate concentrations. Of these twenty-nine
counties, five counties were included in the USGS data retrieval (Brown, Carver, Houston, Olmstead,
and Pipestone). The retrievals consisted of the following information for the year 1980 through 1989:
wells monitored for nitrates,
number of samples taken and analyzed for nitrates from each well,
and
nitrate levels reported for each sample.
Study Results and Interpretation of Data
Based on the data retrieved from the Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network and the NWIS data
bases, four types of information were derived that characterize the nitrate indicator in the counties for
each of the years 1980 through 1989:
-------
33
e number of wells monitored for nitrates,
number of samples taken and analyzed for nitrates,
number of samples with detectable levels of nitrates, and
number of samples with nitrate concentrations in excess of the
drinking water standard (10 mg/l).
Nitrate detections, as recorded in the Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, were highest for the
years 1982 through 1984. However, the number of samples taken were also highest for these years
(see Exhibit D-1), which suggests a relationship between the number of samples analyzed and the
number of detections. The annual number of samples where the nitrate concentration exceeded the
MCL remained fairly constant for the 1980 to 1989 period of record.
The USGS data indicate that nitrate detections were highest overall in 1980, while Hubbard, Morrison,
Oner Tail, Pope, and Wadena Counties had the highest number of nitrate detections and MCL
threshold exceedances in the years 1980 through 1984. Subsequently, these counties show no
detections or MCL thresholds for years 1985 through 1989, with the exception of Pope County, which
indicates a slight increase in both detections and MCL exceedances. However, this may be explained
by the absence of well sampling for Hubbard, Morrison, Oner Tail, and Wadena Counties in the years
1985 through 1989. Moreover, the number of wells sampled in Pope County increased over this same
period. However, the number of samples taken were also highest in the these years.
Exhibit D-2 graphically presents well samples, nitrate detections and MCL exceedances as recorded in
the NWIS data base for the 29 counties between 1980 and 1989. This shows nitrate detections were
highest in 1980, followed by much lower detections in the following years. However, these trends
shown in Exhibits D-1 and D-2 may be further explained by the relationship between the number of
nitrate analyses and the number of detections, as discussed above for Pope County, which suggests
a relationship between the number of samples analyzed and the number of detections.
Summaries of the nitrate data from both data bases for the twenty-nine counties are presented in
Appendix E to this report.
The pilot study demonstrates that:
nitrate data are available at the county level;
nitrate data lend themselves to visual representation; and,
nitrate data would allow, with time, for comparison among counties
and within a county across time.
There are many unknowns concerning the data which make identification of significant trends difficult
in both data sets. Conditions that contribute to this include:
data are limited in geographic coverage;
sampling is not consistent in geographic coverage;
sampling is not consistent over time;
sampling, for the most part, is on a one-time basis;
there is nonuniformity in securing and analyzing samples; and
sampling depths vary.
The approach selected to collect and analyze Minnesota nitrate data focused on the use of data
readily available from the Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network and the USGS NWIS data bases.
Broad generalizations can be made from the Minnesota nitrate data, but it is necessary to understand
-------
EXHIBIT D-1
SUMMARY OF NITRATE ANALYSES FOR SELECTED
COUNTIES IN MINNESOTA, MPCA
NUMBER
100
80
60
40
20
1980 1981
1982
1983
1984 1985
YEARS
1986
1987
1988 1989
SAMPLES TAKEN \_\ SAMPLE DETECTIONS [\] MCL EXCEEDANCES
Source: Ambient Ground-water Quality Monitoring
Network, Minnesota Pollution Control
MCL: 10mg/l
-------
EXHIBIT D-2
SUMMARY OF NITRATE ANALYSES FOR SELECTED
COUNTIES IN MINNESOTA, US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
NUMBER
500
400 -
300 -
200 -
100
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
YEARS
SAMPLES TAKEN
SAMPLE DETECTIONS
MCL EXCEEDANCES
Source: National Water Information System (NWIS)
MCL10mg/l
-------
36
that this approach does not meet the national objective to 'display county-by-county trends over time
in the area-wide quality of ground water by identifying the number of counties where ground-water
concentrations of nitrates are improving versus those where they are deteriorating.'
Revisions to the Indicator Data Collection Process
In order to collect data to meet the national objective and effectively track trends in the 305(b>
repotting environment, the following recommendations are made based on the experience gained in
this pilot study.
maintain consistency in sample analyses,
sample on an annual basis,
develop and use a standard data collection format,
use data bases that are consistent State-wide, and
use data bases that are maintained by one office or bureau.
If these recommendations can be implemented on a statewide basis, with time, trend analysis could
be supported.
Conclusions
Currently available Minnesota nitrate data can be used to characterize nitrate trend analysis broadly if
the limitations are identified. However, the current joint effort by the MPCA and MDA to generate State
maps displaying mean nitrate concentrations, land use, and hydrogeologic sensitivity to nitrate loading
in ground water should meet the objective to 'identify the pattern and level of ground-water quality
with respect to the area-wide sources throughout the country,' at the State level. In addition,
continuation of the Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network Program should allow, with time, trend
analysis at the county and the State levels.
E. EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE USE
This section presents the national objectives, description, approach and findings of the study of
agricultural pesticide use as an indicator of ground-water contamination in Minnesota
National Objectives
EPA designed the agricultural pesticide use indicator to support the following objectives:22
identify the relative intensity of pesticide use on a county-by-county
basis,
identify the relative vulnerability to ground-water contamination on a
county-by-county basis, and
provide an indication of where potential ground-water problems from
pesticide use might occur, based on geographic patterns of use and
vulnerability.
22 U.S.EPA Office of Ground-Water Protection, April 1989, 'Indicators for Measuring Progress In Ground-Water
Protection,' EPA 44016-88-006.
-------
37
The following discussion describes the manner in which this study was able to address the first three
objectives with agricultural pesticide usage data collected in Minnesota
Description of the Indicator
The use of pesticides, primarily associated with agricultural practices, has been identified as potential
source of ground-water degradation. This indicator is considered to be particularly important when
teachable pesticides are applied in areas where ground water may be vulnerable. The potential
degradation of ground water due to the application of pesticides in Minnesota is an important issue for
reasons such as those described below:
Approximately seventy-five percent of the population of Minnesota
relies on ground water for drinking water supply, and, in many areas of
the State, ground water is the only available source of drinking water;
and
the diversity of agricultural crops has a corresponding diversity in the
amounts and types of pesticides used.
Indicator Data Management In Minnesota
The Minnesota Agricultural Statistics Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture conducted annual
surveys of pesticide usage across the State between 1969 and 1984. A different random sampling of
farmers, not stratified by county, was queried each year. Minnesota Department of Agriculture
personnel, who provided information on the data, estimate a 25% response rate for 8,000-10,000
surveys mailed annually. Summaries of these data have been compiled in annual reports, but the raw
data are not automated.
The MDA has also conducted annual surveys of sales of restricted use pesticides (RUPs) to private
applicators since 1985. These data which have been entered into a data base, include the
customer's city, state, and zip code; the amount of RUP purchased; and the type and acreage of
crop, type and number of animals, and/or type of pest to be treated or controlled.
In addition, MDA and the Minnesota Department of Health conducted cooperative surveys of water
wells for selected pesticides between 1985 and 1987. These surveys were conducted to provide
baseline data on the occurrence and extent of agricultural pesticide contamination in the State's
ground water and drinking water. Wells were selected for sampling in agricultural regions with soils
and hydrogeologic conditions that make ground water susceptible to pesticide contamination; in
particular, the study focused on regions with karst aquifers and shallow sand and gravel aquifers.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture sampled 100 observation, irrigation, and private drinking water
wells and five drain tiles on a repeat basis, most often four samples per monitoring point. Minnesota
Department of Health collected one sample from each of 400 public drinking water supply wells and
resampled any wells in which pesticides were detected in the first sample. Overall, fifteen pesticides
(thirteen herbicides, one insecticide, and one wood preservative) were detected in the survey.
Atrazine, the most commonly detected pesticide, was found in 31 percent of the wells.23
In 1989, the Rochester-Olmsted County Planning Department surveyed farm cooperatives in Olmsted
County and in towns that sit near Olmsted's border with adjacent counties for volumes of pesticides
sold.
23 Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 1988. 'Pesticides and Ground Water:
Surveys of Selected Minnesota Wells.'
-------
38
The Minnesota Geological Survey has prepared a map identifying areas of Olmsted County that are
particularly sensitive to ground-water pollution due to properties of materials covering bedrock.24
Data from either or both the MDA RUP surveys and the Rochester-Olmsted County Planning
Department may be cross-referenced with this map to identify areas that may be sensitive to ground-
water pollution by pesticides.
Approach for Characterizing the Indicator
After the initial review of the data sources, EPA determined that the available data were too
fragmented and were insufficient for characterizing the indicator in terms of the national objectives.
Revisions to the Indicator Data Collection Process
In order to collect pesticide use data to meet the national objective of this indicator it is recommended
that the State develop an automated data base on pesticide use and/or purchase information. The
State has an excellent opportunity to design a system that provides high quality information that can
easily be used for future 305(b) reporting as well as meeting its own requirements.
F. ADDITIONAL INDICATORS IDENTIFIED BY MINNESOTA PERSONNEL
Description of the Additional Indicators
Minnesota personnel identified the use of tritium analyses to gauge the vulnerability of ground water to
contamination. Tritium is the heaviest isotope of hydrogen, is weakly radioactive, and is found in the
environment as the result of past atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. Because tritium decays at
a known rate, measuring the concentration of the isotope in ground water can indicate how quickly
water moves from the land surface down to the aquifer. This information can then be used to
estimate the recharge rate for the aquifer.
The University of Minnesota completed a tritium study in the St Peter and Prairie du Chien aquifers in
1987. Based on this study, the age of the water found in these aquifers was estimated at less than 40
years. Minnesota has also developed a proposal to sample 400 public water supply wells for tritium.
The sample of wells is designed to assess recharge rates in different hydrogeologic settings. This
project is still pending at this time.25
24 Olsen, B. and H. Hobbs, 1988. Sensitivity of the Ground-Water System to Pollution (Olmsted County). County
Atlas Series, Atlas C-3, Plate 6 of 9. Minnesota Geological Survey.
25 Tom Clauseus, personal communication
-------
39
IV. STUDY CONCLUSIONS
EPA conducted this pilot study to determine whether the criteria for reporting ground-water indicators,
as developed by the EPA workgroup, could be met with data collected for the State of Minnesota.
These criteria include the following.
indicators should be based on actual data measurement;
indicators should lend themselves to graphic display to convey trends
and other information readily;
whenever possible, existing data should be used rather than requiring
new data collection;
data should be collected over time at the same locations; and
data can have limitations and still be useful as an 'indicator of ground-
water problems or progress.
In general, this study found that data characterizing four of the five indicators are available and that
these data do lend themselves to graphic display, as depicted in this report. EPA used only existing
data for this analysis, although EPA noted the need for additional data collection to better characterize
several of the indicators. A summary of agencies and data bases that track indicator data in
Minnesota is given in Appendix F. EPA also found that much of the ground-water monitoring data
compiled for this study did not fully support trend analyses because samples were not always taken
from the same locations over time. Nonetheless, EPA concluded that if the limitations are understood,
data are available in Minnesota to at least partially characterize four of the five ground-water
indicators. The following discussion presents specific conclusions relating to the data collected for
each of the indicators.
Maximum Contaminant Levels: Data from the FRDS-II data base are sufficient to support the national
objectives for this indicator. Although EPA limited this analysis to county-level summaries of MCL
violation information, the analysis could be organized at different geographic levels and could include
analyses of the populations potentially at risk from the violations. The population data maintained in
FRDS, however, may not entirely reflect the actual size of the population exposed to a particular MCL
violation.
On-Slte and Off-Site Contamination at Hazardous Waste Sites: Sufficient data are available in
Minnesota PLP/CERCLA files to characterize the level of contamination, the status of off-site
contaminant migration, and the populations at risk for specific sites or facilities. These data are also
available for RCRA facilities, but they were not provided by the State for this analysis. Minnesota has
not recorded CERCLA or RCRA data in automated data management systems. Therefore, the data
presented in this study were collected by the State of Minnesota and EPA from paper files and
organized manually to format for presentation. Information in this report was compiled from 104 of the
166 sites on the Minnesota Permanent List of Priorities. Therefore, the on-site and off-site hazardous
waste site data presented in this report represent only a portion of the extent of contamination at the
Minnesota waste sites.
Volatile Organic Compounds: EPA accessed data maintained in the USGS National Water
Information System and the Minnesota Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network to characterize this
indicator. EPA was able to organize the available data at the county level and display trends in VOC
26 U.S. EPA Office of Ground-Water Protection, April 1989. 'Indicators for Measuring Progress in Ground-Water
Protection.' EPA 44016-88-006.
-------
40
levels graphically. However, EPA determined that the lack of consistent repeat analyses at many of
the.sampled wells limited the usefulness of the data to support a State analysis. A more thorough
and consistent VOC sampling and analysis program could be developed to better support analyses of
trends in VOC levels State-wide.
Nitrates: EPA accessed data maintained in the USGS National Water Information System and the
Minnesota Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network to characterize this indicator. EPA was able to
organize these data at the county level and display trends in nitrate levels graphically. However, EPA
determined that the lack of consistent repeat analyses at many of the sampled wells limited the
usefulness of the data to support the national objectives fully. A more thorough and consistent nitrate
sampling and analysis program could be developed to achieve this goal. The current effort by the
State to generate maps displaying mean nitrate levels, however, should meet the objective to 'identify
the pattern and level of ground-water quality with respect to the area-wide sources throughout the
country," at the State level. In addition, continuation of the Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network
Program should allow trend analysis at the county and State level with time.
Pesticide Use: Sufficient data are not available in Minnesota to characterize this indicator. Therefore,
EPA could not collect data to assess the extent of pesticide use State-wide. The State may wish to
begin collecting information on use of pesticides for indicator reporting.
Additional Indicators: Minnesota personnel identified tritium analyses as an additional indicator of
ground-water vulnerability. Minnesota has completed a tritium study in one portion of the State and
has developed a proposal for completing tritium analyses in 400 public water supply wells.
The following discussion presents a summary of the general lessons learned during the course of this
pilot study. The discussion first addresses the technical issues and data management practices
encountered in this pilot study. The discussion then outlines suggested revisions to these existing
practices that can be adopted by the State to better support future ground-water indicator reporting.
Finally, the resources needed to further support indicator reporting and next steps are briefly
discussed.
A. EXISTING PRACTICES
In completing this pilot study, EPA encountered a number of problems relating to the quality and
availability of the compiled data which limit their application to support the indicator objectives. The
problems concerning the quality of the data related both to the representativeness or geographic
coverage of the data and to the procedures used to collect the analytical results. In particular, EPA
identified the following technical issues:
data are limited in geographic coverage;
sampling is not consistent in geographic coverage;
sampling is not consistent over time;
securing and analyzing samples was not uniform;
limited repeat sampling is conducted at the same location; and
there is an insufficient volume of data particularly regarding pesticide
use.
In addition to these technical issues, EPA also identified problems with regard to the way in which the
collected data were managed. These data management issues limited EPA's ability to access and
use the information provided by the State:
-------
41
data sources were fragmented;
several data files were received with insufficient documentation (e.g.,
file format information and identifiers for specific contaminants were
not provided);
data bases were originally organized to support different objectives
from those the indicators were designed to address; and
several data files did not include Federal Information Processing
Standard identifier codes as geographic locators.
B. SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO EXISTING PRACTICES TO SUPPORT INDICATOR
REPORTING
EPA is strongly promoting the wider use of indicator data collection across all Federal and State
programs. An EPA Task Force, with State participation, developed concrete principles and objectives
to ensure effective and consistent decision-making in all Agency decisions affecting ground water, and
will also institute State Comprehensive Ground-Water Protection Programs27. Monitoring and data
collection is one area that will be addressed.
As Minnesota continues their monitoring and data collection efforts and begin to develop
comprehensive programs, it is important to keep the issues noted in the pilot study in mind. For
example, sampling and analytical consistency may be promoted by establishing consistent scientific
and data collection protocols and by expanding their ground-water monitoring network, as
appropriate, to provide trend data Data management activities that employ standard data collection
formats for each of the indicators are already underway in Minnesota to maintain data management
protocols between agencies. Cooperative efforts between EPA and Minnesota will ensure that
information collection activities support the objective of protecting the nation's ground-water
resources.
To begin moving toward data consistency, EPA along with the States and other Federal agency work
group participants developed a set of the most critical data elements for ground-water quality
information. These data elements form the foundation upon which ground-water data users may build
their own data base, adding elements to meet their specific needs. The use of this minimum set of
data elements (MSDE)28 will ensure that EPA and the States can share and manipulate ground-
water data to support better environmental decision-making, and facilitate cross-program integration.
Once adopted, these revisions could support the collection, management, and reporting of indicator
data needed for future 305(b) reports.
C. RESOURCES FOR IMPLEMENTING
Initially, the resources required at the State level to implement national indicator reporting may be
extensive. Minnesota cannot significantly improve its data collection and reporting without expending
the necessary resources to correct deficiencies. As the State expands its Ambient Ground-Water
Monitor Networks and integrates their information systems, data will become more accessible for use
27 U.S. EPA, Office of the Administrator, "Protecting the Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy for the 1990s," EPA
21Z-1020, (Washington, D.C.) July 1991.
28 U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, "Definitions for the Minimum Set of Data Elements for
Ground-Water Quality,' (Washington, D.C.) July 1991 (draft final).
-------
42
in indicator development. Furthermore, after the information is collected and the data elements and
data reporting formats for including ground-water indicators in 305(b) reports are identified and
applied, the effort expended for completing the 305(b) report will be greatly reduced.
D. NEXT STEPS
This pilot study is one of three studies EPA completed investigating the use of ground-water indicators
in 305(b) reports. A Findings Report has been prepared which outlines and summarizes the
information and knowledge gathered in Idaho, Minnesota, and New Jersey. The Findings Report also
makes recommendations regarding the implementation of indicators in future 305(b) reports. Based
on these recommendations, EPA is developing a Technical Assistance Document (TAD)29 to provide
technical guidance to the States on how to gather and use indicator data as part of their 1992 305(b)
Reports. The TAD is also intended to help set the stage for those States that are moving toward
developing comprehensive ground-water monitoring and information systems, particularly in
relationship to ground-water indicator reporting, and to assist those which are already in the process.
The TAD is expected to be completed by early 1992.
29 U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Technical Assistance Document,* (Washington, D.C.)
September 1991 (draft).
-------
43
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown-Nicollet Community Health Services, 1989. In Search of Nitrates (description, sampling, and
reporting forms for a township water testing program). February 27, 1989.
Matsch, C. and R. Ojakangas, 1982. Minnesota's Geology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 1989. Report of Sale to Private Applicators of Restricted Use
Pesticides (sample copy). Agronomy Services Division.
Minnesota Department of Health, 1989. Groundwater Use (in the Olmsted County Water Planning
Area). Southeast District and Rochester Public Utilities, Water Division.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 1990. 1990 Herbicide, Insecticide, and Fungicide Use Survey
(draft). Agronomy Services Division.
Minnesota Department of Health, 1985. Volatile Organic Survey of Community Water Supplies:
Report to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources. Section of Water Supply and
Engineering, July, 1985.
Minnesota Department of Health, 1986. Report to the Commissioner of Education Regarding Lead in
School Drinking Water. November, 1986.
Minnesota Department of Health, 1988. Community Health Service Reporting Forms, including Form
VII: Private Well Water Quality.
Minnesota Department of Health, 1988. Noncommunrty Public Water Supply Survey for Volatile
Organic Chemicals: Report to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources. Section
of Water Supply and Engineering, December, 1988.
Minnesota Department of Health, 1988. Proposals for Alternative Funding for Water Supply Monitoring
and Surveillance in Minnesota: Report to the 1989 Minnesota Legislature. Section of Water
Supply and Engineering, Division of Environmental Health, December, 1988.
Minnesota Department of Health, 1989. Nonpoint Source Program field/laboratory data acquisition
form. June, 1989.
Minnesota Department of Health, 1989. Pesticides and Groundwater A Survey of Selected Private
Wells in Minnesota Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water, Region 5, August, 1989.
Minnesota Department of Hearth, 1989. Public Water Supply Data 1989. Volume 1 - Municipal
Systems (A-L); Volume 2 - Municipal Systems (M-Z); and Volume 3 - Non-municipal
Community Systems. Division of Environmental Health.
Minnesota Department of Health, 1989. Underground Injection Control - Minnesota Abandoned Well
Survey. Prepared for U.S. EPA, April, 1989.
Minnesota Department of Health, 1989. Water Supply Monitoring Near Metropolitan Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities: Status Report to the Legislative Commission on Waste Management.
Section of Water Supply and Well Management, November 15, 1989.
-------
44
Minnesota Department of Health, 1990. Memorandum from Bruce Olsen , Division of Environmental
. Health, to, Pollution Control Agency. Subject: Counties with automated water well and nitrate
data (contacts included).
Minnesota Department of Health, 1990. Proposed Outline for Nitrogen Study. (As mandated by the
1989 Ground Water Protection Act; study to be completed for legislative review by July 1,
1991.) January 11, 1990.
Minnesota Department of Health, Southeast District and Rochester Public Utilities, Water Division,
1990. Groundwater Use (in the Olmsted County Water Planning Area). November, 1989.
Minnesota Department of Health and Department of Agriculture, 1988. Pesticides and Groundwater:
Surveys of Selected Minnesota Wells. Prepared for the Legislative Commission on Minnesota
Resources, December, 1988.
Minnesota Geological Survey, 1988. Geologic Atlas, Olmsted County, Minnesota County Atlas
Series, Atlas C-3, 9 plates. N. H. Balaban, ed. St. Paul: University of Minnesota
Minnesota Geological Survey, 1979. Hydrogeologic Map of Minnesota State Map Series S-5 and S-6.
Matt Walton, Director. University of Minnesota
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1990. Minnesota 1990 State Water Quality Report.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1989. Factors Influencing Ground Water Quality Near Beardsley,
Minnesota: A report on ground water quality monitoring and assessment conducted from
1987-1989. Water Quality Division, November, 1989.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1989. Introductory Guide to IGWIS (Integrated Ground Water
Information System). October 1,1989.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1989. Permanent List of Priorities. December, 1989.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1989. Quarterly Reports, Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection
Cooperative Agreement (EPA ID #V005848-01), April, 1986 to March, 1989 (14 reports).
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1989. Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment in the Garvin
Brook Rural Clean Water Project Area: Stream and Ground Water Monitoring and Best
Management Practice Implementation Assessment (1981-1989). Division of Water Quality.
Prepared for the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources, November 1989.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1990. Minnesota Open Dump Inventory. IBM-PC diskettes
containing individual Lotus 1-2-3 worksheets for each county in Minnesota January 16, 1990.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1989. Solid Waste Management Rules, February, 1989. .
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1987. Ground Water Quality Monitoring program: An Appraisal of
Minnesota's Ground Water Quality, 1987. Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste.
Olmsted County (Minnesota) Health Department, no date. Southeastern Minnesota's Cooperative
Water Testing Program. 4 pages.
Olmsted County (Minnesota) Health Department, 1986. Summary of well water analysis for nitrate -
Rochester Izaak Walton League Testing, July 29, 1985 to Jury, 19,1986 (Dodge, Fillmore,
Goodhue, Mower, Olmsted, Wabasha, and Winona counties).
-------
45
Olmsted County (Minnesota) Health Department, 1987. Fountain Drainfield Monitor Wells Data, 1987-
88. (Nitrate-nitrogen data for six wells; two pages.) October 27, 1988.
Olmsted County (Minnesota) Health Department, 1987. Hearth Facts (public information pamphlets).
Olmsted County (Minnesota) Health Department, 1987. Regional Laboratory Update. (Describes
benefits and development of a regional water testing laboratory for southeastern Minnesota)
Olmsted County (Minnesota) Health Department, 1989. A Study of the Wells, Onsite Wastewater
Treatment Systems, and Qroundwater Quality in the Tongen and Cavilima Subdivisions.
Rochester, April 27,1989.
Olmsted County (Minnesota) Health Department, 1989. Regional summary by well type of water
quality of Olmsted County municipal and private wells, 1988. 17 pages. (Includes nitrate, total
solids, chloride, sulfate, and bacteria) February 14, 1989.
Olmsted County (Minnesota) Health Department, 1989. Regional summary by well type of water
quality of Olmsted County municipal and private wells, 1989. 7 pages, through July, 1989.
(Includes nitrate, total solids, chloride, sulfate, and bacteria) July 20, 1989.
Olmsted County (Minnesota) Health Department, 1990. Examples of well information entered into the
Minnesota Geological Survey's Computer Data System.
Olmsted County (Minnesota) Health Department, 1988. An Inventory Of Potential Impacts To
Groundwater Supplies In South Rochester.
Olmsted County (Minnesota) Health Department, 1988. Olmsted County Groundwater Monitoring and
Related Studies. The report contains a brief summary of water quality testing programs and
studies conducted in Olmsted County. Regulated and voluntary programs are described and
a summary of test results is included. November 22,1988.
Olmsted County (Minnesota) Clean Water Partnership, 1989. Project Work Plan. This cooperative
effort in ground water quality monitoring is the single largest effort of its kind in the County.
November 1, 1989.
Olmsted County (Minnesota) Clean Water Partnership, 1989. Monitoring Plan for the Olmsted County
Ground Water and Wellhead Protection Project. October, 1989.
Rochester-Olmsted County Planning Department, 1989. Olmsted County Uses of Computerized
Geographic Information. February 13,1989.
Technical Advisory Group on Water Well Management, 1988. Water Well Management in Minnesota
(report to the Division of Environmental Health, Minnesota Department of Health). Richard
Peter, Chair and Director, Division of Environmental Health, Olmsted County Hearth
Department, September, 1988.
U.S. and Minnesota Departments of Agriculture, 1979-1984. Pesticides Used on Minnesota Farms. (6
reports.) Minnesota Agricultural Statistics Service.
U.S. and Minnesota Departments of Agriculture, 1984. 1984 Pesticide Usage Survey, including data
acquisition forms. Minnesota Agricultural Statistics Service.
U.S. EPA, 1989. Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1990 State Water Quality Assessment (305(b)
Report).
-------
46
U.S. EPA, Office of the Administrator, 1991. Protecting the Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy for
the 1990s. EPA 212-1020.
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 1991 (draft final). Definitions for the Minimum
Set of Data Elements for Ground-Water Quality.
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground-Water Protection, 1989. Indicators for Measuring Progress in Ground-
Water protection. EPA 44016-88-006.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1981. Designation of Principle Water-Supply Aquifers in Minnesota. Water
Resource Investigation 81-51.
Water Resources Research Center, 1989. Minnegram (newsletter). St Paul: University of Minnesota,
December, 1989.
-------
APPENDIX A NUMBER OF MCL VIOLATIONS FOR
SELECTED COUNTIES IN MINNESOTA
-------
Table A-1: Number of Violations of the Federal MCL for Arsenic in Minnesota. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
COUNTY
ANOKA
BROWN
CARVER
CASS
DAKOTA
DODGE
FILLMORE
GOODHUE
HENNEPIN
HOUSTON
HUBBARD
MORRISON
MOWER
NICOLLET
OLMSTEAD
OTTER TAIL
PINE
PIPESTONE
POPE
RAMSEY
RENVILLE
SCOTT
SHERBURNE
ST. LOUIS
STEARNS
WABASHA
WADENA
WASHINGTON
WINONA
TOTALS
YEAR
1980
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1981
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1982
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1983
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1986
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1988
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MCL: 0.05 mg/L
Source: Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS-II), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
>
rb
-------
Table A-2: Number of Violations of the Federal MCL for Nitrate in Minnesota. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
County
ANOKA
BROWN
CARVER
CASS
DAKOTA
DODGE
FILLMORE
GOODHUE
HENNEPIN
HOUSTON
HUBBARD
MORRISON
MOWER
NICOLLET
OLMSTEAD
OTTER TAIL
PINE
PIPESTONE
POPE
RAMSEY
RENVILLE
SCOTT
SHERBURNE
ST.LOUIS
STEARNS
WABASHA
WADENA
WASHINGTON
WINONA
TOTAL
YEAR
1980
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-v 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1981
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1982
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1983
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1986
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1988
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
MCL: 10mg/L
Source: Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS-II). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Table A-3: Number of Violations of the Federal MCL for Total Coliform in Minnesota, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
COUNTY
ANOKA
BROWN
CARVER
CASS
DAKOTA
DODGE
FILLMORE
GOODHUE
HENNEPIN
HOUSTON
HUBBARD
MORRISON
MOWER
NICOLLET
OLMSTEAD
OTTER TAIL
PINE
PIPESTONE
POPE
RAMSEY
RENVILLE
SCOTT
SHERBURNE
ST. LOUIS
STEARNS
WABASHA
WADENA
WASHINGTON
WINONA
TOTALS
YEAR
1980
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
6
1981
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
1982
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1983
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
1984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
3
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
7
1986
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1988
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
MCL: 1/100 mL
Source: Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS-II). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Table A-4: Number of Violations of the Federal MCL for Combined Radium in Minnesota, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
COUNTY
ANOKA
BROWN
CARVER
CASS
DAKOTA
DODGE
FILLMORE
GOODHUE
HENNEPIN
HOUSTON
HUBBARD
MORRISON
MOWER
NICOLLET
OLMSTEAD
OTTER TAIL
PINE
PIPESTONE
POPE
RAMSEY
RENVILLE
SCOTT
SHERBURNE
ST.LOUIS
STEARNS
WABASHA
WADENA
WASHINGTON
WINONA
TOTALS
YEAR
1980
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1981
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1982
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1983
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1986
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1988
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
>
en
MCL: 5pCi/L
Source: Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS-II), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
APPENDIX B - ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
B-2
Environmental Indicator Questionnaire
DATE:
SITE ID #:
SITE NAME:
SITE LOCATION:
STATE:
COUNTY:
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
GROUND WATER
CONTAMINANTS
PCB's:
PESTICIDES:
OTHER ORGANICS:
METALS:
CONVENTIONAL:
BACTERIA:
PROGRAM:
RCRA
CERCLA
OTHER:
CONCENTRATION
LEVEL STATUS
Enter the following values for
concentrations:
0 - unknown
1 - at or below detection limit
2 - above detection limit
3 - above level of concern
HAS THE PLUME BEEN DETECTED OFF-SITE?:
POPULATION POTENTIALLY AT RISK (3 mile radius)
IS CONTAMINATION REACHING DRINKING WATER WELLS?:
ACTUAL POPULATION AFFECTED:
(ycs/no/uoknmra)
(y«»/no/unknown)
-------
APPENDIX C - SUMMARY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
FOR MINNESOTA
-------
TABLE C-1: SUMMARY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES FOR MINNESOTA
COUNTY
NUMBER
OF SITES
Concentration Level
ANOKA
CASS
CROW WING
DAKOTA
DODGE
FILMORE
GOODHUE
HENNEPIN
HOUSTON
HUBBARD
MORRISON
MOWER
OLMSTED
OTTER TAIL
PINE
PIPESTONE
RAMSEY
RICE
SCOTT
SHERBURNE
STEARNS
ST. LOUIS
WABASHA
WADENA
WASHINGTON
WINONA
6
;. -r;.;, ''3':
3
'' :-:J,7.
1
. V . :,::: '.1
1
26
2
-. -:--.'1
1
:::.; :^ i
i
. .:M:,;'3':
2
;.,,:::,,.,;1,:
8
- 3
2
/ :;'*:. 1
6
8
1
3
9
3
CONCENTRATION LEVEL
PCBS
NUMBER
OF SITES
D
3
- 1
2
4
1
1
1
17
2
1
1
1
1
:;;3-
2
0
3
vf
2
0
4
4
1
2
8
2
1
3
ri:>-
1
2
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-a
0
:-m-
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
PESTICIDES
NUMBER
OF SITES
0
3
m
3
;.'4:
1
.;..t.
1
21
1
1
1
0
1
3
1
1
4
1
2
0
5
6
1
2
7
2
1
3
*J.-|:;
0
v.3-
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
\M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
i 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1:
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
SYNTHETIC
ORGANICS
NUMBER
OF SITES
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
2
0
2
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
5
1
3
5
0
1
1
18
1
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
6
1
1
1
4
7
1
1
8
1
METALS
NUMBER
OF SITES
0
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
8
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
3
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
2
1
0
1
1
1
2
2
0
2
2
1
1
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
3
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
3
2
1
0
4
0
0
1
3
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
4
1
0
1
2
6
0
1
3
0
BACTERIA
NUMBER
OF SITES
0
5
3
3
7
1
1
1
24
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
0
6
3
2
1
6
8
1
2
8
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
: 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
POPULATION
WITHIN 3
MILES OF
ALL SITES
NUMBER OF
SITES WITH
CONTAMINATED
WELLS
Concentration Leva) ;
42,280
2.076
22,508
89.780
0
:-. -: o
13.000
1,427,520
1,500
0
0
1,000
1.200
1,000
388
0
650.000
33,190
9,941
230
78.700
76.680
270
1,020
214.616
24.438
3
0
0
: . :'.: 3
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
'.V ':;: - 0
1
0
3
1
0
0
5
1
0
1
4
1
O
to
-------
TOTAL
104
68
23
1
12
75
21
4
4
13
5
15
71
26
18
29
31
94
8
2
0
2,721 .337
27
0 =unknown/not analyzed
1 =at/below detection limit
2 sabove detection limit
3 =above level of concern (MCL, health advisory, or other action level)
Source: Permanent List of Pirotirites, Minneosta Pollution Control Agency, 1990.
o
6
-------
APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF VOC DATA FOR
SELECTED COUNTIES IN MINNESOTA
-------
Table D-1.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Anoka County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
(1)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBEN2ENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
54
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
81
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
2
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Cased Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Uased Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Uased threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Oualily Ciiteria
Nl No Health Based threshold Available
-* Signifies that Data are Missing (or that Year
(A) Number ot Wells
(B) Number ot Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Numhei ol Sample Deteclions
(D) Nurnboi ol Detections thai Exceed the HUT
-------
Table D-1.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Anoka County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 .1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1.1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DlCHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
50
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
100
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
8
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
8
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
1
1
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
1
NT
NT
3
1988
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Uased Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Ml No Health Based Threshold Available
"-' Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number ol Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Delations th.-ii Fxroort iho MM!
-------
Table D-2.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Brown County (1980-1984). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1, ,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1, ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1, ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1, .2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1, -DICHLOROETHANE
1, -DICHLOROETHENE
1. -DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 .2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
' ' -
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
_
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(0)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
0
1982
NO.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
81
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
(D
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambienl Water Quality Criteria
Ml No Health Based Threshold Available
"-" Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number ot Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(I)) Number ol DetiK'linns Hi v r»rmvi i(u> MX I
-------
Table D-2.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Brown County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 .1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
, ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
. .2-TRICHLOROETHANE
, -DICHLOROETHANE
, -DICHLOROETHENE
, -DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o-
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Oets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
0
3
3
3
.3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
75
No.
Sam
Oets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
-
_
-
-
_
_
-
_
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
_
_
-
_
-
0
No..
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
_
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
.-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(i) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Fedeial Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
"-" Signilies that Data are Missing tor that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ot Sample Detections
(D) Number ul DelecMions that f.'xcoed Kit.- HHf
-------
Table D-3.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Carver County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NT
(1)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
.1 .1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1 .2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
.1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 .3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takti
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dots
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-"
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
Q
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
NO.
Well
(A)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
81
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
D
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
27
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
1
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
" - Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-3.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Carver County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 .1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIOE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBEN2ENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
25
NO.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
-
NO.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
_
-
_
_
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*-* Signifies that Data are Missing (or thai Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(P) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-4.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Cass County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
.1.1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
.1 .2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
.1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DIC HLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROOIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 .2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
NO.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
54
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
1
NT
NT
1
NT
(D
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
(1)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
'-* Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number or Wells
(B) Number ot Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ot Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-4.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Cass County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
(1)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1.1-DICHLOROETHENE
1 , 1 -DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 .2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
--I
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
25
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Gets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
0
No..
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(i) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Ciiteria
N r No Health Based Threshold Available
* -* Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ot Sample Detections
(U) Number of Detections lh.il FxrniKl iho HUT
-------
Table D-5.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Dakota County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1 ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1.2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-OICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-'.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Oets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
162
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
(D
(3)
(2)
NT
(D
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(D
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
-------
Table D-5.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Dakota County(1985 - 1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1, ,1.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1. ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1. ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1, ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1. -DICHLOROETHANE
1, -DICHLOROETHENE
1 , 1 -DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 .2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 .3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
8
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
8
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
200
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
50
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
o-
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
50
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
_
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
NT
(1)
(3)
(2)
NT
(1)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
(1)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Ml No Health Based Threshold Available
"-" Signifies that Data are Missing (or that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-6.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Dodge County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
(1)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1, ,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1. ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1. ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
, ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
, -DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
.2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
. 0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
27
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
" -" Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number ol Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-6.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Dodge County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
(D
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(D
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
(D
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1,1,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 -DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
,3-DlCHLOROBENZENE
,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DlCHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 .3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(i) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Basod Threshold Available
' -* Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Nutnhor nl Deiorlirms ih.-ii rworwi ihn unr
-------
Table D-7.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Fillmore County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 .1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
t,1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DlCHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 .3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-:
-
»':
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
- :
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
NO.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
NO.
Well
(A)
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
38
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
81
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
(1)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
d)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
d)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
" - Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number ol Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(L>) Number ol Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-7.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Fillmore County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
(1)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 -DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
75
No.
Sam
Oets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dots
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
NO.
Well
"(A)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
50
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Oets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
_
-
NO.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
0
NO.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*- Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number ol Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Detections that Excood Iho HOT
-------
Table D-8.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Goodhue County (1980 - 1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NT
(1)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
(1)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1 .2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
.1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
270
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
"-" Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-8.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Goodhue County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
(1)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE I
1 .1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE ;
1 ,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1.3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIOE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CISr-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
73
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takrt
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(°)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
TV! v
-
-
-
-
!-..
-
-
-
-
-
-
- '
-
w
-
-
_
_
_
_
_ .
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-y
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
-------
Table D-9.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Hennepin County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NT
(D
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
, ,1.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
, ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
. ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
, ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
. -DICHLOROETHANE
, -DICHLOROETHENE
, -DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLQRIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NO.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
NO.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
.. 0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
81
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
ID
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
1
161
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
8
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(Dj
NT
0
0
i
NT
1
NT
NT
NT
0
1
0
1
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
1
NT
NT
5
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL ,
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
" - Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ot Sample Deleclions
(D) Number ol Deleclions that Exceed the HOT
-------
Table D-9.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Hennepin County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
(D
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(D
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DlCHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DlCHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
125
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
50
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
-
_
-'
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
_
-
_
-
_
-
0
No,
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
_
-
_
-
_
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
"-" Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number ot Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Detections that Exceed Ihe HRT
-------
Table D-10.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Houston County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 .1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1.1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1.1-DICHLOROETHANE
1.1-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 .2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
NO.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- .
0
NO.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
108
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
NO.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
54
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
6
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
* -" Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number ol Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Detections that Exceed the HOT
-------
Table D-10.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Houston County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
d)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
d)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
d)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
, 1 -DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
NO.
Well
(A)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
50
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
T
-
-
-
- '
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
- .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
" -* Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(O) Number of Detections thai Exceor) iho HOT
-------
Table D-11.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Hubbard County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NT
(1)
(3)
(2)
NT
(1)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
.1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
.1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 .2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
NO.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- .
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT,
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
NO.
Sam
Dels
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Gets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
162
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
1
NT
NT
1
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NI No Health Based Threshold Available
* -* Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number ot Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Detections that Exceed (he HOT
-------
Table D-11.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Hubbard County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
(1)
(3)
(2)
NT
(D
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
(D
NT
NT
(D
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1,1,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2 ,3-TRICHLOROPROP ANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBEN2ENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Oets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
6
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
_
-
_
-
_
-
NO.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
_
_
_
-
_
-
_
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
" -" Signilies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Detections that Exceed the HOT
-------
Table D-12.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Morrison County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
.1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
.1 ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
.1 ,2-TRlCHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
.1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRlCHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NO.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9-
0
NO.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
. -
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
216
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
27
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
1
NT
NT
1
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*- Signifies that Data are Missing (or that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number ol Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(U) Number ol Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-12.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Morrison County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
0)
0)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1, ,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1. ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
, ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
. ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
. -DICHLOROETHANE
. -DICHLOROETHENE
, 1 -DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
25
No.
Sam
Dets
) Number ol Detections thai Exceed Hie HMT
-------
Table D-13.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Mower County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
.1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
.1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
.1 ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 .3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
135
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
t
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(i) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
-* Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number ol Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ot Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Detections that Exceed the HOT
-------
Table D-13.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Mower County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 -DICHLOROETHANE
1.1-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
No.
Sam
Gets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
.-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
_
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
7-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No,
Dets
Exc
HBt
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
- Signifies that Data are Missing tor that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-14.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Olmsted County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1,1.1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
.1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
.1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-OICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
b.
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
81
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
* -* Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections thai Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-14.2: Summary of VOC Detections fo Olmsted County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
,1,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
.1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
, 1 -DICHLOROPROPENE
,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No.
Sam
Takri
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
NO.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
- Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
1C)} NiimhPr nl riAlfv-finnc ih->i P^«H .HO uriT
-------
Table D-15.1 Summary of VOC Detections for Ottertail County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1.1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1.1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1.2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
135
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
(D
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
(1)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
* -" Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number ot Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-15.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Ottertail County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1 , 1 -DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 .3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- '
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
_
-
_
_
_
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
_
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(i) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Nl No Health Based Threshold Available
* - Signifies that Data are Missing tor that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HIH
-------
Table D-16.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Pine County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
.1,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
.1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
. 1 -DICHLOROPROPENE
,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 .3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-' -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
' -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
38
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
27
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
1
NT
NT
1
NT
(1)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
-" Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Detections thai Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-16.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Pine County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 .1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1.1-DICHLOROETHENE
1 , 1 -DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIOE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 .2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBEN2ENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS- 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
NO.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
_
_
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
_
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
(D
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
-* Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Deteclions thai Fxcfled thp unr
-------
Table D-17.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Pipestone County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NT
(1)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
(1)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 .1 .1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1.1-DICHLOROETHANE
1.1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DlCHLOROBENZENE
,2-OlCHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
,4-DlCHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
NO.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
NO.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
27
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
27
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*-* Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number ol Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-17.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Pipestone County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE
, ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
, ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
, -DICHLOROETHANE
, -DICHLOROETHENE
, -DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DlCHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
P
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
P
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
P
0
P
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
P
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
P
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
(1)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
(1)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
' -* Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-18.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Pope County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NT
(1)
(3)
(2)
NT
(1)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
(1)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1 -DICHLOROPROPENE
,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROD1BROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
NO.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
' -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Oets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Oets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
7
7
7
7
7
0
0
0
7
7
7
7
7
0
7
0
7
7
7
7
7
0
0
7
7
0
7
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
7
7
7
7
7
0
0
0
7
7
7
7
7
0
7
0
7
7
7
7
7
0
0
7
7
0
7
133
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO:
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*-* Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number ot Wells
(B) Number ol Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Detections tha} Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-18.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Pope County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1.1-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DlCHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takri
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
150
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
NT
0)
0)
(2)
NT
(1)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*-* Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-19.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Ramsey County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1, ,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1, ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1, ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1, ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1. -DICHLOROETHANE
1, -DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1.2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
NO.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
..-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Gets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
108
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
(1)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
(D
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(i) Healih Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NI No Health Based Threshold Available
" -* Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number ol Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Detections thai Lxceed the HOT
-------
Table D-19.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Ramsey County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
0)
0)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 .2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6-
150
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
25
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
125
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NI No Health Based Threshold Available
*-* Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number ol Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HUT
-------
Table D-20.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Renville County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
.1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
.1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
. 1 -DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
NO.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
54
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
N'T
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
(D
(3)
(2)
NT
(1)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Ml No Health Based Threshold Available
"-' Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Detections ihal(Fxrof>ri thp IIRT
-------
Table D-20.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Renville County (1985-1989). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
(1)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
(D
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1,1,1.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 -DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
50
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
_
-
_
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No,
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
' -
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NI No Health Based Threshold Available
*-* Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number ot Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Detections that Kxceed the HOT
-------
Table D-21.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Scott County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1.1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
.1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 .3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
.. -
-
-
-
. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
' -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
'-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
NO.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
27
NO.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(°)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
54
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
(1)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Ml No Health Based Threshold Available
* -* Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number ol Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ot Sample Detections
(D) Numbei ol Deieclions that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-21.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Scott County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
(D
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1, ,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
. ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
, ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
, ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
, -DICHLOROETHANE
, -DICHLOROETHENE
, -DICHLOROPROPENE
,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSOICHLOROETHENE
,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 .3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0:
0
No.
Sam
Dots
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
50
No.
Sam
Oets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
NO.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
0
No..
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(i) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
"-* Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number ot Wells
(B) Number ol Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Deteclions that Exceed the HflT
-------
Table D-22.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Sherburne County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
.1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-t ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
~
-
-
-
-
-
±
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Gets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
108
No,
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
(D
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Qualily Criteria
N1 No Health Based Threshold Available
"-" Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number ol Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Number ot Detections that Lxceed ihe HOT
-------
Table D-22.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Sherburne County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
(1)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
, .1-TRICHLOROETHANE
, ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
, ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
, -DICHLOROETHANE
. -DICHLOROETHENE
, -DICHLOROPROPENE
,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 .3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
r 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.
25
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
(
NO.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(i) Health Based Threshold is based on t inal Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
* -' Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number ol Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Detections lhal Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-23.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Stearns County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
, .1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
, ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
. ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
. ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
, -DICHLOROETHANE
, -DICHLOROETHENE
. -DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 .3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
.1-
-
-
-
. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Oets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
NO.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
54
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
(1)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(i) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
"-" Signifies that Data are Missing for thai Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-23.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Stearns County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1.1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1 -DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-OICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Oets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
-
0
No..
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
NT
(D
(3)
(2)
NT
(D
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
*- Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-24.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Wabasha County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1,1.1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 .1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DlCHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
NO.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
19
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
27
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
1
NT
NT
1
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO:
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
(D
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(D
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
(D
NT
NT
(D
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
* -* Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-24.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Wabasha County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 .1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
.2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o-
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
30
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
_
-
_
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
-
_
-
0
No..
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
_
-
0
NO.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
-* Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number ot Detections thai Exceed the HRT
-------
Table D-25.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Wadena County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-OICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DlCHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 .4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS- 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
- :
-
-
-
«.."; '
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
NO.
Sam
Oets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
NO.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
108
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
.0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
270
No.
Sani
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
1
NT
NT
1
NT
(1)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
"-* Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number ot Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(O) Number ol Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-25.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Wadena County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
(1)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1.1-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0-
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
50
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
_
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
-
0
NO:
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(i) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
"- Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number ot Deieclions that Exceed ihe HUT
-------
Table D-26.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Washington County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
,1 .2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
,3-OICHLOROBENZENE
1 .3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ;
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(°)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-. '
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
1
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
1
188
No..
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
1
NT
NT
1
NT
0)
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(i) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT NO Health Based Threshold Available
" -* Signifies that Data are Missing lor that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Numbei of Sample Detections
(D) Numbei ot Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-26.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Washington County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
(D
(3)
(2)
NT
0)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
d)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
, 1 -DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
NO.
Sam
Takri
Anlz
(B)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
100
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Gets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
100
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
6
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
_
-
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
_
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
* - Signifies that Data are Missing lor thai Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number o( Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Detections thai Fxrood thr> HUT
-------
Table D-27.1: Summary of VOC Detections for Winona County (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NT
(1)
(3)
(2)
NT
(1)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
.1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
.1-DICHLOROETHENE
.1-DICHLOROPROPENE
,2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 .2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 .3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 .3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
-
-'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1981
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
1982
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
14
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
14
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
56
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1983
No.
Well
(A)
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
270
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1984
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No,
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(1) Health Based Threshold (HBT) is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
"-" Signifies that Data are Missing for that Year
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number ol Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Numbei of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
Table D-27.2: Summary of VOC Detections for Winona County (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
NT
(D
(3)
(2)
NT
(1)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(D
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
0)
NT
NT
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
1,1,1.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHENE
,1 -DICHLOROPROPENE
,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE
,3-OICHLOROBENZENE
,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
,4-OICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
BROMOFORM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 .3-DICHLOROPROPENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRANS-1 .3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1986
No.
Well
(A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
25
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1987
NO.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1988
NO.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
NT
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
-
-
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
_
_
-
-
-
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
NT
-
-
-
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
-
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
0
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(i) Health Based Threshold is based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
"-" Signifies that Data are Missing tor that Year
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number ot Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(O) Number ol Detections that F.xceed Iho HBT
-------
Table D-28: Summary of VOC Detections for Anoka County, U.S. Geological Survey
(i)
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
(2)
(3)
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
NT
(1)
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICAL
BENZENE
CARBONTETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
TOLUENE
TRANS- 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
TOTALS
1986
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(c>
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
68
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
5
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
2
9
9
9
9
9
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
2
11
11
11
11
11
189
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
13
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
Source: National Water Data Storage and Retrieval System (WATSTORE),
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number ot Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
O
S
-------
Table D-29: Summary of VOC Detections for Cass County, U.S. Geological Survey
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICAL
BENZENE
CARBONTETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
TOLUENE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
1,1-OICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,4-OICHLOROBENZENE
TOTALS
1986
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
1987
NO.
Well
(A)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
34
No.
Sam
Dets
-------
Table D-30: Summary of VOC Detections for Hennepin County, U.S. Geological Survey
0)
0)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
(2)
0)
NT
(2)
0)
(2)
NT
0)
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICAL
BENZENE
CARBONTETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
OICHLOROOIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
TOLUENE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
1.1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,3-DlCHLOROBENZENE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
TOTALS
1986
NO.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
1987
NO.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
1988
NO.
Well
(A)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
72
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
0
NT
0
0
Source: National Water Data Storage and Retrieval System (WATSTORE),
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(O) Number ol Detections that Exceed the HBT
O
£
-------
Table D-31: Summary of VOC Detections for Ramsey County, U.S. Geological Survey
(1)
(1)
(2)
NT
NT
NT
(2)
(2)
NT
NT
(2)
(3)
NT
(2)
(1)
(2)
NT
0)
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICAL
BENZENE
CARBONTETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
TOLUENE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
1.1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2-DIBROMOMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 .2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1.4-DICHLOROBENZENE
TOTALS
1986
No.
Well
(A)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
85
No.
Sam
Gets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
No.
Dots
Exc
HBT
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
0
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
0
1988
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Oets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dels
Exc
HBT
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
0
1989
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Dets
Exc
HBT
(D)
0
0
0
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0
0
0
0
NT
0
Source: National Water Data Storage and Retrieval System (WATSTORE),
U.S. Geological Survey
(1) Health Based Threshold is Based on Final Federal MCL
(2) Health Based Threshold is Based on Proposed Federal MCL
(3) Health Based Threshold is Based on Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NT No Health Based Threshold Available
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the HBT
-------
D-60
ERRATA
The preceding tables list 1,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHENE as a VOC sampled by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. They should read TRANS-1.2-DICHLOROETHENE.
In addition, MPCA provided the following information on VOC detections to supplement the
data presented in the tables:
Acetone
County
Pope
Year
1982
1986
Number of
Wells
7
6
Number of Samples
Taken and Analyzed
7
6
Number of Sample
Detections
0
1
Benzene
County
Sherbume
Year
1984
1985
Number of
Wells
4
1
1
Number of Samples
Taken and Analyzed
4
1
1
Number of Sample
Detections
0
0
1
Bromodichtoromethane
County
Wadena
Year
1983
1984
1986
Number of
Wells
4
10
2
Number of Samples
Taken and Analyzed
4
10
2
Number of Sample
Detections
0
1
0
-------
D-61
County
Goodhue
Year
1983
1986
Number of
Wells
10
3
Number of Samples
Taken and Analyzed
10
3
Number of Sample
Detections
2
0
1.1.2-Trichloroethene
County
Dakota
Hennepin
Morrison
Ramsey
Year
1983
1985
1986
1988
1983
1984
1985
1988
1983
1984
1985
1983
1985
1986
1988
Number of
Wells
6
8
2
2
3
6
5
2
8
1
1
4
6
1
3
Number of Samples
Taken and Analyzed
6
8
2
2
3
6
5
2
8
1
1
4
6
1
3
Number of Sample
Detections
0
3
0
1
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
The data listed in these tables are based on Recommended Allowable Limits (RALs) used by
MPCA in early 1990. The data are provided for discussion purposes only and should not be used for
in depth trend analyses.
-------
APPENDIX E SUMMARY OF NITRATE DETECTIONS FOR
SELECTED COUNTIES IN MINNESOTA
-------
Table E-1.1: Summary of Nitrate Detections (1980-1984), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
COUNTY
ANOKA
BROWN
CARVER
CASS
DAKOTA
DODGE
FILLMORE
GOODHUE
HENNEPIN
HOUSTON
HUBBARD
MORRISON
MOWER
NICOLLET
OLMSTED
OTTER TAIL
PINE
PIPESTONE
POPE
RAMSEY
RENVILLE
SCOTT
SHERBURNE
ST.LOUIS
STEARNS
WABASHA
WADENA
WASHINGTON
WINONA
TOTALS
1980
NO.
Well
(A)
2
0
0
4
5
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
7
4
3
0
8
2
0
45
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
2
0
0
4
5
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
7
4
3
0
8
2
0
45
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
1
3
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
3
3
0
5
2
0
29
No.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
1981
No.
Well
(A)
2
0
1
0
6
0
13
0
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
17
57
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
2
0
1
0
6
0
13
0
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
32
72
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
1
0
0
0
3
0
13
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
17
43
No.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
7
1982
NO.
Well
(A)
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
18
36
NO.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
7
1
a
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
51
69
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
42
52
No.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
8
1983
No.
Well
(A)
4
3
4
0
9
1
0
13
3
4
0
8
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
5
2
1
0
0
0
1
4
0
26
91
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
. 4
3
4
0
9
1
0
13
3
4
0
8
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
5
2
1
0
0
0
1
4
0
26
91
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
1
0
1
0
6
0
0
5
1
0
0
8
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
1
4
0
17
52
No.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
7
1984
No.
Well
(A)
3
0
1
2
0
0
3
0
11
2
7
1
5
0
0
5
1
1
0
2
0
3
4
2
2
0
10
6
17
88
No.
Sam
Takrl
Anlz
(B)
3
0
1
2
0
0
3
0
11
2
7
1
5
0
0
5
1
1
0
2
0
3
4
2
2
0
10
6
17
88
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
3
2
6
0
2
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
0
2
4
1
0
0
7
3
9
51
No.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
2
7
m
to
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
MCL: 10.0 mg/L
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number ol Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Detections thai Exceed the Federal MCL
-------
Table E-1.2: Summary of Nitrate Detections (1985-1989), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Continued)
COUNTY
ANOKA
BROWN
CARVER
CASS
DAKOTA
DODGE
FILLMORE
GOODHUE
HENNEPIN
HOUSTON
HUBBARD
MORRISON
MOWER
NICOLLET
OLMSTED
OTTER TAIL
PINE
PIPESTONE
POPE
RAMSEY
RENVILLE
SCOTT
SHERBURNE
ST. LOUIS
STEARNS
WABASHA
WADENA
WASHINGTON
WINONA
TOTALS
1985
NO.
Well
(A)
2
0
0
1
10
0
13
0
5
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
4
0
46
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
2
0
0
1
10
0
13
0
5
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
4
0
46
No.
Sam
Dels
(C)
1
0
0
1
7
0
12
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
35
No.
Dels
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1986
No.
Well
(A)
';:4
3
0
0
2
0
2
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
2
2
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
31
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
4
3
0
0
2
0
2
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
2
2
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
31
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
o
1
11
No.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
5
1987
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
17
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
17
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
No.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1988
No.
Well
(A)
1
0
0
0
4
1
3
2
4
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
3
0
0
5
0
1
0
9
0
0
0
4
0
41
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
1
0
0
0
4
1
3
2
4
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
3
0
0
5
0
1
0
9
0
0
0
4
0
41
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
2
0
11
No.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1989
No.
Well
(A)
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
No.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
m
Source: Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
MCL: 10.0mg/L
(A> Number of Wells
(B) Number ot Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number ol Sample Detections
(D) Number ol Detections (hat Exceed the Federal MCL
-------
Table E-2.1: Nitrate Detections for Selected Counties in Minnesota (1980-1984), U.S. Geological Survey
COUNTY
ANOKA
CASS
DAKOTA
DODGE
FILLMORE
GOODHUE
HENNEPIN
HOUSTON
HUBBARD
MORRISON
MOWER
NICOLLET
OLMSTED
OTTER TAIL
PINE
PIPPQTHMP
rlrCO 1 VJINC
POPE
RAMSEY
RENVILLE
SCOTT
SHERBURNE
ST. LOUIS
STEARNS
WABASHA
WADENA
WASHINGTON
WINONA
TOTALS
1980
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
6
2
1
2
15
15
15
3
0
14
1
2
5
0
1
10
1
0
2
32
1
5
133
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
6
2
1
2
15
45
48
3
0
44
1
2
5
0
1
20
1
0
2
226
1
5
430
No.
Sam
Dets
(c)
0
0
3
2
0
0
3
45
48
1
0
44
1
2
0
0
1
20
1
0
2
226
0
0
399
No.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
12
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
65
0
0
104
1981
No.
Well
(A)
0
1
0
0
0
1
7
13
14
1
0
14
13
2
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
32
0
0
103
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
1
0
0
0
1
7
46
45
1
0
48
13
2
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
83
0
0
252
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
46
45
1
0
47
13
2
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
81
. 0
0
244
No.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
10
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
16
0
0
53
1982
NO.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
5
0
14
0
0
0
0
4
14
0
5
0
0
52
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
5
0
14
0
0
0
0
17
14
0
5
0
0
65
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
4
0
13
0
0
0
0
9
12
0
4
0
0
52
No.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
14
1983
No.
Well
(A)
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
5
5
0
0
5
0
15
0
0
0
0
8
19
0
5
0
0
75
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
5
5
0
0
5
0
55
0
0
0
0
8
54
0
5
0
0
151
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
5
5
0
0
4
0
52
0
0
0
0
3
47
0
4
0
0
123
No.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
1
0
0
47
1984
No.
Well
(A)
25
0
0
0
0
0
6
5
2
0
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
33
7
24
0
6
0
0
118
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
58
0
0
0
0
0
8
5
2
0
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
52
7
30
0
6
0
0
178
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
40
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
2
0
0
4
0
5
0
0
0
34
3
22
0
4
0
0
120
No.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
13
1
9
0
2
0
0
36
Source: National Water Data Storage and Retrieval System (WATSTORE).
U.S. Geological Survey
MCL: 10.0 mg/L
(A) Number of Wells
(B) Number of Samples Taken and Analyzed
(C) Number of Sample Detections
(D) Number of Detections that Exceed the Federal MCL
"-" Missing Data
m
-------
Table E-2.2: Nitrate Detections for Selected Counties in Minnesota (1985-1989), U.S. Geological Survey (Continued)
COUNTY
ANOKA
BROWN
PARX/FP
wMrl VCrl
CASS
DAKOTA
DODGE
FILLMORE
GOODHUE
HENNEPIN
HOUSTON
HUBBARD
MORRISON
MOWER
NICOLLET
OLMSTED
OTTER TAIL
PINE
PIPP^TONF
i Ir Gw 1 \^I*IC
POPE
RAMSEY
RENVILLE
SCOTT
SHERBURNE
ST.LOUIS
STEARNS
WABASHA
WADENA
WASHINGTON
WINONA
TOTALS
1985
No.
Well
(A)
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
0
0
5
0
11
0
0
0
31
0
26
0
4
0
0
99
NO.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
0
0
5
0
11
0
0
0
51
0
39
0
4
0
0
142
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
0
0
4
0
6
0
0
0
36
0
30
0
3
0
0
107
No.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
11
0
9
0
1
0
0
28
1986
No.
Well
(A)
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
12
0
0
10
0
20
0
0
0
0
79
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
12
0
0
10
0
20
0
0
o-
0
84
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
3
0
0
10
0
15
0
0
0
0
57
No.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
7
0
6
0
0
0
0
17
1987
No.
Well
(A)
15
6
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
47
No.
Sam
Takr
Anlz
(B)
15
6
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
58
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
14
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
51
No.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
7
1988
No.
Well
(A)
19
1
2
0
0
0
8
11
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
63
No.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
27
2
2
0
0
0
13
19
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
85
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
11
2
0
0
0
0
4
17
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
NO.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
1989
No.
Well
(A)
21
7
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
34
B
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
82
NO.
Sam
Takn
Anlz
(B)
28
9
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
34
8
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
91
No.
Sam
Dets
(C)
4
6
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
25
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
NO.
Dets
Exc
Fed.
MCL
(D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
m
Source: National Water Data Storage and Retrieval System (WATSTORE),
U.S. Geological Survey
MCL: 10.0 mg/L
(A) Number ol Wells
(B) Number of-Sample Detections
(C) Number of Detections that Exceed the Federal MCL
(D) Number ol Samples Taken and Analyzed
"-" Missing Data
-------
APPENDIX F - SUMMARY OF AGENCIES THAT TRACK INDICATOR DATA
IN MINNESOTA
-------
F-2
The following table outlines the State agencies that track indicator data and describes the
relevant data bases and types of data collected. In several cases, more than one agency or
organization tracks relevant information. Indicator data management for each data base is discussed
in greater detail in Section III of this study.
Indicator
MCLs
Responsible Agency
Minnesota Department of Health,
Division of Environmental Health
City of Rochester, Department of
Public Utilities
Data Base / Type of Information
MDH compiles water quality data for community public
systems on a cumulative basis each year. MCL violations are
tracked manually and reported to FRDS each quarter via
EPA's FRDS-DE II data entry program. Data are currently
maintained in WordPerfect files and are being entered into a
data base management system. Only lab ID and sample
numbers, but not levels, for bacteria analyses are currently
managed on-line.
The files do not contain MCL violations.
The city of Rochester monitors water quality for unfinished
water from the 22 municipal wells that serve its public water
system. The data are maintained in a RBASE data base
management system.
U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water EPA maintains the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS-il),
which serves as the national data base for tracking MCL
compliance data provided by States.
Hazardous
Minnesota Pollution Control
Waste Sites Agency
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
VOCs
Minnesota Department of Health
MPCA tracks progress on investigations of 166 hazardous
waste sites through its Permanent List of Priorities (PLP).
Forty of these sites are on EPA's National Priority List.
MPCA is also responsible for issuing permits and inspecting
43 active RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD)
facilities. Eight of these 43 sites are land disposal facilities,
and the remainder are mostly storage facilities. Most of these
facilities do not monitor ground water at their sites; however,
all of the land disposal facilities are required by permit to
monitor ground water at the site, and each has undergone a
RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA). Two of the storage facilities
are required to monitor ground water, one of which has
undergone a RFA, and one of which has completed a RCRA
Facility Investigation (RFI). Fifteen of the 43 active sites are in
some phase of corrective action.
MDH sampled all of the 2,050 community public water supply
(PWS) wells in Minnesota for VOCs between October 1982
and June 1985. MDH also conducted a State-wide Survey of
300 noncommunity PWS wells for VOCs between 1985 and
1987. In addition, MDH is assessing water quality in 1,111
public and private wells located within one mile of 132 mixed
municipal solid waste disposal sites in the seven-county
metropolitan area Results from sampling of the 2,050
community PWS wells are maintained in paper files. Results
of the State-wide survey of the 300 noncommunity PWS wells
are also maintained in paper files; MDH will automate these
data in the near future. Results of the water quality analyses
from wells near solid waste disposal sites in the metropolitan
area have been entered into a data base using DBASE3+ in a
format compatible with the State's Land Management
Information System.
-------
F-3
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
City of Rochester, Department of
Public Utilities
Nitrates Olmsted County Health
Department
Brown-Nicollet Community
Health Service
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Since 1978, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has
collected approximately 1,100 ground-water samples at 450
monitoring points (wells and springs) throughout all of
Minnesota's 87 counties in its Ambient Ground Water
Monitoring Program. These samples have been analyzed for
a suite of inorganic, bacteriological, and physical parameters.
As of the end of 1989, 375 of these samples had been
analyzed for VOCs; MPCA detected VOCs in approximately
eleven percent of these samples. Most of these 375 samples
were collected in geologically sensitive areas. MPCA
maintains these data in STORE!.
The Tanks and Spills Section of the MPCA's Hazardous
Waste Division maintains data on ground-water quality near
2,500 petroleum and chemical storage tanks. Approximately
ten years of data have been collected, the majority of which
have been collected since 1988. Most samples have been
analyzed for benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene.
These data are maintained in paper files.
The city of Rochester monitors water quality for unfinished
water from the 22 municipal wells that serve its public water
system. The data are maintained in a RBASE data base
management system. Since 1988, the Department has
consistently analyzed unfinished water for VOCs; some VOC
data exist from the late 1970's and early 1980's.
OCHD serves as a regional laboratory for the Southeastern
Minnesota Cooperative Water Well Testing Program. Ten
thousand samples have been analyzed for nitrate and coliform
bacteria since 1983 for seven counties in southeastern
Minnesota The data are maintained on a IBM computer
using a dBase IV data management system, which may be
down loaded by PC. At present, about fifty percent of the
data collected in Olmsted County have been entered into the
Olmsted County Well Index, an inventory of well information
and results of analyses. Five additional counties have some
nitrate data in their CWIs; these counties are listed in Section
III.D.3.L
Since 1988, Brown-Nicollet has sampled more than 3,000
private wells in these two counties and adjacent townships in
south-central Minnesota Samples are analyzed for nitrate,
fecal coliform, sutfate, and chloride. Multiple samples have
been taken for many wells. Nitrate data are maintained on the
PC-based METAVIEW data base management system. These
data will be moved to microcomputer by June 1990.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has collected
approximately 1,100 ground-water samples at 450 monitoring
points (wells and springs) throughout all of Minnesota's 87
counties in its Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Program.
All of these samples have been analyzed for nitrates, and
results have been entered into STORET.
Nitrate data have been collected in four MPCA studies:
one in Big Stone County, a second from the Garvin Brook
Rural Clean Water Project in Winona County, and two others
in Benton and Steams Counties. All of these data are
maintained in STORET and can be accessed through a VAX
minicomputer at the MPCA. Data from the Garvin Brook
-------
F-4
MPCA-Minnesota Department
of Agriculture
Minnesota Department of
Agriculture-MDH
Pesticides Minnesota Agricultural
Statistical Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
MDA
MDA-MDH
Rochester-Olmsted County
Planning Department
project include samples from 15 wells and 3 springs collected
in 1987 in the Garvin Brook Watershed and 12 wells in the
adjacent Ground Water Recharge Area during 1988 and 1989.
The Winona County Extension performed annual nitrate
analyses of 80 domestic wells in the watershed from 1983 to
1989 and sampled 82 wells in the Ground Water Recharge
Area for nitrate from 1985 to 1989. These data are included in
the Garvin Brook report, but the format in which they are
maintained is not known at this time.
The MPCA and the MDA are currently combining nitrate data
from several data bases to create SAS-readable files that will
be used to generate State maps displaying mean nitrate
concentrations, land use, and hydrogeologic sensitivity to
nitrate loading in ground water at the section level of the
Public Land Survey system. MPCA estimates that the SAS
files will be complete by September or October 1990.
Between 1985 and 1987, MDA and MDH conducted
cooperative surveys of water wells for selected pesticides; the
authors also determined nitrate levels in a portion of the wells
and evaluated whether those levels positively correlated with
the presence of the pesticides. These data are maintained in
DBASE3+.
MASS conducted annual surveys of pesticide usage,
across the State between 1969 and 1984. Responses
were received from approximately 25 percent of the 8,000 -
10,000 surveys mailed annually. The sampling was not
stratified by County. Summaries of these data have been
compiled in annual reports, but the raw data are not
automated.
MDA has conducted annual surveys of sales of restricted use
pesticides (RUPs) to private applicators since 1985. MDA
RUP sales data collected through 1988 are maintained on the
PC-based PARADOX data base management system; data
collected in 1989 should be entered in the system by spring,
1990.
Between 1985 and 1987, MDA and MDH conducted
cooperative surveys of water wells for selected pesticides;
these surveys were conducted to provide baseline data on the
occurrence and extent of agricultural pesticide contamination
in the State's ground water and drinking water. MDA sampled
100 observation, irrigation, and private drinking water wells
and five drain tiles on a repeat basis, most often four samples
per monitoring point. MDH collected one sample from each
of 400 public drinking water supply wells and resampled any
wells in which pesticides were detected in the first sample.
These data are maintained in DBASE3+.
Rochester-Olmsted surveyed farm cooperatives in Olmsted
County and in towns within adjacent counties that sit near
Olmsted's border for volumes of pesticides sold. Data are
compiled in a Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet.
-------
APPENDIX G - SUPPLEMENTARY PUBLICATIONS FOR MINNESOTA
-------
G-2
Several publications (primarily reports from State agencies) that contain relevant data on all of the
indicators are available. Some of these publications may contain data that were presented from the
data bases described in the body of this report Thus, there may be some duplication of data A
number of supplementary publications are listed below:
'In Search of Nitrates,' Brown-Nicollet Community Health Services, February 27, 1989.
This report provides a description and reporting forms from an ongoing township water testing
program.
'1990 Herbicide, Insecticide, and Fungicide Use Survey* (draft), Minnesota Department of
Agriculture, Agronomy Services Division.
This report proposes the format, organization, and execution of a 1990 survey on pesticide use in
Minnesota
"Volatile Organic Survey of Community Water Supplies: Report to the Legislative Commission
on Minnesota Resources,' Minnesota Department of Health, Section of Water Supply and
Engineering, July, 1985.
This study sought to expand State knowledge of contamination of community public water supply
(PWS) wells and systems. Samples were collected from 887 PWS systems and 1,801 PWS wells and
analyzed for volatile organic compounds.
Noncommunity Public Water Supply Survey for Volatile Organic Chemicals: Report to the
Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources,' Minnesota Department of Health, Section of
Water Supply and Engineering, December, 1988.
This study sought to expand State knowledge of contamination of noncommunity public water supply
(PWS) wells. Three hundred noncommunity PWS wells at risk of contamination were sampled for
volatile organic compounds between July 1985 and July 1987.
'Proposals for Alternative Funding for Water Supply Monitoring and Surveillance in Minnesota:
Report to the 1989 Minnesota Legislature,' Minnesota Department of Health, Section of Water
Supply and Engineering, Division of Environmental Health, December, 1988.
This report to the Minnesota Legislature develops and analyzes alternative funding proposals for water
supply monitoring activities. Other States' funding activities are also analyzed.
'Pesticides and Groundwater: A Survey of Selected Private Wells in Minnesota,' Minnesota
Department of Health, Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water, Region 5, August, 1989.
This study sampled selected wells, predominantly farm wells, for pesticides. The MDH sampled 25
private/public wells on a repetitive basis and 200 private wells on a one-time basis between April 1986
and May 1987.
'Public Water Supply Data 1989. Volume 1 - Municipal Systems (A-L); Volume 2 - Municipal
Systems (M-Z); and Volume 3 Non-municipal Community Systems,' Minnesota Department of
Health, Division of Environmental Health.
This report contains the annual compilation of water-quality data for all Minnesota community public
water supply systems.
"Water Supply Monitoring Near Metropolitan Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Status Report to
the Legislative Commission on Waste Management,' Minnesota Department of Health, Section
of Water Supply and Well Management, November 15, 1989.
-------
G-3
'Groundwater Use' (in the Olmsted County Water Planning Area), Minnesota Department of
- Health, Southeast District and Rochester Public Utilities, Water Division, November, 1989.
'Pesticides and Groundwater: Surveys of Selected Minnesota Wells,' Minnesota Department
of Health and Department of Agriculture, Prepared for the Legislative Commission on
Minnesota Resources, December, 1988. .
This study provided baseline information on the occurrence and extent of agricultural pesticide
contamination in the State's ground water and drinking water. Between July 1985 and June 1987,
MDA collected and analyzed samples from 100 observation, irrigation, and private drinking water wells
and five drain tiles on a repetitive basis; and MDH collected a single sample at each of 400 public
drinking water wells.
Minnesota Geological Survey, 1988. Geologic Atlas, Olmsted County, Minnesota. County
Atlas Series, Atlas C-3, 9 plates. N. H. Balaban, ed. St. Paul: University of Minnesota.
Minnesota Geological Survey, 1979. Hydrogeologic Map of Minnesota. State Map Series S-5
and S-6. Matt Walton, Director. University of Minnesota
'Agricultural and Lake Influences on Water Quality in Outwash Aquifers in the School Section
Lake Area of Steams County, Minnesota' (in press), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Water Quality Division, 1990.
'Factors Relating to Nitrate Contaminated Wells in an Agricultural/Residential Area of Benton
County, Minnesota* (in press), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Water Quality Division,
1990.
'Factors Influencing Ground Water Quality Near Beardsley, Minnesota: A report on ground
water quality monitoring and assessment conducted from 1987-1989,' Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Water Quality Division, November, 1989.
This study identified the factors affecting ground-water quality in a ten-square-mile region primarily
south and west of Beardsley, Minnesota 19 wells were sampled six times each between May 1987
and September 1988. These ground-water samples were then analyzed for a variety of parameters,
including nitrate, phosphorus, ammonia major cations and anions, certain trace metals, 16 different
pesticides, tritium, and carbon isotopes.
'Introductory Guide to IGWIS (Integrated Ground Water Information System),' Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, October 1,1989.
This document provides a basic, general description of IGWIS for those unacquainted with the system.
'Permanent List of Priorities,' Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, December, 1989.
This document lists the most serious localized or point sources of pollution. To date, a total 165 sites
have been identified as State Superfund sites.
"Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment in the Garvin Brook Rural Clean Water Project
Area: Stream and Ground Water Monitoring and Best Management Practice Implementation
Assessment (1981-1989),' Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Division of Water Quality.
Prepared for the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources, November 1989.
This study assessed the Garvin Brook Rural Clean Water Project, both in terms of water quality trends
and Best Management Practice implementation. Numerous sampling programs were conducted from
1981 to 1989 on Garvin Brook and the underlying ground water. Nitrate and pesticide data, as well as
many other parameters, were periodically collected and statistically analyzed.
-------
G-4
'Southeastern Minnesota's Cooperative Water Testing Program,1 Olmsted County (Minnesota)
Health Department, 4 pages, no date.
'Summary of well water analysis for nitrate - Rochester Izaak Walton League Testing, July 29,
1985 to July, 19, 1986' (Dodge, Fillmore, Goodhue, Mower, Olmsted, Wabasha, and Winona
counties), Olmsted County (Minnesota) Health Department, 1986.
'Fountain Drainfield Monitor Wells Data 1987-88' (Nitrate-nitrogen data for six wells; two
pages.), Olmsted County (Minnesota) Health Department, October 27,1988. r
'A Study of the Wells, Onsrte Wastewater Treatment Systems, and Groundwater Quality in the
Tongen and Cavilima Subdivisions,1 Olmsted County (Minnesota) Health Department,
Rochester, April 27, 1989.
'Regional summary by well type of water quality of Olmsted County municipal and private
wells, 1988* (Includes nitrate, total solids, chloride, sulfate, and bacteria), Olmsted County
(Minnesota) Health Department, 17 pages, February 14,1989.
'Regional summary by well type of water quality of Olmsted County municipal and private
wells, 1989* (Includes nitrate, total solids, chloride, sulfate, and bacteria), Olmsted County
(Minnesota) Health Department, 7 pages, through July, 1989, July 20, 1989.
'An Inventory Of Potential Impacts To Groundwater Supplies In South Rochester,' Olmsted
County (Minnesota) Health Department, 1988.
'Olmsted County Groundwater Monitoring and Related Studies," Olmsted County (Minnesota)
Health Department, November 22,1988.
The report contains a brief summary of water quality testing programs and studies conducted in
Olmsted County. Regulated and voluntary programs are described and a summary of test results is
included.
'Project Work Plan,' Olmsted County (Minnesota) Clean Water Partnership, November 1, 1989.
This cooperative effort in ground water quality monitoring is the single largest effort of its kind in the
County.
'Monitoring Plan for the Olmsted County Ground Water and Wellhead Protection Project,'
Olmsted County (Minnesota) Clean Water Partnership, October, 1989.
'Olmsted County Uses of Computerized Geographic Information,' Rochester-Olmsted County
Planning Department, February 13,1989.
'Water Well Management in Minnesota* (report to the Division of Environmental Health,
Minnesota Department of Health), Technical Advisory Group on Water Well Management,
Richard Peter, Chair and Director, Division of Environmental Health, Olmsted County Health
Department, September, 1988.
'Pesticides Used on Minnesota Farms,' U.S. and Minnesota Departments of Agriculture, (6
reports, 1979-1984), Minnesota Agricultural Statistics Service.
'1984 Pesticide Usage Survey* (including data acquisition forms), U.S. and Minnesota
Departments of Agriculture, Minnesota Agricultural Statistics Service.
------- |