Minnesota Department of Health
Well Management Section
P.O. Box 64975
St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0975
651-201-4600 or 800-383-9808
www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/wells
Protecting, maintaining and improving the health of all Minnesotans
CORRECTION
In the original edition of the Spring/Summer 2010 issue of the Minnesota Well Management
News, the article entitled “Local Regulation of Wells” (see page 13) included information that
was determined to be inaccurate following further review. This article has been removed from
the edition posted on the Well Management Section Web site and replaced with a revised article.
The revised article now appears in the Spring/Summer 2010 issue posted on the Web site.
The Fall 2010/Winter 2011 issue of the Minnesota Well Management News includes a more
detailed article “Local Regulation of Wells – Updated Information.”
General Information: 651-201-5000 ● Toll-free: 888-345-0823 ● TTY: 651-201-5797 ● www.health.state.mn.us
An equal opportunity employer
Volume 30, No. 1
Spring/Summer 2010 (Revised)
Well Management Section
Continuing Education Videoconference – December 15, 2010
The Well Management Section will be offering a videoconference on Wednesday, December 15, 2010,
at 1 p.m. – 3 p.m. for representatives who still need to obtain two hours of Minnesota Department of
Health (MDH)-provided or -sponsored continuing education in order to renew their 2011 certification.
The videoconference will be presented in Room B108 at the Freeman Building at 625 Robert Street
North, St. Paul. The videoconference can also be viewed at the MDH district offices in Bemidji, Duluth,
Fergus Falls, Mankato, Marshall, Rochester, and St. Cloud. This session will be largely a repeat of the
information the MDH provided earlier in 2010 at the Minnesota Water Well Convention, the MDH
Spring District meetings, the pump and supply house schools, and other programs. This meeting is
intended for individuals who missed the previous presentations. No preregistration is required for
attending this videoconference. An informational flyer will be mailed to representatives in early
November 2010 to remind them of the upcoming program.
If you have any questions, please contact Michael Convery at 651-201-4586 or Well Management
Section district staff. Information on this program and other continuing education opportunities is also
available on the MDH Well Management Section Web site at:
www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/wells/lwcinfo/training.html.
As a reminder, certified representatives for well and boring contractors (except responsible individuals
for Explorers) must obtain two hours of MDH-provided or -sponsored continuing education annually.
Representatives for monitoring well contractors and well contractors must also obtain an additional
four hours of MDH-approved continuing education.
INSIDE:
Alternative Water Well Rehabilitation
Loan and Forgivable Loan Programs for Well Construction
Professor Hans-Olaf Pfannkuch Retires
Mechanical Perforator Failures
Tim Thurnblad Serves 19 Years on Advisory Council
Heat Transfer Fluids for Vertical Heat Exchangers
Minnesota Geothermal Heat Pump Association
Getting the Right Sand for Your Thermally Enhanced Grout
Well Setbacks and the Abandonment of Subsurface Sewage
Treatment Systems
Follow-Up to “Well Contractor has Near Miss with Buried
Electric Wires”
Federal American Recovery Reinvestment Act Well Cost
Share
Local Regulation of Wells
Obituaries
Continuing Education Calendar
New Contractors
Alternative Water Well Rehabilitation
The Minnesota Department of Health’s
(MDH’s) Well Management Section recently
observed the rehabilitation of two industrial
wells using carbon dioxide (CO2) in
southwestern Minnesota. The 6-inch and
12-inch diameter, glacial drift wells are
360 feet in depth, and have stainless well
screens which are 30 feet and 40 feet in
length respectively. The wells are 12 years
old and were not producing as much water as
when they were first constructed. The need to
remove encrusted scale, iron, and manganese
from the well screens and formation certainly
didn’t seem unusual to MDH staff. The MDH
inspector was surprised to learn that the
licensed well contractor wanted to rehabilitate Operator prepares to inject carbon dioxide to rehabilitate
water-supply well.
the wells by “freezing” the aquifer. Acid
treatment, other chemical treatment, or development, are the more common choices for well
rehabilitation in Minnesota.
The rehabilitation process began by removing the pump from the well and inserting a packer on steel
pipe directly above the screen. CO2 in the gaseous state was then pumped down the steel pipe, through
the packer, and into the well. The CO2 drives water
away from the screen and the formation surrounding the
screen, while producing a carbonic acid solution. The
installer then pumps liquid CO2 down the hole. This is
done by pumping the CO2 through a furnace and
keeping it warm so it stays in the liquid state. The liquid
CO2 was injected at different pressures and
temperatures and when it came in contact with the
water, it expanded rapidly, creating tremendous
agitation. The reaction is the same as placing dry ice in
a bowl of water. This agitation produces the energy
needed to dislodge/scrub the encrusted minerals on the
well screen and the surrounding formation. After hours
of this treatment, the well appeared to take CO2 with
little effort. The well was left to rest over night, while
still under pressure. The next morning, the packer was
removed and the carbonation from this treatment caused
the well to flow and purge water for several hours prior
to development. The wells were developed by the
airlifting method. Other development practices that can
be employed at this point include brushing, raw-hiding,
bailing, or jetting. These two particular wells were
developed for two days and were brought back to their
Carbon dioxide being injected into well to
original pumping capacities.
rehabilitate it.
2
This well rehabilitation procedure has been around for many years and has treated thousands of wells
worldwide. Proponents claim that this procedure is safe to use on PVC wells because it does not create
pressures greater than 100 pounds per square inch. It does its cleaning through the production of
carbonic acid and the phase change reaction of the CO2. This is not an endorsement by the MDH of this
technique over others, but is provided to inform contractors who may be looking for an alternative
rehabilitation method.
Regardless what type of well rehabilitation contractors choose to use for well treatment, Minnesota
Rules, part 4725.3725 require that any chemicals used for well treatment or rehabilitation, including
hydrochloric acid/and or CO2, must meet the requirements of ANSI/NSF Standard 60-2003e. The MDH
recommends that the pH of the water be measured prior to treatment with CO2, and that the well not be
placed back into service until the pH is within one unit of the pretreatment value.
Loan and Forgivable Loan Programs for Well Construction
The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) offers a loan program that can be used to fund well
construction, and in some cases well sealing, for very low income property owners. It is called the
“Rehabilitation Loan Program.” The income limit statewide is $17,700 for one person, $20,200 for
two persons, and higher for larger families. The property owner cannot have assets that exceed $25,000.
Loans for up to $24,999 can be made with 0 percent interest and no payments. A lien is placed on the
property and if the property is sold, the title is transferred, or the property owner ceases to live on the
property before the length of the loan (typically 10 years) is up, the loan repayment is due at that time.
Otherwise, the loan is forgiven.
There is a fast track process for emergency loans, such as when a well needs to be replaced immediately.
Permanent sealing of the old well, when a new well is constructed, could also be covered under the
emergency loan. The criteria for an emergency loan are strict. If the well is no longer working, the
property owner could go through the fast track process and the loan is made for just the well
replacement. However, if the well is just producing a low amount of water, it would not be considered
an emergency.
If it is not an emergency, there is a slower process required where an evaluation of the home is made to
determine if there are other improvements that need to be made to meet federal standards of adequate
lighting, plumbing, heating, septic, lead abatement, etc. If the cost to bring up the home to federal
minimum standards requires a loan of $25,000 or greater (or $35,000 or greater including lead
abatement costs), the property owner is not eligible for the Rehabilitation Loan, and would have to
choose a different loan program, such as The Fix-up Fund.
The Fix-up Fund is a loan program that has an income limit currently of $96,500 for loans up to $35,000
with a current interest rate of 5.99 percent and loan repayment for 10 years if the loan is up to $10,000
and 20 years if $10,001 or higher. For information about these loan programs, you may contact the
MHFA at 651-296-8215 or 800-710-8871.
3
Professor Hans-Olaf Pfannkuch Retires from the University of Minnesota
Professor Hans-Olaf Pfannkuch retired from the Department of Geology and
Geophysics at the University of Minnesota in May 2010. His career spanned
42 years of teaching, research, and service to students at the University of
Minnesota and various groundwater organizations. Professor Pfannkuch
received his Dr. -Ing. degree from Paris University in France. At the
University of Minnesota, he established one of the first groundwater
programs in the United States and taught courses in hydrogeology,
environmental geology, contaminant transport, and water policy. He trained
and guided many of the groundwater professionals currently in practice in
Minnesota.
Professor Pfannkuch was the very first McEllhiney Lecturer for the National
Ground Water Association in 2001. He also received the 2009 Life Member
Award from the National Ground Water Association and the 2005 Outstanding Service Award from the
Minnesota Ground Water Association. Professor Pfannkuch was always willing to work with local,
state, and federal agencies on a wide range of groundwater projects. He spoke on many different
groundwater topics to a wide variety of audiences, many outside the academic arena. He was a frequent
speaker at the Minnesota Water Well Association Convention.
Mechanical Perforator Failures
Over the past few years, the Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH) has documented several instances where mechanical
perforators including commercially-made wheel perforators
and shop-built hydraulic perforators have not successfully
perforated well casing. In each case, the well contractor
thought that the perforator worked properly. A downhole
video camera inspection of the perforation attempts revealed
that the teeth on the wheels or the hydraulic knives either just
scratched the inside surface of the well casing, or made
indentations into the casing; but did not penetrate all the way
through.
Minnesota Rules, part 4725.3850, requires that when sealing
a well, any open annular space surrounding a casing must be
properly filled with grout. If the space cannot be accessed
with a tremie pipe, the casing must be removed, ripped, or
perforated to allow proper sealing of the open annular space.
Some possible causes of the perforator failures include: an
improper shoe being used to adjust for different or odd sized Unsuccessful perforation attempts with
well casings; a worn perforator wheel or knife; worn
wheel perforator St. Paul, Minnesota, 2006.
perforator wheel axle; bad seals causing an air leak in the
perforator wheel actuator slide; a sticky perforator wheel actuator slide; heavy well casing with greater
wall thickness (Schedule 80 or 120); or cemented casing.
4
If you use a mechanical perforator to perforate
steel well casing, the MDH strongly recommends
that you first make sure the perforator is working
properly by perforating the casing near, or above
the ground surface where the perforation can be
visually inspected and it can be confirmed that the
casing is successfully perforated. If there are
problems, adjustments can be made prior to
attempting to perforate the intended sections of
the casing. After the casing is perforated the MDH
also strongly recommends that the perforator
again be tested by perforating the casing near, or
above the ground surface, where the perforations
can be visually inspected.
Unsuccessful perforation attempt with hydraulic
perforator, St. Paul, Minnesota, 2006. Perforator knife only
scratched the surface of the casing.
Inspecting the perforations with a downhole camera is
recommended to assure the perforator successfully
perforated the casing. You should be able to see through a
successful perforation hole and see an outer casing or the
borehole wall surface. You may even see water entering
or exiting the well through a perforation hole.
Successful perforation in steel well casing.
Tim Thurnblad Serves 19 Years on Advisory Council
In September 2009 Tim Thurnblad stepped down from the Advisory Council on Wells and Borings after
19 years of outstanding and dedicated service as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
representative on the council (1991-2009). Throughout
those years, Tim kept the council advised of pertinent
groundwater activities within the MPCA, provided
thoughtful input on topics and issues discussed by the
council, and added important perspective based upon his
knowledge and experience as a professional geologist.
Roger Renner (left) presents Tim Thurnblad (right)
with a plaque commemorating his 19 years of
service on the Minnesota Department of Health’s
Advisory Council on Wells and Borings.
The Commissioner of Health, Dr. Sanne Magnan, issued
a letter commending Tim for his longstanding service to
the council and commitment to the important goals of
safe drinking water and groundwater protection. At the
June 2, 2010, meeting of the council, Roger Renner, vice
chair of the council, presented Tim with a plaque to honor
his years of dedicated service.
5
Heat Transfer Fluids for Vertical Heat Exchangers
Minnesota Rules, part 4725.7050 requires that only food-grade or United States Pharmacopeia (USP)-grade propylene glycol may be used as heat transfer fluid in a vertical heat exchanger. No other materials or additives may be used except potable water.
Some propylene glycol products contain small amounts of other chemicals to stabilize or prevent corrosion. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has determined that some of these products meet the intent of the rule. Upon request from a manufacturer, the MDH will review product information for an inhibited propylene glycol to determine if it is safe and acceptable for use in a vertical heat exchanger. Approval of an inhibited propylene glycol is based on manufacturer submission to MDH of documentation identifying the additives/inhibitors and verifying that all ingredients are food grade or USP grade, and listing of the product in the NSF White Book™ listing for nonfood compounds. Propylene glycol with additives must not be used in a vertical heat exchanger unless the MDH has provided written approval for that specific product.
The following inhibited propylene glycols have been approved for use in vertical heat exchangers in Minnesota:  Dowfrost, manufactured by Dow Chemical Co.  EnviroGard (previously named and approved as RhoGard Ultra DP), manufactured by Rhomar Water Management, Inc.
 Fremont 9134FG, manufactured by Fremont Industries, Inc. Includes a range of propylene glycol
dilutions with distilled water from 25 percent (9134FG-25D) to 50 percent (9134FG-50D).
 Intercool P-323, manufactured by Interstate Chemical Co., Inc. Includes a range of propylene glycol
dilutions with de-ionized potable water from 20 percent (Intercool P-323-20) to 50 percent (Intercool
P-323-50).
 Safe-T-Therm, manufactured by Houghton Chemical Corporation. Includes a range of propylene
glycol dilutions with potable water from 20 percent (Safe-T-Therm 20 percent) to 60 percent
(Safe-T-Therm 60 percent) as well as the full-strength product (Safe-T-Therm Concentrate).
In addition to these approved inhibited propylene glycols, any food-grade or USP-grade propylene
glycol without additives (other than potable water) is approved by rule, and no formal review or
approval by MDH is required. The MDH does not currently maintain a list of food-grade and USP-grade
propylene glycols.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Ed Schneider in the MDH Well Management Section at
651-201-4595 or [email protected].
Minnesota Geothermal Heat Pump Association
The Minnesota Geothermal Heat Pump Association (MNGHPA) has recently been established. The
nonprofit organization was established to promote the technical competency and the growth of the
geothermal heat pump industry and to provide educational and technical information to the public,
geothermal professionals, and others interested in geothermal applications. The association has created a
Web site at: www.mnghpa.org, which is intended to serve as a central resource for consumers,
professionals, educators, and others seeking current information about geothermal heat pump technology
in Minnesota. Interested persons can also contact the MNGHPA at 952-928-4651.
6
Getting the Right Sand for Your Thermally Enhanced Grout
Sand has historically had a wide variety of uses in the well
and boring industry, including use as a filter pack around a
well screen, use as a proppant to hold fractures open during
hydrofracturing, and use as an additive in cement and
bentonite grouts. Most recently, fine-grained sand is being
used in combination with some bentonite grouts to create
“thermally enhanced bentonite grout” for use in vertical heat
exchangers (geothermal heat loops).
The addition of sand to bentonite grout can significantly
increase the thermal conductivity of the grout, which
improves the efficiency of the geothermal system. In order
for the sand to be effective, it must stay suspended in the
grout mixture until the bentonite sets. Sand that settles out of
the grout mixture will not provide the desired thermal
conductivity. In addition, where sand accumulates in the bore
hole, the permeability is likely to be very high and result in
an ineffective grout seal.
Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725 addresses this concern by
Silica sand used for thermally enhanced
bentonite grout for geothermal heat loops.
requiring that only certain sized sand be used in thermally
enhanced grouts. Minnesota Rules, part 4725.7050,
subpart 1, item D requires that thermally enhanced bentonite grout must consist of a fluid mixture of not
more than 17.5 gallons of water, not more than 200 pounds of sand with 80 percent or more of the sand
smaller than 0.0117 inch (passing U.S. Sieve Number 50), and a minimum of 50 pounds of bentonite.
The sand size requirement was based on data showing acceptable permeabilities from manufacturers of
thermally enhanced bentonite grouts at the time the rule was written.
Table 1 (page 8) provides information on some commonly used sieve sizes. Please note that as the sieve
number increases, the openings in the sieve get smaller. The sieve number is roughly equivalent to the
number of openings per linear inch. So, Sieve Number 10 would have approximately 10 openings per
inch. This is essentially opposite to screen slot numbers, which describe the size of the opening. A
10-slot screen has openings of approximately 0.010 inches.
How do you know if a given sand meets this criterion? Commercial sand producers identify sand sizes
in a variety of ways. Unimin’s Granusil1 sand product sizes are described using a two-number code: the
first number identifies the U. S. Sieve Size; the second number specifies the approximate percent by
weight of the sand that would be larger than that sieve size and therefore retained on that sieve. For
example, Granusil 5010 is sized such that approximately 10 percent of the sand is larger than Sieve
Number 50. This means that approximately 90 percent of the sand is smaller than Sieve Number 50, so
this product would be acceptable for use in a thermally enhanced bentonite grout. Another example,
Granusil 4030 is sized such that approximately 30 percent of the sand is larger than Sieve Number 40.
Since Sieve Number 40 is larger/coarser than Sieve Number 50, at least 30 percent of the sand would
not pass through Sieve Number 50, so Granusil 4030 sand would not be allowed for use in thermally
enhanced bentonite grout.
Other sand producers describe sand sizes with a two-number code, a smaller and a larger sieve number,
which describes the size range of most of the product (usually 90 percent or more). This means that
90 percent or more of the sand is between the two sieve sizes. For example, a 50/70 sand would have
7
90 percent sized smaller than Sieve Number 50 (0.0117-inch diameter) and larger than Sieve Number 70
(0.0083-inch diameter). This sand would be acceptable for use in a thermally enhanced bentonite grout.
Sand sizes with the first number smaller (coarser) than Sieve Number 50, such as 20/40 or 30/50 sand,
would generally not be allowed for use in a thermally enhanced bentonite grout.
Table 1. Standard Mesh Sizes
Sand
Description
Very
Coarse
Sand
Coarse
Sand
Medium
Sand
Fine Sand
U.S. Standard Sieve Size
Sieve
Sieve
Comparable
Sieve
Opening
Opening
Screen Slot
Number
(Inches)
(Millimeters)
Number
10
0.0787
2.00
80
12
0.0661
1.68
14
0.0555
1.41
16
0.0469
1.19
18
0.0394
1.00
40
20
0.0331
0.841
25
0.0278
0.707
30
0.0234
0.595
35
0.0197
0.500
20
40
0.0165
0.420
45
0.0139
0.354
50 *
0.0117
0.297
12
60
0.0098
0.250
10
70
0.0083
0.210
8
80
0.0070
0.177
100
0.0059
0.149
120
0.0049
0.125
140
0.0041
0.105
170
0.0035
0.088
200
0.0029
0.074
* For sand used in thermally enhanced bentonite grouts, 80 percent or more of the sand must be smaller
than 0.0117 inch (passing U.S. Sieve Number 50).
The use of sand in grouts is not limited to thermally enhanced grout. Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725
provide a specification for cement-sand grout, which is a fluid mixture of Portland cement, sand, and
water in the proportion of 94 pounds of Portland cement, not more than 1.0 cubic foot of dry sand, and
not more than 6 gallons of water. The rules specify that bentonite grout (other than thermally enhanced
bentonite grout) must be water and a minimum of 15 percent by weight powdered or granular bentonite,
and may include an additional 15 percent by weight of washed sand or cuttings from the bore hole. For
these grouts, the sand must comply with the rules which require that sand be "unconsolidated mineral
material composed principally of quartz ranging in size from 0.0025 to 0.040 inches in diameter." Note
that the definition of sand in the rules does not include sand greater than 0.040 inches in diameter;
consequently, sand greater than 0.040 inches in diameter may not be used in bentonite or cement-sand
grout mixtures. The Minnesota Department of Health recommends that medium or fine grained sand be
used in these grouts.
The rules do not require that sand used for filter packs or as a proppant for hydrofracturing meet any size
requirement. The sand must comply with the composition and placement requirements.
1
The use of product names is for illustrative purposes only, and does not constitute endorsement by the MDH.
8
Well Setbacks and the Abandonment of Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725 (Well Code), administered by the Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH), contain minimum “isolation,” or “setback” distance requirements between potential sources of
contamination and water-supply wells. The distances apply to all water-supply wells, including domestic
wells, irrigation or other “nonpotable” water-supply wells, industrial-supply wells, and
sandpoint/drivepoint wells.
The Well Code and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103I, regulate both the placement of a new well near a
potential source of contamination, and the placement of a potential source of contamination near an
existing well.
The setback distances prescribed in the Well Code are based upon the potential threat the contaminant
poses to a well. The Well Code includes a number of required setbacks to the individual components of
a subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS). Setback distances to SSTS components where
contaminants are entering the soil are doubled for sensitive wells, which are wells with less than 50 feet
of watertight casing where the casing does not penetrate 10 feet of confining materials, such as clay or
shale. Setbacks to some of the more common components of a SSTS are outlined in the table below.
Setback Distance
to Water-Supply
Well*
Setback Distance
to Sensitive
Water-Supply
Well*
Absorption area of a soil dispersal system with an average
design flow greater than 10,000 gallons per day
300 feet
600 feet
Absorption area of a soil dispersal system serving a facility
such as a hospital, nursing home, mortuary, veterinary clinic,
health care clinic or similar facility handling infectious or
pathological wastes
150 feet
300 feet
Cesspool, seepage pit, leaching pit, or dry well
75 feet
150 feet
Absorption area of a soil dispersal system with an average
design flow less than 10,000 gallons per day and not serving
a facility handling infectious or pathological wastes.
50 feet
100 feet
Septic tank or watertight sewage holding tank
50 feet
50 feet
Sewage sump with a capacity of 100 gallons or more,
including lift stations, grinder tanks, and other pump tanks
50 feet
50 feet
Buried sewer
50 feet
50 feet
Buried sewer that has been tested and is constructed of
approved materials**
20 feet
20 feet
Sewage sump with a capacity of less than 100 gallons that
has been constructed and successfully tested in accordance
with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4715**
20 feet
20 feet
Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Component
* Please refer to Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725 for further details related to these setbacks.
** Does not apply to collector sewer, municipal sewer, sewer handling infectious or pathogenic wastes,
or to community public well.
9
The Well Code setback requirements outlined above still apply even if the use of the SSTS has
been discontinued, unless certain procedures are followed. In general, contamination sources which
have been completely removed, or no longer constitute a threat to water quality, do not require a
separation distance.
The following procedures must be followed in order to construct a new well within the required setback
distances to a SSTS that has been abandoned or is no longer in service:
 Buried sewer: there is no setback to a sewer that is completely removed, or is left in place and
plugged and disconnected. If the sewer had leaked and contaminants from the leaking sewer still
exist in the soil, any visibly contaminated soil must be excavated and disposed of in accordance with
state and local requirements.
 Septic tank, holding tank, sewage sump, or other sewage tank: there is no setback to a septic
tank, holding tank, sewage sump, or other sewage tank that is:
1. Pumped and completely excavated and removed; or
2. pumped, disconnected, and filled with soil and rock, or is crushed and filled.
If the sewage tank had leaked and contaminants from the leaking tank still exist in the soil, any
visibly contaminated soil must be excavated and disposed of in accordance with state and local
requirements.
 Cesspool, seepage pit, leaching pit, or dry well: There is no setback to a cesspool, seepage pit,
leaching pit, or dry well if it is pumped and the entire structure and any visibly contaminated soils or
material within, beneath, and surrounding the structure, are excavated and disposed of in accordance
with state and local requirements. If the cesspool, seepage pit, leaching pit, or dry well is not
pumped, and any visibly contaminated soils or material are not completely removed, the setback still
applies.
 Drainfields (soil dispersal system absorption area): There is no setback to a drainfield if all drain
piping and any visibly contaminated media and soils beneath and surrounding the drain piping are
excavated and disposed of in accordance with state and local requirements. If the drain piping and
any visibly contaminated soils or media are not completely removed, the setback still applies.
Some of the SSTS abandonment procedures outlined above are only required if a water-supply well
must be installed within the required well setbacks. However, not following these procedures when an
SSTS is abandoned may result in future complications for the well contractor, the property owner, and
the neighbors when trying to find a site for a new well. Therefore, the MDH recommends that property
owners and SSTS contractors take into account future well locations in order to determine the best
method for SSTS abandonment. Well contractors should ask some basic questions about the fate of old
or discontinued SSTSs, and assure that these older systems are abandoned following the procedures
outline above before locating a water-supply well within the required setback. If there is any doubt that
the SSTS component was abandoned following the procedures outlined above, the well contractor
should meet the prescribed setback!
Once components of SSTSs are abandoned as outlined above, there is no setback required to a well;
however, the MDH recommends that new wells be installed no closer than 20 feet from the location of
the discontinued SSTS component, and as far away as possible.
10
The requirements for the abandonment of SSTS and the disposal of the septage contaminated soils and
the contaminated construction materials are established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA). Other state and local disposal requirements may also apply, such as for disposal in shoreland
areas (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). SSTS requirements, including those for
abandonment, are adopted and enforced locally (county, city, and township), so the local unit of
government should be consulted prior to abandonment and disposal of SSTS waste. MPCA rules allow a
septic tank, drainfield, cesspool, or dry well to be abandoned by disconnecting the structure, removing
any solids or liquids from within the structure (if present), and either crushing and filling with soil and
rock, or excavating the entire SSTS or components of the SSTS. The excavated materials can be:
1. Placed in a pile on the ground surface, but not within 50 feet of a well or 100 feet from a sensitive
well, covered with 6 inches of noncontaminated soils and protected from erosion. After one year, the
excavated materials can be used as fill material on site. However, even after one year this material
must not be placed within 50 feet of a well; or
2. Hauled to a Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfill. A MSW hauler license may be required.
For additional information regarding well setbacks, please see Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725,
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103I, or contact one of the MDH Well Management Section district offices.
For additional information regarding SSTS disposal requirements, contact the MPCA, or local unit of
government.
Follow-Up to “Well Contractor has Near Miss with Buried Electric Wires”
In the Fall 2009/Winter 2010 issue of Minnesota Well Management News, we featured an article
entitled “Well Contractor has Near Miss with Buried Electric Wires.” It told the story of a well
contractor (Skip Torgerson with Art Torgerson and Son Well Company, and his helper Lyle Haften)
who had a “near miss” encounter with live, buried electric wires. The well contractor had called for
utility locates before setting up his cable-tool drilling rig to drill a new well. The rig was set up more
than 10 feet away from the markings for the buried electric wires. As it turned out, the buried electric
wires were mislocated by the utility company and were only a few inches away from the well casing.
While digging with a backhoe to install the pitless unit on the well, the well contractor contacted the live
wires with the backhoe and knocked out the power to the home.
Since that time, the Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety has investigated this “near miss” incident and
issued a “Notice of Probable Violation (Warning Letter)” to the utility company informing them that
they violated Minnesota Statutes, section 216D.04, subdivision 3 (a) – Locating Underground Facility.
This law states that “Prior to the excavation start time on the notice, an operator shall locate and mark or
otherwise provide the approximate horizontal location of the underground facilities of the operator…”
The letter went on to say that the utility company inaccurately located electrical facilities and that the
inaccurate markings resulted in the damage of an electrical service. It also stated that a utility company
who violates this statute is subject to civil penalties not to exceed $100,000 for each violation, per day of
violation, not to exceed $1,000,000 for any related series of violations.
The Office of Pipeline Safety’s Web site, which is www.dps.state.mn.us/pipeline, states that all
emergency releases and incidents (including near misses like this case) should be reported to the
Minnesota Duty Officer at 651-649-5451, or the Division of Emergency Management at 800-422-0798.
11
Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Well Cost Share
In 2009, the Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) made monies available to the
states in the form of cost-share grants for noncommunity, public water system improvements. The
monies had to be dedicated to projects and “locked in” by February 2010. Noncommunity systems with
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) violations, such as coliform bacteria, nitrate-nitrogen, or arsenic,
were eligible to apply for 50 percent cost share, up to $10,000, for eligible improvement projects. The
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Drinking Water Protection program identified noncommunity
systems exceeding the drinking water standards and provided the systems with the technical assistance
to apply for the ARRA monies. The Minnesota Public Finance Agency worked with the qualified
noncommunity systems to ensure that the many provisions of the ARRA requirements were met. Due to
the short time frame between when the monies became available, and when the monies had to be under
contract, only four noncommunity systems were able to complete the entire ARRA process and were
awarded grants.
The Spring Lake Area Learning Center in Lydia, Scott County, Minnesota, used the funds to
permanently seal an existing 147 foot deep well which had an arsenic level of 32 micrograms per liter
(µg/L). It was replaced with a new well that is 460 feet deep and has an arsenic level of 2.8 µg/L. The
drinking water standard for arsenic is 10 µg/L. The new well was drilled over the school’s spring break
and was placed on-line before the students returned to school.
Garfield Lutheran Church in Madison, Lac qui Parle County, Minnesota, used the funds to seal an
existing well in a pit, and construct a new well to correct an ongoing total coliform bacteria problem.
After construction, the new well water quality results showed no total coliform present in the well, but
bacterial contamination in the plumbing system. The plumbing system was disinfected several times by
the well contractor and the water quality results now show no bacterial contamination anywhere in the
water system.
Augustana Lutheran Church in Proctor, St. Louis County, Minnesota, plans to use their funds to have a
new well drilled and an existing well sealed to correct a total coliform bacteria problem.
Woodland Inn in Ray, Koochiching County, Minnesota, is scheduled to use their funds to seal an old
dug well, and reconstruct the existing in use well to correct a flowing well condition. The existing well
system has a coliform bacteria problem and it is believed that sealing the dug well and reconstructing the
existing well, will correct this water quality issue.
Five other noncommunity projects were awarded ARRA monies for treatment systems to correct MCL
violations on their systems. In all, a total of $59,695 was awarded to these nine systems. The MDH
views this program as a success because MCL violations were corrected without enforcement
proceedings against these noncommunity systems. The MDH Drinking Water Protection Section will be
using monies from the state Drinking Water Revolving Fund to help 10 – 15 more noncommunity
systems correct MCL violations this year. Priority will be given to noncommunity systems that need to
correct a microbial contaminant problem, construct a new well, connect to municipal water, or install
treatment for a nonacute contaminant problem.
If you encounter a noncommunity water supply with any of the above mentioned problems, you may
refer them to the MDH’s Drinking Water Protection Section at 651-201-4699, for more information on
applying for grants.
12
Local Regulation of Wells
(Revised)
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103I states that local governments may not regulate the construction, repair,
or sealing of wells or borings, and may not require a permit or notification for wells, unless the
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) delegates that authority. The MDH may enter into an
agreement with a board of health to delegate all or part of the inspection, reporting, construction, repair,
and sealing of wells and elevator borings. Under the delegation agreement, delegated boards of health
may adopt ordinances to enforce and administer their delegated duties, and they may charge permit and
notification fees.
In the past, some local governments have attempted to regulate wells and borings without delegated
authority. Some of the more typical requirements have included requiring a permit for a well,
establishing local setback distances between wells and contamination sources, or instructing well owners
to seal unused wells by filling them with sand. In these cases, MDH has worked with local governments
to remove such requirements from their ordinances.
At the present time, the eight counties and two qualifying cities listed below operate delegated well
programs. If you have any questions about any of their requirements, please contact them directly.
Delegated Local Program
Delegated Activities
Telephone Number
City of Bloomington
Water Wells, Monitoring Wells, Dewatering Wells
952-563-8934
City of Minneapolis
Water Wells, Monitoring Wells
612-673-5807
Blue Earth County
Water Wells
507-304-4381
Water Wells, Monitoring Wells, Dewatering Wells
952-891-7556
Goodhue County
Water Wells
651-385-6130
LeSueur County
Water Wells
507-357-8231
Olmsted County
Water Wells, Monitoring Wells, Dewatering Wells
507-328-7111
Wabasha County
Water Wells
651-565-5200
Waseca County
Water Wells
507-835-0655
Winona County
Water Wells, Monitoring Wells, Dewatering Wells
507-457-6405
Dakota County
13
Obituaries
Thomas T. Renner, 91, former president of E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc., water well drilling in Elk River,
Minnesota, passed away on January 7, 2010, in Anoka, Minnesota.
Tom started working with his father Edwin Henry Renner, in the family well drilling business at the age of 12. He
worked full time in the summers and part time the rest of the year. Tom earned enough to pay for his entire tuition
at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota. Tom entered WWII in 1940, became a Navy fighter pilot trainer
and was a member of the wrestling team. Tom married Emeline Elvira Kittock (Kitty) in 1940. He received his
wings on December 1, 1941. Tom and Kitty returned to the family business in 1945 to work full time at the family
drilling business.
Tom took over the business as President in 1952. Like his father, Tom was an active member of the Minnesota
Water Well Association (MWWA) and was elected President for two terms in 1954 and 1955. He went on to be
president of the National Water Well Association (NWWA now the NGWA) in 1958. Tom worked on the
development of the Minnesota Department of Health well standards in the early to mid 70’s.
Tom loved to fish in Canada, deer hunt in Wyoming and Minnesota, and duck hunt on his property in Todd
County. He was a former resident of Sun City West, Arizona. Tom is survived by his wife Kathy; his children
Rita Rowe and twin sons Raymond and Roger Renner, and Kathy’s children; Greg, Leland, Diane, and Lorrie;
granddaughters Katie Renner, Mellissa Lunderberg, Bethany Otto, Becki Ennen, and Michelle Donovan;
grandsons Mike Hon, Erik Fox, Eddie Renner, and William Renner; and many great grandchildren.
Robert J. Gohl, 56, Co-owner and operator of G.M. Drilling, St. Joseph, Minnesota, passed away on March 8,
2010.
Robert was born on October 1, 1953, in St. Cloud, Minnesota, to Daniel and Catherine (Foy) Gohl. He married
Michelle M. Borresch on April 25, 1987. Robert worked for Traut Well Company in St. Cloud, Minnesota, from
1974-1981. Robert then started his own business, G.M. Drilling, with Sylvester Majerus; which they co-owned
and operated for the next 28 years.
Robert loved the outdoors, was an avid gardener, and loved to cook for others. He will be remembered as a caring
individual that was devoted to family, friends, and the community. Robert is survived by his loving wife of
23 years, Michelle; children Ryan (Erin), Stephanie, Tara (Travis), and Lucas; several grandchildren; his father
Daniel P.; and brothers Daniel F. and Kevin. He was preceded in death by his mother, Catherine; and his
grandparents.
Sylvester Majerus continues to operate G.M. Drilling in St. Joseph, Minnesota.
MINNESOTA WELL MANAGEMENT NEWS
Published twice per year by the Well Management Section, Minnesota Department of Health
www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/wells
Editor: Patrick Sarafolean, 651-201-3962 Contributors: Well Management Section Staff unless otherwise noted.
To request this document in another format, call 651-201-4600 Deaf and hard-of-hearing: TTY 651-201-5797 Reprinting of articles in this newsletter is encouraged. Please give credit to the Minnesota Department of Health
or noted source.
14
Continuing Education Calendar
The Internet link to the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), Well Management Section’s,
Continuing Education Calendar is: www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/wells/lwcinfo/training.html.
This calendar lists the upcoming continuing education courses that have been approved for renewal of
certification for representatives of Minnesota licensed and registered well and boring contractors. The
calendar also lists the number of credits available for each course. The calendar is updated monthly and,
if you subscribe, you will be notified by e-mail when this page changes (new classes added, changes to
existing classes).
For additional information about any of these training opportunities, call the contact person listed for the
program of interest. For general information about continuing education, more current CEU listings, or
to request approval for other continuing education activities not listed, contact Mike Convery,
Minnesota Department of Health, Well Management Section Operations Unit Supervisor, at
651-201-4586, or [email protected].
15
Minnesota
Well Management News
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
WELL MANAGEMENT SECTION
625 ROBERT ST N
PO BOX 64975
ST PAUL MN 55164-0975
651-201-4600 or 800-383-9808
New Contractors
The following individuals have become certified representatives or responsible individuals since the last
issue of this newsletter was published.
Monitoring Well Contractor
Jeremy J. Coughlin
Braun Intertec Corp.
Bloomington, Minnesota
Pump Installer
David L. Ehrich
Ehrich Plumbing and Heating, Inc.
Elmore, Minnesota
Dale A. Duscher
Boart Longyear
Little Falls, Minnesota
Pitless/Screen Contractor
David L. Ehrich
Ehrich Plumbing and Heating, Inc.
Elmore, Minnesota
Christopher D. Niesen
Glacier, Inc.
Waverly, Minnesota
Explorer
Jennifer N. Goldner
Kennecott Exploration Co.
Tamarack, Minnesota
Vertical Heat Exchanger Contractor
Robert E. Kaase
GeoTechnologies, LLC
Lakeville, Minnesota
Christopher R. White
Cardero Iron Ore USA, Inc.
Ely, Minnesota
Well Contractor
Rodney A. Ketola
B and R Bowman Wells and Pumps
Deer River, Minnesota
16