If they didn't run a sufficient quantity of water between tests then repeating the tests would not disclose the difference between a transient contamination such as from super-chlorination to shock the well and kill out any pathogens and a well that is tapping into contaminated water. If all 3 wells were shocked then all three could have transient levels of chloroform that are not indicative of a long term problem.
Said another way... You don't have enough information to make an informed decision. Irrespective of the number of times a test is repeated, if the protocol is wrong the tests can be inconclusive. Testing a well over and over in a short period of time with insuficient water having been purged from the well between tests is not particulary useful for the determination you are trying to make.
I don't think the levels of contamination should pose a bio-hazard if you run some well water on the surface. L_O_N_G_term exposure (drinking the water daily) could pose a helath risk. There is no wide spread agreement on how much is OK. I personally think there are combinatorial effects related to other contaminates in your environment-food-air plus differences in individual chemical makeup so what may be tolerated by one individual may be many times more risky for another. Less is better, usually.
For peace of mind you might want to check the liability-legal issue regarding running known contaminated water out on the surface. The local extensiion agent might have a clue.
[img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]