Skip to content

States / North Dakota

Richland County, ND

The federal environmental record for Richland County (population 16,558): what is on file, where it is, and what remains open. Sources and retrieval dates are on the methodology page.

0

Superfund NPL sites

1

federal cleanup sites

0

PFAS-detecting water systems

5

TRI facilities

2

open tank releases

Drinking water: PFAS testing

No public water system serving Richland reported a PFAS detection in the UCMR5 national testing round. Systems serving under 3,300 people were only sampled in part, so absence from this table is not proof of absence in the water.

Facilities reporting toxic releases (2024)

5 facilities in Richland filed TRI reports for 2024, totalling 373k lb released.

FacilityCityTop chemicalsTotal released
MINN-DAK FARMERS COOPERATIVEWAHPETONHydrogen sulfide, Nitrate compounds (water dissociable; reportable only when in aqueous solution)236k lb
CARGILL INC WET CORN MILLING - WAHPETONWAHPETONHydrogen sulfide, Acetaldehyde112k lb
GUARDIAN ENERGY HANKINSONHANKINSONAmmonia, Acetaldehyde21k lb
DOOSAN INFRACORE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENTWAHPETONManganese3k lb
MASONITE WAHPETONWAHPETONDiisocyanates26 lb

Underground fuel tanks

EPA's UST Finder records 73 tank facilities in Richland: 59 tanks in service and 175 closed. 27 fuel releases are on record, of which 2 remain open. Open releases are cleanups that have not reached "no further action".

Radon

EPA maps Richland as Zone 1, the highest predicted indoor radon levels (over 4 pCi/L average). Radon and air quality are covered in depth on lung.com.

The record for one specific address

County figures blur what matters: distance. The Address Environmental Report runs these same federal datasets against one address and reports every site, tank, polluter and water result around it, with distances, in about a minute.

Get the report - $39

All federal cleanup sites on file

The wider Superfund enterprise inventory (SEMS) for Richland, including sites assessed but never listed. Presence here records that EPA had reason to look, not a finding of danger.

  • ARSENIC TRIOXIDE SITESOUTHEAST