United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
4606
EPA 816-R-97-013
October 1997
AMBIENT GROUND
WATER QUALITY
MONITORING COST
ANALYSIS
-------
Ambient Ground Water Quality Monitoring
Cost Analysis
September 30, 1996
Prepared for:
Ground Water Protection Division
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Submitted by:
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Chicago, IL
Under Contract No. 68-C4-0011
-------
Executive Summary
This paper outlines the costs incurred when implementing an ambient ground water quality
monitoring program. Following a brief description of the major components of an ambient monitoring
program, representative budgets for eight state programs, and well installation and laboratory analysis
component costs are described. This paper also provides an algorithm for estimating the costs associated
with new or expanded ambient ground water quality monitoring efforts and concludes with a discussion
of those factors that could further reduce monitoring program costs.
This study found that at least eight states have amassed sufficient experience with ambient
ground water quality monitoring to generate representative program cost information. Based on estimates
provided by those states, well installers, and analytical laboratories, the report summarizes the following
monitoring program development and operating costs:
Development
(1) Monitoring program design;
(2) Monitoring network installation;
Operation
(3) Monitoring network maintenance;
(4) Ground water sampling;
(5) Ground water sample analysis;
(6) Ground water analyte data management;
(7) Ground water analyte data interpretation;
(8) Communication of ground water monitoring results; and
(9) Monitoring program evaluation and redesign.
To provide a basis for estimating the costs associated with new or expanded state monitoring
efforts, a monitoring program scenario was created including the following components:
• 100 wells sampled annually;
• 185 analytes sampled; and
• ongoing network maintenance, data analysis, data management, and communication.
Based on the assumptions outlined in this report, operating such a monitoring program would
cost approximately $267,000 annually (excluding well-installation costs). The one-time cost for
installing a 100 well-monitoring network would total approximately $200,000. However, most states
instituting a monitoring effort would not incur this total cost because states commonly use a combination
of new and existing wells when creating an ambient monitoring network.
The estimated costs for implementing this scenario exceed the budgets reported for several
similar state monitoring programs due to several factors. First, state programs almost exclusively use
State analysis laboratories. As these laboratories are typically subsidized by the state government, their
analysis costs are significantly less than private laboratories. Second, state programs, despite larger
monitoring networks, monitor on a more infrequent schedule, often sampling wells once every two or
three years. State programs also tend to monitor fewer analytes than the monitoring program scenario.
i
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
Table of Contents ii
List of Exhibits, Figures, and Tables iii
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Ground-Water Quality Monitoring Program Components 1
2.1 Monitoring Program Development Components 2
2.2 Monitoring Program Operating Components 3
3.0 Representative Ground-Water Quality Monitoring Cost Data 4
3.1 Representative State Ambient Ground-Water Quality
Monitoring Program Costs 5
3.2 Representative Ground Water Quality Parameter-Analysis Costs 9
3.3 Representative Monitoring Well Installation Costs 9
4.0 Estimating Ambient Ground-Water Quality Monitoring Program Costs 12
4.1 Estimating Component Costs: Representative Ambient Ground-
Water Quality Monitoring Program Scenario 13
4.2 Estimating Operating Costs 24
4.3 Comparing Cost Estimates to Existing State Programs 24
4.4 Incremental Costs to Modify Existing Ambient Monitoring Programs .. 27
5.0 Factors Reducing Costs Associated with Ambient Ground-Water Quality
Monitoring Programs 27
6.0 Conclusions 30
7.0 References 31
APPENDICES
Ground-Water Analytes Assessed by Representative State Ambient
Monitoring Programs A-l
Laboratory Analysis Costs : B-l
Costs of Monitoring Well Installation C-l
-------
List of Exhibits, Figures, and Tables
Exhibit 1 Estimated State Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Costs 8
Exhibit 2 Cost Summary for Ground-Water Monitoring Network Installation 17
Exhibit 3 Cost Summary for Ground-Water Sample Collection 19
Exhibit 4 Cost Summary for Analysis of Ground-Water Samples 21
Exhibit 4a Cost Summary for Analysis of Base Set Parameters 22
Exhibit 5 Cost Summary for Ambient Ground-Water Data Management 23
Exhibit 6 Cost Summary for Ambient Ground-Water Data Interpretation 25
Exhibit 7 Cost Summary for Communicating the Results of Ambient
Ground-Water Monitoring 26
Exhibit 8 GWFG Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Program Cost-Estimate
Summaries by Monitoring Program Scope 28
Exhibit 9 Estimated Cost of Refitting an Existing Ambient Ground-Water
Monitoring Program to Meet GWFG Recommendations 29
Figure 1 Relationship between Annual Program Costs and the Number of
Wells Monitored 10
Figure 2 Relationship between Annual Program Costs and the Number of
Analyte Samples 11
Table 1 Representative Well Type Characteristics 12
Table 2 Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Program Analytes 15
in
-------
1.0 Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) encourages the collection of ambient ground-
water quality monitoring data to support ground water protection and management. The objectives of
such monitoring programs have recently been outlined in the recommendations of the Intergovernmental
Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM)1 and the 1996 Guidelines for the Clean Water Act
Section 305(b) State Ground Water Quality Reports.
This paper outlines the U.S. EPA's findings to date regarding existing state ground-water quality
monitoring activities. First, the major components of an ambient monitoring program are described.
Second, data representing eight state ambient ground water-quality monitoring program budgets, and
well installation and laboratory analysis component costs are summarized. Third, to assist state and local
programs in evaluating monitoring costs, this paper describes an algorithm for estimating the costs
associated with new or expanded ambient ground water quality monitoring programs. Finally, the paper
concludes with a discussion of those factors that could further reduce the costs associated with ambient
ground water quality monitoring. These findings are not intended to provide a firm estimate of ambient
ground water-quality monitoring costs for budgeting purposes. Instead, these data are provided to give
federal, state, and local programs guidance on the likely range of costs associated with existing and
expanded ambient ground water-quality monitoring programs.
2.0 Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program Components
This section outlines the nine main components of an ambient ground water quality monitoring
program that most influence program costs. These components were identified primarily based upon an
analysis of state ambient monitoring programs; however, these components should apply equally to
federal and local ground water-quality monitoring efforts.
Monitoring program costs can be classified into two categories: (1) development costs and (2)
operating costs. Program development costs encompass activities involved in designing and initiating a
water quality monitoring program and a monitoring network. For example, determining the number and
location of monitoring wells and installing monitoring wells, if needed. Program operating costs extend
over the period of one monitoring cycle, which is typically one year. These operating costs include all
activities needed to collect, analyze, and report data characterizing ambient ground water-quality
conditions within a study area.
Under the development and operating categories, this study identified nine key components:
1 January 1996. "The Strategy for Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the United
States: Final Report of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality."
-------
Development
(1) Monitoring program design;
(2) Monitoring network installation;
Operation
(3) Monitoring network maintenance;
(4) Ground water sampling;
(5) Ground water sample analysis;
(6) Ground water analyte data management;
(7) Ground water analyte data interpretation;
(8) Communication of ground water monitoring results; and
(9) Monitoring program evaluation and redesign.
Each of these components is addressed briefly below. A more detailed description of the components and
the costs associated with them is provided in Sections 3.0 and 4.0.
2.1 Monitoring Program Development Components
Development costs occur during the process of defining, establishing, and installing an ambient
ground water-quality monitoring program. Monitoring program development costs are not always
concluded prior to initial operation of a monitoring program, and can extend beyond the initial
monitoring cycle.
Monitoring program design
Monitoring program design addresses the geographic area covered by the program, the number
of wells needed to characterize ambient conditions accurately, the number or frequency of wells sampled
annually, and the water-quality constituents to be analyzed. In determining the program design, a critical
issue affecting program costs is the decision whether to use pre-existing wells or to install new
monitoring wells. Pre-existing wells may be found in the area to be monitored in the form of community
water supply or residential drinking water wells, irrigation wells, or wells used for compliance
monitoring or other ambient monitoring activities. Existing wells may be adequate to support the
monitoring program if they are finished within the aquifer of concern, screened at an appropriate
sampling depth, and cased properly so as not to interfere with the sampled analytes.
Three critical factors affect ambient ground water monitoring program design: (1) the
hydrogeologic characteristics of the aquifer or ground water region being monitored; (2) the nature and
extent of the contaminant sources affecting the monitored region; and (3) the goal of the monitoring
program (e.g., determining long-term water quality trends or identifying localized contamination
incidents). For a more detailed discussion of monitoring program design considerations, see "The
Strategy for Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the United States: Final Report of the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality, Appendix L: Ground-Water Monitoring."
In addition to designing the sampling network, the number of water-quality analyses within a
sampling cycle (e.g., annually) can be determined based on the number of analytes, the number of wells,
-------
and the sampling frequency (e.g., quarterly vs. annually). Once this is determined the monitoring
program can negotiate and contract with an analytical laboratory. Finally, the monitoring program design
should also make provision for establishing monitoring data management and interpretation methods and
conducting communication and outreach activities.
These program design activities establish the basis for conducting and executing all other
components of a ground water monitoring program.
Monitoring network installation
Monitoring network installation costs can include well site procurement (if any), well installation
(e.g., the labor and materials costs of drilling a well bore, inserting a well casing, and sealing/priming the
final well), or well refitting (i.e., renovation or improvement of an existing well). These costs can
encompass a significant portion of a monitoring program's initial budget if existing wells are not
adequate. However, monitoring programs can choose to "phase-in" these costs by expanding the scope of
the monitoring effort and installing new monitoring wells over time.
Key factors influencing the number of wells in a monitoring program design include the
geographic size of the monitored region and the hydrogeologic complexity of the ground water system.
For example, heterogeneous aquifer systems or systems with rapid ground water velocities may require a
greater number of wells than more homogeneous, slow-moving groundwater systems to characterize
local contamination events.
2.2 Monitoring Program Operating Components
Operating costs are incurred to support ongoing implementation of the ambient monitoring
program. These costs may vary from year to year, as the number of wells sampled, the number of
analytes assessed, or the level of resources devoted to data management and reporting may change.
Nonetheless, these costs are characterized by the following seven components.
Monitoring network maintenance
Monitoring network maintenance costs consist of well integrity inspections and repairs to correct
well anomalies. The extent of well repairs ranges from regrouting a single well to closure of an active
monitoring well and the installation of a replacement well.
Ground water sampling
The ground water sampling component incorporates the costs of labor, materials, and expenses
for collecting monitoring samples and transporting them to a laboratory for analysis.2 For example, the
cost of sample collection jars, field instruments (such as pH meters), and ground water extraction tools
(such as well pumps and hoses) are identified as program development costs (i.e., capital costs) under
most state monitoring program budgets.
2 In Section 3.0, several states include the cost of certain materials used in ground-water
sampling as program development costs.
-------
Ground water sample analysis
This monitoring program component entails the cost of laboratory analysis of ground water
samples for a set of constituent elements. As discussed in Section 3.2, these costs may vary significantly
as different analytical methods are considered and different groups of analytes are assessed. The
analytical results are generally returned to the monitoring program's managing authority in tabular
format.
Ground water analyte data management
The ground water data management component entails collecting ground water analysis results,
compiling the results into a database, and processing analyte data into a format appropriate for data
analysis and interpretation.
Ground water analyte data interpretation
Data interpretation involves examining analyte concentrations to assess the general ground water
quality throughout the program study-area. This can involve generating a model of program-wide analyte
levels from monitoring well data to identify areas of poor ground water quality. The data interpretation
component generally culminates in a report documenting ground water quality patterns across the
monitored region.
Communication of ground water monitoring results
Data communication is a significant component of an ambient ground water monitoring
program. Several communication methods are used, including: publishing a ground water quality status
report, presenting a ground water quality seminar, or making monitoring results available for online
access. The goal of program communication is to inform the public about the status of ground water
quality and the effects of contamination.
Program evaluation and redesign
Monitoring program evaluation assesses effectiveness and deficiencies after comparison of
program results and program goals. This assessment is used to determine monitoring program needs, and
forms a basis for program redesign and modification, if present goals are not currently being met.
3.0 Representative Ground Water Quality Monitoring Cost Data
Several state ground water programs have experience with the ambient monitoring program
components summarized above. This chapter presents the costs associated with eight ambient ground
water quality monitoring programs operated in the states of Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas,
Maryland, Minnesota, and North Dakota. These states were identified for this analysis based on their
ability to provide budgetary information relating specifically to the cost components. In addition, this
chapter presents representative data for monitoring well installation and laboratory analysis costs. These
cost data were derived by contacting private well contractors and private and public analytical
laboratories located throughout the United States.
-------
3.1 Representative State Ambient Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program Costs
The eight state ground water programs were contacted to gather data on the characteristics of the
programs (i.e., number and frequency of wells sampled, number of analytes assessed, and geographic
scope of the monitoring program) and the costs associated with each of the monitoring program
components outlined above. These data are representative only and do not necessarily predict the costs
associated with other, similar ground water quality monitoring efforts. The factors influencing
monitoring program costs are further summarized in Section 4.0. The analytes included under each of the
state ambient monitoring programs are listed in Appendix A.
3.1.1 Ambient Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program Characteristics
Arizona
Arizona initiated ambient ground water monitoring efforts in 1987 to assist ground water quality
protection programs. The purpose of the program is to provide current ground water quality data and
observe the movement of contaminants through ground water resources. These programs are funded
exclusively by the State of Arizona.
Arizona operates a statewide monitoring network of about 500 wells. Approximately 300 wells
are sampled annually for a series of analytes selected on a site-specific basis. These analytes are selected
from ions, nutrients, metals, general water quality parameters, volatile organic compounds, pesticides,
radionuclides, and microbiological constituents.
Arkansas
Arkansas' ambient ground water monitoring program was developed in 1985 in conjunction with
the USGS. The program is designed to collect and disseminate background ground-water quality data for
several aquifers across the state. Arkansas' monitoring program is funded entirely by EPA Clean Water
Act, Section 106 grants.
The program maintains a monitoring network consisting of 107 existing wells and 10 springs,
located within seven "prototype" monitoring systems across the State. Each prototype system targets
regions of concern and monitors for analytes based on the social (i.e., contaminant sources) and
hydrogeological conditions of the prototype location. The monitoring program samples the monitoring
network on a three year cycle.
The Florida ambient ground water monitoring program was developed in 1984 under the Florida
Water Quality Assurance Act, to detect and predict contamination of state ground-water resources. The
program characterizes the ground water quality in the major aquifers, identifies trends in individual
aquifers, locates areas with water quality problems, and disseminates information back to local drinking
water suppliers. The program is entirely funded by the State of Florida.
-------
Florida operates a statewide monitoring network of approximately 2300 existing wells, which are
monitored on a three year cycle. In addition, a small subset of Florida's monitoring network is sampled
quarterly, for a reduced set of analytes. Florida also maintains a Very Intensive Study Area (VISA)
program, which monitors wells in selected areas/aquifers for a more detailed set of analytes tied to
contaminant sources in the area.
Idaho
Idaho developed its ambient ground water monitoring program in conjunction with the USGS in
1990. Idaho's program is designed to characterize ground water quality in major aquifers, identify trends
in individual aquifers, and locate areas with water quality problems. Idaho also operates the program in
association with USGS, and receives partial funding from USGS grants.
Idaho is devising a statewide monitoring network of 1600 existing wells, and plans to monitor
each well on a four year cycle. Wells within regions of water quality concern will be sampled more
frequently. Idaho plans to use an Environmental Data Management System (EDMS) to store federal,
state, and other ground-water quality data.
The Kansas ambient ground water monitoring program was developed in conjunction with the
USGS in 1976. Its purpose is to characterize Kansas' ground-water quality in major aquifers, identify
trends in individual aquifers, and locate areas with water quality problems. Kansas funds the entirety of
monitoring program costs.
Kansas maintains a monitoring network that consists of 250 existing public and private wells.
The monitoring network is sampled on a two year monitoring cycle, where each well is analyzed for
pesticides and inorganic chemistry, and every year 25 private wells are analyzed for VOCs and
radionuclides.
Maryland
The Maryland Geological Survey, with USGS, implemented an ambient ground water
monitoring program in 1987 to establish baseline chemical conditions for selected aquifers across the
State of Maryland. The program is funded by EPA Clean Water Act, Section 106 grants and by the
Maryland Department of the Environment.
Maryland's monitoring network is slowly being developed and presently consists of 52 wells and
springs, which are sampled annually. The program operates in four segments, conforming to the different
physiographic regions of Maryland. The program was initially designed to monitor 100 wells and springs
statewide; however, this design was not implemented due to budgetary constraints.
Minnesota
Minnesota's ambient ground water monitoring program was developed by USGS in 1977, to
characterize the general ground water quality of Minnesota's aquifers. In 1990, the program's goals were
expanded to develop a statewide baseline of ground water quality for all of the state's major aquifers. The
-------
program goals also consist of developing trend analyses for sensitive regions, however this portion is
presently unfunded. The program is funded entirely by Minnesota, but operations support is provided by
county and local governments at a substantial savings.
The program currently maintains a monitoring network of approximately 600 single-aquifer,
cased, and grouted wells. The network will eventually include approximately 1200 wells and cover the
state's 14 major aquifers, when complete. At present, about 200 wells a year are sampled and the location
verified (using a Global Positioning System) prior to addition to the baseline network.
North Dakota
The North Dakota ambient ground water monitoring program was developed in 1992 to establish
a baseline description of aquifer ground water quality. The monitoring program supports a statewide
ground water protection program, which assesses aquifer resource quality impacts from agricultural
chemicals. The program is jointly funded by the North Dakota Environment and Rangeland Protection
Fund and EPA Section 319 grants.
North Dakota targets monitoring efforts based on an aquifer vulnerability score generated by a
DRASTIC ground water vulnerability model, and the highest priority aquifers are sampled each year.
North Dakota currently maintains a monitoring network consisting of 403 existing public and private
wells. The statewide monitoring network is being developed at a rate of approximately 155 wells per
year.
3.1.2 Representative State Monitoring Program Costs
Exhibit 1 presents the monitoring program characteristics and costs reported by each state. In
completing this analysis, each state was asked to apportion annual program costs into the nine cost
components. For those states with established monitoring programs, limited program development costs
were reported (i.e., for monitoring program design or monitoring network installation).
Specific analytes monitored by representative state programs are listed in Appendix A. For each
state, the analytes monitored are cataloged by analyte group to facilitate the ground-water analysis cost
estimate (e.g., metals, non-metals, or volatile organic compounds.)
Portions of the Arizona and Maryland program cost estimates are listed as "Other Undefined
Costs". These are costs which cannot be classified within the program components and are therefore
listed separately. In Arizona, several agencies conduct ground water quality monitoring activities.
Undefined costs represent an estimate of total costs incurred by agencies that perform limited ambient
ground water monitoring. Maryland's undefined program costs are generated from "common services"
within the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
States contacted for monitoring program cost estimates were provided with descriptions of
monitoring program components, and asked to use the component descriptions to verify program cost
estimates. Several of the contacted states were unable to separate certain program component costs. For
example, Florida's program merges data management and data interpretation costs together. Idaho has
entered into an agreement with USGS to perform ground water sample collection and analysis, and does
not separate these cost components.
-------
Monitoring Program Design
Monitoring Program Implementation
$0
$0
$30,750
$500
$5,100,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$23,000
$196,000
$108,000
$0
$0
Monitoring Network Maintenance
Ground Water Sampling
Ground Water Analysis
Analytical Data Management
Analytical Data Interpretation
Communicating Results
Monitoring Program Evaluation
Other Undefined Costs
$0
$110,000
$250,000
$50,000
$80,000
$50,000
$70,000
$190,000
$0
$6,180
$30,155
$1,800
$11,760
$2,500
$3360
$0
$108,000
$330,000
$500,000
$0
$216,000
$70,000
$200,000
$0
$0
$0
$572,500
$103,000
$75,000
$9,000
$20,000
$0
$0
$22,000
$55,000
$10,000
$10,000
$3,000
$0
$0
$0
$31,300
$39,350
$16,150
$10,450
$2,650
$0
$67,900
$0
$50,000
$75,000
$10,000
$10,000
$3,000
$2,000
$0
$0
$92,000
$55,000
$18,000
$30,000
$5,000
$0
$0
EXHIBIT 1
Estimated State Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Program Costs
Program Development Costs
Development Components
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Idaho
Kansas
Maryland
Minnesota
North Dakota1
Total:
$0
Operation Components
Arizona
$31,250
Arkansas5
$5,100,000
Florida6
$0
$0
Program Operating Costs3
Idaho'
Kansas8
$23,000
Maryland
$304,000
$0
Minnesota North Dakota
Total:
Scope Elements
$800,000
Arizona
$55,755
Arkansas9
$1,424,000
Florida
$779,500
$100,000
$167,800
$150,000
$200,000
Program Scope
Idaho Kansas10
Maryland Minnesota11 North Dakota12
Number of Wei Is
Number of Wells Sampled Annually
Number of Analytes
500
300
NA
117
39
91
2,300
767
65
1,600
400
98
250
125
104
52
52
73
600
206
125
403
155
66
Notes:
All Reported costs are based on estimates provided by the contacted States.
1 No data were provided by these States to complete these categories.
2 Florida's initial program development cost was $1.7M/year forthree years. Program implementation costs are included in program design costs.
3 Unless otherwise stated, monitoring programs maintain a one yeai monitoring cycle.
4 Ground water monitoring costs include ambient and compliance ground water monitoring.
5 Total cost of Arkansas ambient ground water monitoring program. Arkansas maintains a three year monitoring cycle.
6 Annual cost of Florida ambient ground water monitoring program. Florida maintains a three year monitoring cycle.
7 Annual cost of Idaho ambient ground water monitoring program. Idaho maintains a four year monitoring cycle. Cost includes $235,000 of USGS grant funding. Program design,
network maintenance, well sampling, and sample analysis costs are included within ground water analysis component.
8 Annual cost of Kansas ambient ground water monitoring program. Kansas maintains a two year monitoring cycle.
9 Arkansas ambient ground water monitoring network consists of 107 wells and lOsprings. The number of analytes represents the total number of analytes monitored
throughout the entire monitoring program. The actual number of analytes monitored varies by well location.
10 The number of analytes represents the total number of analytes monitored throughout the entire monitoring program. The actual number of analytes monitored varies by well
location.
11 Minnesota's ambient ground water monitoring program samples approximately 206 wells annually. The number of wells within the monitoring network reflects the total number
of wells sampled to date.
12 North Dakota'sambient ground water monitoring program samples approximately 155 wells annually. The number of wells within the monitoring net work reflects the total
number of wells sampled to date.
-------
3.1.3 Effects of Program Scope on State Program Costs
This analysis sought to identify relationships between state program scope elements (number of
wells and number of analytes monitored) and state monitoring program costs. Figure 1 depicts the
relationship between the monitoring program cost and the number of wells sampled. In general,
monitoring program costs increase with the number of wells sampled. In Maryland, however, the
relatively high program costs in relation to the small number of wells monitored may be a function of
higher labor costs in the state and the costs per analyte sampled.
Figure 2 presents the relationship between monitoring program costs and the number of analytes
assessed. The number of analytes included in the monitoring program appears to be a poor predictor of
program cost. For example, although Kansas assesses a large set of analytes under its program, because
of the reduced emphasis the state places on data management and interpretation, overall monitoring
program costs are low.
3.2 Representative Ground Water Quality Parameter - Analysis Costs
Seven public and private laboratories were contacted to gather cost estimates for conducting
analyses of a broad range of ground water quality analytes. The analytes were selected based on a review
of water quality parameters used by existing ground water quality monitoring programs, including the
U.S. Geological Survey NAWQA program. The laboratories provided quotes both for single parameter
analyses and for analyses of sets of water quality parameters (e.g., GC/MS scans for volatile organic
compounds). The cost estimates provided by the laboratories are listed in Appendix B. For each analyte,
either the cost of a single unit analysis or the "schedule" under which the analyte would be included is
listed. Costs for multiple parameter analyses are also provided. For laboratories that do not perform
analyses for certain parameters, no cost data are provided.
Making cost comparisons among analytical laboratories is often difficult. Analytical procedures
differ and the experience and level of precision provided by the laboratory and the particular procedure
may vary. Therefore, choosing the laboratory that offers the lowest cost for a particular analyte may not
always be appropriate. The decision should also be based on the specified analytical procedure, quality
assurance and turn-around times offered by the laboratory, and past experience with the vendor.
3.3 Representative Monitoring Well Installation Costs
Nine private well drilling companies were contacted to gather cost estimates for monitoring well
installation. Four Representative Well Types (RWTs) were developed to ensure that the quotes reflect
similar well designs. The RWT characteristics (listed in Table 1) were designed to account for the
diverse nature of hydrogeological conditions across the United States. The companies were also asked to
estimate the costs of installing each type of RWT in several soil scenarios: sand, glacial till, and bedrock.
-------
Figure 1.
Annual Cost of Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Programs
by Number of Sites Sampled
1500000
1200000
Ofi
.S 2
5 5 S 900000
*s o
S ft
CM
o
600000
2
300000
0
0
d Maryland
Q Arkansas
M Kansas
• North Dakota
• Minnesota
• Arizona
• Idaho
• Florida
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Number of Ground Water Wells Analyzed
-------
Figure 2.
Annual Cost of Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Program
by Number of Analytes
1500000
1200000
v •« —
•= 1
3 =3 900000
•2 O
2
600000
300000
0
D Florida
® North Dakota
• Maryland
• Arkansas
• Idaho
• Kansas
• Minnesota
30
60
90
120
150
Number of Ground Water Analytes
-------
Table 1: Representative Well Type Characteristics
Well 1
Well 2
Well 3
WelU
Depth
Width
50'
2"
100'
2"
100'
2"
200'
4"
Screen and
casing materials
Packing
Seal
Grout
Protective Well
Stack Casing
Protective Posts
Locking Caps
PVC screen
(2" x 10') and
casing.
Sand and
gravel
packing.
Bentonite.
Grout from
seal to Ground
Surface.
No.
No.
Yes.
PVC screen
(2" x 10') and
casing.
Sand and
gravel
packing.
Bentonite.
Grout from
seal to Ground
Surface.
Yes. Steel.
No.
Yes.
Stainless
steel screen
(2" x 10') and
casing.
Sand and
gravel
packing.
Bentonite.
Grout from
seal from Ground
Surface.
Yes. Steel.
No.
Yes.
Stainless
steel screen
(4" x 10') and
casing.
Sand and
gravel
packing.
Bentonite.
Grout from 10'
depth to Ground
Surface.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
The cost estimates provided by the drilling companies are listed in Appendix C, by RWT and
soil scenario. The mean well cost estimate and median well cost estimate are also shown for each RWT
and soil scenario. Cost per foot of well depth, calculated from the total cost estimates, is presented on
page C-2 of the appendix. Cost data are not available for drilling companies that do not install certain
representative well types (i.e., 200' deep wells or wells drilled through bedrock.)
4.0 Estimating Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Program Costs
While representative state program, laboratory, and well driller data provide examples of
existing monitoring program costs, these data do not provide sufficient information to estimate the total
programmatic costs associated with creating or expanding ambient ground water quality monitoring
activities. The following section is intended to provide states and localities with data to assist in
estimating the costs associated with ground water quality monitoring programs of varying size and
scope. Specifically, this section presents a scenario which illustrates the costs associated with a program
that may meet the objectives identified by states participating in the ITFM/Ground Water Focus Group
12
-------
(GWFG) and the 1996 305(b) Guidelines, including providing sufficient data to achieve the following3:
• assess ambient ground-water quality conditions;
• comply with statutory and regulatory mandates;
• determine changes (or lack of change) in ground-water quality conditions over
time to: (1) define existing and emerging problems, (2) guide monitoring and
management priorities, and (3) evaluate effectiveness of land and water management
practices and programs; and
• improve understanding of the natural and human induced factors (for example, land use
activities) affecting ground-water quality.
To meet these objectives, this analysis used the following parameters to define an ambient
ground water quality monitoring program:
• 100 wells sampled annually;
• 185 analytes sampled (as summarized below in Table 2); and
• ongoing network maintenance, data analysis, data management, and communication
activities.
This section presents the assumptions and costs associated with an ambient ground water quality
monitoring program that meets these parameters. The section concludes with an estimate of the costs
incurred when expanding state monitoring efforts to meet these objectives, involving both new
monitoring well installation and the use of existing wells (see Exhibit 8, page 28).
4.1 Estimating Component Costs: Representative Ambient Ground Water Quality
Monitoring Program Scenario
The monitoring program scenario, including the program design and program component
assumptions, are detailed below. These assumptions are also outlined in Exhibits 3 through 7.
4.1.1 Monitoring Program Development Costs
Monitoring network design
The ambient ground water monitoring program scenario uses a series of algorithms to estimate
the cost of installing and operating an ambient ground water monitoring program. The program design
uses a generic state concept to support assumptions about well locations and distances between wells for
modeling cost estimates.4
"The Strategy for Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the United States: Final Report of the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality, Appendix L: Ground Water Monitoring, " p.2.
4 The concept of the generic state assumes each state has an equal area of 70,737.1 mi2, approximately
one-fiftieth the total of the United States. For a 100-well monitoring program, the state area is divided into 100
squares, each 707.37 in mi2 area, with a well at the center of each square. To account for the lack of direct travel
routes between wells, the cost algorithm estimates that the ratio of physical travel distance to actual linear distance is
approximately 1.35 to 1. According to the generic state grid, the center-to-center distance between wells, of 26.6
13
-------
The monitoring program scenario is designed to operate at the statewide level and to monitor for
185 analytes, which are listed in Table 2. The list is intended to represent a comprehensive set of analytes
that would provide a comprehensive assessment of ambient ground water quality. Analytes currently
included in representative state ambient ground water quality monitoring programs are listed in
Appendix A.
The scenario uses a monitoring network consisting of newly constructed wells to provide
monitoring data. Wells are located within a framework defined by the generic state grid.
Under this scenario, the program's entire monitoring network is sampled annually (a one year
monitoring cycle), and all samples are analyzed at a single laboratory. Analytical results are entered into
a computerized database, for ease of management, and incorporated into a Geographic Information
System (GIS) for analysis and interpretation. A ground water quality status report is published annually,
to document the results of the ambient monitoring program. The report is complemented by an annual
seminar conducted to clarify the details of the report.
Program design cost is not covered within this estimate because monitoring program design costs
are generally case specific and vary considerably between program situations. This variance directly
conflicts with the general nature of the cost model.
Monitoring network installation
The monitoring program scenario assumes that ground water is found less than 50 feet below the
surface and the soil consists of large particles and unconsolidated materials (i.e., glacial tills and rocky
soils). The estimate also assumes that the monitoring wells are located on public property and that no
added costs from private land usage contracts are incurred.
Monitoring wells are assumed to be installed by private well installation contractors. All
monitoring wells are constructed using a 2" polyvinylchloride (PVC) pipe casing with a 5-foot PVC
screen. The annular space around the well casing is packed with sand and gravel, and sealed with
bentonite pellets and grout. A locking steel cap is installed to protect the top of the well stack from
external contamination.
The cost of installing the ground water monitoring network (as shown in Exhibit 2) is a product
of the number of monitoring wells and the average installation cost per well. The estimated monitoring
network installation cost does not include drilling crew travel time or per diem expenses.
4.1.2 Monitoring Program Operating Costs
Ground water sampling
The ground water sampling scenario assumes that two field technicians will travel to each well to
collect ground water samples. Sample collection entails flushing a minimum of one well volume of water
from each monitoring well, withdrawing a refreshed well water sample, recording field conditions (e.g.,
miles, is multiplied by 1.35 resulting in a physical travel distance between wells of 35.91 miles.
14
-------
Table 2: Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Program Analytes
METALS:
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Zinc
NON-METALS:
Bromide
Chloride
Fluoride
Silica
Sulfate
GENERAL WATER QUALITY:
PH
Specific Conductance
TDS
Total Alkalinity
NUTRIENTS:
Ammonia, report as nitrogen
Nitrate, report as nitrogen
Nitrite, nitrate, report as nitrogen
Orthophosporus, report as phosphorus
Phosphorus, report as phosphorus
BASE/NEUTRAL HYDROCARBONS:
Hexachlorobutadiene
Naphthalene
1,2,4 - trichlorobenzene
PESTICIDES/PCB's:
Aldicarb
Aldicarb sulfone
Aldicarb sulfoxide
Azinphos-methyl
Benfluralin
Alpha -BHC
Gamma -BHC
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Chlorothalonil
Chlorpyrifos
4,4'-DDE
Dacthl -Mono -Acid
Diazinon
Diazinon D10
Dichlorprop
Dieldrin
Diethylanaline
Dimethoate
Disulfoton
DNOC
Esfenvalerate
Ethoprop
Fenuron
Fonofos
Malathion
Methiocarb
Methomyl
Methyl parathion
Napthol 1
Neburon
Oxamyl
Parathion
Cis— Permethrin
Phorate
Prometon
Pronamide
Propargite
Propoxur
Terbufos
Terbuthylazine
RADIONUCLIDES:
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Gross Alpha/Beta
15
-------
Table 2: Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Program Analytes
HERBICIDES:
Acifluorfen
Alachlor
Atrazine
Atrazine desethyi
Bentazon
Bromacil
Bromoxynil
Bytylate
Chloramben
Qopyralid
Cyanazine
DCPA
Dicamba
Dichlobenil
2,4—dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
2,4-DB
Dinoseb
Diuron
EPTC
Ethalfluralin
Fluometuron
Linuron
MCPA
MCPB
Metolachlor
Metribuzin
Molinate
Napropamide
Norflurazon
Oryzalin
Pebulate
Pendimethalin
Picloram
Propachlor
Propanil
Propham
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)
Simazine
Tebuthiuron
Terbacil
Thiobencarb
Triallate
Triclopyr
Trifluralin
2,4,5-T
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS:
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Aciylonitrile
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromodiloromethane
Bromodichlorornethane
Bromoform
Broraomethane
n—butylbenzene
sec-butylbenzene
tert—bu tylbenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
2—chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chlorome thane
ortho(2)—chloro toluene
para(4)-chloro toluene
Dibromochlorometh ane
1,2—dibromo—3—chloropropane
1,2—dibromoethane
Dibromomethane
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,2—dichlorobenzene
1,4—dichlorobenzene
DichlorodiQuoromethane
1,1 dichloroethane
1,2—dichloroethane
1,1 —dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1,1 -dichloropropene
1,2—dichloropropane
13—dichloropropane
2,2—dichloropropane
Cis-13—dichloropropene
trans—1,3 — d ichloropropene
Ethyl benzene
Isopropylbenzene
p-isopropyl toluene
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
n-propyl benzene
Styrene
1,1,1,2—tetrachloroeth ane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
1,2,3,-trichloropropane
Trichlorotriflouroe thane
1,2,4—trimethylbenzene
1,3,5—trimethylbenzene
Vinyl chloride
Total xylenes
16
-------
EXHIBIT 2
Cost Summary for Ground Water
Monitoring Network Installation
Activity:
Drill well bore through soil material; install well casing; seal and grout around well casing; and install protective
well cover for ground water monitoring wells.
Assumptions:
Soil conditions are large particle, unconsolida ted ma ten'als (glacial till and rocky soils).
Ground water depth is less than 50 feet below the surface.
Wells are installed by private well construction contractors.
Wells are constructed from 2" PVC casing with a 5' length of'Teflon screen, packed with sand and gravel,
grouted with a bentonite seal, and covered by a locking steel cap.
Cost of Installing a Ground Water Monitoring Network
Total Cost for
Mean Cost of Total Number Monitoring Network
Well Installation1 of Wells Installation2
$2,005.13 50 $100,256.50
$2,005.13 75 $150,384.75
$2,005.13 100 $200,513.00
$2,005.13 125 $250,641.25
$2,005.13 150 $300,769.50
Notes:
1 Cost of installing a single well of Representative Well Type #1 in Glacial Till (from Appendix C: Cost of Monitoring Well
Installation). The characteristics of Representative Well Type #1 can be found in Table 1.
2 Includes only the costs to install wells, and does not include well rig mobilization costs or drilling crew per diem rates.
It is assumed that drilling crew per diem costs can O.AA «n additional 5% to 20% of the total cost of ground water
monitoring well installation. Installation cost does not include costs necessary to acquire or use the property where the well
is located.
17
-------
depth to water table, water temperature, etc.), conducting a well maintenance inspection, logging well
information (e.g. well number, date, and well inspection status), and decontaminating all ground water
extraction tools with distilled water. Sampling technicians spend four days out of each week collecting
samples from the field. The remaining day is spent arranging for transportation of the samples to the
analytical laboratory, organizing future sampling routes, and completing paperwork.
Ground water sampling costs, detailed in Exhibit 3, include the estimated food and lodging
expenses incurred by the technicians. Sampling costs also include materials such as ground water pumps
and hoses, sample collection vessels, distilled water (for extraction tool decontamination), ice, and
heavy-duty coolers (to store ground water samples).
Ground water analysis
The scenario assumes that one laboratory will perform analyses for all ground water analytes
within the monitoring program. The average sample analysis cost is the sum of mean analysis costs for
each of the analyte groups. Exhibit 4 presents the cost of analyzing ground water samples as the product
of the number of ground water samples and the average sample analysis cost for the 185 analytes listed
in Table 2.
Alternatively, some ambient ground water monitoring programs have chosen to focus on a base
set of parameters for their initial monitoring efforts. These base parameters include the metals,
non-metals, general-water quality, and nutrients listed in Table 2. As a means of comparison, analysis
costs for this base set are presented in Exhibit 4a.
Analyte data management
Data management costs are based on estimates of the time a data technician needs to process,
compile and input, verify, and output analyte data results from one monitoring well. The scenario
assumes that 25 minutes are required to process analyte data results, 70 minutes to compile analyte data
results, 40 minutes to verify analyte data results, and 2 hours to manipulate and output analyte data.
Model data management costs are illustrated in Exhibit 5.
Analyte data processing associates well information (well number, location, and site owner) with
analyte data results and generates an archival copy of analyte data. Data compilation involves entering
analyte data results and well information into a digital database format to simplify data handling and
manipulation efforts. Analyte data verification involves checking each well's data record for improperly
entered information and making corrections. Data manipulation and output involves performing
statistical analyses of analyte levels, identifying analyte concentrations in excess of MCLs, and
generating data in a format suitable for use in data interpretation activities.
Analyte data interpretation
The monitoring program scenario for data interpretation will generate data layers for a GIS to
investigate program-wide analyte concentration levels. This analysis method identifies areas with analyte
concentrations in excess of MCLs faster and more accurately than manual methods. The GIS uses well
analyte concentration levels as spot heights within a surface model to interpolate analyte concentrations
across the monitoring program area. Interpolated analyte concentration levels can also be overlain with
18
-------
EXHIBIT 3
Cost Summary for Ground Water
Sample Collection
Activity:
Collect 100 ambient ground water monitoring samples for analysis.
Assumptions:
Two technicians, in a properly equipped vehicle, can access and collect 2 samples per day spent in the field.
Technicians will spend one day each week a way from the field, completing paperwork and arranging for
laboratory analysis of collected ground water monitoring samples*.
The average travel distance between wells will be 35.91 miles.
Each wen is purged of one full wett volume (minimum) prior to sample collection.4
Clean (uncontaminated) ground water extraction tools (pumps and hoses) are used at each well.
Ground water samples are filtered in the laboratory.
Ground water samples are collected in glass jars sealed with a Tenon coated cap. *
Ground water samples are cold stored at temperatures of 4 C.7
Ground water samples are transported under EPA chain- of-custody procedures.*
Cost of Ground Water Sample Collection
S228.27
126
35.91
150
3591
$0.40
74
$56.00
Labor Costs
Daily Labor Cost for One Ground Water Sample Technician9:
Technician Days to Collect and Process 100 Ambient Ground Water Samples:
Total Cost of Labor to Collect Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Samples: [ $28,762.02
Travel, Lodging, and Meal Expenses
Average Travel Distance between Wells (in Miles):
Number of Ground Water Monitoring Wells:
Total Travel Distance to Collect Ground Water Monitoring Wells:
Cost per Mile Travel Expense10:
Travel Costs to Collect Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Samples: | $1,436.40
Nightly Lodging Required for Ground Water Sampling Technicians11:
Cost per Night of Lodging12:
Lodging Costs to Collect Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Samples: | $4,144.00
Days of Meals Required for Ground Water Sampling Technicians13:
Cost per Day for Meals14:
Technician's Meals Costs to Collect Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Samples: | $3,100.00
Total Cost of Travel, Lodging, and Meal Expenses to Collect
Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Samples: { S&68&40!
Equipment Costs15
Ground Water Pump: $350.00
5 Hoses 50* Lone: $45.00
500 Gallons of Distilled Water1*: $550.00
100 Glass Ground Water Sample Collection Bottles with Teflon Caps: $360.00
Five Heavy Duty Coolers for Ground Water Sample Storage17: $200.00
2000 Ibs. of Ice18: $400.00
Total Cost of Equipment Necessary to Collect
Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Samples: [ $1,905.00
100
$31.00
TOTAL:
$39347.42
19
-------
Notes:
1 Based on personal communication with state ground water sample collection supervisors and supervisors of a private firm
that collects ground water samples.
2 Ibid.
3 Assumes that every state has an equal area of 70,737.10 mi2 (one-fiftieth of the total area ofthe United States), each well
will occupy the center of a 707.37 mi2 square, with a center-to-center distance between wells of 26.60 miles. To calculate
the road distance between wells, the center-to-center distance was multiplied by 1.35 to account for the lack of direct
routes. Research has identified 135 as the approximate ratio between actual distance and ground travel distance.
4 Standing water inside a well stratifies and biases ground water samples. Removing a minimum of one volume of water in
the well casing is recommended for a representative water sample (Compendium ofERTGrounduater Sampling
Procedures, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, 1991, p. 6).
5 To reduce the risk of collecting a nonrepresentative sample, laboratory-cleaned (washed with detergent, rinsed
with distilled water, and oven—baked at 105* C) sample collection devices must be used (Lawrence H. Keith,
Compilation of EPA's Sampling and Analysis Methods, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1991, p.51).
6 Certain organic and inorganic trace elements have a tendency to leach into and out of handling materials. Handling
material choices should be limited toglass, stainless steel, and Teflon (Lawrence H. Keith,Compilation ofEPA's Sampling
and Analysis Methods, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1991, p.48, and Compendium of ERT Groundwater
Sampling Procedures, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, 1991, p. 6).
7 Temperature at which water is most dense. Storage at this temperature limits volatilization and or breakdown of trace
elements within the sample (Lawrence H. Ke\th,Compilation of EPA's Sampling and Analysis Methods, Lewis
Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1991, p.48, and Compendium of ERT Groundwater Sampling Procedures, U.S. EPA,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, 1991, p. 5).
8 Chain—of—custody procedures require that forms listing the date, time, and sampling location be completed and signed
when ground water samples are collected or shipped.
' Daily labor cost was calculated by averaging the hourly rate paid by Maryland, Minnesota, Arkansas, and North Dakota to
ground water sample collection technicians. The average hourly rate of $12.97 was multiplied by eight hours to calculate
the average daily labor rate. The daily labor cost was calculated by multiplying the average daily labor rate by 2.2 to include
benefits and associated overhead costs.
10 Estimated cost per mile to operate and maintain a ground water sampling vehicle. Vehicle costs include fuel, lubricants,
coolants, mechanical parts and labor, and depreciation costs.
11 While performing field sampling, technicians will be lodged in the region where they are working. This is to facilitate
access to ground water monitoring wells. Lodging will not exceed four nights a week.
12 Nightly lodging cost was calculated by averaging the government lodging per diem rate (Federal Register, December 22,
1993) for selected municipalities across the nation. The municipalities used for this cost comparison were Phoenix, AZ,
Jackson, MS, Durham, NC, Utica.NY, Jefferson City, MO, Duluth, MN, Billings, MT, and Eugene, OR.
13 While performing field sampling, technicians' meal expenses will be covered while they are operating in the field. Only
three and half days of meal expenses per week will be covered in this manner.
14 Daily meals cost was calculated by averaging the government meals and incurred expenses per diem rate (Federal
Register, December 22,1993) for selected municipalities across the nation. The municipalities used for this cost comparison
were Phoenix, AZ, Jackson, MS, Durham, NC, Utica, NY, Jefferson City, MO, Duluth, MN, Billings, MT, and Eugene, OR.
15 The majority of equipment costs are capital costs, and have been included for start —up cost purposes. These costs
will not be included in subsequent annual ambient ground water monitoring program operating costs.
16 Distilled water is used to rinse and clean ground water extraction tools.
17 These are required to cold store collected ground water samples and transport samples to a laboratory for analyses.
18 Water ice is used to keep ground water samples at approximately 4* C.
20
-------
EXHIBIT 4
Cost Summary for Analysis of
Ground Water Samples
Activity:
Conduct analyses on ambient ground water samples for anatytes listed in Table 2.
Assumptions:
Samples are laboratory filtered.
Samples are collected in glass jars sealed with a Teflon coat ted septum.
Samples are transported to la bora tary under EPA chain - of-custody procedures.1
Mean Cost of Ground Water Sample Analysis2
Mean Cost of Analysis for Metals: $260.35
Mean Cost of Analysis for Non-Metals: $84.76
Mean Cost of Analysis for General Water Quality: $43.11
Mean Cost of Analysis for Nutrients in Water: $76.26
Mean Cost of Analysis for Radionuclides in Water: $ 106.67
Mean Cost of Analysis for Acid and Base/Neutral Hydrocarbons: $313.28
Mean Cost of Analysis for Herbicides: $356.68
Mean Cost of Analysis for Pesticides: $381.40
Mean Cost of Analysis for Volatile Organic Compounds: $380.00
TOTAL: $2.002:51
Cost of Ground Water Sample Analysis2
Mean Cost
of Individual Total Number Total Cost of Ground
Sample Analysis3 of Wells Water Sample Analysis
$2,002.51 50 $100,125.50
$2,002.51 75 $150,188.25
$2,002.51 100 $200,251.00
$2,002.51 125 $250,313.75
$2,002.51 150 $300,376.50
Notes:
1 Chain—of—custody procedures require that forms listing the date, time, and sampling location be completed and signed
when ground water samples are collected or shipped.
2 Mean ground water sample analysis costs represent an average of the total cost for all analytes within an analyte group.
Costs were compiled from several private and state laboratories that perform water quality analyses.
3 Represents the cost of analyzing one ground water sample for analytes listed in Table 2. It does not include other
laboratory fees or discounts associated with the total number of samples.
21
-------
EXHIBIT 4a
Cost Summary for Analysis of
Base Set Parameters
Activity:
Conduct analyses on ambient ground water samples for metals, non-metals, general water quality,
and nutrient parameters listedin Table 2.
Assumptions:
Samples are laboratory filtered.
Samples are collected in glass jars sealed with a Teflon coated septum.
Samples are transported to laboratory under EPA chain—of—custody procedures.3
Mean Cost of Ground Water Sample Analysis2
Mean Cost of Analysis for Major Ions and Dissolved Solids: $113.86
Mean Cost of Analysis for Nutrients in Water: $63.65
TOTAL: $177.51
Cost of Ground Water Sample Analysis2
Mean Cost
of Individ Total Number Total Cost of Ground
Sample An? of Wells Water Sample Analysis
$177.51
$177.51
$177.51
$177.51
$F77.51
50
75
100
125
150
$8,875.50
$13313.25
$17,751.00
$22,188.75
$26,626.50
Notes:
1 Chain—of—custody procedures require that forms listing the date, time, and sampling location be completed and signed
when ground water samples are collected or shipped.
2 Mean ground water sample analysis costs represent an average of the total cost for all analytes within an analyte group.
Costs were compiled from several private and state laboratories that perform water quality analyses.
3 Represents the cost of analyzing one ground water sample for analytes listed in Table 2. It does not include other
laboratory fees or discounts associated with the total number of samples.
22
-------
EXHIBIT 5
Cost Summary for Ambient
Ground Water Monitoring Data Management
Activity:
Collect, enter, verify, and output Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Analysis results.
Assumptions:
Laboratory analysis results (analyte concentrations) are returned in tabular form on paper.
Analyte concentration data are entered into a digital database for purposes of data management.
Each data recordconsists offields listing: well number, wellowner, well location, and a concentration for
each of the 185 anafytes listed in Table 2.
Cost of Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Data Management
Data Collection and Processing Costs
Hourly Cost for Ground Water Data Technician1: $13.20
Time (minutes) per Record to Process Ground Water Analysis Results2: 25
Total Number of Data Records to Enter: 100
Cost to Collect and Process Ground Water Analysis Results: j $550.00 j
Data Entry Costs
Hourly Cost for Ground Water Data Technician: $ 13.20
Time (minutes) per Record to Perform Data Entry3: 70
Total Number of Data Records to Enter: 100
Cost to Enter Ground Water Analysis Data: [ $1.540.00]
Data Review and Correction Costs
Hourly Cost for Ground Water Data Technician: $ 13.20
Time (minutes) per Record to Perform Ground Water Analysis Data Review4: 40
Total Number of Data Records to Enter: 100
Cost to Review Ground Water Data Entry: j $880jQfrl
Data Manipulation and Reporting Costs
Hourly Cost for Ground Water Data Technician: $13.20
Time (hours) Required to Manipulate and Output Ground Water Analysis Data5: 200
Cost to Output Ground Water Analysis Data: g $2,640.00]
TOTAL:
Notes:
1 Estimated hourly rate for Ground Water Data Technician. Hourly rate includes all associated overhead costs.
2 Data Processing of ground water analysis results consists of recording well information (number, owner, location,
etc.), dating when analytical results were received, and generating an archive copy of the analytical results.
3 Data Entry of ground water analysis results consists of entering well location and analysis results into fields within a
database to assist data interpretation.
4 Analytical Data Review consists of verifying actual analytical data results with analytical data existing within the database.
Data review also includes data correction where necessary.
5 Data Manipulation and Output consists of developing general or specific reports listing the results of Ground Water
Analyses. Data Manipulation and Output also includes producing copies of the analytical data for review by Data Review
Technicians and Program Supervisors.
23
-------
drinking water well locations to identify possible contaminated drinking water supplies.
Estimated data interpretation scenarios (as shown in Exhibit 6) also include producing a ground
water quality status report addressing analyte level implications as well as the ramifications of ground
water contamination. The ground water quality status report includes tables of analyte data and maps
showing analyte concentration levels across the monitoring program area.
Communication of results
Under this scenario, the results of the model monitoring program will be communicated by
publishing 200 copies of the ground water quality status report generated under the analyte data
interpretation component of the monitoring program. This report will be sent on request via first class
mail. A one-day seminar will be conducted by ground water analysts, to clarify aspects of the ground
water quality status report and the ambient ground water monitoring program.
The cost of communicating monitoring program results includes labor to ship ground water
quality reports and the cost of labor to prepare and organize the seminar on the results of the ambient
monitoring program. These costs are described in Exhibit 7.
Monitoring program evaluation and redesign
This scenario does not cover the cost of monitoring program evaluation and redesign. These are
post-operation program costs and cannot be estimated without an actual ambient ground water
monitoring program to evaluate. In addition, of the eight states contacted for this study, only Florida
reports devoting a significant portion (i.e., greater than ten percent) of their operating costs to program
evaluation.
4.2 Estimating Operating Costs
Based on the assumptions outlined above, the cost of operating a 100 well ground water
monitoring program is estimated at approximately $267,884 a year. This estimate is derived from the
sum of program component cost estimates. Because program components are discrete elements, each
program operating component scenario (listed in Exhibits 3 through 7) documents all pertinent
assumptions affecting cost estimates. The exhibit also presents the first-year costs for operating a 100
well network when well installation costs are included.
The operating cost estimates have certain limitations. The number and selection of analytes
monitored will differ from program to program. Also, the estimate does not include economies for
multiple sample analyses. Labor estimates for technicians and analysts to handle and process water
quality data are approximate and may vary considerably from state to state. Furthermore, most states use
a combination of existing and new wells when establishing a monitoring program. As a result, few states
would incur the total cost for installing a new monitoring well network in the first year of the program.
4.3 Comparing Cost Estimates to Existing State Programs
The program cost estimates presented in Section 4.2 are approximately 2 to 4 times higher than
the existing state monitoring program costs reported by the eight states, on a per well basis. This
24
-------
EXHIBIT 6
Cost Summary for Ambient
Ground Water Monitoring Data Interpretation
Activity:
Examine ground water analyte concentration levels for sample from 100 monitoring wells. Establish ground
water chemical compound trends and determine areas of ground water contamination.
Assumptions:
Geographic Informa tion Systems (GIS) are used to follow trends and to map ground wa ter analyte
concentration levels.
The ambient ground water monitoring program generates an annual report summarizing the results of the year's
ground water analyses and identifying areas of concern.
Cost of Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Data Interpretation
Ground Water GIS Data Development Costs
Hourly Cost of Ground Water Analyst1:
Number of Ground Water Anarytes2:
Time Required (hours) to Develop Ground Water Analyte Specific Databases:
Time Required (hours) to Develop Maps of
Ground Water Analyte Concentration Levels3:
Cost to Develop Ground Water Analyte Concentration GIS: \
$27.00
185
100
740
Ground Water GIS Data Interpretation Costs
Hourly Cost of Ground Water Analyst:
Time Required (hours) to Interpret Ground Water Analyte
Concentration Level Maps for Ground Water Quality Trends4:
Time Required (hours) to Generate Ground Water Trend Report5:
Cost to Generate Ground Water Trend Summary Report: ||;;:;
$27.00
370
500
TOTAL: |$4g|j?Q;OO|
Notes:
1 Estimated hourly rate for Ground Water Analyst. Hourly rate includes all benefits and associated overhead costs.
2 Maps of ground water analyte concentrations will be generated by interpolating isolines from data points established from
ground water well sample analyses.
3 Total number of analytes listed in Table 2.
4 Estimated time to identify wells and regional areas with critical concentration levels of ground water analytes, and
compare recent analysis results to previous analysis results, or develop baseline results.
5 Estimated time to draft a report documenting the results of ambient ground water monitoring activites.
25
-------
EXHIBIT 7
Cost Summary for Communicating
the Results of Ambient Ground Water Monitoring
Activity:
Publish Annual Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Report and deliver copies to requesters. Give one seminar
explaining the results of Ambient Ground Water Monitoring.
Assumptions:
200 copies of an Ambient Ground Wa ter Monitoring Report are published for distribution to the public.
An ambient ground water monitoring seminar is conducted annually to present the results and data
interpretations of ambient ground water monitoring, and to forecast trends in ground water quality.
Cost of Communicating the Results of Ambient Ground Water Monitoring
Annual Ground Water Monitoring Report Publishing Cost
Estimated Publishing Cost per Copy of Annual
Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Report1: $23.50
Number of Copies of Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Report Published: 200
Total Cost to Publish Annual Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Reports: [ $4»706JOiO j
Ground Water Monitoring Report Delivery Cost
Hourly Cost for Ground Water Data Technician2: $ 1320
Ground Water Data Technician Time (hours) Required to
Package and Ship Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Reports3: 30
Estimated Postage Cost to Ship Annual Ground Water Monitoring Report4: $5.00
Number of Annual Ground Water Monitoring Reports Being Delivered5: 200
Total Cost to Process and Send Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Report: | $1396.00 j
Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Results Seminar Cost
Hourly Cost for Ground Water Analyst6: $27.00
Ground Water Analyst Time (hours) Required to Prepare and
Present Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Results Seminar7: 80
Total Cost to Present Seminar of Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Results: j $2,160*00 j
TOTAL: j $8.256.001
Notes:
1 Estimated cost to print and bind one copy of a 450 page Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Report
2 Estimated hourly rate for Ground Water Data Technician. Hourly rate includes all associated overhead costs.
3 Estimated time required to assemble 200 Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Report packages and prepare them for
delivery.
4 Assumes that an Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Report package weighs in excess of 3 pounds.
5 Assumes that all Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Reports will be mailed to the recipients.
6 Estimated hourly rate for Ground Water Analyst. Hourly rate includes all benefits and associated overhead costs.
7 Total time required to prepare and present the Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Seminar, which would consist of a
one—day series of presentations. The seminar should ideally be chaired by two Ground Water Analysts.
26
-------
disparity in operating costs appears to be due to several factors. First, state programs almost exclusively
use state analysis laboratories. As these laboratories are typically subsidized by the state government,
their analysis costs are significantly less than private laboratories. Furthermore, all of the state
monitoring programs report monitoring for fewer than 185 analytes. The number of analytes reported by
the programs varies from 66 for North Dakota to 125 for Minnesota.
Second, state programs typically monitor on a more infrequent schedule, often sampling wells
once every two or three years. Finally, most state programs currently do not have the resources or GIS
facilities to conduct extensive data interpretation. At most, a report summarizing the status and general
quality of the state's ground water can be generated, however, most states do not actively identify trends
in water quality or predict contamination.
4.4 Incremental Costs to Modify Existing Ambient Monitoring Programs
The incremental cost of refitting an existing monitoring program to meet the scenario is
illustrated in Exhibit 9. The State of Kansas was chosen to illustrate cost increases incurred while
expanding an existing monitoring program because its existing program annually monitors 125 wells,
and in-state laboratory cost information was available to estimate the increased analytical costs.
When refit to meet the ambient ground water monitoring scenario, the annual operating cost of
Kansas' ambient ground water monitoring program would increase from $100,000 a year to slightly over
$300,000 a year. Ninety percent of this increase is due to the increase in analysis costs. Presently, Kansas
biannually monitors 250 wells for pesticides and inorganic constituents (i.e., metals and non-metals).
Each year, a subset of 25 wells are also monitored for volatile organic compounds and radionuclides.
The remaining cost increases result from labor involved in handling and processing the expanded
volume of water quality data. The scope of Kansas' existing monitoring program, in terms of the amount
of data collected, would increase by a factor of approximately 180 percent. This factor was used to
estimate the cost increases of the data management, data interpretation, and results communication
components.
It should also be noted that Kansas' current monitoring program does not possess GIS facilities
to perform data interpretation. The cost of developing a GIS varies depending on its design and
implementation. Because these costs will have significant effects on monitoring program refitting costs
and are typically borne by several state programs, they have been omitted from this estimate.
5.0 Factors Reducing Costs Associated with Ambient Ground Water Quality Monitoring
Programs
The cost estimates presented above represent available cost information and data from existing
monitoring programs, analytical laboratories, and well installation contractors. However, they do not
reflect specific opportunities for cost savings that ground water quality monitoring programs can adopt.
These cost saving opportunities include the following:
(1) Use existing ground water wells. Monitoring programs can choose to incorporate
existing municipal or residential drinking water wells, irrigation wells, or
27
-------
EXHIBIT 8
GWFG Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Program
Cost Estimate Summaries by Monitoring Program Scope
Program Implementation Cost
Program Components
Monitoring Network Designl
Monitoring Network Installation
Ground Water Sampling
Ground Water Analysis
Analytical Data Management
Analytical Data Interpretation
Communicating Results
Evaluating the Monitoring Program2
Total:
Average Cost Per Well:
Program Operating Cost
Program Components
Monitoring Network Maintenances
Ground Water Sampling
Ground Water Analysis
Analytical Data Management
Analytical Data Interpretation
Communicating Results
Evaluating the Monitoring Programs
Total:
Average Cost Per Well:
_
50
$0
$100,257
$21,517
$100,125
$1,782
$17,766
$5,606 '
$0
$247,052
$4,941
50
$0
$20,562
$100,125
$1,782
$17,766 :
$5,606
$0
$145,841
$2,917
Program
75
$0
$150,385
$30,747
$150486
$2,673
; &Ą*t
*.
, $>#OUOr
$0
$358,038
$4,774
Program
75
$0
$29,792
$150488
: W)5
$1&44I
$5,606
$0
$206,700
$2,756
Scope (Number
100
$0
$200,513
$39,347
$200,251
$3,564
$19,116
$5,606
$0
$468,397
$4,684
Scope (Number
100
$0
$38,392
$200,251
$3,564
$19,116
$5,606
$0
$266,929
$2,669
of Wells)
125
$0
$250,641
$48,57S
$250,314
$4,4$5
$19,791
$5,606
$Q
$579,385
$4,635
of Wells)
125
$0
mm
>$&$t$t't;
* " $4%*
^j^^&jH^
^ ,>.' ^$fsi
> in
$327,789
$2,622
150
$0
$300,770
$57,178
$300,377
$5,346
$20,466
$5,606
$0
$689,743
$4,598
150
$0
$56,223
$300,377
$5,346
$20,466
$5,606
$0
$388,018
$2,587
Notes:
1 Monitoring Network Design costs are program specific, and cannot be generally estimated.
2 Monitoring Program Evaluation costs are program specific, and cannot be generally estimated.
3 Well insptction costs are included in the Ground Water Sampling component. Other Monitoring Network Maintenance costs are
assumed to be negligible.
28
-------
EXHIBIT 9
Estimated Cost of Retrofitting an Existing Ambient Ground Water
Monitoring Program
Operating Cost Component
Monitoring Network Maintenance
Ground Water Sampling
Ground Water Analysis
Analytical Data Management
Analytical Data Interpretation
Communicating Results
Monitoring Program Evaluation
Kansasl
$0
522,000
$55,000
$10,000
$10,000
$3,000
$0
Kansas
(Expanded Program)2
$0
$22,000
$237,000
$18,000
$18,000
$5,400
$0
Modeled Program
Scenarios
$0
$38,504
$250,314
$7,013
$46,845
$8,506
$0
Total
$100,000
$300,400
$351,182
Program Scope
# wells monitored annually:
# of analytes monitored:
125
104
125
185
125
185
Notes:
1 From Exhibit 1, State Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Program Costs. Kansas was chosen because it annually
monitors 125 wells and and laboratory cost information was readily available.
2 Kansas (expanded program) estimates the costs of expanding Kansas' existing monitoring program to reflect the
scenario described in Section 4.1.
3 From Exhibit 8, Modeled Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Program Cost Summaries by Monitoring Program Scope.
29
-------
compliance monitoring wells into a monitoring network. For example, Florida
has identified and incorporated a number of drinking water wells into its
monitoring network.
(2) Sample for fewer ground water analvtes. In Table 2 above, a set of
recommended constituents for inclusion in monitoring programs is identified. The
precise set of constituents adopted by a monitoring program must depend on (1)
the hydrogeologic characteristics of the aquifer or ground water region being
monitored; (2) the nature and extent of the contaminant sources affecting the
monitored region; and (3) the goal of the monitoring program (e.g., determining
long-term water quality trends or identifying localized contamination incidents).
Some monitoring programs have chosen to use "indicator" constituents, such as
nitrates or leachable pesticides, to identify the impacts of specific land uses on
ground water quality. By using ground water quality indicators, these programs have
reduced the number of analytes monitored and the associated costs.
(3) Limit sampling frequency. As noted in Section 4.9, many states do not sample
all wells within their monitoring networks annually. Instead, schedules are
developed to sample individual wells on two, three, or even five-year cycles.
(4) Bulk sample analysis costs. The analytical cost analysis presented in Section 4.2
did not account for discounts that laboratories often provide for multiple samples
requiring the same analysis or multi-year/multi-sample contracts. For example,
the laboratories contacted for this report, typically offer a 10 percent discount for
five or more samples requiring the same analysis. Monitoring programs can
anticipate negotiating for even greater discounts for large, multiple sample orders.
This will result in a lower mean cost per sample.
(5) Account for variability in labor and overhead costs. Costs associated with labor
and overhead typically vary from state to state. States and localities should use
their own labor and overhead rates to more accurately estimate program costs.
6.0 Conclusions
This paper outlines the key components of an ambient ground water quality monitoring program
and the costs associated with existing and expanded monitoring efforts.
This study found that sufficient experience has been developed by existing state ambient ground
water quality monitoring programs to support cost estimates for new or expanded ground water quality
monitoring activities. Based on the assumptions outlined in this report, the cost of operating a 100 well
ground water monitoring program is estimated at approximately $300,000 a year. This estimate is
derived from the sum of program component cost estimates summarized above.
Estimating the costs associated with refitting an existing monitoring program to meet the goals
of the ITFM/GWFG is more problematic, because the precise design of an ambient ground water
monitoring program is likely to vary from state to state. This analysis used the State of Kansas to
illustrate cost increases incurred while expanding an existing monitoring program.
30
-------
When expanded, it was estimated that the annual operating cost of Kansas' ambient ground water
monitoring program would triple, increasing from $100,000 a year to slightly over $300,000 a year.
Ninety percent of this increase is due to the increase in analysis costs. Presently, Kansas biannually
monitors 250 wells for pesticides and inorganic constituents (i.e., metals and non-metals). Each year, a
subset of 25 wells are also monitored for volatile organic compounds and radionuclides. As a result of
meeting an expanded monitoring program scope, the modeled scenario assumed that every well sampled
will be monitored for inorganic constituents, pesticides, herbicides, volatile organic compounds, and
radionuclides. The remaining cost increases result from labor involved in handling and processing the
expanded volume of water quality data.
These estimates are provided as illustrations only. The actual costs for each state or local
program must be estimated based upon local hydrogeologic conditions; an understanding of local ground
water quality and contaminant characteristics; and local labor, analytical laboratory, and overhead costs.
7.0 References
Specific references are cited within Exhibits 1 through 7. In addition, the following references or contact
persons provided general information:
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. Arkansas Prototype Monitoring Program Status
Report.
Bryan Bain, Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Paul Castelin, Idaho Department of Water Resources
Thomas Clark, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Rick Copeland, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
L. David Glatt, North Dakota Department of Health, Division of Water
Harry Hansen, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Wayne Hood, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
G. L. Maddox, et.al. 1992. Florida's Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program Background
Hydrogeochemistry. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee, FL.
Ed Van Schaik, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
31
-------
Appendix A
Ground Water Analytes Assessed by Representative State
Ambient Monitoring Programs
-------
Arkansas
General Water Quality
Total Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Compounds
Metals
Calcium
Sodium
Potassium
Magnesium
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
Mercury
Selenium
Arsenic
Nutrients
Orthophosphorus, as phosphorus
Total Phosphorus, as phosphorus
Ammonia/Ammonium, as nitrogen
Nitrites/Nitrates, as nitrogen
Non-metals
Chloride
Sulrate
Volatile Organic Compounds
Methyl chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
1,1— dichloroethene
1,1—dichloroethane
1,2 - trans - dichloroethene
Chloroform
1,2- dichloroethane
1,1,1- trichlor oethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Bromodichloromethane
1,2 - dichloropropane
cis—1,3—dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Dibromochloromethane
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
trans -1,3 -dichloropropene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Bromoform
Tetrachlorqethylene
1,1,2,2 - tetrachlor oethane
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
1,2 - dichloroethane—D4
Toluene-D8
4 -Bromofluorobenzene—D4
Pesticides
Propachlor
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Gamma BHC
Delta BHC
Prometon
Atrazine
Terbuthylazine
Fonofos
Methyl Parathion
Cyprazine
Ametryn
Heptachlor
Malathion
Chlorpyrifos
Aldrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
P-P' ODD
P-P' DDE
P-P' DDT
Endrin
Hexazinone
Trifluralin
Atraton
Simazine
Propazine
Diazinon
Metribuzin
Alachlor
Prometryn
Terbutryn
Dipropetryn
Cyanazine
Pendimethalin
Endosulfan
Dieldrin
Endosulfan II
Methoxychlor
A-l
-------
Florida
General Water Quality
Alkalinity
Digestion (HC1 in water)
Silica
Specific Conductance
Turbidity
Metals
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium (Dissolved)
Potassium
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Strontium
Zinc
Non-Metals
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nutrients
Ammonium, as nitrogen
Ammonium/Organic nitrogen, as nitrogen
Nutrients (cont.)
Nitrite/Nitrate, as nitrogen
Phosphorus
Volatile Organic Compounds
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Bromodichloromethane
Brornoform
Chloromethane
Chloroform
Bromomethane
Dibromochloromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethyivinyl Ether
1,2- Dichlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
1,3 -Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1 -Dichloroethene
trans 1,2—Dichloroethane
1,2 - Dichloropropane
cis 1,3—Dichloropropene
trans 1,3—Dichloropropene
Methylene Chloride
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1 -Tri chloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichlorothene
Vinyl Chloride
-------
Idaho
General Water Quality
Specific Conductance
PH
Silica
Alkalinity
Hardness
Total Dissolved Solids
Carbonate
Bicarbonate
Fecal coliform
Metals
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Zinc
Arsenic
Selenium
Non-metals
Sulfate
Chloride
Fluoride
Cyanide
Nutrients
Nitrite/Nitrate, as nitrogen
Ammonia, as nitrogen
Phosphorus
Radioactivity
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Radon
Pesticides
Aldicarb
Alachlor
Atrazine
2,4-D compounds
Volatile Organic Compounds
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
1,1-dichloroethene
1,1,1 -trichloroe thane
Carbon tetrachloride
Benzene
1,2-dichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Bromobenzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromomethane
N-butylbenzene
sec-butylbenzene
tert-butylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloromethane
2—chlorotoluene
4—chlorotoluene
1,2- dibr omo - 3 - chlor opr opane (DCBP)
Ethylene dibromide (EDB)
Dibromomethane
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3—dichlorobenzene
dichlorodifluoromethane
1,1-dichloroethane
cis -1,2 - dichloroethene
trans- 1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3—dichloropropane
2,2 - dichloropropane
1,1—dichloropropene
cis -1,2 -dichloropropene
trans-13—dichloropropene
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Isopropylbenzene
P—isopropyltoluene
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
N-propylbenzene
Styrene
1,1,1,2-tetrachIoroethane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
1,2,3 - trichloropropane
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
-------
Chloroform 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
Dibromochloromethane Xylenes
Vinyl chloride
-------
Kansas
General Water Quality
pH
Specific Conductance
Silica
Total Hardness
Total Alkalinity
Total Dissolved Solids
Metals
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Arsenic
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Non-metals
Chloride
Sulfate
Fluoride
Boron
Nutrients
Nitrate, as nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Ammonia, as nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Chloromethane
Bromomethane
Vinyl chloride
Chloroethane
Dichloromethane
1,1 -dichloroethylene
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
Bromodichloromethane
1,2 - dichloropr opa ne
trans—13—dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Dibromochloromethane
cis—1,3—dichloropr opene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Bromoform
1,1,22- tetrachlor oethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
1,2—dichlorobenzene
1,3—dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Pesticides
Alachlor
Aldrin
Atrazine
Butachlor
Chlordane
Cyanazine (Bladex)
DCPA (Dacthal)
Dieldrin
Endrin
Gamma BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Methoxychlor
Metolachlor (Dual)
Metribuzin (Sencor)
PCB-1016
PCS-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
Propachlor (RamrodO
Propazine (Milgard)
Simazine
Toxaphene
2,4-Dasacid
Silvex as acid (2,4,5-TP)
2,4,5-TPasacid
Picloram (Tordon)
-------
1,1—dichloroethane
trans -1,2-dichloroethylene Radionuclides
cis-l,2-dichloroethylene Gross Alpha
Trichloromethane Gross Uranium
1,2-dichloroethane Radium-226
1,1,1-trichloroethane Radium-228
Tetrachloromethane Radon-222
-------
Minnesota
General Water Quality
Specific Conductance
Total Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Phenol
Silica
Metals
Antimony
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Iron
Magnesium
Lithium
Mercury
Manganese
Nickel
Molybdenum
Rubidium
Potassium
Sodium
Silver
Titanium
Selenium
Strontium
Vanadium
Thallium
Zinc
Non-metals
Boron
Bromide
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfur
Nutrients
Nitrite, as nitrogen
Nitrate, as nitrogen
Phosphorus
Volatile Organic Compounds
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
1,1-dichloroethene
Allyl chloride
Methylene chloride
trans—1,2—dichloroethene
1,1 — dichloroethane
2,2 - dichloropropane
cis -1,2 - dichloroethene
Chloroform
Bromochloromethane
1,1,1- trichloroe thane
1,1- dichloropr opene
Carabon tetrachloride
1,2- dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,2 - dichloropropane
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromomethane
cis—1,3 — dichlor opropene
trans—1,2—dichlor opropene
1,1,2—trichloroethane
1,3 -dichloropropane
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorodibromomethane
1,2-dibromoethane
Chlorobenzene
1,1,1,2—tetrachloroe thane
Bromoform
1,1,2,2 — tetrachloroethane
1,2,3—trichloropropane
Bromobenzene
2-chlorotoluene
4-chlorotouene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
l,2-dibromo-3—chloropropane
1,2,4 - trichlorobenzene
Ethyl ether
Acetone
Methyl tertiary-butyl ether
Methyl ethyl ketone
Tetrhydrofuran
Benzene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
M+P—xylene
O-xylene
Styrene
Isopropyl benzene
N-propyl benzene
-------
Chloromethane 1,3,5 -trimethylbenzene
Vinyl Chloride Sec-butylbenzene
Bromomethane P-isopropyltoluene
Chloroethane N-butylbenzene
Dichlorofuloromethane Naphthalene
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
-------
North Dakota
General Water Quality
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Total Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Total Dissolved Solids
Specific Conductivity
pH
Hydroxide
Turbidity
Percent Sodium
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
Metals
Sodium
Magnesium
Potassium
Calcium
Manganese
Iron
Non-metals
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nutrients
Nitrite, as nitrogen
Nitrate, as nitrogen
Pesticides
Aldrin
Alpha BHC
Beta BHC
Lindane
Chlordane
DDD (or TDE)
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Pesticides (cont.)
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Eporide
Methoxychlor
Diclofop (Hoslon)
Monachlor
Alachlor
Malathion
Ethyl parathion
Methyl parathion
Fenvalerate
Cyamizine
Triallate
Trifluralin (Traflan)
Simazine
Atrazine
Pendimethalin (Prowl)
Metribuzin
Metolachlor
2,4-D
Dicamba
Dinoseb
HCP
Picloran (Tordan)
2,4,6-T
2,4,5-TP(Silvex)
Aldicarb
Aldicarb Sulfoxide
Aldicarb Sulfone
Dalapan
Broxynil
Oxamyl
Carbofuran
3-Hydroxy carbofuran
Methomyl
Carbaryl
Bentazon
Propoxur(Baygon)
-------
Appendix B
Laboratory Analysis Costs
-------
SAMPLE ANALYTES
INORGANICS
METALS:
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Chromium, Hexavalent
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
NON-METALS:
Boron
Bromide
Chloride
LABORATORY ANALYSIS COSTS
USGS
SCH 2703
IEA I Ross
$16.00
SCH 2703
SCH 2703
SCH 2703
SCH 2703
SCH 2703
SCH 2750
SCH 2703
NA
SCH 2703
SCH 2703
SCH 2750
SCH 2703
SCH 2750
SCH 2750
SCH 2703
NA
SCH 2703
SCH 2750
SCH 2703
SCH 2703
SCH 2750
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SCH 2703
NA
SCH 2750
SCH 2750
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$16.00
$35.00
$15.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$25.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
NA
$30.00
$15.00
Alpha
$12.00
$12.00
$22.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$25.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$30.00
$12.00
$12.00
$22.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$20.00
$15.00
$35.00
Arizona
$22.70
Idaho
$12.00
I
$13.80
$26.20
$22.70
$13.80
$13.80
$13.50
$13.80
$13.00
$13.80
$13.80
$13.00-
$13.80
$13.50
$13.00
NA
$34.80
$13.00
$13.50
$26.20
$13.80
$13.50
$13.50
$13.80
$22.00
$22.70
NA
$13.00
$19.80
$21.20
$5.70
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
NA
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$20.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$15.00
NA
$8.00
Kansas
$6.50
S7.50/CHM
S7.50/CHM
S6.50/CHM
S6.50/CHM
$7.50/CHM
$6.50/CHM
S6.50/CHM
$10.00
$6.50
S6.50/CHM
$6.50/CHM
S7.50/CHM
S6.50/CCA
S6.50/CHM
$6.50
S10.50/CHM
$6.50/CHM
$6.50/CCA
S7.50/CHM
$6.50
$6.50/CCA
$6.50
S7.50/CHM
$6.50
$6.50
$6.50
$6.50/CHM
NA
$4.50
S4.50/CCA
-------
SAMPLE ANALYTES
Cyanide
Fluoride
Silica
Sulfate
Sulfide
GENERAL:
Acidity
PH
Specific Conductance
Specific Gravity
TDS
TSS
Total Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Turbidity
NUTRIENTS
Ammonia, report as nitrogen
Kjeldhal nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrate, report as nitrogen
Nitrite, report as nitrogen
Nitrite, nitrate, report as nitrogen
Orthophosporus, report as phosphorus
Phosphorus, report as phosphorus
RADIONUCLIDES
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Gross Alpha/Beta
Gross Gamma (Photon Activity)
Iodine- 131
Lead -210
Nickel -63
Polonium -210
LABORATORY ANALYSIS COSTS
uses
NA
SCH 2750
SCH 2750
SCH 2750
NA
NA
SCH 2750
SCH 2750
NA
SCH 2750
NA
SCH 2750
NA
NA
SCH 2752
NA
SCH 2752
NA
SCH 2752
SCH 2752
SCH 2752
SCH 609
SCH 609
NA
NA
NA
$121.00
NA
$137.00
TEA
$35.00
$40.00
$40.00
$35.00
$35.00
$15.00
$8.00
$15.00
$15.00
$15.00
$15.00
$15.00
$15.00
$15.00
$25.00
$30.00
$25.00
$25.00
NA
$25.00
$25.00
$70.00
$70.00
NA
NA
NA
$100.00
NA
$100.00
Ross
$35.00
$30.00
NA
$20.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$10.00
$10.00
$15.00
$15.00
$15.00
$18.00
$12.00
$20.00
$35.00
$25.00
$20.00
$25.00
$25.00
$30.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Alpha
$20.00
$12.00
$15.00
$15.00
$12.00
$15.00
$10.00
$10.00
$15.00
$15.00
$15.00
$15.00
NA
$10.00
$20.00
$35.00
$20.00
$15.00
NA
$20.00
$25.00
$125.00
$125.00
$150.00
$300.00
$150.00
NA
$90.00
NA
Arizona
$95.00
$13.60
NA
$27.10
$29.40
$16.30
$9.00
$11.40
NA
$10.80
$10.80
$17.50
$9.30
$10.80
$31.70
$38.60
$20.70
NA
$20.70
$31.90
$38.60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Idaho
$31.50
$32.50
$16.00
$9.00
NA
NA
$5.00
$6.50
NA
$16.50
$10.00
$10.00
$9.00
$8.00
NA
$15.50
$12.50
$9.00
NA
$5.00
NA
NA
NA
$25.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kansas
$12.5/CHM
$4.50/CCA
$6.50/CCA
$4.50/CCA
NA
NA
$4.00/CCA
$4.00/CCA
NA
$15.00/CCA
$5.50
S4.50/CCA
$13.00/CCA
$4.00/CCA
$4.50/CCA
$10.00
$4.50/CCA
$6.50
NA
$4.50
$5.50/CCA
NA
NA
$45.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
SAMPLE ANALYTES
Radium-226
Radium-228
Radon -222
Stontium-89
Strontium -90
Thorium -230
Thorium -232
Total Radium
Tritium
Uranium -ICPMS
Uranium -234
Uranium -235
Uranium -238
ORGANICS
ACID COMPOUNDS:
Benzoic acid
2— sec -butyl -4,6 -dinitrophenol
p— chloro-m-cresol
o— chlorophenol
2-chlorophenol
Meta— cresol
Ortho-cresol
Para -cresol
2,4 - d ichlorophenol
2,6 — dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6— dinitro-o— cresol
2,4— dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4— nitrophcnol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,3,4,6 -tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5 -trichlorophenol
LABORATORY ANALYSIS COSTS
USGS
$168.00
$136.00
$111.00
NA
$133.00
SCH1139
SCH1139
NA
$286.00
SCH 2703
SCH1130
SCH 1 130
SCH 1130
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
IEA
$125.00
$125.00
$80.00
NA
$100.00
$100.00
$100.00
NA
$80.00
$40.00
$100.00
$100.00
$100.00
Ross
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PPATCLA&BN
Appendix IX
PP/TCLA&BN
NA
PP/TCLA&BN
Appendix IX
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
NA
PPATCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PIYrCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
Appendix IX
PP/TCLA&BN
Alpha
$190.00
$190.00
$50.00
$140.00
$170.00
NA
NA
$125.00
$90.00
$150.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Arizona
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Idaho
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kansas
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 8270
NA
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
NA
NA
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
NA
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
NA
EPA 8270
-------
SAMPLE ANALYTES
2,4,6 - trichlorophenol
BASE/NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
2 - acetylaminofluorene
4 — aminobiphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramite
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2— chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2— chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)adipate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
p— chloroaniline
2 — ch loronaph thalene
4— chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Dibenzo(aji)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
1 ,2-dibromo —3 — chloropropanc
Di-n -butyl phthalate
m — dichlorobenzene
o -dichlorobenzene
LABORATORY ANALYSIS COSTS
USGS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
IEA
Ross
PP/TCLA&BN
PPfTCLA&BN
PPA~CLA&BN
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
PP/TCLA&BN
Appendix IX
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PPATCLA&BN
PP/rCLA&BN
PPATCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
NA
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PPA'CLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PP^rCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
Appendix IX
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PPATCLA&BN
Alpha
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Arizona
Idaho
Kansas
EPA 8270
EPA 625
EPA 525.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 525.2
NA
NA
EPA 525.2
EPA 525.2
EPA 625
EPA 525.2
EPA 525.2
NA
EPA 625
EPA 625
EPA 625
EPA 525.2
EPA 525.2
EPA 625
EPA 525.2
NA
EPA 625
EPA 625
EPA 525.2
EPA 525.2
NA
NA
EPA 525.2
NA
NA
-------
SAMPLE ANALYTES
p— dichlorobenzene
3,3'— dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthaJate
O,O— diethyl— O-2— purazinylphosphorothioate
p— dimethylaminoazobenzene
7,12 -dimethyl benz(a)anthracene
3,3'— dimethylbenzidine
Alpha, alpha— dimethyphenethylamine
Dimethyl phthalate
m -dinitrobenzene
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6— dinitrotoluene
Di— n— octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Di-n— propylnitrosamine
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexchlorodibenzo— p— dioxins
Hexachlorodibenzofurans
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Mexachloropropene
Indeno(l,2,3— c,d)pyrene
Isophorone
Isosafrolc
Methapyrilene
3 -methylcholanthrene
Methyl methanesulfonate
2— methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
LABORATORY ANALYSIS COSTS
USGS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SCH 2090
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SCH 2090
IEA
Ross
PPATCLA&BN
PPA"CLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
PP/TCLA&BN
Appendix IX
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PPATCLA&BN
Appendix IX
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
Appendix IX
PP/TCLA&BN
PPATCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
PP/TCLA&BN
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
PP^TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
PP/TCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
Alpha
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Arizona
Idaho
Kansas
NA
NA
EPA 625
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 525.2
NA
EPA 625
EPA 625
EPA 625
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 625
EPA 525.2
EPA 625
EPA 625
EPA 525.2
NA
NA
EPA 625
NA
NA
EPA 525.2
EPA 625
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 625
-------
SAMPLE ANALYTES
1,4— naphthoquinone
1 -naphthylamine
2— naphthylamine
m-nitroaniline
o-nitroaniline
p-nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
4— nitroquinoline 1— oxide
N-nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N— nitrosodi-n— propylamine
N — nitrosodiethylamine
N— nitrosodimethyiamine
N— nitrosdiphenylamine
N-nitrosomethylethylamine
N-nitrosomorpholine
N-nitrosopiperidine
N - nitrosopyrrolidine
5— nitro— o— toluidine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzo-p— dioxins
Pentachlorodibenzofurans
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
p-phenylenediamine
2-picoline
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
1,2,4,5 -terachlorobenzene
2,3,7,8 — tetrachlorodibenzo —p— dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzo -p -dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzo furans
o— toluidene
1,2,4 — trichlorobenzene
O,O,O -triethylphosphorothioate
LABORATORY ANALYSIS COSTS
uses
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SCH 2090
NA
IEA
Ross
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
PP/TCLA&BN
PPATCLA&BN
PPATCLA&BN
PP/TCLA&BN
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
NA
Appendix IX
PP/TCLA&BN
PPATCLA&BN
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
PPATCL A&BN
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
PP/TCLA&BN
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
PPfTCLA&BN
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
PP/TCLA&BN
Appendix IX
Alpha
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Arizona
Idaho
Kansas
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 625
NA
NA
EPA 625
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 524.2
NA
NA
EPA 524.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 524.2
NA
-------
SAMPLE ANALYTES
Sym — trinitrobenzene
HERBICIDES:
Acifluorfen
Alachlor
Atrazine
Atrazine desethyi
Bentazon
Bromacil
Bromoxynil
Bytylate
Chloramben
Clopyralid
Cyanazine
Dalapon
DCPA
Dicamba
Dichlobenil
2,4— dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
2,4-DB
Dinoseb
Diuron
EPTC
Ethalfluralin
Fluometuron
Linuron
MCPA
MCPB
Metolachlor
Metribuzin
Molinate
Napropamide
Norflurazon
Oryzalin
Pebulate
LABORATORY ANALYSIS COSTS
USGS
NA
SCH 2050
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2050
SCH 2050
SCH 2050
SCH 2001
SCH 2050
SCH 2050
SCH 2001
NA
SCH 2001
SCH 2050
SCH 2050
SCH 2050
SCH 2050
SCH 2050
SCH 2050
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2050
SCH 2001
SCH 2050
SCH 2050
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2050
SCH 2050
SCH 2001
IEA
Ross
Appendix IX
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Appendix IX
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Alpha
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Arizona
Idaho
Kansas
NA
NA
EPA 507/8
EPA 507/8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 515.1
NA
EPA 515.1
NA
EPA 515.1
NA
EPA 515.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 507/8
EPA 507/8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
SAMPLE ANALYSES
Pendimethalin
Pentachlorophenol
Picloram
Propachlor
Propanil
Propharn
Silvex (2,4,5 -TP)
Simazine
Tebuthiuron
Terbacil
Thiobencarb
Triallate
Triclopyr
Trifluralin
2,4,5-T
PESTICIDES/PCB's:
Aldicarb
Aldicarb sulfone
Aldicarb sulfoxide
Aldrin
Aroclor (PCB) 1016
Aroclor(PCB)1221
Aroclor (PCB) 1232
Aroclor (PCB) 1242
Aroclor (PCB) 1248
Aroclor (PCB) 1254
Aroclor (PCB) 1260
Azinphos-methyl
Benfluralin
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Delta-BHC
Gamma-BHC
Butachlor
LABORATORY ANALYSIS COSTS
USGS
SCH 2001
NA
SCH 2050
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2050
SCH 2050
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2050
SCH 2001
SCH 2050
SCH 2050
SCH 2050
SCH 2050
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
NA
NA
SCH 2001
NA
IEA
Ross
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Appendix IX
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Appendix IX
NA
NA
NA
PP/TCLPCB
PP/TCLPCB
PP/TCLPCB
PP/TCLPCB
PP/TCLPCB
PP/TCLPCB
PP/TCLPCB
PP/TCLPCB
NA
NA
PP/TCLPCB
PP/TCLPCB
PP/TCLPCB
PP/TCLPCB
NA
Alpha
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Arizona
EPA 5 15.1
EPA 515.1
EPA 515.1
EPA 531.1
EPA 531.1
EPA 531.1
Idaho
Kansas
NA
EPA 515.1
EPA 515.1
EPA 507/8
NA
NA
EPA 515.1
EPA 507/8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 531.1
EPA 531.1
EPA 531.1
EPA 507/8
EPA 608
EPA 608
EPA 608
EPA 608
EPA 608
EPA 608
EPA 608
NA
NA
EPA 608
EPA 608
EPA 608
EPA 608
EPA 507/8
-------
SAMPLE ANALYTES
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Chlordane
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorothalonil
Chlorpyrifos
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dacthl— Mono— Acid
Diallate
Diazinon
Diazinon DIG
Dichlorprop
Dieldrin
Diethylanalme
Dimethoate
Disulfoton
Di-2(ethylhexyl)adipate
Di-2(ethylhexyl)phthalate
DNOC
Endosulfan sulfate
Endosulfan I (alpha)
Endosulfan II (beta)
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Esfenvalerate
Ethoprop
Famphur
Fenuron
Fonofos
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
LABORATORY ANALYSIS COSTS
uses
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
NA
NA
SCH 2050
SCH 2001
NA
SCH 2001
NA
SCH 2050
NA
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2050
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
NA
NA
SCH 2050
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SCH 2050
SCH 2001
NA
SCH 2050
SCH 2001
NA
NA
NA
IEA
Ross
NA
NA
PP/TCL PCB
Appendix IX
NA
NA
PP/TCL PCB
PP/TCL PCB
PP/TCL PCB
NA
Appendix IX
NA
NA
NA
PP/TCL PCB
NA
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
NA
NA
NA
PP/TCL PCB
PP/TCL PCB
PP/TCL PCB
PP/TCL PCB
PP/TCL PCB
PP/TCLPCB
NA
NA
Appendix IX
NA
NA
PP/TCL PCB
PP/TCLPCB
NA
Alpha
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Arizona
EPA 531.1
EPA 531.1
Idaho
Kansas
EPA 531.1
EPA 531.1
EPA 507/8
NA
NA
NA
EPA 608
EPA 608
EPA 608
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 507/8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 608
EPA 608
EPA 608
EPA 507/8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 507/8
EPA 507/8
EPA 507/8
-------
SAMPLE ANALYTES
3 — hydroxycarbofuran
Isodrin
Kepone
Lindane
Malathion
Methiocarb
Methomyl
Methoxychlor
Methyl parathion
Napthol 1
Neburon
Oxamyl
Parathion
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Permethrin-Cis
Phorate
Prometon
Pronamide
Propargite
Propoxur
Terbufos
Terbuthylazine
Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate
Toxaphene
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS:
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitrilc
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromochloromethanc
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
LABORATORY ANALYSIS COSTS
USGS
NA
NA
NA
NA
SCH 2001
SCH 2050
SCH 2050
NA
SCH 2001
SCH 2050
SCH 2050
SCH 2050
SCH 2001
NA
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2001
SCH 2050
SCH 2001
SCI I 2001
NA
NA
NA
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCI 12090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
IEA
Ross
NA
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
NA
NA
NA
NA
PP/TCLPCB
Appendix IX
NA
NA
NA
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
NA
Appendix IX
NA
Appendix IX
NA
NA
NA
NA
Appendix IX
PP/TCL PCB
PPATCLVOC
Appendix IX
PP/TCL VOC
1'lVl'CL VOC
PP/TCL VOC
NA
NA
PPATCL VOC
NA
Alpha
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Arizona
EPA 53 1.1
EPA 531.1
EPA 531.1
Idaho
Kansas
EPA 531.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 531.1
EPA507/8
NA
NA
NA
EPA 531.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 507/8
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
NA
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
-------
SAMPLE ANALYTES
Brornome thane
n-butylbenzene
sec-butylbenzene
tert-butylbenzene
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
2— chloro- 1,3— butadiene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2— chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chlorome thane
3— chloropropene
ortho— chloro toluene
para — chlorotoluene
Dibromochlorome th ane
l,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane
1,2— dibromoc thane
Dibromomethane
1,3— dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichlorobcn/cnc
1,4 -dichlorobenzene
Trans— 1,4— dichloro-2— butene
Dichlorodifluorornethane
1,1 dichloroethane
1,2— dichloroe thane
1,1 — dichloroe thylene
cis 1,2— dichloroethylene
Trans — 1 ,2 — dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1,1 — dichloropropene
1,2— dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropane
2,2— dichloropropane
LABORATORY ANALYSIS COSTS
USGS
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
NA
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
NA
NA
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
NA
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCI 12090
SCH 2090
NA
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
NA
NA
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
IEA
Ross
PP/TCLVOC
NA
NA
NA
PP/TCL VOC
PP/TCL VOC
PP/TCLVOC
Appendix IX
PP/TCL VOC
PPATCLVOC
PP/TCLVOC
PP/TCLVOC
PP/TCLVOC
Appendix IX
NA
NA
NA
NA
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
NA
NA
NA
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
PP/TCLVOC
PP/TCLVOC
PPATCLVOC
NA
PP/TCLVOC
PP/TCLVOC
NA
PP/TCLVOC
NA
NA
Alpha
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Arizona
Idaho
Kansas
EPA 524.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 624
EPA 524.2
NA
NA
EPA 524.2
NA
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
NA
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
liPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
NA
NA
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
-------
SAMPLE ANALYTES
Cis— 1,3— dichloropropene
trans - 1,3— dichloropropene
1,4 dioxane
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl methacrylate
2-hexanone
lodome thane
Isobutyl alcohol
Isopropylbenzene
p — isopropyl toluene
Methacrylonitrile
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl tert- Butyl Ether
4— methyl— 2— pentanone
n — propylbenzene
Pentachloroethane
Styrene
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane
1 ,1,2,2 -tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Tribromomethane
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
1 ,2^, - trichloropropane
Trichlorotriflouroethane
1 ,2,4 - trimethylbenzene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Total xylenes
LABORATORY ANALYSIS COSTS
USGS
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
NA
SCH 2090
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
NA
NA
NA
SCH 2090
NA
SCH 2090
NA
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
NA
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
NA
SCH 2090
SCH 2090
IEA
Ross
PP/TCLVOC
PPATCLVOC
Appendix IX
PP/TCLVOC
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
PP/TCLVOC
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
NA
NA
Appendix IX
PP/TCLVOC
Appendix IX
NA
PP/TCLVOC
NA
Appendix IX
PP/TCLVOC
Appendix IX
PP/TCLVOC
PP/TCLVOC
PP/TCLVOC
PP/TCLVOC
PP/TCLVOC
PP/TCLVOC
PPA'CLVOC
Appendix IX
Appendix IX
NA
NA
NA
PP/TCLVOC
PP/TCLVOC
PP/TCLVOC
Alpha
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Arizona
Idaho
Kansas
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
NA
EPA 524.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
NA
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
NA
EPA 524.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
-------
SAMPLE ANALYTES
EPA STANDARD METHODS
502.2 (Volatile Organics)
503.1
504 (Pesticides)
505 (Pesticides)
506
507 (Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Pesticides)
508 (Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Pesticides)
508A
507/508 (Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Pesticides)
515.1* (Includes methods 515.1, 525.1, and 531.1)
515.1 (Chlorophenoxy Herbicides)
524.2 (Drinking Water Volatile Organics)
525
525.1 (Pesticides)
525.2 (Synthetic Organic Compounds)
531.1 (Carbamate Pesticides)
Phase 1,2,5
601 (Purgeable Halocarbons)
602 (Purgeable Aromatics)
601/602 (Purgeable Hydrocarbons & Aromatics)
606
608 (Organochlorine Pesticides/PCB's)
610 (Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons)
612
614 (Organophosphorus Pesticides)
615 (Chlorinated Herbicides)
624 (Volatile Organics)
625 (Acids)
625 (Base/Neutrals)
625 (Acids & Base/Neutrals)
8010 (Volatile Organics)
8015 (Non-Halogenated Volatile Organics)
LABORATORY ANALYSIS COSTS
USGS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
IEA
Ross
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$125.00
$100.00
$175.00
NA
$200.00
$200.00
NA
$175.00
$200.00
$230.00
$270.00
$300.00
$450.00
$125.00
NA
Alpha
$150.00
NA
$75.00
$95.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$750.00
$225.00
$170.00
NA
$325.00
NA
$200.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$170.00
NA
NA
NA
$85.00
$85.00
Arizona
Idaho
$175.00
$170.00
$95.00
$125.00
$100.00
$160.00
$145.00
$145.00
NA
NA
$150.00
NA
$215.00
NA
NA
$170.00
$1,235.00
$100.00
$100.00
NA
$100.00
$145.00
$125.00
$100.00
NA
$160.00
NA
NA
$500.00
NA
$100.00
$75.00
Kansas
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$150.00
NA
$125.00
$100.00
NA
NA
$250.00
$150.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$75.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$250.00
NA
NA
NA
-------
LABORATORY ANALYSIS COSTS
SAMPLE ANALYTES
8015 (Petroleum Hydrocarbons) Mod.
8020 (Volatile Aromatics)
8021
8010/8020 (Volatile Organics)
8010/8020 (Pugeable Hydrocarbons & Aromatics)
8015/8020 (Petroleum Hydrocarbons with BTEX)
8010/8015/8020 (Volatile Organics)
8030 (Acrolein & Acrylonitrile Only)
8080 (Organochlorine Pesticides/PCBs)
8080/8081 ( Pesticides/PCBs)
8080/8150 (SDWA/RCRA Pesticides/Herbicides)
8090/8120
8100
8140
8150 (Chlorophenoxy Pesticides/Herbicides)
8240 (Volatile Organics)
8260 (HSL Volatile Organics)
8270 (Acid Extractables)
8270 (Base Neutral Extractables)
8270 (Acids & Base Neutral Extractables)
8270 (Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons)
8270/8080 (HSL Acid/Base/Neutral/PCBs/Pesticides)
8310
uses
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
IEA
Ross
$110.00
$100.00
NA
NA
$175.00
$150.00
NA
NA
$200.00
NA
NA
NA
$200.00
$175.00
$200.00
$230.00
$230.00
$270.00
$300.00
$450.00
NA
NA
NA
Alpha
NA
$85.00
NA
$150.00
NA
NA
$170.00
$100.00
$125.00
NA
$125.00
NA
NA
NA
$175.00
NA
$170.00
$125.00
$275.00
NA
$125.00
$400.00
NA
Arizona
Idaho
NA
$100.00
$180.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$110.00
NA
$225.00
$125.00
$150.00
$135.00
NA
NA
$175.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kansas
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$150.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Appendix C
Costs of Monitoring Well Installation
-------
APPENDIX C: COSTS OF MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION
Total Cost of Monitoring Well Installation
Company
Well #1'
Sand
Well #1
Till
Well #1
Bedrock
Well #22
Sand
Well #2
Till
Well #2
Bedrock
Well #33
Sand
Well #3
Till
Well #3
Bedrock
Well #44
Sand
Well #4
Till
Well #4
Bedrock
n
i
Guild5
Maher6
Red Wing
Aquadrill7
GME3
Layne
West Hazmat
Western
Mean
Median
$1,644.00
$2,100.00
$1,210.00
$1,800.00
$1,477.00
$1,385.00
$1,500.00
$1,500,00
$2,444.00
$2,200.00
$1,510.00
$1,350.00
$1,877.00
$2,160.00
$2,250.00
$2,250.00
$2,505.00
$3,800.00
$2,500.00
$1,550.00
$5,400.00
$1,912,00
$2,500.00
$2,000.00
$3,280.00
$4,000.00
$2,190.00
$3,800.00
$3,325.00
$2,763.00
$2,800.00
$3,200.00
$4,880.00
$4,300.00
$2,990.00
$3,050.00
$3,995.00
$4,808.00
$4,500.00
$5,500.00
$1,577.00
$1,500.00
$2,005.13
$2,180.00
$2,770.88
$2,500.00
$3,169.75
$3,262.50
$4,252.88
$4,400.00
$5,758.00
$7,300.00
$3,790.00
$3,300.00
NA
$2,873.00
$5,000.00
$_4,500.0p_
"$4,645.86
$4,500.00
$4,795,00
$5,400.00
$4,525.00
$5,700.00
$4,450.00
$4,441.00
$4,900.00
$5,500.00
$6,395.00
$5,600.00
$5,425.00
$4,950.00
$5,695.00
$6,456.00
$6,600.00
$7,000.00
$6,488.00
$8,600.00
$6,035.00
$5,200.00
NA
$4,533.00
$7,100.00
$6,000.00
$7,042.00
$18,900.00
$8,400.00
$14,150.00
NA
$12,805.00
$14,000.00
$14,000.00
$10,442.00
$18,900.00
$9,000.00
$15,100.00
NA
$13,615-00
$17,000.00
$20,000.00
$9,070.00
$14,000.00
$10,600.00
$13,850.00
NA
$11,615.00
$18,000.00
$17,000.00
$4,963.88
$4,847.50
$6,015.13
$6,045.00
$6,279.43
$6,035.00
$12,756.71
$14,000.00
$14,865.29
$15,100.00
$13,447.86
$13,850.00
Notes:
1 Representative Well Type #1 is 50' deep, 2" PVC, sand and gravel pack, bentonite seal, complete grouting, locking cap, and no protective devices.
2 Representative Well Type #2 is 100' deep, 2" PVC, sand and gravel pack, bentonite seal, complete grouting, locking cap, and protective steel well stack casing.
3 Representative Well Type #3 is 100' deep, 2" Stainless steel, sand and gravel pack, bentonite seal, complete grouting, locking cap, and protective steel well stack casing.
4 Representative Well Type #4 is 200" deep, 4" Stainless steel, sand and gravel pack, bentonite seal, partial grouting, locking cap, and protective steel posts.
5 Prices do not include stratigraphic core sampling or decontamination.
6 Costs assume Auger Methods for Sand and Glacial Till Scenarios for Wells Types #1, #2, & #3, and Air Rotary Methods for Bedrock Wells and for Well Type #4.
7 Costs for Well Type #4 include grouting from sand gravel pack to ground surface.
8 Does not have the capability install wells through full depth of bedrock. Does not install wells of 2 inch or greater diameter
-------
APPENDIX C: COSTS OF MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION
Cost per Foot of Monitoring Well Installation
Well*?!1 Well#l Well #1 Well #22 Well #2 Well #2 Well #33 Well #3
Company Sand Till Bedrock Sand Till Bedrock Sand Till
Guild5 $5238 $48.88 $50.10 $32.80 $48.80 $57.58 $47,95 $63.95
Maher6 $42.00 $44.00 $76.00 $40.00 $43.00 $73.00 $54.00 $56.00
RedWing $24,20 $30.20 $50.00 $21.90 $29.90 $37.90 $45.25 $54.25
Aquadrill7 $36.00 $27.00 $31.00 $38.00 $30.50 $33.00 $57.00 $49.50
GME5 $2954 $37.54 $108.00 $33.25 $39.95 NA $4450 $56.95
Layne $27JO $43.20 $38.24 $27.63 $48,08 $28.73 $44.41 $64.56
WestHazmat $30.00 $45.00 $50.00 $28.00 $45.00 $50.00 $49.00 $66.00
Western $30.00 $45.00 $40.00 $32.00 $55,00 $45.00 $55.00 $70.00
Mean $3154 $40.10 $55.42 $31.70 $4253 $46.46 $49.64 $60.15
Median $30.00 $43.60 $50.00 $32.63 $44.00 $45.00 $48.48 $60.45
Well #3 Well#44 Well #4 Well #4
Bedrock Sand Till Bedrock
$64.88 $35.21
$86.00 $94.50
$6035 $42.00
$52.00 $70.75
NA NA
$4533 $64.03
$71.00 $70.00
$60.00 $70.00
$62.79 $63.78
$5035 $70.00
$5221
$9450
$45.00
$7550
NA
$6848
$85.00
$100,00
$7433
$75.50
$45.35
$70.00
$53.00
$69.25
NA
$58.08
$90.00
$85.00
$67.24
$69.25
Notes:
1 Representative Well Type #1 is 50' deep, 2" PVC, sand and gravel pack, bentonite seal, complete grouting, locking cap, and no protective devices.
2 Representative Well Type #2 is 100' deep, 2" PVC, sand and gravel pack, bentonite seal, complete grouting, locking cap, and protective steel well stack casing.
3 Representative Well Type #3 is 100" deep, 2" Stainless steel, sand and gravel pack, bentonite seal, complete grouting, locking cap, and protective steel well stack casing.
4 Representative Well Type #4 is 200' deep, 4" Stainless steel, sand and gravel pack, bentonite seal, partial grouting, locking cap, and protective steel posts.
5 Prices do not include stratigraphic core sampling or decontamination.
6 Costs assume Auger Methods for Sand and Glacial Till Scenarios for Wells Types #1, #2, & #3, and Air Rotary Methods for Bedrock Wells and for Well Type #4.
7 Costs for Well Type #4 include grouting from sand gravel pack to ground surface.
8 Does not have the capability install wells through full depth of bedrock. Does not install wells of 2 inch or greater diameter
o
I
------- |