Attachment F

Economic Analysis of the
Bulk Pesticides
Containment Structures
Final Regulation

June 1, 2006

Executive Summary
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing the standards for bulk pesticide
containment structures as required under Section 19 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The final standards include design requirements for new and existing
secondary containment structures and pads at bulk agricultural pesticide storage facilities.
Improvements in the containment of bulk pesticides at these facilities will help to protect humans
and the environment from leaks and spills from bulk pesticide storage, and to protect soil and
water from contamination due to pesticide dispensing operations.
The total annual cost of compliance with the final standards for bulk pesticide containment
structures to the regulated industries (i.e., agricultural pesticide refillers and agricultural
commercial applicators) is estimated to be $2.93 million. This estimate is based on an
examination of the current level of compliance for bulk agricultural pesticide containment
facilities with the final standards, and the cost of moving from the current level of compliance to
the final standards. The annual cost to agricultural pesticide refillers is estimated to be $2.71
million, while agricultural commercial applicators are estimated to incur costs of $0.23 million
per year. The analysis of the estimated small business impacts of the final standards for bulk
pesticide containment structures suggests that there will not be a significant number of small
bulk pesticide storage facilities impacted by the final standards.
The final bulk pesticide containment standards are expected to result in benefits to both humans
and the environment due to a reduction in the number of accidental spills and leaks of pesticides
at bulk pesticide storage facilities. The benefits from avoiding the costs of remediation of such
spills are estimated to be between $12.2 million and $18.6 million annually. Due to a lack of
data on human and environmental effects from exposure to pesticides from bulk pesticide
containment related spills, the quantified benefits of the final standards do not include the value
of reducing risk to humans and the environment. However, a number of published studies
document contamination at bulk agricultural pesticide storage facilities, and it is expected that
the benefits to humans and the environment of reducing the number of accidental pesticide
releases from these facilities could be significant.
The bulk pesticide containment regulations were proposed in 1994. In response to public
comments a number of changes were made to the proposed bulk pesticide containment standards,
and these changes are reflected in the final rule. Due to these changed standards, the total
estimated cost of compliance fell by more than two-thirds, from $12.96 million for the proposed
rule to $2.93 million for the final rule. Among the more significant changes in the standards that
led to a lower estimated cost for the final rule are the elimination of requirements to retrofit
existing structures during the interim period, the elimination of a hydraulic conductivity
standard, and a reduction in capacity requirements.

The estimated benefits of compliance with the bulk pesticide containment structures regulations
increased 60% from the proposed to the final rule. The increase is due to the different assumptions
made in each analysis regarding the probability of an accidental release from a bulk pesticide
storage facility (i.e., 1.5% for the proposed regulations versus 1.0% for the final regulations), and
the number of bulk storage facilities that could have an accidental release (i.e., 3,000 bulk pesticide
storage facilities for the proposed regulations versus 5,811 bulk pesticide storage facilities for the
final regulations). The analysis of the proposed regulations did not quantify the benefits of reduced
risk to humans and the environment. As is the case with the current analysis of the final
containment standards, the lack of available data on the human and environmental effects of
pesticide exposure from the bulk pesticide storage facilities made such an analysis infeasible.

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 The Need for Regulation................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Pesticide Container Design and Residue Removal and Containment Structures:
Regulatory Background of the Final Rule ..................................................................... 4
1.3 Scope of the Economic Analysis for the Final Pesticide Containment Regulations...... 5
1.4 Estimated Costs and Benefits of Compliance with the Final Pesticide Containment
Regulations..................................................................................................................... 6
2.0 Final Bulk Pesticide Containment Regulations and Changes in the Regulations from the
Proposed to Final Rule............................................................................................................. 8
2.1 Final Bulk Pesticide Containment Regulations.............................................................. 8
2.2 Standards for New and Existing Pesticide Containment Structures .............................. 9
2.2.1 Final Critical, Performance-Based Criteria for Existing Containment Structures
............................................................................................................................ 9
2.2.2 Final Standards for New Pesticide Containment Structures ............................. 10
2.2.3 State Pesticide Containment Standards............................................................. 11
2.3 Changes in the Final Pesticide Containment Regulations from the Proposed to the
Final Rule ..................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.1 General Requirements....................................................................................... 12
2.3.2 Capacity Standards............................................................................................ 15
2.3.3 Interim Standards for Existing Structures......................................................... 16
2.3.4 Scope of the Containment Regulations............................................................. 16
2.4 Comparison of the Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Final and Proposed Standards
17
3.0 Baseline Compliance Profile of the Regulated Community.................................................. 19
3.1 Compliance Profile of Agricultural Pesticide Refillers ............................................... 24
3.1.1 Total Number of Agricultural Pesticide Refillers............................................. 24
3.1.2 Number of Agricultural Pesticide Refillers with Bulk Pesticide Storage......... 27
3.1.3 Agricultural Pesticide Refillers Requiring Installation of New Containment
Structures ......................................................................................................... 29
3.1.4 Agricultural Pesticide Refillers Requiring Retrofitting of Existing Containment
Structures ......................................................................................................... 31
3.2 Compliance Profile of Agricultural Commercial Applicators ..................................... 34
3.2.1 Total Number of Agricultural Commercial Applicators................................... 34
3.2.2 Number of Agricultural Commercial Applicators With Bulk Pesticide Storage
.......................................................................................................................... 36
3.2.3 Independent Applicators Requiring Installation of New Containment Structures
.......................................................................................................................... 36
3.2.4 Agricultural Commercial Applicators Requiring Retrofitting of Existing
Containment Structures.................................................................................... 37
3.3 Baseline Economic Profile of the Regulated Community ........................................... 38
3.3.1 Economic Profile of Agricultural Pesticide Refillers ....................................... 42
3.3.2 Economic Profile of Agricultural Commercial Applicators ............................. 44
4.0 Facility Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 46

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page i

4.1

Compliance Costs for New Containment Structures ................................................... 48
4.1.1 Representative Facility Costs (Non-Discounted) for Agricultural Refillers..... 53
4.1.2 Representative Facility Annualized Costs to Agricultural Refillers................. 56
4.1.3 Representative Facility Costs (Non-Discounted) for Commercial Applicators 64
4.1.4 Representative Facility Aggregate Annualized Costs to Commercial
Applicators ....................................................................................................... 64
4.1.5 Total Aggregate Annualized Costs ................................................................... 66
4.2 Compliance Costs for Existing Containment Structures.............................................. 69
4.2.1 Representative Facility Costs (Non-Discounted) for Agricultural Refillers..... 71
4.2.2 Representative Facility and Aggregate Annualized Costs to Agricultural
Refillers ............................................................................................................ 74
4.2.3 Representative Facility Costs (Non-Discounted) for Commercial Applicators 76
4.2.4 Representative Facility and Aggregate Annualized Costs to Commercial
Applicators ....................................................................................................... 78
4.2.5 Uncertainty of Cost Estimates .......................................................................... 81
4.2.6 Total Aggregate Annualized Costs ................................................................... 82
5.0 Industry and State Impact Analysis ....................................................................................... 83
5.1 Aggregate Compliance Costs of Regulations .............................................................. 83
5.1.1 Aggregate Annualized Costs under the Final Regulations ............................... 83
5.1.2 Comparison of Aggregate Annualized Costs: Proposed Versus Final
Regulations....................................................................................................... 87
5.2 Economic Impacts of the Final Pesticide Containment Regulations ........................... 93
5.2.1 Facility-Level Impacts for Agricultural Refiller Facilities ............................... 94
5.2.2 Facility-Level Impacts for Commercial Applicator Businesses ....................... 95
5.3 State Level Costs.......................................................................................................... 97
6.0 Benefits of Bulk Pesticide Storage Containment................................................................... 98
6.1 Types and Evidence of Spills and Leakage................................................................ 100
6.1.1 Evidence of the Occurrence of Spills.............................................................. 100
6.1.2 Evidence of On-Site and Off-Site Contamination .......................................... 102
6.2 Valuation of the Benefits of the Pesticide Containment Rule.................................... 108
6.2.1 Theoretical Approach...................................................................................... 108
6.2.2 An Outline of the Estimation of the Total Benefits of a Pesticide Containment
Rule ................................................................................................................ 111
6.3 Estimation of the Partial Benefits from Avoided Costs of Remediation ................... 111
6.3.1 Avoided Costs of Remediation to Agricultural Pesticide Refillers and
Agricultural Commercial Applicators............................................................ 112
6.3.2 Uncertainties in the Estimate of Avoided Remediation Costs........................ 116
6.3.3 Uncertainties in the Estimate of the Benefits of the Pesticide Containment Rule
........................................................................................................................ 117
6.4 The Potential Human Health Risks Associated with Exposure to Pesticides ............ 118
6.4.1 Exposed Populations....................................................................................... 118
6.4.2 Pesticides Evaluated........................................................................................ 120
6.5 The Potential Ecological Damages Associated with Exposure to Pesticides ............ 122
6.5.1 Exposed Populations....................................................................................... 124
6.5.2 Pesticides Evaluated........................................................................................ 124

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page ii

6.6

Summary of the Benefits of the Final Bulk Pesticide Storage Containment Regulations
and Comparison with Proposed Regulations ............................................................. 125
6.6.1 Summary of the Benefit of the Final Containment Regulations..................... 125
6.6.2 Comparison of the Benefits of the Final and Proposed Containment Regulations
........................................................................................................................ 126
References................................................................................................................................... 127

Appendixes
Appendix A: Methodology for Calculating Annualized Compliance Costs .............................. 136
Appendix B: Non-Discounted Facility-Level Costs of Compliance for the Bulk Pesticide
Containment Standards........................................................................................................ 138
Appendix C: Comparison of Critical and State Containment Standards.................................... 149
Appendix D: Overview of Current Federal and State Regulations............................................. 155
D.1 Federal Regulations.................................................................................................... 155
D.2 State Regulations........................................................................................................ 156
D.3 Business and Market Considerations ......................................................................... 159
Appendix E: EPA’s Proposed Pesticide Containment Standards ............................................... 160
E.1 General Requirements for Containment Structures ................................................... 160
E.2 Secondary Containment for Stationary Liquid Bulk Containers ............................... 161
E.3 Secondary Containment for Stationary Dry Bulk Containers.................................... 161
E.4 Secondary Containment for Pesticide Dispensing Areas........................................... 161
E.5 Recordkeeping Requirements .................................................................................... 162
E.6 Stationary Containers Included ..................................................................................... 163
Appendix F: Comparison of the Proposed and Final Containment Regulations ........................ 164
Appendix G. Estimated Number of Affected Facilities............................................................. 168
Appendix H. Representative Facility Costs of Compliance with Secondary Containment
Regulations .......................................................................................................................... 179
Appendix I. Facility Annualized Costs as a Share of Annual Revenue...................................... 196

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page iii

Tables and Figures
Table 1.1. Quantified Costs and Benefits of the Final Containment Regulations (2005$) a.......... 7
Table 2.1. Critical Standards for Existing Containment Structures............................................. 10
Table 2.2. Bulk Pesticide Containment Standards in Addition to the Critical Standards for New
Containment Structures ......................................................................................................... 11
Table 2.3. Annual Compliance Cost Comparison Between the Final and Proposed
Pesticide Containment Standards (2005$)............................................................................. 17
Table 2.4. Comparison of Benefits for the Proposed and Final Containment Standards (2005$)18
Table 3.1. Industries Regulated by EPA’s Containment Regulations ......................................... 21
Table 3.2. Regulatory Compliance Baseline, Agricultural Pesticide Refillers and Commercial
(Aerial and Ground) Applicators ........................................................................................... 26
Table 3.3. Representative Agricultural Pesticide Refilling Facilities, Bulk Pesticide Storage
Containers and Pesticide Dispensing Areas a......................................................................... 39
Table 3.4. Economic Profile of Agricultural Pesticide Refillers by Entity Size.......................... 41
Table 3.5. Representative Agricultural Aerial Application Facilities, Bulk Pesticide Storage
Containers, and Pesticide Dispensing Areas a........................................................................ 42
Table 4.1. Storage Area and Wall Height of Representative Agricultural Refiller Facilities ..... 50
Table 4.2. Summary of Facility-Level Costs (2005$) to Install New Secondary Containment
Units and Pads, Representative Agricultural Refiller and Commercial Applicator Facilities
54
Table 4.3. Summary of Annualized Costs for Compliance with Containment Regulations,
Representative Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Aerial and Ground
Applicators, a Install NEW Secondary Containment Units, 2005$, 3% Discount Rate ........ 57
Table 4.4. Summary of Annualized Costs for Compliance with Containment Regulations,
Representative Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Aerial and Ground
Applicators, a Install NEW Secondary Containment Units, 2005$, 7% Discount Rate ........ 58
Table 4.5. Summary of Annualized Costs for Compliance with Containment Regulations,
Representative Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Aerial and Ground
Applicators, Install NEW Secondary Containment Units and Pads, 2005$, 3% Discount
Ratea ....................................................................................................................................... 60
Table 4.6. Summary of Annualized Costs for Compliance with Containment Regulations,
Representative Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Aerial and Ground
Applicators, Install NEW Secondary Containment Units and Pads, 2005$, 7% Discount
Ratea ....................................................................................................................................... 61
Table 4.7. Summary of Annualized Costs to Install New Secondary Containment Units and
Pads, Representative Agricultural Refillers, 3% Discount Rate............................................ 62
Table 4.8. Summary of Annualized Costs to Install New Secondary Containment Units and
Pads, Representative Agricultural Refillers, 7% Discount Rate............................................ 63
Table 4.9. Summary of Annualized Costs to Install New Secondary Containment Units and
Pads, Representative Commercial Applicator Facilities, 3% Discount Rate ........................ 67

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page iv

Table 4.10. Summary of Annualized Costs to Install New Secondary Containment Units and
Pads, Representative Commercial Applicator Facilities, 7% Discount Rate ........................ 68
Table 4.11. Summary of Facility-Level Costs (2005$) to Retrofit Existing Secondary
Containment Units and Pads, Representative Agricultural Refillers and Commercial
Applicator Facilities............................................................................................................... 73
Table 4.12. Summary of Aggregate Industry Annualized Costs (2005$) a to Retrofit Existing
Secondary Containment Units and Pads and Liquid Bulk Containers for Representative
Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Applicator Facilities, 3% Discount Rate................. 76
Table 4.13. Summary of Aggregate Industry Annualized Costs (2005$) a to Retrofit Existing
Secondary Containment Units and Pads and Liquid Bulk Containers for Representative
Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Applicator Facilities, 7% Discount Rate................. 77
Table 4.14. Summary of facility-level annualized costs to comply with containment regulations
representative by facility size for agricultural refillers and commercial aerial and ground
applicators to retrofit existing secondary containment units and pads, and liquid bulk
containers (2005$), 3% discount rate .................................................................................... 80
Table 4.15. Summary of facility-level annualized costs to comply with containment regulations
representative by facility size for agricultural refillers and commercial aerial and ground
applicators to retrofit existing secondary containment units and pads, and liquid bulk
containers (2005$), 7% discount rate .................................................................................... 80
Table 5.1. Annualized Industry Costs of Compliance Under EPA’s Final Rule (2005$), 3%
Discount Rate......................................................................................................................... 84
Table 5.2. Annualized Industry Costs of Compliance under EPA’s Final Rule (2005$), 7%
Discount Rate......................................................................................................................... 85
Table 5.3. Annualized Industry Costs of Compliance under EPA’s Proposed Regulation ......... 89
Figure 6.1. Flow Diagram of Potential Damages from Pesticide Containment Structures ......... 99
Table 6.1. Reported Incidence of Spills from Pesticide Bulk Storage Facilities....................... 101
Table 6.2. Pesticides Identified in Wells on or Near Agricultural Facilities in Illinois............. 104
Figure 6.2. The Costs and Benefits of Remediation (Cleanup) in the Baseline Scenario and the
Calculation of the Benefits of Avoiding a Spill................................................................... 110
Table 6.3. Estimation of Average Costs for Assessment and Remediation of Uncontrolled Spills
at Agricultural Chemical Dealers and Applicators.............................................................. 114
Table 6.4. Potential Health Effects of Selected Pesticides ........................................................ 121

Appendix Tables
Table B.1. Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide Containment Standards
for New Structures, Agricultural Refillers (2005$)............................................................. 138
Table B.2. Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide Containment Standards
for New Structures, Commercial Applicators (2005$)........................................................ 140
Table B.3. Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide Containment Standards
for New Structures, Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Applicators ........................... 141

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page v

Table B.4. Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide Containment Standards
for Existing Structures, Small-Small Facilities ................................................................... 143
Table B.5. Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide Containment Standards
for Existing Structures, Medium-Small Facilities ............................................................... 145
Table B.6. Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide Containment Standards
for Existing Structures, Large-Small and Large Facilities .................................................. 147
Table D.1. State Regulations of Bulk Pesticide Storage............................................................ 157
Table E.1. Containment Proposed Rule Options Costs (2005$)................................................. 163
Table F.1. Comparison of Proposed and Final Standards for New Containment Structures..... 165
Table G.1. Estimated Number of Agricultural Pesticide Refillers by State, 1992 * ................. 168
Table G.2. Regulatory Compliance Baseline for Agricultural Pesticide Refillers with Bulk
Pesticide Storage ***........................................................................................................... 171
Table G.3. Number of Bulk Pesticide Containment Facilities to Install New Units and Pads* 175
Table G.4. Number of Bulk Pesticide Containment Facilities Affected by EPA’s Containment
Regulations to Retrofit Existing Containment Structures ................................................... 177
Table H.1. Capital Costs of Compliance with Secondary Containment Regulations for SmallSmall, Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large Agricultural Refilling Representative Facility
to Install NEW Secondary Containment of Outdoor Bulk Liquid Pesticides, 2005$ a........ 179
Table H.2. Operating and Management (Annual) and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with
Containment Regulations for Small-Small, Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large
Agricultural Refilling Representative Facility to Install NEW Secondary Containment of
Outdoor Bulk Liquid Pesticides, 2005$ a ............................................................................. 180
Table H.3. Capital Costs of Compliance with Containment Regulations for Small-Small,
Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large Agricultural Refilling Representative Facilities to
Install NEW Secondary Containment of Indoor Bulk Liquid Pesticides, 2005$ a .............. 181
Table H.4. Operating and Management and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with Containment
Regulations for Small-Small, Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large Agricultural Refilling
Representative Facilities to Install NEW Secondary Containment of Indoor Bulk Liquid
Pesticides, 2005$ a ............................................................................................................... 182
Table H.5. Capital Costs of Compliance with Containment Regulations for Small-Small,
Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large Agricultural Refilling Representative Facility to
Install NEW Secondary Containment of Stationary Dry Bulk Storage, 2005$ a ................. 183
Table H.6. Operating and Management (Annual) and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with
Containment Regulations for Small-Small, Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large
Agricultural Refilling Representative Facilities to Install NEW Secondary Containment of
Stationary Dry Bulk Pesticide Storage, 2005$ a .................................................................. 184
Table H.7. Capital Costs of Compliance with Containment Regulations for Small-Small,
Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large Agricultural Refilling Representative Facility to
Install NEW Outdoor Containment Units and Pads, 2005$ (Scenarios 1 & 2) a ................. 185
Table H.8. Capital Costs of Compliance with Containment Regulations for Small-Small,
Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large Agricultural Refilling Representative Facility to
Install NEW Containment Pads, 2005$ a ............................................................................. 186

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page vi

Table H.9. Operating and Management (Annual) and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with
Containment Regulation for Small-Small, Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large
Agricultural Refilling Representative Facility to Install NEW Containment Pad Regulations
for Indoor and Outdoor Storage Facilities, 2005$ a ............................................................. 188
Table H.10. Capital, O&M, and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with Containment
Regulations for Small-Small, Medium-Small, and Large-Small Commercial Aerial and
Ground Applicator Facility to Install NEW Outdoor Secondary Containment Structures,
2005$ a,b ............................................................................................................................... 189
Table H.11. Capital, Initial, O&M and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with Containment
Regulations by Representative Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial
Aerial and Ground Applicators to Retrofit EXISTING Secondary Containment Structures,
2005$ a ................................................................................................................................. 190
Table H.12. Capital, Initial, O&M and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with Containment
Regulations by Representative Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial
Aerial and Ground Applicators to Retrofit EXISTING Containment Pads, 2005$ f........... 192
Table H.13. Capital, Initial, O&M and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with Containment
Regulations by Representative Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial
Aerial and Ground Applicators to Retrofit EXISTING Liquid Bulk Containers, 2005$ e .. 194
Table I.1. Total Facility Annualized Costs as a Share of Annual Revenue to Install New
Secondary Containment Units and Containment Pads, Agricultural Refillers and
Commercial Applicators (2005$), 3% Discount Rate ......................................................... 196
Table I.2. Total Facility Annualized Costs as a Share of Annual Revenue to Install New
Secondary Containment Units and Containment Pads, Agricultural Refillers and
Commercial Applicators (2005$), 7% Discount Rate ......................................................... 198
Table I.3. Total Facility Annualized Costs as a Share of Annual Revenue to Retrofit Existing
Secondary Containment Units and Containment Pads, Agricultural Refillers and
Commercial Applicators (2005$), 3% Discount Rate ......................................................... 200
Table I.4. Total Facility Annualized Costs as a Share of Annual Revenue to Retrofit Existing
Secondary Containment Units and Containment Pads, Agricultural Refillers and
Commercial Applicators (2005$), 7% Discount Rate ......................................................... 202

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page vii

Economic Analysis of
Bulk Pesticide Containment Structures Final Regulations
1.0 Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is imposing requirements under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for container design for pesticide
containers. EPA is also imposing procedures, standards, and label language to facilitate removal
of pesticides from containers prior to disposal. Additionally, EPA is imposing requirements for
bulk pesticide containment and procedures for container refilling operations. These regulations
are necessary to implement statutory authority requiring EPA to develop regulations for the safe
storage and disposal of pesticides as a means of protecting human health and the environment.
Sections 19(e) and (f) of FIFRA grant EPA broad authority to establish standards and procedures
to assure the safe use, reuse, storage, and disposal of pesticide containers. FIFRA Section 19(e)
requires EPA to promulgate regulations for “the design of pesticide containers that will promote
the safe storage and disposal of pesticides.” The regulations must ensure, to the fullest extent
practicable, that the containers:
(1) Accommodate procedures used for removal of pesticides from the containers and rinsing of
the containers.
(2) Facilitate safe use of the containers, including elimination of splash and leakage.
(3) Facilitate safe disposal of the containers.
(4) Facilitate safe refill and reuse of the containers.
FIFRA Section 19(f) requires EPA to promulgate regulations “prescribing procedures and
standards for the removal of pesticides from containers prior to disposal.” The statute states that
the regulations may:
(1) Specify, for each major type of pesticide container, procedures and standards for, at a
minimum, triple rinsing or the equivalent degree of pesticide removal.
(2) Specify procedures that can be implemented promptly and easily in various circumstances
and conditions.
(3) Provide for reuse, whenever practicable, or disposal of rinse water and residue.
(4) Be coordinated with requirements imposed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) for rinsing containers.
Section 19(f) also provides that EPA, in its discretion, may exempt products intended solely for
household use.
Section 19(h), titled “Relationship to Solid Waste Disposal Act,” specifies that nothing in
Section 19 shall diminish the authorities or requirements of RCRA. Also, the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 amended Section 19(h) of FIFRA to add an exemption for
certain antimicrobial pesticides.
The following economic analysis (EA) is one of two economic analyses that estimate the costs
and benefits of compliance with the regulations for the safe storage and disposal of pesticides. It
presents the estimated costs and benefits of compliance with the bulk pesticide containment
requirements of the final rule. The second EA provides estimates of the costs and benefits of
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 1

compliance with the pesticide container design and residue removal requirements of the final
rule, including the container refilling requirements and the label language requirements for
pesticide container residue removal.1
The bulk pesticide containment EA is organized into six chapters. The first two chapters present
the regulatory background of the rule, a description of the final containment regulations, and a
summary of the results of the EA. Chapters 3 presents the estimates of bulk storage facilities’
compliance with the final pesticide containment regulations. Chapters 4 and 5 present the
estimated costs of compliance with the final containment regulations. And Chapter 6 presents
the estimated benefits of compliance with the final containment regulations. (Section 1.3
presents a more detailed description of the scope of the EA.)
1.1 The Need for Regulation
Past management practices associated with the bulk storage of pesticides have resulted in
uncontrolled releases of pesticides into the environment. These releases have ranged from smallvolume, chronic operational spills that occur when pipes, hoses, or other dispensing equipment
leaks or fails to major, large-volume spills resulting from ruptured tanks.
Minor, small-volume spills are generally not reported to state or federal agencies and thus, not
well-documented. However, there is ample evidence that chronic small spills have resulted in
soil, surface water, and groundwater contamination at many agrichemical facility sites across the
nation. The Illinois Department of Health found pesticide residues in groundwater samples from
wells on or adjacent to 65–75 percent of the agrichemical dealerships sampled in the state (Long,
1989). Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources documented 180 agriculture pollution
incidents in the 1987 to 1991 period through their Pollution Emergency Alerting System
(MDNR, 1991). A conservative estimate is that at least 8 percent of those reported incidents
were related to pesticide storage or loading/refilling releases. Wisconsin’s Department of
Agriculture randomly selected 25 pesticide mixing and loading sites in the state and determined
that 18 have significant soil contamination and nine have groundwater contamination above
standards.
EPA analyzed data provided by the National Response Center for a reporting period of 1982
through May 1991 and identified 39 incidents in which spills appeared to be associated with bulk
pesticide containers (USDHS, 2005). The reported quantities of pesticide released ranged from
only 2 gallons to an estimated 1,000 gallons. The most frequent listed causes of spills as
reported in this database are:

1

Two separate economic analyses are conducted for the rule primarily because the standards for pesticide containers
and the standards for containment of bulk pesticides are different, and, as a result, require two distinct economic
analyses. That is, because the standards regulate different structures (containers versus bulk containment), and
different industries (registrants, agricultural refillers, and swimming pool supply companies for the container
standards; agricultural refillers and commercial pesticide applicators for the bulk containment standards), different
assumptions and inputs will be used in the EA for each set of standards. Rather than creating a single, lengthy
document containing two different economic analyses, the Agency chose to write a separate document for each EA.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 2

•
•
•
•
•
•

36 percent transfer mishaps (e.g., hoses or couplings failing or dislodging during load-in or
load-out);
31 percent appurtenance failure (e.g., leaks or breaks in pipes or valves, valves left open,
sight gauge failure);
13 percent container failure (corroded, collapsed);
13 percent overfilling;
5 percent vandalism; and
2 percent cause not specified.

There are many case studies of spill incidents that have occurred at agrichemical facilities. For
example, a firm in Lincoln, Nebraska, that conducts site assessments found high levels of nitrates
and agricultural chemicals in the Ladd area of several agrichemical dealers. At one site,
groundwater had not yet been affected, so the contaminated soil was removed and applied to a
field according to the rate specified in the pesticide label. At another site, however,
contamination had made its way into groundwater, and pumps were installed to remove all the
contaminated water. Because the buyer of that particular property had been conducting
operations at the site for several years, he and the seller negotiated, and settlement costs were in
excess of $30,000 (Cole, 1991).
Examples of operator error and mechanical failures have also been documented. At an
agrichemical facility, approximately 200,000 gallons of contaminated water were filtrated, with
an equal amount incinerated when an employee forgot to turn off the recirculating pump in a
bulk pesticides tank, and the pesticide ran off the site into surface water. The cost of cleanup
was $184,000. A recirculation pump was also left on at another site, with cleanup costing
$105,000 (Paulson, 1992). At another facility, the PVC plug on a bulk pesticide storage tank
failed, releasing 1,200 gallons of herbicide. The cost of cleanup was $207,514 (Paulson, 1992).
In southern Louisiana, pesticide runoff from aerial applicator activities has been linked to kills of
as many as one-half million fish and an unknown number of birds, turtles, and alligators at 13
sites. Three aerial applicators had their licenses suspended while investigations were conducted
on mixing, loading, and rinsing procedures. The license of one of these operators was suspended
because pesticide waters and rinsate were not contained and were allowed to discharge into a
ditch. The operator will not be allowed to resume service until he has installed a “satisfactory
washout and reclamation mechanism to eliminate runoff of unused chemicals into a nearby
ditch” (Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, 1991a,b; and Commission of Agriculture & Forestry,
1991).
The above examples demonstrate the need for containment structures to capture and contain any
spill or leak that might occur in bulk pesticide storage. At new facilities, contamination can
largely be avoided through good management practices such as secondary containment structures
for bulk tanks and containment pads for mixing/loading, refilling refillable containers, rinsing
containers and equipment, and similar activities. Use of containment pads in operational areas
will prevent further contamination of soil and groundwater from chronic, low-volume spills at
existing facilities.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 3

1.2 Pesticide Container Design and Residue Removal and Containment Structures:
Regulatory Background of the Final Rule
In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued on February 11, 1994 (59 FR 6712), EPA
proposed standards for pesticide containers and containment structures. This proposal included
requirements for non-refillable and refillable containers that would ensure the safe use, refill,
reuse, and disposal of the containers. The proposal also included standards for containment
structures, which would promote safe storage of pesticides in bulk containers. Additionally, the
proposed rule contained amendments to the labeling regulations in 40 CFR Part 156 to ensure
adequate levels of residue removal from containers.
The public comment period for the NPRM closed on July 11, 1994. EPA received about 1,900
pages of comments from more than 200 commenters, including many trade associations and
individual companies from the pesticide manufacturing, pesticide retail, and container
manufacturing industries as well as many state regulatory agencies.
EPA received many comments during the public comment period on a few issues; in particular,
the scope of the container standards and the relationship between the 1994 proposed rule and the
Department of Transportation (DOT) standards for hazardous materials packaging. A third issue
arose from the 1996 passage of the FQPA, which amended Section 19(h) of FIFRA to add an
exemption for certain antimicrobial pesticides. To solicit comment on EPA’s interpretation of
the new statutory language on exempting antimicrobial pesticides and to reopen comment on the
scope of the container regulations and an approach for incorporating DOT’s standards, EPA
published a supplemental notice in the Federal Register (EPA, 1999). The notice also provided
an alternative definition of small business for certain sectors of the pesticide industry for use in
analyzing the potential impacts to small businesses that were presented as part of the economic
analysis.2
The public comment period for the supplemental notice closed on March 20, 2000. EPA
received comments from about 70 respondents, including many trade associations and individual
companies from the pesticide manufacturing, pesticide retail, and container manufacturing
industries as well as many state regulatory agencies.
On June 30, 2004, EPA reopened the comment period for 45 days to solicit public input on any
policies, market practices, technology, or other issues relating to this rule’s requirements that
would not have been available, or could not have been addressed, at the time of either the
proposed rule in 1994 or the supplemental notice in 1999. While EPA has attempted to stay
current on developments in pesticide container and containment structure policies, regulations,
technology, and practices, the Agency believed that it was appropriate to solicit input from the
regulated community, state regulators, and others to ensure full awareness of the current state of
the pesticide container and containment universe before finalizing the pesticide container and
2

As discussed by EPA in the 1999 Supplemental Notice on Standards for Pesticide Containers and Containment
(EPA, 1999b), the alternative definition disaggregates small businesses as defined by the Small Business
Administration (SBA) into three size categories: small-small, medium-small, and large-small businesses. EPA is
concerned that using an overly broad definition of small business in the economic analysis of the regulations may
result in significant economic impacts on smaller entities that will be camouflaged when combined with information
about potential impacts on facilities that meet the SBA size standard for small business but are not typical of a small
business in that industry sector. (See Chapter 3 for industry-specific small business definitions.)

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 4

containment regulations. The comment period generated 50 comments mainly from pesticide
manufacturers, state regulatory agencies, and agricultural pesticide dealers. (See the preamble to
the proposed rule and Section 2.3 of this document for a more complete discussion of comments
received by EPA.)
Prior to 1995, recommendations regarding procedures for storage and disposal of pesticides and
pesticide containers were listed under 40 CFR Part 165. On June 19, 1995, as part of the federal
government’s initiative to streamline regulations, Part 165 was deleted as unnecessary (60 FR
32094) because it contained recommendations rather than requirements. Subpart A of Part 165
covered the scope and definitions in the recommendations. Subpart B dealt with EPA’s disposal
of suspended and canceled pesticides, and EPA has completed disposal of all pesticides for
which it was responsible under those regulations. Subparts C and D contained recommended
procedures for storage and disposal of pesticide containers. Subparts A, B, C, and D were
superseded by the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in 1976. FIFRA
Section 19, as revised in 1988 and 1996, contains authority for EPA in the area of pesticide
storage and disposal, and the final pesticide container and containment regulations promulgated
are being inserted into a newly established Part 165.
1.3 Scope of the Economic Analysis for the Final Pesticide Containment Regulations
The EA conducted for the final pesticide containment regulations estimates the costs and benefits
of compliance (installation of new containment structures and retrofitting of existing
containment structures) for the regulated community. The components of the EA for the final
pesticide containment regulations include:
(1) A profile of the regulated community (i.e., agricultural pesticide refillers and commercial
applicators). This includes specific economic characteristics of each industry regulated under
the containment regulations—such as North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) codes, the average company size, revenues for the average company, total industry
revenues, the distribution of firms between small and large—to be used to estimate the costs
and impacts of the containment regulations. (See Chapter 3.)
(2) A profile of bulk pesticide storage facilities’ compliance with the final containment
regulations. The profile contains the estimates and analysis of the baseline estimated number
of bulk containment facilities and the estimated number of facilities not in compliance with
the final regulations, which will either have to install new containment structures or retrofit
existing structures to come into compliance. (See Chapter 3.)
(3) An analysis of the cost of compliance with the final pesticide containment regulations. The
analysis includes the methodology for calculating the costs of compliance and the estimates
of the costs:
(a) to install new secondary containment units and containment pads; and
(b) to retrofit existing secondary containment units and containment pads.
The estimated costs are presented at different levels of aggregation for all regulated
industries, each industry, and for representative facilities in each industry. (See Chapters 4
and 5.)
(4) An analysis of the small business impacts of compliance with the final pesticide containment
regulations for each regulated industry. These impacts are presented using both the Small
Business Administration (SBA) definition of a small business, and the alternative definition

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 5

of a small business adopted specifically for this rule.3 Impacts are estimated as the
proportion of increased facility costs to current facility revenues. (See Chapter 5.)
(5) An analysis of the human and environmental benefits of compliance with the final pesticide
containment regulations. Benefits are measured in terms of the avoided costs of remediation
following a release from a bulk pesticide storage facility. (See Chapter 6.)
1.4 Estimated Costs and Benefits of Compliance with the Final Pesticide Containment
Regulations
The pesticide containment regulations certify a number of standards that create costs to the
regulated community of bringing bulk pesticide storage facilities into compliance with the
containment regulations, as well as benefits to humans and the environment. Improvements in
containment of bulk pesticides will benefit humans and the environment by reducing the
contamination of soil and water resources from unintended bulk pesticide releases.
The total annualized costs of compliance with the final pesticide containment regulations are
estimated to be approximately $2.93 million and $2.90 million at a 3 percent and a 7 percent
discount rate, respectively,4 while the total estimated annualized benefits range from $12.2
million to $18.6 million (see Table 1.1). More than 90 percent (or $2.69 million) of the total cost
of compliance is from the construction of new containment structures, and the remaining 10
percent (or $0.25 million) is from retrofitting existing containment structures. The estimated
cost to agricultural refillers is $2.71 million, while commercial applicators are estimated to face
costs of $0.23 million.
States also face costs of compliance with the final regulations in the first year. For the 19 States
that currently have bulk pesticide containment structures regulations, total costs are estimated to
be approximately $8,000 to prepare documentation that their regulations provide environmental
protection equivalent to the federal regulations. For the remaining 31 States without regulations,
total costs are estimated to be approximately $5,500 to comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of the final regulations. (See Chapters 4 and 5 for specific cost information.)
The benefits of compliance with the final containment regulations include the cost savings from
avoiding cleanup of spills from bulk pesticide storage areas. Because data are not available on
human and environmental effects from pesticide exposure due to bulk pesticide containment–
related spills, the estimated benefits do not include the benefits of the final containment
regulations to humans and the environment. However, it is expected that these benefits could be
significant (see Chapter 6 for a description of the benefits of the final regulations for bulk
pesticide containment).

3

See footnote 2.
For ease of presentation, we will present only the estimates using the 3 percent discount rate for the remainder of
the analysis in this chapter. Chapters 4 and 5 present the estimated costs of compliance with the final containment
regulations at both the 3 percent and 7 percent rates. The estimated costs at the two different rates are similar
because the majority of the estimated costs of compliance are incurred in the first year of compliance as capital or
initial costs of compliance.
4

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 6

Table 1.1. Quantified Costs and Benefits of the Final Containment Regulations (2005$) a
Annualized Cost/Benefit at a Annualized Cost/Benefit at a
Quantified Cost/Benefit Category
3% Discount Rate
7% Discount Rate
Total Quantified Costs
$2.93 million
$2.90 million
Construction of New Containment
$2.69 million
$2.66 million
Facilities
Retrofitting of Existing Containment
$0.25 million
$0.24 million
Structures
Total Quantified Benefits
$12.2 million–$18.6 million
$12.2 million–$18.6 million
a
Benefits that have not been quantified include the adverse effects to humans and the environment from exposure to
pesticides as a result of spills and leaks of pesticides at bulk pesticide storage facilities. Total may not add because
of rounding.

Having presented the statutory basis for the promulgation of the final rule on pesticide
containment structures, a summary of the regulatory history of the standards, and a summary of
the results of the EA in this introductory chapter, the remaining chapters of the EA present the
analysis of the impacts on the regulated industries of the final bulk pesticide containment
regulations. Chapter 2 presents a description of the final standards for bulk pesticide
containment structures and the changes in the standards from the proposed to the final rule.
Chapter 2 is followed by analyses of compliance of bulk pesticide containment facilities with the
final regulations (Chapter 3), of the costs of compliance with the final regulations (Chapters 4
and 5), and of the benefits of compliance with the final regulations (Chapter 6).

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 7

2.0 Final Bulk Pesticide Containment Regulations and Changes in the
Regulations from the Proposed to Final Rule
Chapter 1 presented the regulatory history of the pesticide container and bulk pesticide
containment rule, an analysis of the scope of the EA for the final bulk pesticide containment
regulations, and a summary of the results of the EA. In Chapter 2, the response to comments to
the proposed standards, the economic impacts (i.e., the change in the costs and benefits of
compliance) of the changes from the proposed to the final standards and the final bulk pesticide
containment regulations are presented. These are the standards for which compliance with the
final regulations is estimated for bulk pesticide storage facilities in Chapter 3, and for which the
costs of compliance are estimated in Chapters 4 and 5, and the benefits of compliance are
estimated in Chapter 6. Chapter 2 also presents a description of the changes made in the bulk
pesticide containment regulations from proposed to final.
2.1 Final Bulk Pesticide Containment Regulations
EPA’s final pesticide containment regulations include criteria for design, maintenance, and
operation of bulk pesticide containment structures at agricultural facilities. These criteria are
intended to provide national standards that will introduce basic safeguards in states that currently
lack containment regulations and reinforce containment requirements in states where
containment safety programs already exist. The Agency believes that the federal containment
standards, together with requirements for federal container design and residue removal, are
essential for ensuring the safe use, reuse, and refilling of pesticide containers as required under
FIFRA Section 19.
The final pesticide containment rule defines “bulk” storage requirements for both liquid and dry
agricultural pesticides, and specifies standards for containment structures, including secondary
containment units for stationary bulk containers and containment pads for pesticide dispensing
activities. “Stationary bulk containers” are defined as any bulk containers that hold pesticides,
including transport vehicles (e.g., trucks and railcars). The following qualify as bulk containers
and require secondary containment:
•
•
•

Containers with capacity to store liquid pesticides greater than 1,893 liters (500 gallons);
Containers with capacity to store dry pesticides greater than 1,814 kilograms (4,000 pounds);
and
Mobile containers with capacity greater than 500 gallons or 4000 pounds (only if they remain
more than 30 days at one location).

Under the rule, a “containment structure” is defined to mean either a secondary containment unit
or a containment pad. For compliance, certain stationary bulk containers require a “secondary
containment unit,” which refers to a backup containment structure to protect against leaks or
spills from the bulk container. Such leaks could range from relatively small volumes (e.g., slow
drips from a poorly sealed valve) to the release of the entire contents of the bulk container, such
as during a container failure. The rule also outlines requirements for pesticide dispensing areas,
and covers certain areas where pesticides are transferred out of or into a container or other
vessel. Besides containers, the vessels from which or into which the pesticide is transferred may
include application equipment and transport vehicles. The pesticide being transferred can be in
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 8

the form “as sold and distributed” or in diluted form for field application and/or container
cleaning operations.
Certain pesticide dispensing areas will require protection by a containment pad, which is a
structure that provides a means of spill control at a dispensing area. Under the rule, a
containment pad can be separate or constructed as an integral component of a secondary unit.
Separate categories of requirements are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.
2.2 Standards for New and Existing Pesticide Containment Structures
Until now, the containment of bulk pesticides has been guided only by an interrelated
combination of federal regulations5 and state regulations (see Appendix D for a complete
discussion of these standards). These regulations and standards form the basis for the pesticide
containment regulations. The result is that with a large set of standards already in existence, the
pesticide containment rule is primarily a harmonizing and consolidation exercise, and EPA
estimates that most bulk pesticide storage facilities are in compliance with many aspects of the
rule because these facilities are already meeting a variety of other standards, as discussed in more
detail in the pesticide containment compliance profile (see Chapter 3).
The pesticide containment regulations as described below are the end result of revisions made to
the 1994 proposed standards for pesticide containment structures, based on the public comments
submitted and discussions with a number of interested parties, including other EPA offices,
government agencies, and the regulated community (see Section 2.3 and Appendix F for a
description of the changes made in the containment regulations between the proposed and the
final rule).
The final pesticide containment regulations are divided into two parts: (1) critical performancebased standards for existing structures, and (2) standards for new structures. These standards, as
well as existing state standards and their consideration in the final rule, are discussed below.
2.2.1 Final Critical, Performance-Based Criteria for Existing Containment Structures
Under the final rule, all existing containment structures must meet EPA’s critical standards
(Table 2.1). The Agency believes the critical standards will ensure human and environmental
protection while avoiding excessive retrofitting costs. Based on its State of the States Report
(EPA, 1992) and its own review of the text of state regulations (Appendix C), EPA believes the
critical standards and existing state standards are comparable. Existing structures in states with
or without state standards are required to comply with the critical standards within 2 years after
promulgation of the final rule.
The Agency considers the critical standards to be the minimum requirements needed to ensure
adequate environmental protection. States have the option of requiring existing structures to
meet the full federal standards instead. Given that monthly inspections and recordkeeping must
occur, documentation of a facility’s performance will be available, and states will be able to
make decisions on problematic containment structures on a case-by-case basis. EPA is also
5

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and others.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 9

encouraging states to require that any structure that must undergo significant upgrading to
comply with the critical standards must instead comply with the full federal standards.
Additionally, EPA recommends that states require that any structure enlarged by more than 50
percent capacity or having a record of frequent spills or environmental contamination be
upgraded to comply with the full federal standards.
Table 2.1. Critical Standards for Existing Containment Structures
(1) Bulk storage containers must be located within a rigid, liquid tight secondary containment facility, free of
visible cracks and defects. Cracks and gaps must be repaired, and no pesticide must be stored or dispensed
within the structure until suitable repairs have been made.
(2) The facility must be constructed with pesticide-compatible materials, such as steel or concrete, and be
leakproof with seams and joints sealed. a
(3) Storage containers and appurtenances, including pipes, must be protected against damage from operating
personnel and moving equipment.
(4) At least monthly during periods when pesticides are being stored or dispensed, the owner/operator must
inspect each bulk container and its appurtenances and containment structure for visible signs of leakage.
(5) Spills and leaks must be collected and cleaned up no later than the end of the day on which they occurred.
The structure must be operated in a way that prevents pesticides or material containing pesticides from
escaping from the containment structure.
(6) The secondary containment for bulk liquid pesticides must have a volume sufficient to contain the capacity of
100 percent of the single largest container within it, plus the displaced volume of other containers and
appurtenances.
(7) The secondary containment for bulk dry pesticides must be protected from wind and precipitation, and be
placed on pallets or a raised concrete platform to prevent the accumulation of water in or under the pesticide.
The storage area must be enclosed by a minimum of a six-inch high curb that extends at least two feet beyond
the perimeter of the bulk container.
(8) Pads for operational area containment must be of adequate design and size to contain a minimum of 750
gallons of discharged liquid.
(9) Containment pads must have a means of removing and recovering spilled material or rainfall, such as by a
pump. Automatic pumps without automatic overflow cutoff switches are prohibited.
(10) All pesticide transfers must be attended, and lockable valves, if required by §165.124, must be locked.
a
Some state regulatory agencies define “chemically compatible” as the ability of the containment structure materials
to withstand anticipated exposure to stored or transferred materials without losing their ability to provide the
required containment.

2.2.2 Final Standards for New Pesticide Containment Structures
New structures are required to comply with the full federal standards, which are slightly more
detailed and stringent than the critical standards. All of the critical standards are required of new
structures as well. Standards different from or additional to the critical standards are illustrated
in Table 2.2.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 10

Table 2.2. Bulk Pesticide Containment Standards in Addition to the Critical Standards for
New Containment Structures
(1) Secondary containment for bulk liquid pesticides without protection from precipitation must have a volume
sufficient to contain the capacity of 110 percent of the single largest container within it, plus the displaced
volume of other containers and appurtenances. Secondary containment for bulk liquid pesticides with
protection from precipitation must have a volume sufficient to contain the capacity of 100 percent of the
single largest container within it, plus the displaced volume of other containers and appurtenances.
(2) Containment pads must be sloped to a liquid-tight sump where liquids can be collected for removal.
(3) No appurtenance, discharge outlet, or gravity drain is allowed through the base or wall, except for direct
interconnections between adjacent containment structures that meet the standards.
(4) Appurtenances must be configured so that spills or leaks can be readily observed.

2.2.3 State Pesticide Containment Standards
The Agency believes that national standards are necessary, but recognizes the proactive efforts
many states have made in implementing their own containment regulations, as well as the
substantial financial investments made by facilities in complying with those regulations. Due to
concern that not all states may have regulations that ensure an acceptable level of environmental
protection, EPA conducted an extensive review of existing state regulations (Appendix C). EPA
determined that all regulations, as written, seem to provide equivalent protection (Appendix C),
with the possible exception of states that allow use of earth or asphalt as the construction
material. Three states (Minnesota, Vermont, and Wisconsin) specifically allow earth or asphalt
secondary containment with liners, and six other states (Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North
Dakota, Ohio, and West Virginia) do not specify construction material but give general
performance standards that could be met by lined earth or asphalt. There is evidence that lined
earthen berms in these states are used principally, if not exclusively, for fertilizer storage. While
EPA has no evidence that earth or asphalt with an impermeable liner provides insufficient spill
protection, the final rule is maintaining a more conservative approach by requiring “reinforced
concrete or other rigid, liquid-tight materials.” The Agency determined that despite considerable
variation, most of the 19 states with existing regulations appear to provide equivalent or more
stringent environmental safeguards in their containment programs.
The Agency has decided that states with containment regulations already in place may petition
EPA to make a determination of equivalency of their regulations to the federal containment
regulations. States wishing to request an equivalency determination may submit correspondence
to EPA, accompanied by any supporting documentation, indicating that the state’s program (for
both existing and new structures) provides environmental protection equivalent to that provided
by EPA’s containment regulations. If EPA agrees, states will be provided with correspondence
authorizing them to continue implementation of their state containment program in lieu of the
federal standards.
Facilities in states without containment regulations must comply with federal requirements for
both new and existing structures. Some existing facilities will incur expenses to meet the critical
standards, and all new facilities will have to comply with the full standards. EPA expects this
rule to affect agricultural pesticide refillers; namely, agrichemical dealers and commercial (forhire) agricultural applicator businesses.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 11

Compared to other options that would require states to change their regulations or require
facilities to retrofit to the full standards, EPA has decided that the chosen approach will be less
burdensome for states and for existing facilities.
2.3 Changes in the Final Pesticide Containment Regulations from the Proposed to the
Final Rule
As previously mentioned, EPA received approximately 1,900 pages of comments from more
than 200 commenters (e.g., trade associations, pesticide manufacturers, pesticide retailers, and
many state regulatory agencies) on the proposed rule. Based on these comments, EPA made a
number of changes to the proposed regulations. The most significant of these changes for the
final rule are as follows:
(1) The final rule deletes hydraulic conductivity standards and associated recordkeeping and
inventory reconciliation.
(2) The final rule deletes the interim standards, and establishes a set of standards for existing
structures and more stringent full standards for new structures.
(3) The final rule adjusts capacity standards for new and existing structures.
(4) The final rule reduces recordkeeping responsibilities.
(5) The final rule changes the size requirement of bulk containers.
As a result of these and other changes (as discussed below and in Appendix F), the estimated
economic impacts on the regulated community under the final regulations will be different from
the estimated economic impacts under the proposed regulations (see Chapters 5 and 6 for a
comparison of the estimated costs and benefits of the proposed and final regulations,
respectively). The changes made to the proposed containment regulations are described under
the following main areas: (1) general requirements (Section 2.3.1); (2) capacity standards
(Section 2.3.2); (3) interim standards (Section 2.3.3); and (4) scope of the standards (Section
2.3.4).
2.3.1 General Requirements
Comments received by EPA pertaining to the proposed rule’s general requirements are divided
into five groups: (1) containment design, (2) standards for sumps, (3) recordkeeping,
(4) rainwater management and (5) rinsate management.
Containment Design. The proposed rule required that containment structures be sufficiently
resistant to penetration by pesticides to prevent leaching and release. It specified that structures
had to meet specific quantitative criteria for hydraulic conductivity (1 x 10-6 cm/sec for existing
structures and 1 x 10-7 cm/sec for new structures) (§165.146). Well-constructed concrete has
been demonstrated to have a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-7 cm/sec or less, the standard
proposed for wood preservative drip pads under RCRA. Few state regulations require a
hydraulic conductivity standard, and most that do cite a value of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec for liners. The
proposed rule also required that containment walls be pesticide-resistant, and that containment
units be constructed of reinforced concrete or other rigid material capable of withstanding the
full hydrostatic head, load, and impact of any pesticides, equipment, and appurtenances placed
within the structure (§165.146).

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 12

Based on an analysis of the public comments submitted and current technology, the Agency
determined that use of a numeric hydraulic conductivity standard for secondary containment
would be unnecessarily burdensome. For the final rule, EPA decided to eliminate the hydraulic
conductivity standard from the requirements since such a numeric standard would result in a
substantial increase in cost without a demonstrable equivalent benefit for environmental safety.
Furthermore, compliance with this standard could not be readily proven on existing structures.
Instead, based on state agency comments, EPA decided that effective pesticide secondary
containment by the structures would be satisfactorily achieved if properly constructed,
maintained, and inspected. Field experience with existing state standards further indicates that
the requirement for a hydraulic conductivity standard would be excessive. The regulatory
language in the final rule therefore eliminates any reference to the hydraulic conductivity
standard or the interim period. The word “resistant” was replaced with “compatible,” due to
comments by states that “pesticide-resistant” would be difficult to define, and that compatible
can be defined as a material’s ability to withstand anticipated exposure to stored or transferred
materials.
Sump Standards. The proposed rule required that the base of a containment pad slope toward a
liquid-tight sump (for new but not existing pads), as well as requiring a method for removing
accumulated liquids (§165.152(b)(2)). The standards prohibited any automatically activated
pumps that lack automatic overflow cutoff switches for the receiving container. EPA requested
comments on whether performance criteria for the sump should differ from general containment
requirements.
For the final regulations, EPA concluded that since the general standards for containment
structures also apply to sumps, which are an integral part of the containment structure, sumps
must be liquid-tight with sealed seams and joints. Since spills and leaks must be collected and
cleaned up no later than the end of the day on which they occurred, sumps would not be allowed
to retain leaked pesticides or wash water. However, even a regularly cleaned sump may
contaminate surrounding areas if it is not liquid-tight. The Agency concluded that the sump’s
adherence to the standard could be demonstrated in a number of ways, although compliance
monitoring will be left to local enforcement officials familiar with conditions in their area.
Recordkeeping. The proposed rule required facilities to maintain records on inspection,
maintenance, and monthly inventory reconciliation of containment structures for at least 3 years.
Records were also required for bulk containers not protected by secondary containment,
including records on their duration at the same location (§165.157). The rule proposed that
facilities would have to maintain written confirmation of hydraulic conductivity as long as the
containment structure was in use and for 3 years thereafter. Monthly inventory reconciliation
was required only during the proposed interim period as a means to detect leakage from bulk
containers that are difficult to inspect for leaks (e.g., containers that are not elevated).
For the final rule, EPA retained the requirement for recordkeeping of monthly containment
inspections as a necessary standard procedure. However, since the numerical hydraulic
conductivity standard was eliminated from the final rule requirements, recordkeeping on that
issue and on inventory reconciliation is no longer required. In response to comments on the
rule’s proposed residence time, the Agency decided to raise the residence time for non-fixed bulk
containers to 30 days. Bulk container status, including residence time, will be included in the

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 13

monthly inspection recordkeeping, providing relief to facilities from circumstances outside their
control.
Rainwater Management. Precipitation may enter a containment structure either directly or
through stormwater runoff from surrounding land or structures. EPA is especially concerned
about containment structures on poorly drained areas. To reduce stormwater runoff, the
proposed rule required that containment be designed, at a minimum, to prevent liquids from
seeping into it or flowing onto it from adjacent land or structures during a 25-year, 24-hour
rainfall event (§165.146(b)(1)). The 25-year, 24-hour storm criterion is used by the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) as a standard for containment structures, and
some states have adopted it as a standard for pesticide secondary containment.6
After reviewing the comments to the proposed rule, the Agency decided not to require a 25-year,
24-hour storm criterion. This is consistent with the final EPA rule on Oil Pollution Prevention
and Response: Non-Transportation-Related Onshore and Offshore Facilities (67 FR 47042, July
17, 2002). The oil pollution prevention rule states that while a 25-year, 24-hour storm event
standard is appropriate for most facilities and protective of the environment, it may be difficult
and expensive for some facilities to secure recent information concerning such storm events at
this time. Recent data do not exist for all areas of the United States, or may be costly for small
operators to secure. Instead, at this time, the final rule requires that the containment structure
have sufficient freeboard to contain precipitation and prevent water and other liquids from
seeping into or flowing onto it from adjacent land or structures. Most states with containment
regulations do not use a 25-year, 24-hour storm criterion and have indicated that in their
experience, requiring a numerical capacity (110 percent) or sufficient freeboard to accommodate
local precipitation conditions provides adequate protection.
Rinsate Management. The proposed rule specifically exempted bulk containers containing
rinsates or wash waters from the requirement for secondary containment, because EPA did not
have sufficient information on the risks from storage of such dilute pesticides (§165.142).
The final rule recommends but does not require that new facilities place rinsate tanks within
secondary containment. State regulations can be more stringent and require rinsate tanks within
secondary containment, if they deem it necessary. During the rule’s implementation, EPA will
work with states and industry to develop guidance on good management practices, including a
recommendation that rinsate tanks be placed on or in secondary containment. The Agency
believes that many existing structures are not constructed to accommodate rinsate tanks, and that
the low potential risk from release of such dilute solutions does not warrant a regulation that may
be economically burdensome. EPA expects that rinsate is used as a diluent and that facilities
typically maintain low rinsate inventories. In new facilities that wish to follow the
recommendations (or that are required to do so by state law), somewhat larger secondary
containment will incur minor additional costs to account for the volume of the rinsate tank
(usually not the largest tank within the containment).

6

The standard represents a 24-hour rainfall event with a probable recurrence interval of once in 25 years (National
Weather Service, 1961).

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 14

2.3.2 Capacity Standards
The proposed containment rule specified capacity standards for liquid bulk containers, dry bulk
containers, and containment pads. The following are summaries of the proposed standards as
well as EPA’s decision for the final rule.
Liquid Bulk. For liquid bulk pesticides in outdoor facilities, EPA’s proposed permanent
standards required that secondary containment structures have a minimum holding capacity of at
least 125 percent of the volume of the largest container, plus the displaced volume of other
containers and appurtenances. For indoor facilities not exposed to precipitation, a capacity of
110 percent of the largest container volume plus the displaced volume was required. During the
interim period, capacity requirements were proposed at 110 percent (outdoor) and 100 percent
(indoor) of the volume of the largest pesticide container plus the displaced volume.
EPA believes that many of the public comments on the proposed capacity standards for liquid
pesticide containment presented reasonable alternatives to the proposed rule. Existing outdoor
facilities with 110 percent capacity have had no reported overflows. The proposed 125 percent
capacity for outdoor liquid bulk can be reduced to 110 percent without sacrificing environmental
protection. The alternative of a six-inch freeboard (approximately equal to a 25-year, 24-hour
storm capacity in certain states) would be inappropriate for dryer states. Although it is unlikely
(but possible) that a heavy storm would occur on the same day as the complete failure of a
completely full tank, the extra 10 percent capacity is easily calculated and will ensure that such
an event would not result in overflow. An extra 10 percent is not needed indoors as long as the
displaced volume of other tanks and appurtenances within the containment has been included.
Thus, EPA decided to retain the 110 percent (outdoor) and 100 percent (indoor) capacity
requirement for bulk liquid pesticide storage for both new and existing facilities.
Dry Bulk. For dry bulk pesticides, EPA’s proposed standards required that secondary
containment structures have a minimum holding capacity of at least 100 percent of the largest
dry bulk container plus any displaced volume.
The Agency believes that the public comments submitted on this issue provide adequate
justification for treating dry bulk differently than liquid bulk. Instead of specifying a percent
capacity requirement, the final rule requires that dry pesticides be protected from wind and rain
by being raised on pallets or a concrete platform to prevent the flow of water in or under the
pesticide. The structure must be enclosed by a six-inch high curb that extends at least two feet
beyond the perimeter of the container.
Pads. The proposed standards for new structures required that all containment pads have a
minimum holding capacity of 1,000 gallons. If no equipment used on the pad exceeded 1,000
gallons, then at least 100 percent of the capacity of the largest equipment used on the pad was
required.
After reviewing public comments on the proposed capacity standards for containment pads, the
Agency agreed that there was little documentation to support a choice of a 1,000 gallon capacity,
and little difference, in function, between a 1,000 gallon pad and a 750-gallon pad. The final
rule requires a pad capacity of 750 gallons, or, if no container on the pad exceeds 750 gallons, a
minimum capacity of 100 percent of the volume of the largest container or pesticide-holding
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 15

equipment on the pad. The Agency believes that such a pad will provide environmental
protection, since the requirement that transfers be attended by an operator makes it unlikely that
an entire tank or nurse truck would empty onto the pad before remedial action could be taken.
2.3.3 Interim Standards for Existing Structures
EPA’s proposal specified requirements for new and existing containment structures and pads by
describing full and interim standards, respectively. A number of requirements applied to both
new and existing containment structures and pads, applicable after a 2-year “interim” period,
including: (1) construction with rigid materials; (2) use of pesticide-resistant materials;
(3) stormwater run-on protection for a 25-year, 24-hour storm; (4) anchoring of non-elevated
bulk containers; (5) protection of appurtenances and containers; (6) sealed joints and cracks;
(7) capacity requirements; and (8) hydraulic conductivity less than or equal to 1 x 10-6 cm/sec.
Standards applicable to new structures after the first 2 years and existing structures after an
additional 8-year “interim” period included: (1) hydraulic conductivity less than or equal to
1 x 10-7 cm/sec; (2) plumbing configured to facilitate leak detection; (3) no drains or pipes
penetrating the containment structure; (4) minimum secondary containment capacity based on
110 percent/125 percent (indoors/outdoors) of the largest liquid container and on 100 percent of
the largest dry bulk container; (5) bulk containers elevated for leak observation; and (6) pads
sloped to sumps.
After reviewing the public comments, the Agency agrees that the interim standards and interim
period are less desirable than some of the suggested alternatives. The Agency considered
grandfathering all existing structures, but was concerned that some substandard structures might
be allowed to operate virtually “forever” without a need to retrofit. Although the Agency
estimates that more than 80 percent of containment structures and pads are in states with
containment regulations, there remain many pesticide storage facilities that require secondary
containment structures and pads in non-regulated states. Grandfathering these structures with no
time limit for compliance would have presented unknown environmental risks. The Agency
therefore decided to promulgate two sets of permanent standards, one for existing and one for
new structures. For any existing facilities that must undergo significant renovations to comply
with the critical standards, EPA is recommending that states encourage such facilities to make
the additional effort to come into compliance with the full standards. States continue to have the
option of requiring existing structures to comply with the full federal standards. To
accommodate states with containment regulations already in place, the Agency is allowing states
to petition for an equivalency determination (discussed in Section 2.2.3).
2.3.4 Scope of the Containment Regulations
The proposed scope was based on EPA’s ability to characterize the potential contamination
problems at bulk pesticide storage facilities, incorporating evidence of contamination and a
reasonably accurate estimate of the number of each type of facility. The scope under the
proposed rule included retail refillers and commercial applicators with bulk agricultural
pesticides but specifically excluded some groups, including farms, distributor/registrants, and
non-agricultural facilities.
For the final rule, EPA decided to keep the scope the same as in the proposal, since commenters
did not provide sufficient evidence of contamination or other problems at these facilities.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 16

However, if a pervasive pattern of contamination or other handling problems at any of the
excluded sites arises, EPA will consider the need for future federal regulation at that time.
In the proposed scope, containers that hold undivided quantities of agricultural pesticides greater
than 793 gallons of liquid pesticide or greater than 4,409 pounds of dry pesticide were subject to
the containment regulations. Many commenters recommended reducing the capacity threshold
for containers for which secondary containment is required. Based on these comments, the
Agency has decided to reduce the capacity threshold to 500 gallons for containers holding liquid
pesticide and to 4,000 pounds for containers holding dry pesticides.
As modified, the final bulk pesticide containment standards form the basis for the remainder of
the analysis.
2.4 Comparison of the Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Final and Proposed Standards
As described in Section 2.3, EPA made a number of significant changes to the pesticide
container standards from the proposed to the final standards. As a result, there are differences in
the level of compliance with these standards, leading to differences in the estimated costs and
benefits of compliance with the pesticide containment standards between the proposed and final
rule. Tables 2.3 and 2.4 present the estimated costs and benefits of compliance for the final and
proposed pesticide containment standards.
Table 2.3. Annual Compliance Cost Comparison Between the Final and Proposed
Pesticide Containment Standards (2005$)
Compliance Cost for Final
Containment Standards a

Cost Item

Compliance Cost for Proposed
Containment Standards b

$2.94 million

$12.96 million

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers

$2.71 million

$10.82 million

Commercial Applicators

$0.23 million

$2.14 million

Total Cost of Compliance by Standard
New Containment Structures

$2.69 million

$9.71 million

Total Cost of Compliance
Total Cost of Compliance by Regulated Industry

Retrofitting Existing Containment
$0.25 million
$3.25 million
Structures
a
Cost based on 3 percent discount rate. See Chapter 4 and 5 for the cost analysis of the pesticide containment
regulations.
b
Based on the costs estimated for Regulatory Option 2 in the proposed rule RIA for pesticide containers, which was
EPA’s preferred option in the proposed rule. The figures are inflated to 2005 dollars to account for general price
inflation over the period using CPI-U “All Items” (BLS, 2005)

The total cost of compliance with the final standards is estimated to be lower than the estimated
total cost of compliance with the proposed standards (see Table 2.3). This is primarily the result
of the changes in the rule requirements from the proposed to final rule. One of the significant
changes between the proposed and final pesticide containment rule is the elimination of the
interim period requirements to retrofit existing structures and also elimination of the more costly
requirements of the proposed rule, such as the hydraulic conductivity standard and reduction in
the capacity requirements. The annualized cost of the final rule is also lower because it extends
the time for which costs are calculated from a 15-year period to a 20-year period. Differences
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 17

between estimated costs of the proposed and final rules are also partially attributable to the fact
that more states regulate pesticide bulk storage facilities. However, the bulk of reduction in costs
is due to changes in regulatory requirements rather than changes in the size of the regulated
community. Chapters 4 and 5 present more details on the specific cost items for the final and
proposed rule.
Table 2.4. Comparison of Benefits for the Proposed and Final Containment Standards
(2005$)
Final Containment Standards a

Benefit Category

Proposed Containment Standards b

Human Health-Related Benefits
Not Estimated
Non-Human Health-Related Benefits
Probability of Release
• 1%
Facilities with Accidental
Release

•

5811 facilities

•

1.5%

•

3000 facilities

Avoided Costs of
• $12.2 million to $18.6 million
• $9.3 million to $15.6 million
Remediation
a
See Chapter 6.
b
The figures are inflated to 2005 dollars to account for general price inflation over the period using CPI-U “All
Items” (BLS, 2005).

The benefits from the final containment regulations exceed those from the proposed containment
regulations, with the estimated benefits ranging from $12.2 million to $18.6 million under the
final rule as compared to $9.3 million to $15.6 million from the proposed regulation (see Table
2.4). The differences arise because of the assumptions used in the calculation of avoided costs of
remediation (see Chapter 6).
In summary, Chapter 2 presented the final bulk pesticide containment regulations. Specific
details of the containment regulation standards were described for both the new and existing
containment structures. Changes in regulation from the proposed to the final standards were also
presented. The most significant changes included deletion of the hydraulic conductivity
standards, deletion of the interim standards and more stringent full standards for new structures.
The final rule also adjusts capacity standards for new and existing structures and reduces the
record keeping responsibilities. This chapter also presented the responses to the comments
received to the proposed rule. Based on the comments received the final rule lowers the size
threshold of liquid bulk containers from 793 gallons to 500 gallons. Finally, this chapter
provided a comparison of the cost and benefits from the final and proposed rule.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 18

3.0 Baseline Compliance Profile of the Regulated Community
This chapter establishes a baseline regulatory compliance profile of facilities affected by the final
pesticide containment rule, which specifies standards for both new and existing containment
structures. The first two sections of this chapter discuss the development of a baseline regulatory
compliance profile, including the number of facilities expected to install new containment
structures or to retrofit existing containment structures for both agricultural pesticide refillers
(i.e., agrichemical dealers) (Section 3.1) and agricultural commercial applicators (Section 3.2).
Section 3.3 presents an economic profile of agricultural pesticide refillers and agricultural
commercial applicators.
The regulated community affected by the pesticide containment regulations are facilities that use
one or more stationary bulk agricultural pesticide containers, mobile bulk agricultural pesticide
containers that remain in one location for at least 30 consecutive days, and containment pads for
agricultural pesticide dispensing areas. Affected facilities include farm supply and agrichemical
dealers, commercial aerial and ground applicators not associated with a dealership, and other
farm sector industries. These agricultural businesses sell pesticides to the end user and/or apply
pesticides as a service.
Several factors influence U.S. agricultural businesses’ use of bulk pesticide storage for particular
pesticide products. Demand for a particular pesticide is among the most critical factors
determining whether a specific pesticide is stored in bulk quantities. Without sufficient demand,
agrichemical dealers would not find it economically feasible to store a pesticide in bulk
quantities. The size of the overall regional or national market area for a pesticide is also a
determining factor, since special transportation equipment is needed to ship bulk quantities of
pesticides (Bradley, 1991). Therefore, most bulk pesticide storage at the dealer level is
associated with pesticides for crops that are extensively grown within the area served by the
dealership, as well as on a broader regional and/or national scale.
The price of a pesticide may also influence which products are likely to be stored in bulk.
Dealers are not generally willing to assume the liability of storing large volumes of concentrated
pesticide (Lewis, 1991). Currently, EPA’s Bulk Pesticides Enforcement Policy July, 1977 (41
FR 55932) allows dealers to refill containers designed and constructed to accommodate volumes
exceeding 55 gallons. The feasibility of bulk storage at the dealer level depends, however, on
the purchase of large quantities of pesticides by end users. In many cases, dealers also require
customers to accept custom application services provided by the dealer. An alternative involves
a dealer that has a licensed repackaging agreement with the pesticide manufacturer to permit
dispensing of the product into containers designed with a capacity of 55 gallons or less. Industry
representatives, trying to promote the trend toward using refillable containers, have increased the
use of “toll” repackaging agreements to facilitate use of 15 and 30 gallon refillable containers.7
The safeguards specified in the Bulk Pesticides Enforcement Policy are incorporated in the final
container regulations through the requirements regarding registrant and refilling establishment

7

EPA policy allows manufacturers to enter into agreements with dealers for the repackaging of pesticide products.
There are two types of repackaging: bulk and contract/toll. Toll repackaging involves the use of containers less than
56 gallons liquid or 100 pounds dry capacity.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 19

repackaging responsibilities. The Bulk Pesticides Enforcement Policy will be rescinded after the
regulations are final.
Bulk storage of pesticides is closely correlated with specific major crops. Based on information
from state agencies and pesticide manufacturers, most bulk pesticide storage is associated with
the production of corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, and cotton. Other crops include peanuts and apple
and pear orchards (Lewis, 1991; Bradley, 1991; Musselman, 1991; Kirby, 1991; Broadbent,
1991). Regional production patterns of these crops are also reflected in the use of bulk storage
for pesticides.
Pesticides stored in bulk are usually those applied at relatively high rates per acre, typically
greater than 1 gallon per acre (Musselman, 1991). Pesticides typically applied at low rates per
acre do not generate sufficient demand for dealers to store them in bulk quantities (Fulton, 1991;
Gingery, 1991); examples are pesticides for minor crops, pesticides for major crops that are
grown only to a limited extent in a given area, pesticides that are not popular with the farmers in
the service area, and pesticides targeting pests that are seldom of economic concern.
Herbicides, which account for nearly one-half of total agricultural pesticide use (EPA, 2002), are
more frequently stored in bulk containers at the dealer level than are other types of pesticides
(Fulton, 1991). Corn herbicides, in particular, are the main pesticide stored in liquid bulk
containers by dealers, according to state agricultural agency representatives and various pesticide
manufacturers (Musselman, 1991; Lewis, 1991; Bradley, 1991). Several contacts indicated that
bulk storage of agricultural pesticides is common primarily in the Midwestern Corn Belt states,
many of which have existing regulations governing the bulk storage of pesticides. However,
according to industry representatives, use of bulk storage is increasing, and some companies are
beginning to offer bulk quantities in states that have no experience in containment of large
pesticide tanks, particularly in the southern United States.
The majority of bulk pesticide storage facilities affected by this rule are classified in the farm
supplies industry under one North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code,
422910–Farm Supplies Wholesalers (SIC code 5190). NAICS 422910 includes both farm
supply dealers and fertilizer dealers (frequently referred to as agrichemical facilities or
businesses), as well as other establishments engaged in the distribution of animal feeds,
fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, pesticides, seeds, and other farm supplies, except grains (U.S.
Department of Commerce, 2002). Agricultural (aerial and ground) commercial applicators are
also affected by the rule. A majority of these industries are classified under NAICS 115112–Soil
Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating. A number of agricultural services, such as cultivation,
pollination, detasseling of corn, hoeing, and pruning, are included under this NAICS code. The
following sections provide an overview of the potential number of affected agricultural pesticide
refilling and commercial applicator facilities under the rule.
This economic analysis considers alternative definitions of small entities or businesses
potentially affected by the containment regulations by disaggregating SBA-defined small
businesses into three size categories: small-small (SS), medium-small (MS), and large-small
(LS) businesses. EPA proposed alternative definitions of small businesses for some industry
sectors in the 1999 Supplemental Notice on Standards for Pesticide Containers and Containment
(EPA, 1999). EPA is concerned that using an overly broad definition of small business in the

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 20

economic analysis of the containment regulations may result in significant economic impacts on
smaller entities that will be camouflaged when combined with information about potential
impacts on facilities that meet the SBA size standard for small business but are not typical of a
small business in that industry sector.
Table 3.1 presents a summary of the industries likely to be affected by the final pesticide
containment standards, highlighting industries that are included in the cost analysis. The
majority of affected businesses are agrichemical facilities that serve as refilling establishments
(agricultural pesticide refillers) and agricultural (aerial and ground) commercial applicators.
Agricultural commercial applicators and other business types comprise about one-third of the
number of affected establishments under the rule. Two of the industry sectors considered in the
1999 supplemental notice were pesticide agrichemical dealers and independent commercial
applicators. These regulated entities correspond with agricultural pesticide refillers and
commercial applicators, respectively, in this economic analysis (EA).
Table 3.1. Industries Regulated by EPA’s Containment Regulations
Affected Industries
Agricultural pesticide
refillers
(NAICS 422910, Farm
Supplies Wholesalers)
Facilities with bulk
pesticide storage only.

Included
in EA
(Y/N)

Y

Notes
All agricultural pesticide refillers. a Outdoor and indoor facilities that store
liquid and/or dry bulk pesticides, requiring both secondary containment
units and containment pads. Includes non-bulk facilities that handle or
dispense bulk pesticides, requiring a containment pad. The EA focuses on
stationary storage units. Mobile storage units are assumed not to be
affected by the rule.
SBA Definitions b

EPA Alternative Definitions

Small

Small-Small

1 to 9 employees

Medium-Small

10 to 49 employees

Large-Small

50 to 100 employees

Large

101 or more
employees

Large

100 or fewer
employees

101 or more
employees

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 21

Table 3.1. Industries Regulated by EPA’s Containment Regulations (Continued)
Agricultural
commercial
applicators
(NAICS 115112 Soil
Preparation, Planting,
and Cultivating)
Facilities with bulk
pesticide storage only.

Y

All aerial applicators; large ground applicators. a Outdoor facilities that
store liquid bulk pesticides, requiring both secondary containment units and
containment pads. The EA assumes that all independent applicators store
bulk pesticides outdoors only, and that they do not store dry bulk
pesticides. Non-bulk facilities that handle/dispense bulk pesticides are not
examined separately in the economic analysis.
SBA Definitions b

EPA Alternative Definitions

Small

Small-Small

1 plane plus $93,750
in sales

Medium-Small

2 to 4 planes plus
$375,000 in sales

Large-Small

5 or more planes plus
$750,000 in sales

Large

Revenues greater than
$6.0 million

Large

Maximum
revenues of
$6.0 million

Revenues
greater than
$6.0 million

It is assumed that most of these facilities are captured within estimates of
either agricultural pesticide refillers and/or agricultural commercial
applicators. No data are available on the few independent facilities that
may be affected by the rule.

Custom blenders

N

Seed treatment
facilities

N

Forestry businesses

N

Most forestry businesses are assumed not to be affected by the rule, based
on a review of pesticide storage practices. No data are available on the few
facilities that may be potentially affected by the rule.

Farm sites

N

Not covered by scope of rule.

a

Facilities without secondary containment units and containment pads will be affected by the standards for new
containment structures; facilities that have secondary containment units and containment pads and are not in
compliance with the critical performance-based standards will be affected by requirements for existing containment
structures.
b
The SBA definition is based on the primary NAICS code or codes that best represent(s) the regulated entity.

Several other types of agricultural businesses may have bulk and non-bulk pesticide storage
facilities requiring containment structures that are not covered in this EA: independent custom
blenders and seed treatment facilities, forestry businesses, and farm sites.8 Custom blenders are
typically identified either as agricultural pesticide refillers or, more rarely, as commercial
applicators (Eckermann, 1991; Owens, 1991; Licht, 1991; Faulconer, 1991).
Similarly, seed treatment businesses may be affiliated with dealers or are considered dealers
under state regulations. Since the majority of these businesses are likely to be included in the
number of agricultural pesticide refillers and independent applicators, these businesses are not
considered separately in the cost analysis. Although independent businesses will be affected by
the containment regulations, data on these facilities are not available. Furthermore, the number
of facilities is likely to be small based on information obtained from state agricultural agency
staff and other industry experts.
8

A more detailed discussion of the rationale for excluding these businesses from the cost analysis is provided in
EPA (1993a).

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 22

Businesses involved in commercial timber production are among the end users of pesticide
products that may store pesticides on-site. Nevertheless, based on information obtained from
forestry business representatives, the U.S. Forest Service and state-level forestry agents, forestryrelated businesses are not included in the scope of the new containment regulations. None of the
large commercial timberland businesses that we contacted store pesticides in stationary bulk
containers (Crooker, 1991; Gomersall, 1991; Stilwell, 1991), and some businesses claimed not to
store any pesticides at their timberland facilities (Borem, 1991; Striley, 1991). Businesses that
provide forest maintenance services are also unlikely to have permanent bulk storage facilities
for pesticides (Striley, 1991). Furthermore, timberland businesses commonly contract out
pesticide application services (Borem, 1991; Gomersall, 1991; Stilwell, 1991; Striley, 1991).
Many large commercial timberland businesses, as well as state and federal forest service
agencies, have specific operating procedures and practices that set standards for pesticides use
and storage. These guidelines typically meet or exceed state requirements (Crooker, 1991;
Parker, 1991; Stilwell, 1991; Striley, 1991). Although some forestry businesses may be affected
by the regulations, data are not available to include them in the economic analysis.
Finally, farm sites may also use bulk storage and permanent mixing and loading facilities. Use
of bulk storage and permanent mixing and loading facilities on farms varies considerably among
states and among regions. Information from most state experts indicates that few farms store
pesticides in bulk quantities, as defined by EPA’s containment regulations (Coldman, 1991;
Fulton, 1991; Vest, 1991). Current disincentives for on-farm bulk storage include the expense of
permanent facilities and the increased handling requirements (Owens, 1991). However, bulk
farm storage may be common in some states (Donaldson, 1991; Faulconer, 1991; Owens, 1991).
When on-farm bulk storage is used, a large farm may store more of a chemical than a small
dealership (Faulconer, 1991). In the western states, agricultural pesticide refillers loan out
mobile pesticide storage units to farmers who purchase bulk quantities of chemicals, to allow
farmers to store chemicals in the field prior to use (Donaldson, 1991). A few of the largest
growers may own their own bulk storage tanks for similar purposes.
Farms with bulk pesticide storage are not included in this economic analysis because EPA did
not include farms under the scope of the rule. Farms engage only occasionally in bulk pesticide
activities, and there is limited evidence that contamination originating from farm mixer/loader
pads is widespread, as compared to environmental contamination from refilling establishments.
Moreover, data are not available to estimate the number of farms with bulk pesticide storage. A
representative of the Illinois Department of Agriculture asserted that there are three farms in
Illinois with storage of over 300 gallons of pesticides, while the Kansas Department of
Agriculture estimates that six farms statewide store pesticides in bulk containers (EPA, 2005). A
contact from the Colorado Department of Agriculture said there are very few pesticide containers
over 500 gallons on farms in Colorado (EPA, 2005). Comments submitted to EPA by some state
regulatory agencies suggest that there are less than six farmer locations with bulk containers
greater than 500 gallons in Minnesota. While these estimates suggest that few farms have bulk
storage of pesticides, other state contacts suggested that the practice is more common. A statelevel contact estimated that less than 1 percent of all farms in Iowa (about 800), and 3 percent of
all farms in the United States (about 62,000 farms), may store pesticides in bulk tanks (Owens,
1991). A representative of the Washington State Department of Agriculture estimated that 15%
of farms have pesticide tanks larger than 500 gallons, although it is possible that this figure

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 23

includes fertilizer tanks, as well (EPA, 2005). These estimates are much higher than an earlier
estimate of 1,500 farms, based on 50 percent of all corn, soybean, and cotton farms that have
sufficient acreage to use more than 3,000 liters of herbicides in a year. At this time, there is
insufficient information to justify including farms in the rule.
3.1 Compliance Profile of Agricultural Pesticide Refillers
Agricultural pesticide refilling facilities affected by the pesticide containment regulations include
sites with bulk pesticide storage (liquid and dry) and dealers without bulk storage that conduct
pesticide dispensing activities requiring a containment pad. We derived an estimate of the
number of these regulated facilities from previous estimates of all agricultural pesticide refillers
in the United States, adjusted for available state industry statistics and methodological
assumptions. Specifically, we provide estimates of the number of affected facilities for the
following categories of agricultural pesticide refillers: (1) the total number of agricultural
pesticide refillers that qualify as refilling establishments; (2) a subcategory of all refilling
establishments, representing the number of agricultural pesticide refillers with bulk pesticide
tanks; (3) agricultural pesticide refillers with bulk tanks but without secondary containment that
will need to install new structures; and (4) agricultural pesticide refillers with bulk tanks that
have substandard secondary containment and will need to retrofit existing structures. These
estimates are described in the following sections and presented in Tables G.1 through G.4 of
Appendix G.
3.1.1 Total Number of Agricultural Pesticide Refillers
Data on agricultural pesticide refillers with bulk pesticide storage subject to the pesticide
containment regulations (with bulk tank capacity greater than 500 gallons or 4,000 pounds) are
not available for the nation as a whole. Instead, a state- and regional-based approach was used to
develop an estimate of the current status of bulk pesticide storage facilities. This approach was
deemed necessary given the significant differences in the use of bulk pesticide storage
nationwide, as well as differences in bulk pesticide storage regulations among states. Although
pesticides are used on most crops in most parts of the country, few pesticides are used in such
quantities in a given area to warrant the storage of bulk quantities at the dealer level. Where
available, data are supplemented by information obtained from state-level personnel in key
agricultural states.9
The number of agricultural pesticide refillers is based on published national and state-level data.
Published data sources include American Business Information and the U.S. Department of
Commerce, both of which provide a national overview of the number of farm supply and
fertilizer dealerships by state. Since these aggregate estimates tend to overestimate the actual
number of facilities, given the inclusion of businesses that are not actually involved in selling
agricultural chemicals, the number of refilling establishments is estimated from available state
information.10 These data are then adjusted to focus only on those facilities that store pesticides
in bulk quantities, with capacity subject to the regulations (i.e., greater than 500 gallons or 4,000
9

According to CropLife America, there are increasing numbers of bulk facilities being built in states without bulk
containment structures. However, no data are currently available to substantiate these claims.
10
As shown in Table G.1, similarities exist between the published data and various state-level estimates of the
number of agricultural pesticide refilling (agrichemical) facilities, although there are significant differences in some
states.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 24

pounds), and/or those that have pesticide dispensing areas. NAICS- and/or SIC-based data are
used when more detailed state estimates are not available or where available information is
contradictory or inconsistent.
As shown in Table 3.2, an estimated 16,795 refilling facilities could potentially sell agricultural
chemicals (though not necessarily store them in bulk containers). This estimate is from the
proposed EPA containment rule RIA, which is based on 1992 data. By using these data, EPA
assumes that the number of facilities in the industry did not change since 1992. The information
on commercial applicators presented in Table 3.2 is discussed in Section 3.2. The number of
agricultural refillers is further adjusted, as described below, to reflect the number of facilities that
store bulk quantities of pesticides on-site and/or that engage in handling/dispensing activities that
require containment structures. Approximately 5,040 bulk facilities (includes 175 facilities with
dry containers) located at agricultural pesticide refilling establishments are affected, because the
bulk tank containment regulations only affect tanks greater than 500 gallons or 4,000 pounds in
capacity.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 25

Table 3.2. Regulatory Compliance Baseline, Agricultural Pesticide Refillers and
Commercial (Aerial and Ground) Applicators
Secondary
Containment c

Facilities
with Bulk
Storage b

With

Without

With

Without

5,040 b

4,548 c

491

4,206 d

834

Retail Dry bulk
(>4,409 lbs)

175 e

147 f

28

--

--

Non-bulk

561 g

--

--

--

561

3,000 h

210 i

189 j

21

175 j

35

2,000

160

144

16

134

26

Type of Applicator

Total

Containment Pad c

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers
Total Agrichemical Dealers

16,795 a

Retail Liquid bulk
(>500 gal)

Commercial Applicators
Total Commercial Applicators
Aerial applicators

Ground applicators
1,000
50
45
5
42
8
Totals may not add due to rounding.
a
See Table G.1.
b
See Table G.2.
c
Assumes that 100% of facilities in regulated states and that 40% of facilities in non-regulated states have
containment structures in place. Remaining facilities are assumed to not have containment structures and will need
to install both secondary containment structures and pads. This estimate is derived from the proposed EPA
containment rule RIA. (See Table G.2.)
d
Assumes that 100% of facilities in regulated states and 25% of facilities in non-regulated states have containment
structures in place. Remaining facilities are assumed to not have containment pads and will need to install pads.
This estimate is derived from the proposed containment rule RIA. (See Table G.2.)
e
These facilities are part of the 5,040 bulk liquid facilities because it is assumed that dry bulk containers are jointly
located at facilities that also have liquid bulk storage. This forecast is taken from the proposed EPA containment
rule RIA, based on a review of state agency and industry information.
f
Assumes that 90% (158 facilities) of dry bulk facilities are located in eight states (IN, IL, IA, MI, MN, ND, OH,
SD). Based on a review of containment regulations in these states, weighted against the number of liquid bulk
facilities in these states, 140 facilities (89%) are in compliance. Among the facilities in the remaining states, it is
assumed that 40% (seven facilities) are in compliance, given lack of better information. Assumes all dry bulk
containment facilities are jointly located at facilities that also have liquid bulk storage.
g
Difference between the number of bulk dealers with bulk liquid containment less than 55 gallons and the number
of facilities with containment greater than 500 gallons. (See Table G.2.)
h
American Business Information reported an estimated 3,936 independent applicator facilities in 1992. For this
analysis, it is assumed that 2,000 are aerial applicators (National Agricultural Aviation Association, 2001). An
estimated 1,000 ground applicator facilities are assumed. The remaining facilities are not reviewed because it is
assumed that they do not handle/dispense bulk pesticides.
i
Based on industry and state-level data, it is assumed that an overall estimate of 8 percent of all aerial applicators
(160 facilities) have bulk pesticide storage containers greater than 500 gallons or 4,409 pounds. About 5 percent of
the estimated number of independent ground applicators (50 facilities) are assumed to have bulk storage facilities for
agricultural pesticides in containers greater than 500 gallons or 4,409 pounds.
j
Based on information for agricultural pesticide refillers (see Table G.2), 90% of all agrichemical bulk facilities are
in compliance with the secondary containment standards and 83% of facilities are expected to be in compliance with
the containment pad standards. Assumes that the estimated number of facilities without secondary containment
units also do not have pads (i.e., 10 aerial applicator facilities and three ground applicator facilities will require
containment pads only).

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 26

The following sections discuss the assumptions used to estimate the number of facilities that
require secondary containment of bulk pesticide storage (liquid and dry), as well as the number
of bulk and non-bulk facilities that require containment pads for dispensing activities.
3.1.2 Number of Agricultural Pesticide Refillers with Bulk Pesticide Storage
The number of agrichemical refilling facilities with stationary bulk storage of liquid or dry
pesticides is estimated in the following sections (see Table 3.2).
Facilities with stationary bulk liquid pesticide storage. No published data are available to
document the number of agricultural pesticide dealers with bulk liquid pesticide storage facilities
by state. National estimates of 3,500 (Myrick, 1991a) and 3,000 bulk storage facilities (Gilding,
1991) have been reported. The difference between the estimates highlights the need to develop
an independent estimate. To derive such an estimate, information and data from several states
were examined, most of which have existing pesticide containment regulations: Arkansas,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
State agency personnel in these states provided information on the percentage of dealers with
bulk storage, which was used to estimate the number of bulk dealers (or visa versa). All dealers
were assumed to handle pesticide containers greater than 55 gallons.
Information obtained from these states was also used to derive an estimate of the percentage of
dealers that have bulk storage facilities in states where data are not available. The average of all
available state percentages of dealers that have bulk storage is about 40 percent. This figure is
based on information on the Corn Belt states, where the use of bulk storage for agricultural
pesticides is greater than in other parts of the country.11 Additionally, these states define “bulk”
storage as stationary containers (i.e., not a minibulk or other container designed to be
transported) with a capacity of greater than 55 gallons. This definition is similar to that used in
most of the states with existing pesticide containment regulations.
Data from state agricultural agency representatives outside the Corn Belt region indicate a much
lower use of bulk storage of agricultural pesticides. Contacts in Maine, Mississippi, and West
Virginia indicated that less than 10 percent of their pesticide dealers have bulk storage facilities;
contacts in Vermont and North Carolina provided information indicating that less than 20
percent of their agricultural pesticide dealers have bulk storage facilities. Accordingly, it was not
deemed reasonable to assume that the same percentage of bulk facilities in other agricultural
regions is the same as the percentage in the Corn Belt states. Therefore, a regional approach was
adopted to estimate the number of dealers of bulk pesticides. The economic analysis assumes
that 50 percent of pesticide dealers in the Corn Belt region and 25 percent of all dealers in the
other major agricultural states store pesticides in bulk containers. In 25 states that have less
agricultural production (see Table G.2 for the full listing), it is assumed that about 10 percent of
refillers store pesticides in bulk containers. Based on this methodology, the total number of U.S.

11

The Corn Belt states are Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio and South
Dakota. Major agricultural states not included in the Corn Belt states are California, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Montana, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. The remaining 25 states
are those with less agricultural production.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 27

pesticide dealers with bulk storage of liquid pesticides in containers greater than 55 gallons is
estimated at about 5,601 (see Table G.2).
Facilities that store pesticides in containers with a capacity greater than 500 gallons are affected
by the regulations. Since most stationary bulk storage containers hold at least 1,000 gallons, it is
assumed that 90 percent of all bulk facilities store pesticides in undivided quantities of greater
than 500 gallons. This percentage is based on data provided by various state agency personnel
and on professional judgment. Based on these calculations, an estimated 5,040 agrichemical
facilities with bulk liquid storage tanks handle pesticide containers greater than 500 gallons
(Table 3.2 and Table G.2) and are subject to the containment regulations.
Facilities with stationary bulk dry pesticide storage. Bulk storage of dry pesticide
formulations is a fairly recent innovation compared to liquid bulk pesticide storage. Only a few
pesticide companies market their dry pesticide formulations in bulk; these products are typically
corn herbicides. The fixed tanks used to store dry bulk pesticides are similar to those used for
liquid pesticides and may hold up to 90,000 pounds of product. The tanks are loaded
pneumatically, involving a filtration system to avoid contamination from dust. Unlike liquid
pesticide tanks, tanks for dry bulk pesticides have no hydraulic pressure to force a dry product
out of the tank should a leak occur. When spills do occur, dry bulk pesticides are more easily
contained than liquid pesticides.
Manufacturers of dry bulk pesticides do not require storage tanks to be installed within a diked
area, although the same manufacturers require secondary containment for liquid bulk pesticides.
The dry bulk tanks are typically installed on concrete pads, which may be several feet thick and
are designed to support the weight of the tank and its contents. While not specifically designed
to prevent runoff or run on, the pads are often curbed or sloped toward the center. About 50
percent of existing tanks have been installed within existing secondary containment structures
designed for and shared by liquid bulk pesticide tanks. Manufacturers typically require an
operational pad in front of dry bulk tanks for loading and unloading (Helmer, 1991).
Dry bulk pesticide systems were developed to fill a market niche that underwent rapid expansion
in the early 1990s. One industry contact estimated a 33 percent increase in the number of dry
bulk tanks between 1991 and 1992, while another indicated that an increase of more than 90
percent could have occurred within the same period (Helmer, 1991, Keffer, 1991). To estimate
the number of facilities with dry bulk, the proposed EPA containment rule regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) tried to account for a potential increase in the number of facilities with dry bulk.
Discussions with State agencies suggest that the growth in dry bulk storage did not continue. As
a result, this economic analysis assumes the same number of dry bulk facilities as in the
proposed EPA containment rule RIA, amounting to a total of 175 tank facilities (Table 3.2).
These facilities are concentrated in three states—Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa. Dry bulk facilities
are also located in Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, and South Dakota. These eight
states are assumed to account for most (90 percent) of the dry bulk pesticide storage facilities
(158 facilities), with the remaining facilities located in all other states (17 facilities). All
facilities that store bulk quantities of dry pesticide are assumed to be located in states that
regulate pesticide containment structures. Only medium-small, large-small, and large facilities
are expected to be affected by requirements for dry pesticide storage. All dry bulk containers are
assumed to be jointly located at facilities that also have liquid bulk storage.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 28

Facilities with mobile bulk pesticide storage. The pesticide containment regulations are
assumed to affect agricultural refilling businesses that store pesticides in a mobile container with
a capacity greater than 500 gallons (liquid) or 4,409 pounds (dry) for more than 30 consecutive
days at one location (i.e., primarily agrichemical facilities with stationary bulk pesticide storage).
Other facilities will also be affected by the containment regulations, including agrichemical
facilities that conduct non-bulk refilling activities that require containment. This analysis does
not estimate costs for mobile containers since it is assumed that facilities using mobile containers
will not be affected by the regulations.
The following sections discuss the assumptions used to estimate the number of facilities that
require secondary containment of bulk pesticide storage (liquid and dry), as well as the number
of bulk and non-bulk facilities that require containment pads for dispensing activities.
3.1.3 Agricultural Pesticide Refillers Requiring Installation of New Containment
Structures
The final containment rule outlines standards for both secondary containment units and
containment pads. Agrichemical refilling facilities that will be affected by standards for new
containment structures include facilities with outdoor and indoor bulk storage (liquid and dry).
Facilities with non-bulk storage of liquid pesticides are also included if the dealers engage in
activities (i.e., dispensing or refilling) that require a pesticide containment pad. Tables located in
Appendix G provide estimates of the number of bulk pesticide containment facilities without
existing containment structures that are affected by regulations governing new containment
structures (see Table G.3). The baseline number of agricultural pesticide refillers is from the
proposed EPA containment rule RIA.
No data are available to assess the compliance status of bulk pesticide storage facilities.
However, many structures are located in states that already regulate bulk pesticide storage. To
evaluate the applicability of these state standards to the federal requirements, EPA conducted a
comprehensive review of existing regulations in 19 states: Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North
Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin (see
Appendix C). Each EPA requirement was checked against individual state regulations to
determine the percentage of structures in those states that would also be in compliance with
requirements if the final rule.
This economic analysis assumes that all facilities in states that regulate bulk pesticide storage
have secondary containment and containment pads, and that all facilities in regulated states are in
compliance with containment rule requirements. In the unregulated states, we assume that 40
percent of bulk facilities have secondary containment (see Table G.2). Using these assumptions,
we estimated the number of facilities that will either be required to install new containment
structures or to retrofit existing containment structures to comply with the standards for existing
and new structures.
Facilities with bulk liquid pesticide storage that require installation of new structures. An
estimated 5,040 facilities handle, dispense, and/or store bulk quantities of liquid pesticides
subject to containment regulations (Table 3.2). Currently, 19 states have regulations that specify
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 29

standards for secondary containment of bulk pesticides. An estimated 4,220 facilities (84
percent of refilling facilities with bulk storage) are located in states that regulate bulk pesticide
storage subject to containment regulations (Table G.2 in Appendix G). Of the remaining
facilities, it is assumed that approximately 40 percent of all facilities in unregulated states have
secondary containment.12 Therefore, an estimated 491 (60 percent of 820) bulk liquid storage
facilities do not have secondary containment and will need to install both new secondary
containment units and pads (Table G.2).
Excluding the estimated 28 facilities that also require structures for dry bulk pesticide
containment (see next section), 463 facilities will need containment structures for bulk liquid
storage only. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that 70 percent of these facilities are
outdoors and that 30 percent of facilities are indoors.13 Therefore, 324 facilities (70 percent of
463 facilities) would require installation of outdoor containment structures, and 139 facilities (30
percent of 463 facilities) would require installation of indoor containment structures (see Table
G.3).
Containment pads are also subject to the standards. An estimated 4,206 facilities, or
approximately 83 percent of all facilities with bulk liquid storage, currently have containment
pads for pesticide dispensing areas (see Table G.2). This total assumes that all facilities that
handle pesticide containers greater than 500 gallons in states with containment regulations would
comply with state requirements. However, not all these states regulate containment pads
according to EPA standards. Currently, 16 of the 19 regulated states have standards for
containment pads (excluding Kansas, Louisiana, and North Dakota) that appear to be consistent
with EPA standards (see Appendix D). Kansas, Louisiana, and North Dakota do not have
standards for containment pads that are consistent with EPA standards and are assumed to have
compliance similar to the unregulated states.
All bulk pesticide storage facilities in the 16 regulated states are assumed to have containment
pads. An assumed measure of 25 percent of facilities in states without existing regulations (and
in Kansas, Louisiana, and North Dakota) are assumed to have containment pads. There are a
total of 834 facilities in unregulated states (including Kansas, Louisiana, and North Dakota) that
do not have containment pads and would need to construct new pads (see Table G.2). Most of
these facilities (491 facilities) are expected to construct pads in addition to secondary
containment structures under the containment regulations (included in previous estimates). The
remaining 343 facilities (834 facilities less 491 facilities) will only require installation of new
containment pads. Approximately 240 (70 percent) facilities will require outdoor pads, whereas
103 (30 percent) facilities are expected to require indoor containment pads (see Table G.3).
Facilities with bulk dry pesticide storage that require installation of new structures. This
analysis assumes that all dry bulk containers are jointly located at facilities that also have liquid
bulk storage. An estimated 175 agrichemical facilities (among the 5,040 liquid bulk dealers)
handle, dispense, or store bulk quantities of dry pesticides (Table 3.2). Of these, 158 facilities
(90 percent) are assumed to be located in eight states (Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, North
12

Data from one state with containment regulations indicated that two facilities did not have secondary containment
units and pads. These two facilities were added to the total number of facilities not in compliance with containment
regulations.
13
Estimate from the proposed EPA containment rule RIA based on information obtained from industry contacts.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 30

Dakota, Ohio and South Dakota), all of which have containment regulations of varying degrees
of stringency. There are 17 facilities in states without regulations (175 - 158). A majority of
these facilities will need new structures.
Weighted against the number of liquid bulk containment structures in the states with regulations
equivalent to EPA’s (Table G.2)14 it is assumed that 140 (approximately 90 percent) of the 158
facilities in those states have secondary containment units and containment pads that meet
federal requirements.15 For the 17 facilities with dry bulk storage in states without regulations, it
is assumed, based on professional judgment, that 40 percent (7 facilities) are in compliance and
10 will need new structures. Therefore, an estimated 147 facilities have existing dry bulk storage
structures and an estimated 28 facilities (175 - 147) will need to construct both new secondary
containment units and containment pads to meet federal requirements (see Table G.3).
Facilities with non-bulk pesticide activities that require installation of new structures.
Some agricultural pesticide refillers who conduct activities that do not involve bulk quantities of
pesticides are also subject to the requirement for a pesticide containment pad. For example, a
dealer involved in refilling pesticide containers from non-bulk containers must have a
containment pad. No information is available regarding the number of businesses that conduct
such activities. An estimated 5 percent of all agricultural pesticide refillers that do not have bulk
pesticide storage facilities carry out activities that are subject to the containment pad
requirements (Howard, 1991). For this analysis, all the remaining facilities (i.e., those with
containers between 55 gallons and 500 gallons) are assumed to conduct pesticide
refilling/dispensing activities and require a containment pad. It is assumed that none of these
561 facilities (5,601 minus 5,040 bulk facilities) currently have containment pads and all will
need to construct new pads to be in compliance (see Table G.3).
3.1.4 Agricultural Pesticide Refillers Requiring Retrofitting of Existing Containment
Structures
This section estimates the number of agricultural pesticide refilling facilities with liquid and dry
bulk pesticide storage that will need to retrofit existing containment structures to comply with the
final standards. Agricultural pesticide refilling facilities will be affected by standards for
existing secondary containment structures protecting bulk liquid and dry containers, and for
existing containment pads. Table G.4 summarizes the number of bulk pesticide containment
facilities with existing containment structures that are affected by the final rule. The baseline
number of agricultural pesticide refillers is from the proposed EPA containment rule RIA.
No data are available to assess the compliance status of facilities with existing containment
structures or bulk storage containers. Many structures, however, are located in states that
regulate pesticide containment. To estimate the rate of compliance, this analysis first considers
the number of facilities with secondary containment and/or containment pads that potentially
comply with EPA requirements, based on a comprehensive EPA review of regulations in 19
states (Appendix C) and broad-based assumptions derived from state regulatory agencies and
industry information. The results of the comparison between state and federal standards were
14

This analysis assumes that all dry bulk containers are jointly located at facilities that also have liquid bulk storage.
Although these dry bulk facilities are assumed to be located in regulated states, not all state requirements are
adequate to meet federal standards.

15

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 31

used to derive the percentage compliance for facilities in states that regulate bulk pesticide
storage.16 It was assumed that one-half of the structures in unregulated states are in compliance,
because of existing pesticide manufacturer requirements, regulations already being implemented
(e.g., effluent regulations under the EPA Office of Water), or the presumed use of basic good
management practices.
3.1.4.1 Facilities with Bulk Liquid Pesticides That Require Retrofitting of Existing
Structures
Existing secondary containment units. Facilities with bulk liquid pesticides may need to
retrofit existing secondary containment structures and containment pads. Approximately 328
facilities in states without regulations are estimated to require retrofitting of existing secondary
containment for bulk liquid pesticides (i.e., 4,548 total facilities less the 4,220 facilities with
secondary containment units in regulated states – Table G.2). In addition, although most
facilities in regulated states are in compliance with the critical standards, it is estimated that
4 percent will have to retrofit due to some discrepancy between the critical standards and state
regulations (see Table G.4). Subsequent estimates of the number of affected facilities are based
on a review of state regulations in conjunction with information from industry experts.
Agricultural pesticide refilling facilities with stationary liquid bulk storage in existing
containment structures are assumed to incur compliance costs to: (1) seal floor drains or
discharge outlets, (2) seal all cracks, and (3) conduct monthly inspection and recordkeeping.
Based on a review of state regulations and other industry information, approximately 96 percent
of secondary containment structures in states with existing regulations are assumed in
compliance with the standards to seal floor drains and discharge outlets and will not incur
retrofitting costs. About 50 percent of structures in states without regulations are assumed in
compliance. Accordingly, a total of 333 structures [(4,220*0.04)+(328*0.50)] are not in
compliance and must retrofit by sealing floor drains or discharge outlets. The number of
facilities that will need to seal all cracks are estimated based on the assumption in the proposed
rule RIA that all structures in states with regulations and 10 percent of structures in states
without regulations are in compliance. Therefore, an estimated 295 structures (328*0.9) will
incur costs to seal cracks. (See Table G.4.)
Weekly or monthly inspections of containment structures are currently required in 11 of the 19
states with containment regulations.17 Weighted against the number of liquid bulk facilities in
these regulated states, approximately 67 percent of all facilities in states with regulations are in
compliance. An estimated 30 percent of the 328 facilities in states without regulations are
assumed to have secondary containment units that are in compliance with monthly inspection
requirements. Accordingly, 1,602 facilities [(4,220*0.33)+(328*0.70)] will incur monthly
inspection and recordkeeping costs.
16

Where necessary, this economic analysis utilizes percentage compliance estimates derived in the proposed rule
RIA. These estimates were based on a review of compliance in several states, most of which regulate bulk pesticide
containment structures: Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
17
Of the state regulatory review conducted by EPA (Appendix C), eight states do not meet EPA’s requirements for
monthly inspections and recordkeeping: three states (Kansas, North Dakota, and Ohio) do not specify an inspection
requirement; five states (Louisiana, Indiana, Missouri, South Dakota, and Wisconsin) have inspection requirements
that do not match the federal requirement.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 32

Existing pads. An estimated 205 facilities with pads are assumed not in compliance and will
need to retrofit to meet EPA standards (from Table G.2, 4,206 total facilities less the 4,001
facilities with containment pads in states with regulations). Requirements for existing
containment pads include the pad’s ability to contain 750 gallons (such as by adding a curb
and/or a sump), a way to clean up spills (such as a pump), floor drains sealed, cracks repaired,
and monthly inspection and recordkeeping.
The number of facilities that will need to seal existing drains is estimated assuming that 96
percent of containment pads in states with regulations and 50 percent of the 205 facilities in nonregulated states comply with EPA standards. Thus, 263 pads [(4,001*0.04)+(205*0.50)] are out
of compliance and must seal existing drains. Pads not in compliance are assumed to lack a
capacity of 750 gallons, either by use of a curb or sump. Sloping is not required for existing
facilities, and flat pads can be in compliance with or without a sump if they have a means of
containing 750 gallons (such as with a curb) and the ability to pump out spills and leaks. The
number of facilities that will require a sump or curb is estimated assuming that 94 percent of
containment pads in states with regulations and 50 percent of pads in states without regulations
have a capacity of at least 750 gallons. As a result, approximately 343 facilities are considered
out of compliance and will need to retrofit pads [(4,001*0.06)+(205*0.50)]. Retrofit estimates
are based on the cost of a curb or berm. The cost for a portable pump and hose for removing
collected liquid materials and/or rainfall is considered part of the cost to retrofit secondary
containment structures. It is assumed that all facilities either already have a portable pump or
will purchase one.
It is assumed that all existing pads in regulated states are in compliance because of state
requirements to seal all cracks, gaps, and seams, but that only 10 percent of pads in nonregulated states are in compliance. An estimated 185 pads (205*0.90) are not in compliance and
will incur costs to seal all cracks, gaps, and seams. In states with regulations, approximately 67
percent of all facilities are assumed in compliance with monthly inspection and recordkeeping
requirements. In states without regulations, 30 percent of all facilities are assumed in
compliance. A total of 1,445 facilities with existing pads [(4,001*0.33)+(205*0.70)] are
estimated to incur inspection and recordkeeping costs.
3.1.4.2 Facilities with Bulk Dry Pesticides That Require Retrofitting of Existing
Structures
Some facilities with bulk dry pesticides may need to retrofit existing secondary containment
structures. An estimated 147 facilities have existing structures for secondary containment of
bulk dry pesticides (Section 3.1.3).
For this analysis, the number of dry bulk facilities needing retrofit is calculated from data for
liquid bulk facilities (see Table G.4), which show that 90 percent of all facilities are in
compliance with the standards for secondary containment units. This compliance percentage is
applied toward the number of facilities with existing dry bulk containment units, indicating that
approximately 15 facilities (147*0.10) are not in compliance and will need to retrofit to comply
with EPA standards for repairing cracks, gaps, and seams.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 33

Approximately 70 facilities will incur inspection and recordkeeping costs. Of the 158 facilities
assumed in compliance in the eight states used for the analysis, it is assumed that 67 percent
(106) are in compliance with recordkeeping and inspection. Thus, the remaining 52, plus the 17
in the remaining states (175 - 158), will incur inspection and recordkeeping costs.
3.2 Compliance Profile of Agricultural Commercial Applicators
The compliance profile of agricultural applicators in the United States that will be affected by the
pesticide containment regulations centers on aerial and ground applicators with bulk storage
facilities requiring containment structures. Estimates of the number of agricultural commercial
applicators that will be affected by EPA’s containment standards are compiled from available
information, supplemented by derived data on agricultural pesticide refillers. Affected facilities
must either install new containment structures or retrofit existing structures.
Pesticide applicators that handle pesticides in bulk quantities and apply agricultural pesticides for
compensation (other than trading of personal services between agricultural producers) will be
affected by the final requirements. The analysis includes independent aerial and ground
applicators, but excludes commercial applicators associated with agrichemical dealers
(businesses that would be included in a compliance overview of agricultural pesticide refillers).
It is assumed that independent applicators have outdoor facilities only and do not engage in bulk
storage and dispensing activities for dry bulk pesticides. All independent applicator facilities are
assumed to be located in states that regulate bulk pesticide storage and operational pads for
pesticide dispensing areas.
3.2.1 Total Number of Agricultural Commercial Applicators
Source data on the total number of commercial applicators that are not associated with
agrichemical dealers are limited compared to the information available on agricultural pesticide
refillers. In 1993, the total number of licensed agricultural (plant) commercial applicators was
estimated at 95,445 (EPA, 1993b). However, data on the number of businesses (rather than
individual applicators) are not readily available, and estimates that span different business
categories vary. For example, the number of individual aerial applicators is estimated at 13,031
(Myrick, 1991a). The number of businesses is much smaller.
In 1992, American Business Information (ABI) reported 1,361 businesses in the “Spraying,
Horticultural” category and 1,816 businesses in the “Weed Control Service” category,
representing a total of 3,177 businesses. This figure does not include aerial applicators, but
instead includes non-agricultural businesses such as lawn care services and right-of-way
maintenance businesses. In 1993, there were 3,936 establishments in the crop services industry
(U.S. Department of Commerce, 1993), which includes all aerial and independent ground
applicators, custom blenders, and other crop services such as cultivation, detasseling of corn,
pruning, or harvesting. The total number of “aerial applicators (service)” was reported at 2,225
(ABI, 1992). For this analysis, an estimate of 2,000 aerial application businesses is used, based
on an estimate of 2,000 to 2,100 businesses through a spokesperson for the National Agricultural
Aviation Association (Collins, 1991). These businesses have a total fleet of about 6,000 planes
plus an unknown number of backup planes (Collins, 1991).

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 34

According to the Small Business Administration (SBA, 2002), agricultural commercial
applicators are likely to be associated with NAICS Code 115112 (Soil Preparation, Planting, and
Cultivation). Data are not available to separate out the affected establishments by those that
practice insect, weed, or disease control of crops through ground application of pesticides;
cultivation services; detasseling of corn; hoeing; pruning; harvesting; cotton ginning; etc. As a
rough approximation, this analysis assumes that a maximum of 1,000 establishments under
NAICS Code 115112 are independent ground applicators. The remaining number of businesses
provide other crop services and are not expected to be directly affected by the rule.
An estimated 35 percent to 40 percent of all agricultural pesticides are applied aerially (Fertig,
1991). Aerial applicators represent the largest group of agricultural commercial applicators, and
are less likely to be associated with agrichemical dealers or other businesses than are ground
applicators. Aerial applicators are typically independent businesses either based at municipal
airports or private, often on-farm, airports. General information regarding the location
(municipal or private airports) of aerial application businesses nationwide is not available,
although information is available for some states. In Iowa, for example, it is estimated that about
50 percent of aerial applicators are based at municipal airports (Eckermann, 1991).
In addition to applying pesticides, aerial application businesses may apply fertilizers and sow
seeds, and may also seed or apply chemicals to non-agricultural lands such as rights-of-way and
forests. Non-pesticide and non-agricultural aspects of aerial application account for about
5 percent of all aerial application businesses. However, only about 1 percent of all aerial
application businesses specialize exclusively in these areas (Collins, 1991).
Aerial applicators may operate in one of two ways: (1) businesses may both supply and apply
the selected pesticide for the farmer; or (2) businesses may provide only the service of applying a
pesticide provided to them by the farmer. Of all aerial applicators, those that sell both the
chemicals and the application services to the farmer are the most likely to have bulk storage
facilities (Faulconer, 1991; Hardcastle, 1991). These businesses may also provide consulting
services to farmers; some may even have entomologists on their staff (Hardcastle, 1991).
Applicators may also sell products at retail to farmers, especially those businesses that have bulk
storage for pesticides. In some states, these businesses are legally considered to be agrichemical
dealers (Hardcastle, 1991), and some of these facilities may be included in the data on
agricultural pesticide refillers presented previously. Aerial applicators that only apply chemicals
supplied by the farmer are unlikely to have bulk storage facilities.18
Most agricultural commercial applicators that provide ground application services are affiliated
with agrichemical dealers, either as employees or under contract. One state contact estimated
that 80 percent of all commercial applicators are affiliated with dealers, while the remaining 20
percent are with independent (non-dealer) businesses (Myrick, 1991a). Of that 20 percent, 70
18

Aerial applicators based at county or municipal airports may face unique challenges in establishing secondary
containment structures or containment pads since they do not own the property, and the property may be subject to
Federal Aviation Administration regulations or local regulations (Eckermann, 1991). Until more information is
obtained regarding whether aerial applicators working out of municipal airports will experience difficulty in
obtaining the needed permission to construct secondary containment and/or containment pad structures, or until the
feasibility of using non-permanent (portable) containment pads is determined, this analysis assumes that aerial
applicators will be able to comply with the proposed regulations.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 35

percent are estimated to be independent aerial applicators. The remaining 30 percent represent
one estimate of the number of independent ground applicators. Agricultural commercial
applicators with bulk storage may also sell the bulk product directly to the end user (i.e., refill
minibulks), as a sideline to direct application of the product to the customers’ fields (Rowdowca,
1991). These businesses are often regulated as pesticide dealers under state laws and are
assumed to have been included as part of the overview of agricultural pesticide refillers.
3.2.2 Number of Agricultural Commercial Applicators With Bulk Pesticide Storage
There are an estimated 2,000 aerial applicators and 1,000 independent ground applicator
businesses nationwide. Only a subsection of these facilities handle, dispense, and/or store bulk
quantities of pesticides. Estimates of the number of aerial and ground applicator facilities are
provided in Table 3.2, contrasting the total number of aerial and ground commercial applicators
and the estimated number of facilities that maintain bulk pesticide quantities.
Aerial applicators. Aerial applicators with bulk storage typically have one or two pesticide
storage tanks, each with a capacity of up to 2,000 gallons (Hardcastle, 1991). Some facilities
may have three tanks, and some may have tanks as large as 10,000 gallons (Breedlove, 1991).
Data from Iowa indicate that up to 5 percent of aerial applicators in the state may have bulk
storage (Eckermann, 1991). Few aerial applicators in southern Texas have bulk storage, while
up to 10 percent of aerial applicators in northern Texas may have bulk storage (Hardcastle,
1991). Mississippi, which requires registration of bulk tanks used by aerial applicators, reported
that 24 out of 152 aerial applicators (16 percent) have bulk storage tanks with capacity greater
than 800 gallons (Fulton, 1991). Based on these data, combined with professional judgment, it is
assumed that an overall estimated 8 percent of all aerial applicators, or 160 facilities, have bulk
pesticide storage containers.
Ground applicators. For this analysis, it is assumed that about 5 percent of the estimated total
number of independent ground applicators (50 facilities) have bulk storage facilities for
agricultural pesticides that are applied with ground rigs. The estimated 50 facilities with bulk
storage are profiled as loading pesticides into and unloading pesticides from bulk tanks, filling
and cleaning bulk storage equipment, and loading equipment at the facility or refilling minibulk
containers for use as shuttles to transport chemicals to the field. The remaining 950 independent
ground applicators that do not have bulk storage facilities likely mix and load chemicals in the
fields where they are working, rather than at a fixed location (Myrick, 1991a).
3.2.3 Independent Applicators Requiring Installation of New Containment Structures
Regulations covering new structures specify standards for both secondary containment units and
containment pads. Table G.3 shows the number of independent applicators with bulk pesticide
storage that do not currently have containment structures in place and will be affected by EPA’s
regulation of new containment structures.
An estimated 160 aerial facilities and 50 ground applicator facilities handle, dispense, and/or
store bulk quantities of liquid pesticide (Table 3.2). Data are not available to profile the current
secondary containment status of bulk storage facilities at aerial and ground applicator facilities,
and it is not known how many applicators with bulk pesticide storage containers are in states that
regulate secondary containment. It is therefore assumed that all independent applicators are in

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 36

states with regulations. Assuming that the use of bulk storage at independent applicator facilities
follows a similar regional pattern of use as that for agrichemical dealer facilities, 90 percent of
all facilities are estimated to be in compliance with secondary containment standards and 83
percent of all facilities are estimated to be in compliance with containment pad standards.
Using these percentage compliance estimates, it is assumed that 144 aerial facilities and 45
ground applicator facilities are in compliance with the final standards for secondary containment.
Accordingly, an estimated 16 aerial applicators and five ground applicators with bulk storage are
not in compliance and will require installation of both new secondary containment units and
pads. Similarly, an estimated 134 aerial facilities and 42 ground applicator facilities are in
compliance with EPA containment pad requirements (this assumes that the estimated number of
facilities without secondary containment units also do not have pads.). The number of facilities
that are not in compliance and that will need to install new pads is estimated at 10 aerial
applicator facilities (144 needing both units and pads minus 134 already having pads) and three
ground applicator facilities (45 needing both units and pads minus 42 already having pads). (See
Tables 3.2 and G.3.)
3.2.4 Agricultural Commercial Applicators Requiring Retrofitting of Existing Containment
Structures
Regulations covering existing structures specify standards for secondary containment units and
containment pads. Table G.4 shows the number of bulk pesticide containment facilities that
currently have containment structures in place and will need to retrofit existing structures to
comply with the critical standards.
Facilities with existing secondary containment are estimated at 144 aerial applicators and 45
ground applicator facilities (Table 3.2). Facilities with existing containment pads are estimated
at 134 aerial applicators and 42 ground applicator facilities. Not all of these existing structures
are in compliance with the standards for existing secondary containment units and pads.
Subsequent estimates of the number of facilities that are not in compliance and are affected by
EPA’s regulations are derived based on information on state regulations and information from
industry experts. It is assumed that all agricultural commercial applicators are located in states
that regulate pesticide containment.
Facilities with bulk liquid pesticides that require retrofitting of existing structures. The 189
aerial and ground facilities with existing containment structures may need retrofitting (Table
3.2). Assuming that 96 percent of secondary containment structures in regulated states are in
compliance with standards for existing structures, the number of facilities not in compliance that
will incur costs to seal floor drains or discharge outlets is estimated to be eight (189*0.04).
Because all regulated states have a requirement to seal all cracks, and because all independent
applicator structures are assumed to be located in regulated states, no structure is affected by this
requirement as a result of the rule.
Weekly or monthly inspections of containment structures are currently required within 11 of the
19 states with containment regulations. Weighted against the number of liquid bulk facilities in
these regulated states, approximately 67 percent of all facilities in regulated states are in
compliance. Since all facilities are assumed to be located in regulated states, 62 facilities
(189*0.33) will incur monthly inspection and recordkeeping costs (See Table G.4).
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 37

An estimated 175 applicator (aerial and ground) facilities with existing structures may be
required retrofit existing containment pads (Table 3.2). Requirements for existing containment
pads include: ensure 750-gallon capacity, have a berm, seal floor drain, repair cracks, and
conduct monthly inspection and recordkeeping. It is assumed that all applicators are in regulated
states, but not all states require pad capacity equal to or greater than 750 gallons. Assuming that
96 percent of containment pads in regulated states meet EPA standard for sealing drains, 7
facilities (175*0.04) must seal existing drains. Assuming that 94 percent of containment pads in
regulated states already have a berm or are sloped to a sump, 11 facilities (175*0.06) must add a
berm. All facilities are assumed to repair cracks that are likely to develop in the concrete over
time. A total of 57 existing pads (175*0.33) are estimated to require inspection and
recordkeeping, assuming that 67 percent of all facilities are in states that require weekly or
monthly inspections (See Table G.4).
3.3 Baseline Economic Profile of the Regulated Community
This section presents an economic and financial overview of the regulated community,
consisting of SBA-defined business sizes (large and small) and EPA-defined alternative small
business sizes (large-small, medium-small, and small-small)19 for agricultural pesticide refillers
(based on NAICS 422910 – Farm Supplies and Wholesale Sector) and commercial applicators
(based on NAICS 115112 – Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating).
The economic analysis of EPA’s containment regulations is based on the projected impacts on
representative bulk pesticide storage and dispensing facilities. Economic profiles of these
facilities were developed to represent typical operational and revenue characteristics of affected
entities. Examples of operational characteristics include the number of employees and the
number and size of bulk pesticide containers.
The number of representative facilities included in this analysis is intended to capture the broad
range of facility sizes (based on SBA and EPA alternative definitions) and facility types
(primarily agricultural pesticide refillers and commercial applicators). Only those facilities with
bulk pesticide storage containers and/or pesticide dispensing areas were considered.
The following subsections describe the two main categories of representative facilities in the
analysis: agricultural pesticide refillers and agricultural aerial applicators. The specific methods
and assumptions used to develop the models are also discussed. A third type of representative
facility representing independent ground applicators is not considered. Only about 50 facilities
may be affected by the regulation, and since sufficient information is not available to
characterize these entities, we assume that the ground applicators have the same financial

19

This economic analysis considers an alternative to SBA’s definition of small entities or businesses potentially
affected by containment regulations by disaggregating SBA-defined small businesses into three size categories:
small-small (SS), medium-small (MS), and large-small (LS) businesses. EPA proposed alternative definitions of
small businesses for some industry sectors in the 1999 supplemental notice on Standards for Pesticide Containers
and Containment. EPA is concerned that using an overly broad definition of small business in the economic
analysis of the containment regulations may result in significant economic impacts on smaller entities that will be
camouflaged when combined with information about potential impacts on those facilities that meet the SBA size
standard for small business but are not typical of a small business in that industry sector.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 38

characteristics as aerial applicators. Summary exhibits of representative characteristics are
provided in Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5.
Table 3.3. Representative Agricultural Pesticide Refilling Facilities, Bulk Pesticide Storage
Containers and Pesticide Dispensing Areas a
Representative Facility Size
SmallSmall

Characteristics

MediumSmall

LargeSmall

Industry
Total

Large

Operating Characteristics
Number of industry establishments b

13,996

2,395

251

153

16,795

2,241

2,395

251

153

5,040

1-1,500 gal

3-2,000 gal

2-4,000 gal
3-3,000 gal
2-1,500 gal

2-4,000 gal
3-3,000 gal
2-1,500 gal

13,400

Number of industry establishments with bulk
pesticides dry storage e

0

105

35

35

175

Number and size of bulk pesticides dry
storage containers f

0

1-90,000 lb

1-90,000 lb

1-90,000 lb

--

561

--

--

--

561

3
1 to 9

19
10 to 49

71
448
50 to 100 101 or more

173,858
--

$6.7

$22.7

Number of industry establishments with bulk
pesticides liquid storage and pesticide
dispensing areas c
Number and size of bulk pesticides liquid
storage containers d

Number of industry establishments with
pesticide dispensing areas associated with
smaller (non-bulk) containers g
Number of employees h
Range in number of employees
Revenue Characteristics
Average Revenue (2005$, millions) i

$0.8

a

$191.6

$62,319

The majority of agricultural pesticide refilling facilities with bulk storage and dispensing areas are classified under
NAICS Code 422910, Farm Supplies Wholesalers. A Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) sample data set was extracted for
businesses identified by NAICS Code 422910 to develop representative characteristics of agricultural pesticide
refillers based on SBA-defined small and large businesses and EPA alternative definitions for small businesses
(small-small, medium-small, and large-small). Characteristics of the D&B sample data set were applied to the
estimated total number of agricultural pesticide refillers used in the analysis (16,795).
b
For this analysis, small-small firms have been defined as those having 1 to 9 employees, medium-small firms 10 to
49 employees, large-small firms 50 to 100 employees, and large firms 101 or more employees. According to analysis
of the D&B sample data set for firms with NAICS Code 422910, about 83.3 percent had 1 to 9 employees, 14.3
percent had 10 to 49 employees, 1.5 percent had 50 to 100 employees, with the remaining 0.9 percent of
establishments having more than 100 employees. The 16,795 U.S. agricultural pesticide refillers estimated earlier in
this analysis are distributed in roughly the same proportions to small-small, medium-small, large-small, and large
representative firms, respectively.
c
The number of agricultural pesticide refilling facilities having bulk storage of pesticides was estimated earlier in this
analysis at 5,040. It is assumed that all Large, Large-Small, and Medium-Small facilities have bulk storage, with the
remainder assigned to the Small-Small facility category.
d
The number and size of bulk liquid containers by size of facility is based on information provided by agricultural
experts across the country, with more weight given to that information representative of the Midwest. While the total
number of bulk liquid containers in the industry is not known, a rough estimate of 12,060 polyethylene and 1,340
steel containers for a total of 13,400 bulk containers is made for purposes of analysis. This number does not add to the
number based on representative facility (12,254).
e
About 130 dry bulk tanks were known to exist in the spring of 1991, with an expected 33 percent increase in such
tanks within a year. It is assumed that 175 tanks will be in place and potentially affected by the proposed regulations.
We assumed distribution as follows: medium-small (60%), large-small (20%), and large (20%).

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 39

f

Manufacturer information indicates most dry bulk tanks purchased by agrichemical facilities have a capacity of
90,000 pounds. We assumed one tank per medium-small and large-small facility, and one tank per large facility.

Table 3.3. Representative Agricultural Pesticide Refilling Facilities, Bulk Pesticide Storage
Containers and Pesticide Dispensing Areas a (Continued)
g

561 small-small agricultural pesticide refillers are estimated to carry out activities that will subject them to the
containment pad requirements. See Table G.1.
h
According to the analysis of the D&B sample data set for firms with NAICS Code 422910, small-small
representative facilities are profiled as having three employees, medium-small facilities 19 employees, large-small
facilities 71 employees, and large facilities 448 employees. The total number of employees in the agricultural
pesticide refiller industry was estimated to be 173,858.
i
We estimated revenue levels for each representative facility based on sales data associated with businesses profiled
in the D&B sample data set for firms with NAICS Code 422910.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 40

Table 3.4. Economic Profile of Agricultural Pesticide Refillers by Entity Size
Agricultural Pesticide
Refillers

D&B Sample Data Set for NAICS 422910

Entity Size
Category

Definition

Total
Companies

Percent of
Total
Companies

Total
Revenue for
All
Companies
(million)

Percent of
Total
Revenue

Average
Revenue per
Company
(million)

Average
Number of
Employees
per Company

Total
Entities a

Total
Revenue for
All Entities
(million) b

SBA-Defined Sizes
Large

101 or more
employees

114

0.9%

$21,843

47.1%

$191.6

448

153

$29,322

Small

100 or fewer
employees

12,397

99.1%

$24,580

52.9%

$2.0

6

16,642

$32,997

Total

12,511

100.0%

$46,423

100.0%

$3.7

10

16,795 c

$62,319

EPA Alternative Small Business Sizes
Large-Small
50 to 100
employees

d

187

1.5%

$4,246

9.2%

$22.7

71

251

$5,700

Medium-Small

10 to 49
employees

1,784

14.3%

$12,001

25.9%

$6.7

19

2,395

$16,110

Small-Small

1 to 9
employees

10,426

83.3%

$8,333

18.0%

$0.8

3

13,996

$11,187

12,397

99.1%

$24,580

52.9%

$2.0

6

16,642

$32,997

Total
a

The percentage of total companies in the D&B sample data set was applied to the estimated number of agricultural pesticide refillers used in the analysis.
The average revenue of agricultural pesticide refillers for each entity size category was multiplied by the total number of entities for the given size category.
c
EPA estimate based on state estimates where available; otherwise, SIC 5191.02 + 5191.14 from the American Business Information Lists of 9 Million Businesses, 1990.
The same total number is estimated as presented in the 1999 Supplemental Notice on Standards for Pesticide Containers and Containment (EPA, 1999b).
d
EPA discussed alternative definitions of small businesses for some industry sectors in the 1999 Supplemental Notice on Standards for Pesticide Containers and
Containment (EPA, 1999b). EPA is concerned that using an overly broad definition of small business in the economic analysis of the container regulations may result in
significant economic impacts on smaller entities that will be camouflaged when combined with information about potential impacts on those facilities that meet the SBA
size standard for small business but are not typical of a small business in that industry sector.
b

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 41

Table 3.5. Representative Agricultural Aerial Application Facilities, Bulk Pesticide
Storage Containers, and Pesticide Dispensing Areas a
Representative Facility Size
Characteristics

Small-Small

Medium-Small

Large-Small

Industry Total

100
35
1-6,000
2-2,000
5 or more
200,000

2,000
160
Unknown

Operating Characteristics
Number of industry establishments b
Number with bulk storage c
Number and size of bulk tanks d
Number of planes e
Number of acres treated f

780
15
1-1,500

1,120
110
2-2,000

1
25,000

2-4
100,000

6,000+

Revenue Characteristics
Application price/acre ($) g
3.75
3.75
3.75
-Premium on chemical/acre ($) h
0.27
0.27
0.27
-Revenues (2005$) i
100,580
401,250
802,500
-a
Similar characteristics are assumed for ground applicators.
b
The analysis assumes that no agricultural aerial applicators meet the SBA definition for a large business (>$6.0
million in revenue). The total number of industry establishments and the number of EPA alternative small business
sizes is based on information obtained from the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) for small-small
facilities with one plane, and expert opinion and professional judgment to estimate the number of medium-small and
large-small facilities (NAAA, 2001).
c
Based on information provided by several sources, it is estimated that no more than 8 percent of aerial applicators
nationwide have bulk pesticide storage. No data exist on whether those estimated 8 percent of industry facilities
(160) are small-small, medium-small, large-small, or large facilities. For this analysis, it is assumed that about 2
percent (15) of the small-small facilities have bulk storage, 10 percent (110) of the medium-small facilities have
bulk storage, and 35 percent (35) of the large-small facilities have bulk storage.
d
Preliminary estimates, based on limited information.
e
Based on information provided by the NAAA that the total fleet size of all aerial applicators is about 6,000 plus an
unknown number of backup planes (NAAA, 2001).
f
Assumes that each plane flies a minimum of 250 hours per year with an average of 100 acres treated per hour.
g
Based on information from aerial applicators in several states (North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas), an
average application price charged per acre is about $3.50.
h
Aerial applicators try to achieve some margin per acre on the chemicals they apply. This margin varies by region,
and estimates obtained for this analysis ranged from $0.10 per acre to $0.50 per acre. This analysis assumes that a
margin on chemicals of $0.25 per acre is attained. Some farmers provide their own chemicals or will work through
a dealer to provide the chemicals to the aerial applicator. Thus, not all aerial applicators earn a premium on
chemicals for all acres treated. However, this analysis is relevant to those applicators that store pesticides in bulk
quantities, and such applicators are likely to provide their own chemicals.
i
Revenues = (Number of acres treated)(Application price per acre)+(Number of acres treated)(Premium on chemical
per acre).

3.3.1 Economic Profile of Agricultural Pesticide Refillers
Agricultural pesticide refillers repackage and supply the majority of pesticides to farmers and
other agricultural end users. Agricultural pesticide refillers are generally represented under
NAICS 422910 (Farm Supplies and Wholesale Sector), which consists of “establishments
primarily engaged in wholesaling farm supplies, such as animal feeds, fertilizers, agricultural
chemicals, pesticides, plant seeds and plant bulbs” (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997).
To establish a regulatory compliance baseline, we solicited expert opinion to profile operational
characteristics of typical large, large-small, medium-small, and small-small agricultural pesticide

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 42

refillers with bulk pesticide storage facilities. The total volume of pesticides stored by facilities
is both a function of the number of bulk tanks and the size of the individual tanks. Agricultural
pesticide refillers vary widely with respect to the number and size of bulk storage containers, as
well as the total volume of pesticides stored. For example, a facility with only one bulk pesticide
storage tank could have a very small 500-gallon tank or a very large 12,000-gallon tank. Such
cases are exceptions, however, with the majority of tanks used having capacities of 1,000 to
4,000 gallons.
Table 3.3 summarizes the characteristics of the representative agricultural pesticide refilling
facilities, organized by four sizes: large, large-small, medium-small, and small-small. Each type
of facility incorporates different assumptions regarding the bulk storage capacity, number of
employees, and financial profile of the representative entity. Small-small refillers are assumed to
have one liquid pesticide bulk storage tank with a capacity of 1,500 gallons. Facilities with three
2,000 gallon tanks are considered medium-small facilities (total capacity of 6,000 gallons).
Large-small and large refillers are assumed to have seven bulk liquid tanks (two 4,000 gallon,
three 3,000 gallon, and two 1,500 gallon) for a total capacity of 20,000 gallons.20
In addition to facilities with liquid bulk containers, representative facilities with dry bulk tanks
are also characterized (see Table 3.3). As discussed in the previous section, this analysis
estimates that approximately 175 dry bulk tanks, most with a capacity of 90,000 pounds, are
considered potentially affected by the proposed regulations. While most dealers have only one
dry bulk tank, a few may have two. For this analysis, it is assumed that 105 medium-small
facilities, 35 large-small facilities, and 35 large facilities each have a single dry bulk tank.21
We extracted revenue and employee data from the Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) database for all
establishments with NAICS 422910 designations to generate the agricultural pesticide refillers
economic profile. We assume that financial information extracted from D&B for the NAICS
422910 market sector is representative of the agricultural pesticide refiller entity subject to the
containment regulations. As a result, 24,360 records were pulled from the D&B database, with
21,599 establishments having sufficient financial data to be included in the analysis. These data
were consolidated by Domestic Ultimate DUNS number in order to aggregate facilities by parent
company designation, resulting in a total of 12,511 unique companies identified22. It appears
that D&B inconsistently reports revenue and employee information at the Domestic Ultimate
DUNS level. In few instances where discrepancies arise, we used the maximum values for the
20

For this analysis, Small-Small firms have been defined as those having 1 to 9 employees, Medium-Small firms 10 to 49
employees, Large-Small firms 50 to 100 employees, and Large firms 101 or more employees (see Table 3.4). According to
analysis of the D&B sample data set for firms with NAICS Code 422910, about 83.3 percent had 1 to 9 employees, 14.3 percent
had 10 to 49 employees, 1.5 percent had 50 to 100 employees, with the remaining 0.9 percent of establishments having greater
than 100 employees. The 16,795 U.S. agricultural pesticide refillers estimated earlier in this analysis are distributed in roughly
the same proportions to Small-Small, Medium-Small, Large-Small, and Large representative firms, respectively.
21

About 130 dry bulk tanks were known to exist in the spring of 1991, and it is expected that this number is now not larger than
175. Therefore, it is assumed that 175 tanks will be in place and potentially affected by the final regulations. The 175 tanks are
distributed as follows: medium-small (60%), large-small (20%) and large (20%).
22

The DUNS Number is a unique nine-digit identification sequence, which provides unique identifiers of single
business entities, while linking corporate family structures together. D&B links the DUNS Numbers of parents,
subsidiaries, headquarters and branches on more than 90 million corporate family members around the world.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 43

D&B data fields “Employees Total” and “Sales Volume (US$)” associated with each Ultimate
DUNS number.
The D&B sample data set was broken down into small and large entity sizes according to the
SBA small business definition for NAICS 422910 (i.e., SBA defines a small business for NAICS
422910 as having 100 employees or fewer). As illustrated in Table 3.4, 99 percent of the 12,511
unique parent companies identified were considered small by SBA definition. Based on EPA
alternative small business definitions presented in Table 3.1, approximately 83 percent were
small-small, 14 percent were medium-small, and 2 percent were large-small (see Table 3.4).
It was determined that no single NAICS code was unique to agrichemical dealers or agricultural
pesticide refillers. Therefore the economic profile for the sample of 12,511 companies was
applied to the total universe of 16,795 agricultural pesticide refillers, as illustrated in Table 3.3.
The estimated number of agricultural pesticide refillers (16,795 companies) is based on the
information presented in the 1999 Supplemental Notice for Pesticide Containers and
Containment Structures (EPA, 1999). This estimate is considered to be a reasonable estimate for
the current total number of entities potentially affected by the containment regulations.
3.3.2 Economic Profile of Agricultural Commercial Applicators
Crop services affected by containment structure regulations include aerial application,
independent ground application of pesticides, chemigation, and custom blending. Companies
that provide these services and are not associated with an agrichemical dealership are likely to be
classified under NAICS Code 115112 – Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivation. Commercial
applicators are often hired by farmers to apply pesticides to a variety of crops. The two primary
types of agricultural commercial applicators are aerial applicators and ground applicators. These
operations require the use and refilling of bulk pesticide containers and smaller minibulk
containers used for pesticide application from airplanes and/or trucks.
The industry profile used here is based on information collected from 1,968 aerial pesticide
application businesses in a 1998 survey conducted by the National Agricultural Aviation
Association (NAAA, 2001). No comparable source of data was identified to characterize and
profile the financial conditions for ground applicators. Given that the SBA definition of a small
business for commercial applicators (based on NAICS Code 115112) is no more than $6 million
in annual revenues, all commercial applicators considered in this analysis are assumed to be
SBA-defined small businesses based on analysis of the NAAA data. Because no equivalent
information is available for ground applicators, we assume that the ground applicators have the
same financial characteristics as aerial applicators (see Table 3.5). This analysis estimates that
2,000 of the “soil preparation, planting, and cultivation” establishments (included in NAICS
Code 115112) are aerial applicators and that 1,000 are independent ground applicators.
Insufficient data exist to develop representative facilities for the agricultural commercial
application industry. Instead, we consulted state-level experts to profile these businesses
according to the number of planes per business, the number of acres treated per business, and the
price charged per acre by the aerial applicator. Table 3.5 summarizes these characteristics of the
aerial application industry by facility size. The representative small-small aerial applicator is
defined as having one plane and one bulk container of 1,500 gallons, and treating approximately
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 44

25,000 acres annually. The representative medium-small facility is defined as having two to four
planes and two 2,000 gallon bulk pesticide storage containers, and treating approximately
100,000 acres per year. The representative large-small aerial applicator has five or more planes
(some are known to have as many as 10 planes) and three bulk containers with a total capacity of
10,000 gallons, and treating at least 200,000 acres annually. Again, no large commercial
applicators are considered in this analysis.
Although some commercial applicators may be affiliated with pesticide registrants or agricultural
pesticide refillers, most commercial applicator operations are independently owned. No
definitive information is available to determine which or how many agricultural commercial
applicator operations are part of larger companies otherwise subject to regulations. We assume
the 2,000 aerial and 1,000 ground applicators considered in this analysis to be independently
owned and operated and directly impacted by containment requirements.
The resulting breakdown of the number of affected entities and financial characteristics for
representative facilities by EPA alternative small business definition is presented in Table 3.5.
Because insufficient data are available for ground applicators, the entity size breakdown and
financial characteristics for aerial applicators were applied to the estimated 1,000 ground
applicators affected by containment regulations.
In summary, this chapter presented the economic profile of the agricultural refillers and
commercial applicators, and provided the estimates of the number of facilities not in compliance
with the final containment regulations (i.e., will have to install new containment units and/or
pads, or will have to retrofit existing containment units and/or pads). This information will be
used together with the information on the costs of compliance described in the next chapter
(Chapter 4) to estimate the impacts of compliance with the final containment regulations
(described in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5).

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 45

4.0 Facility Impact Analysis
The preceding chapter (Chapter 3) described the compliance of bulk pesticide containment
facilities with the final containment regulations, presenting estimates of the number of facilities
that will need to install new containment units and pads and those facilities that will need to
retrofit existing containment units and pads for compliance with the final regulations. We use
this information, along with the information on unit costs presented in this chapter, to estimate
the impacts of compliance with the final regulations for the average entity in each of the
regulated industries.
This chapter presents the estimated facility-level cost to construct new containment units and
pads (Section 4.1), as well as to retrofit existing containment structures under the final
regulations (Section 4.2). Costs are estimated for small-small, medium-small, large-small, and
large representative facilities of agricultural pesticide refillers (agrichemical dealerships) and
independent, for-hire commercial (aerial and ground) applicators.23 The general approach used
to develop the costs of compliance, per facility and in aggregate, involved the following steps:
(1) Compile unit costs for secondary containment units and containment pads;
(2) Apply unit costs to the expected equipment and materials required to bring both new and
existing containment structures into compliance;
(3) Calculate facility-level compliance costs (non-discounted) and then discount and annualize
those costs; and 24
(4) Calculate aggregate costs and assess economic impacts by representative facility and for
affected industries.
Appendix A presents a more detailed discussion of the discounting and annualization methods
we apply in this analysis. It is important to note, however, that this analysis considers two
discount/interest rate scenarios: a 3 percent scenario and a 7 percent scenario.25
The final containment regulations affect bulk pesticide storage facilities that have existing
containment structures, as well as facilities that will require new containment structures to
comply with the rule. For bulk storage facilities without existing secondary containment units
and/or containments pads, the cost to construct new containment structures is estimated. These
estimates cover the cost to construct secondary containment units for stationary bulk pesticide
containers of liquid and/or dry pesticides. The estimates also include the cost to construct
containment pads for areas where pesticides are dispensed from and into bulk containers, as well
23

Note that this is a departure from the facility size categories used in the proposed containment regulations RIA,
where facility sizes were categorized as small, medium, and large. We transfer cost assumptions from the proposed
RIA as follows: small cost assumptions are applied to small-small facilities; medium cost assumptions are applied to
medium-small facilities; and large cost assumptions are applied to both large-small and large facilities.
24
The average number and size of containers in representative facilities have an impact on the construction cost for
containment units because they affect the total storage area. This is the only way in which the number of containers
affects the cost.
25
Where applicable, all discounted and annualized costs are presented using both a 3 percent and 7 percent discount
rate scenario in their calculation. The cost tables will be presented for both discount rates, but the text will only
describe the estimated costs at the 3 percent discount rate.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 46

as for areas where refillable containers are cleaned and/or refilled. Agricultural refillers and
applicator businesses with existing containment structures that do not meet the critical standards
will incur costs to retrofit or replace existing structures in order to comply with the final rule.
Facility-level costs are calculated using unit costs from the 1992 period, developed to estimate
costs for the RIA of the proposed rule. To update final industry compliance costs to current year
(2005) dollars, we apply a CPI-U “All Items” based adjustment factor to account for general
price inflation (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005). The results of the facility impact analysis are
then used to evaluate the aggregate industry impacts of the final pesticide containment
regulations (see Chapter 5). Appendix H presents the unit costs of compliance with the final
regulations.
Many businesses requiring pesticide containment structures under this rule may already have
secondary containment units and/or containment pads in place, particularly in states with existing
bulk storage regulations. Other affected businesses have no pesticide containment structures.
Accordingly, compliance costs per facility will vary greatly, depending on whether containment
structures are already in place, and if so, the extent to which such structures will require
retrofitting to comply with the final rule.
Equipment and materials required for the construction of necessary secondary containment units
and pads are based on information from various published and industry sources, including
guidance specifications and manuals, engineering cost studies, industry publications, vendor and
manufacturer literature, and information received from industry contacts. Unit costs were
compiled from published data sources, including Means Site Work Cost Data and Building
Construction Cost Data (R.S. Means Company, Inc., 1991a, 1991b, 1992), and from estimates
provided by equipment manufacturers and vendors.
Where data were not available, we simply transferred cost assumptions from similar unit cost
categories. For example, new bulk liquid outdoor storage cost data were not available for smallsmall, medium-small, and large-small commercial applicators. To fill this cost gap, we assumed
that the new bulk liquid outdoor storage cost data associated with small-small, medium-small,
and large-small agricultural refillers were representative of costs incurred by commercial
applicators and transferred the costs accordingly. All facility-level costs were originally
calculated in 1992 dollars, based on the reported unit costs in the proposed containment rule
RIA. As stated above, figures are inflated to 2005 dollars to account for general price inflation
over the period. All final cost estimates expressed in terms of annualized costs are in 2005
dollars.
We calculated facility-level costs according to total capital, initial, intermittent, and operating
and management (O&M) costs for secondary containment units and for containment pads at each
representative facility. These costs are combined and converted to an annualized cost by first
calculating the present discounted value of the stream of compliance costs associated with the
containment regulations for the length of the compliance period. We then annualized the present
discounted value for the same compliance period. Once the annualized cost has been calculated
for each representative facility, the annualized costs are multiplied by the estimated number of

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 47

facilities expected to incur those costs. This procedure results in an aggregate annual cost by
industry.
Compliance with the regulations is required 3 years after promulgation of the final rule.
Containment structures are projected to have a 20-year life, and this economic analysis computes
costs across a 20-year period, although the engineering design, the level of maintenance, and
climate factors can result in a longer (or shorter) life. Regulations are assumed to be published in
year 1, with construction of new containment structures occurring in years 2 and 3, and with full
compliance by the beginning of year 4. All capital (depreciable) or initial (non-depreciable)
costs are assumed incurred in year 3; annual (O&M) costs occur each year after the compliance
date is reached (year 4 through year 20 in the 20-year period of analysis); and intermittent costs
occur every fifth year following full compliance.
4.1 Compliance Costs for New Containment Structures
This section discusses the cost assumptions and unit cost data that are used to compute
compliance costs, followed by a presentation of the results of the facility-level cost analysis.
Costs of compliance with EPA standards for new containment structures are presented by
representative facility for agricultural refillers and for independent (for-hire) commercial
applicators, followed by a discussion of aggregate industry costs.
New Secondary Containment Units. For this analysis, a new secondary containment unit
consists of an impermeable pad with a wall around its perimeter, within which stationary bulk
storage containers are placed. Concrete is assumed to be the primary material currently used to
construct secondary containment units, although other compatible materials of equivalent
strength and imperviousness would also comply with the rule.26
The final containment regulations require that precipitation and pesticide rinsate27 that fall on
secondary containment structures be disposed of properly. Several design options are feasible to
manage pesticide rinsate and precipitation within secondary containment units. Containment
structures can be built with or without a sump, and with or without a roof. Adding a roof to an
outdoor bulk pesticide storage area will reduce the amount of precipitation collected in a

26

Under EPA’s requirements, concrete is listed among other recommended materials from which to construct
pesticide containment facilities, including steel, reinforced concrete, or other rigid materials that are liquid-tight.
Asphalt and earthen material, however, are prohibited.
27
“Rinsate” is defined as any liquid containing relatively low concentrations of pesticides (i.e., less than field
strength application concentrations) that can accumulate on the surface or in the sump of a containment structure
(Kammel et al., 1991). Rinsates attributable to the proposed regulations are:
• Water from cleaning refillable containers
• Water from the wash down of a containment structure
• Precipitation falling on a containment structure.
Rinsate can generally be reused. However, it becomes “waste” if there is no longer an opportunity to use it in an
acceptable manner and it is discarded as waste. An incompatible pesticide rinsate mixture may occur when two or
more incompatible pesticides are allowed to mix in a rinsate collection area (e.g., a sump). Depending on the
pesticide mixture, this incompatible mixture may be disposed at a hazardous waste disposal facility, incinerated at
an acceptable facility, or recycled in a rinsate recycling system. These recycled materials will not necessarily
become wastes. Not all incompatible rinsates will become hazardous wastes.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 48

secondary containment unit that must be used as make-up water, which may be applied to a field
as a pesticide product or discarded as waste.
The regulatory option depicted for this economic analysis includes a sump system (i.e., a pit or
reservoir for collecting rinsate/precipitation) and a storage tank to hold accumulated
rinsate/precipitation prior to reuse or proper disposal. The design option does not depict roofed
outdoor storage within a secondary containment unit, although a roof or other sufficient
overhang would prevent the accumulation of significant quantities of precipitation. The Agency
is recommending but not requiring a roofed structure.28 All structures, regardless of design, will
require a portable pump and hose to clean up spills. The same pump can be used to remove
rinsate/precipitation, as required.
Indoor facilities are assumed to already have concrete floors. Secondary containment of indoor
stationary bulk containers is assumed to require thorough cleaning of the existing concrete
structure and the addition of a wall for containment. A portable pump and hose are considered
essential for cleaning up any spills. The result is a “new” containment structure (i.e., the existing
concrete floor by itself is not considered a secondary containment unit in the baseline).
Both flat-bottomed and cone-shaped containers are used for bulk pesticide storage, and we
initially analyzed secondary containment for both types of containers. Consistent with the
proposed regulations, the previous analysis (the proposed containment rule RIA) estimated costs
for flat-bottomed containers assuming at least minimal elevation to allow for observation of
leakage from the base area.29 Flat-bottomed containers have higher capital costs, because of
greater displacement volume and the need for a higher wall. Cone-shaped containers have
higher O&M costs, because more concrete within the containment area is generally exposed and
subject to deterioration. There are no significant differences in overall costs due to the type of
container(s) in use at a facility. The number and size of stationary bulk containers to be
contained, and whether such containers are indoors or outdoors, will influence the cost of
secondary containment at affected facilities.
Contractors’ fees associated with the construction of new secondary containment structures are
estimated at 30 percent of direct costs for outdoor structures and 25 percent of direct costs for
indoor structures. Contingency fees also associated with the construction of new secondary
containment structures are estimated at 5 percent of direct costs plus contractor’s fees. These
have also been added to the overall construction costs.
For this economic analysis, the size of secondary containment areas is based on the storage area
and wall heights shown in Table 4.1 for each of the four representative agricultural refilling
facilities. The average number and size of containers at each representative facility, specified in
Chapter 3, determine the storage area and wall heights presented in Table 4.1. These storage
areas allow for a 3-foot clearance between all containers and between containers and the edges of
the walled area. The wall height is then sized to allow containment equal to 100 percent (indoor
28

EPA requires protection from precipitation for dry bulk; however, some facilities achieve this with tarpaulins over
sealed tanks. EPA believes that it is not necessary to specify a protection method because it is in a facility’s best
interest to protect the dry product it has purchased.
29
The requirement to elevate storage tanks was subsequently deleted from the regulation.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 49

structures) or 110 percent (outdoor structures) of the volume of the largest stationary bulk
container plus the volume displaced by the bottom of the container(s); pump(s); other containers
within the containment area; and pipes, hoses, and other appurtenances. We transfer these
storage area specifications to same-sized (small-small, medium-small, and large-small)
commercial applicators.
Table 4.1. Storage Area and Wall Height of Representative Agricultural Refiller Facilities
Representative Agricultural Refiller
Facility Size

Storage Area

Wall Height

Small-Small (indoor)
Small-Small (outdoor)

12’ x 12’
12’ x 12’

1.5’ - 2’
2’

Medium-Small (indoor)
Medium-Small (outdoor)

13’ x 33’
13’ x 33’

1’
1’

Large-Small (indoor)
Large-Small (outdoor)

26’ x 40’
26’ x 40’

1’
1’

Large (indoor)
Large (outdoor)

26’ x 40’
26’ x 40’

1’
1’

The major cost factor for facilities with bulk pesticide storage is the price of concrete, which is
assumed to be the primary construction material for secondary containment units. It is assumed
that 6-inch thick, reinforced concrete will be the primary material used for construction of the
concrete pad upon which the bulk containers will be stored. Unit costs for concrete are assumed
at $5.48 per square foot (ft2) (see Table H.1). Indoor secondary containment units are not
expected to incur concrete costs for floors since it is assumed that these containers are all
installed over concrete. Wall unit costs range from $9.53/ft2 to $17.82/ft2, depending on the wall
height (see Table H.3).
The analysis assumes that all stationary bulk containers, liquid or dry, indoor or outdoor, are
already on concrete pads. Dry bulk storage containers must be enclosed within a 6-inch curb or
berm extending at least 2 feet beyond the perimeter of the container.30 Typically, stationary dry
bulk pesticide storage containers are installed over concrete pads. To ensure sufficient protection
from wind and rain, the facility would have to use either a roof or tarpaulin, but the rule does not
specify how that protection is to be achieved. The existing pad must be extended and surrounded
by a berm.
Unit costs for concrete are assumed at $5.48/ft2; berm unit costs are estimated at $13.74/ft
(consistent with unit costs estimated for berm heights of about 1 foot) (Table H.1). Dry bulk
only needs a berm of 6 inches. Reinforcement bars are used to join the existing and new areas of
concrete, and are estimated at $3.02/ft (Table H.5, H.12). A portable pump and hose necessary
for secondary containment units are estimated to cost $548 (Table H.1). Sump costs for
secondary containment units are estimated at $959 for a small-small facility, $1,644 for a
medium-small facility, and $3,013 for large-small and large facilities (Table H.1). Costs to new
30

This requirement in the final rule specifies that dry pesticides be stored on pallets or on a concrete platform in
order to protect from wind and rain and to prevent water in or under the pesticide. Costs incurred under the final
regulations are based on the requirement of a 6-inch high curb that extends at least 2 feet beyond the perimeter of the
container.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 50

facilities are not estimated for stormwater protection, appurtenances easily observed for leaks,
lockable valves, attended transfer, and rinsate management, since these costs/activities are
assumed to be part of a facility’s routine operation and therefore already accounted for in the
O&M costs.
EPA is not requiring rinsate tanks, but is recommending that they be part of bulk pesticide
containment structures. Nevertheless, rinsate tanks represent an indirect cost of the rule since
facilities will have to manage rinsate in any case. New facilities will need to purchase rinsate
tanks as part of the package to comply with the rinsate management required by the secondary
containment regulations.31 The rinsate tanks could, according to good management practice, be
placed inside the same containment as the pesticide storage. The added cement for the displaced
volume of the rinsate tanks as compared to the pesticide tanks is expected to be negligible.
This economic analysis calculates the cost of rinsate tanks for new facilities, but not for existing
facilities.32 To comply with the final rule’s criteria for rinsate management, it is assumed that
every new facility will have to have a rinsate tank, even facilities with dry bulk storage, unless
all their containers are dedicated to single products. All existing agricultural refilling
establishments (indoor and outdoor) are likely to have acquired rinsate tanks in order to comply
with the 1996 EPA Office of Water effluent guideline regulations, and so should have already
incurred costs for tanks (EPA, 1996). The effluent regulations, however, do not necessarily
apply to the same sectors of the pesticide industry as the pesticide containment rule. As a
conservative measure, rinsate tank costs are added to all new facility structures as part of this
economic analysis. Rinsate tank costs are not estimated for existing facilities, since it is assumed
that all existing facilities already have tanks in place.
Rinsate storage typically consists of three to six tanks ranging from 100 to 500 gallons each.
Most facilities will have two rinsate tanks, which tend to be smaller than the pesticide tanks.
Alternatively, many outdoor facilities will use large 3,000 gallon rinsate tanks.33 A small facility
may opt to use 55-gallon drums to store rinsate. The cost of rinsate tanks also varies for outdoor
versus indoor containment structures. In the case of outdoor liquid bulk facilities, rinsate tanks
also function as precipitation storage, and so tend to be larger. Inside facilities also require
tanks, but since they only collect rinsate these tanks may be smaller.
Based on information obtained from a container manufacturer, tanks of cross-linked
polyethylene are often cheaper than stainless steel and provide a reasonable option for collecting
dilute solutions like rinsate. Maximum tank costs for rinsate tanks per facility assumed for this
economic analysis are as follows:
•

Tank costs for outdoor liquid structures (secondary units and containment pads) are estimated
at $589 for a small-small facility, $1,653 for a medium-small facility, and $2,356 for largesmall and large facilities (Table H.1).

31

The economic analysis estimates rinsate tank costs for all facilities, even small facilities.
The analysis of the final rule includes costs for rinsate containers at facilities of all sizes.
33
In 1998, costs for large rinsate tanks were quoted at $1,000 ($1,180 in 2005$) for a flat-bottomed tank and about
$2,300 ($2,715 in 2005$) for a cone-shaped tank on a steel support.
32

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 51

•

Tank costs for indoor liquid structures and for dry bulk containers (indoor and outdoor) are
estimated at $342 for a small-small facility, $589 for a medium-small facility, and $1,301 for
large-small and large facilities (Tables H.3 and H.5).34

For large-small and large facilities, these costs are assumed to cover the range of expense options
associated with the purchase of either a 3,000-gallon tank or two 1,000-gallon tanks. Since there
are very few crops, with the exception of corn, that use large quantities of pesticides, even a large
facility will not need more than two or three rinsate tanks.35
New Containment Pads. Facilities that have stationary bulk pesticide storage containers must
have a containment pad adjacent to the bulk containers for activities such as loading into or
unloading from the bulk containers, and rinsing and/or refilling containers or equipment from the
bulk containers. Pad size will vary among facilities, depending on site-specific needs. Although
facilities may choose to have more than one pad, it is assumed that one sufficiently sized pad
may be used as a multi-purpose pad. Typical multi-purpose pad sizes are as follows: a small pad
is 15 feet by 30 feet; a medium pad is 25 feet by 50 feet; and a large pad is 60 feet by 50 feet.
We assume that small-small and medium-small agricultural refillers require a small containment
pad, large-small and large agricultural refillers as well as ground applicators require a medium
pad, and aerial applicators require a large pad to accommodate a plane. The smaller containment
pad (15 feet by 30 feet) is assumed sufficient for facilities that do not have bulk storage, but that
use and clean refillable containers.
This analysis assumes that new containment pads will be constructed of concrete. Concrete costs
for a pad are estimated at $5.48/ft2. The cost of the berm around the perimeter of the pad
includes concrete costs at $1.78/ft2; forms at $2.74/ft; and grout at $1.24/ft. Sump costs for
containment pads are estimated at $274 for a small-small facility and at $411 for a mediumsmall, large-small, and large facility. (See Table H.7.)
As with new secondary containment units, precipitation and pesticide rinsate that collect on
outdoor containment pads must be stored and used or disposed of properly. Appropriate storage
containers must contain rinsate/precipitation volumes associated with small, medium, and large
outdoor containment pads. Indoor bulk storage facilities are assumed to have a concrete floor
where dispensing into and out of the bulk containers is conducted. In this analysis, existing
floors are assumed to be flat and of uniform elevation without sumps. For new containment pads
in existing facilities, unit costs were developed for two indoor containment pad scenarios:
(1) concrete is added to the existing floor to allow for the required slope and a sump is added and
(2) the existing concrete floor is removed and a new sloped pad is constructed. Rinsate tank
costs are presented in the previous section on new secondary containment units.

34

These costs are based on prices quoted from manufacturers in 1998. For consistency, these costs are presented in
2005 dollars for the facility-level analysis based on an inflation factor derived from the CPI-U “All Items” Index
(U.S. Department of Labor, 2005).
35
To avoid double counting, costs for only one set of rinsate tanks is calculated for outdoor facilities that have both
a containment pad and secondary containment.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 52

4.1.1 Representative Facility Costs (Non-Discounted) for Agricultural Refillers
This section presents estimated capital costs, O&M costs, and intermittent costs for new
secondary containment structures and pads by representative facility for agricultural refilling
establishments. Costs for new secondary containment structures and pads are estimated for both
indoor and outdoor liquid storage and for stationary bulk storage of dry pesticides. Nondiscounted costs are later presented as an equivalent, constant-level cost per year.
Tables H.1 through H.10 in Appendix H show the estimated capital, O&M, and intermittent costs
to install new secondary containment units and pads at agricultural refillers. These costs were
initially calculated in 1992 dollars. These facility-level costs are presented in the discussion
below in terms of 2005 dollars and have been inflated using the CPI-U “All” index, reported by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005). Table 4.2 presents a summary
of these estimated 2005 costs.
New Containment Structures: Outdoor Bulk Liquid Storage. Table 4.2 presents the
estimated capital, O&M, and intermittent costs for the secondary containment of outdoor bulk
liquid storage containers. Capital costs range from $5,600 at the small-small representative
facility to $18,250 at the large representative facility for a design option that includes a sump and
a rinsate/precipitation container. O&M costs cover monthly inspections/recordkeeping, spill
cleanup, rinsate/precipitation pumping, and removal of collected rinsate/precipitation to an offsite area for application as a pesticide (see Table H.2). Facilities that can use all or part of the
rinsate/precipitation as make-up water will incur lower O&M costs. Annual O&M costs
associated with these secondary containment units range from $1,160 for the small-small facility
to $2,760 for the large facility, assuming that a rinsate/precipitation tank and a sump are used.
Intermittent costs are incurred to repair cracks, gaps, and seams (see Table H.2). Intermittent
costs are estimated to range from $50 for the small-small facility to $130 for the large facility.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 53

Table 4.2. Summary of Facility-Level Costs (2005$) to Install New Secondary Containment
Units and Pads, Representative Agricultural Refiller and Commercial Applicator Facilities
$ per Facility a
Compliance Cost Item

Small-Small
Facility

Medium-Small
Facility

Large-Small
Facility

Large Facility

AGRICULTURAL REFILLERS
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Capital

5600

10300

18250

18250

O&M

1160

1540

2760

2760

50

120

130

130

2170

2500

3780

3780

740

1050

1490

1490

50

120

130

130

5230

5230

5230

Intermittent
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Indoor
Capital
O&M
Intermittent
Secondary Containment -Bulk Dry (1 Container)
Capital
na
O&M

na

850

850

850

Intermittent

na

100

100

100

AERIAL APPLICATORS
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Capital

5600

10300

18250 na

O&M

1160

1550

2790 na

50

120

130 na

Intermittent

GROUND APPLICATORS
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Capital
na

na

10300 na

O&M

na

na

1550 na

Intermittent

na

na

120 na

REFILLERS & APPLICATORS
Containment Pads - Outdoor (Scenarios 1 & 2) b
Capital

5,850-6,600

O&M
Intermittent

16,110-18,310 34,060-34,810

34,060-34,810

1190

2210

5100

5100

40

50

70

70

18,730-23,970 50,570-53,840

50,570-53,840

Containment Pads - Indoor (Scenarios 1 & 2) c
Capital
O&M

6,860-8,790
740

1100

1490

740

Intermittent
40
50
70
40
Inflated from 1992$ costs (Tables H.1 to H.10) trends in the Consumer Price Index “All Items” (U.S. Department
of Labor, 2005). Figures may not match totals in Appendix H due to rounding.
b
Scenario 1 (both secondary containment units and containment pads) and Scenario 2 (pad only). Avoids
duplicating costs.
c
Scenario 1 (use existing concrete floor as base) and Scenario 2 (demolish/remove existing concrete floor;
reconstruct pad).
a

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 54

New Containment Structures: Indoor Bulk Liquid Storage. Table 4.2 presents the estimated
capital, O&M, and intermittent costs of secondary containment units for indoor bulk liquid
storage containers. Capital costs range from $2,170 for the small-small representative facility to
$3,780 for the large facility. Costs include a berm, rinsate/precipitation tank, portable pump and
hose, pipes and fixtures, and contractor’s and contingency fees (see Table H.3). No costs are
estimated for a concrete pad, because it is assumed that all existing tanks are installed over a
concrete floor. Annual O&M costs are between $740 and $1,490 per facility, and include the
cost of spill cleanup and monthly inspection/recordkeeping. Intermittent costs to repair cracks,
gaps, and seams are estimated between $50 for a small-small facility and $130 for a large
facility. (See Table H.4 for itemized O&M and intermittent costs.)
New Containment Structures: Stationary Bulk Dry Storage. Capital, O&M, and intermittent
costs are estimated for secondary containment of stationary bulk storage containers for dry
pesticides (bulk solids) for one container (Table 4.2). A facility with one dry bulk container is
expected to incur capital costs of $5,230 (see Table H.5 for itemized capital costs). Annual
O&M costs are estimated at $850 for one container and consist of spill cleanup,
rinsate/precipitation pumping, and monthly inspection/recordkeeping costs. Intermittent costs
incurred to repair cracks, gaps, and seams are estimated at $100. (See Table H.6 for itemized
O&M and intermittent costs.) No costs are estimated for small-small refiller facilities with
outdoor bulk dry storage, since it is assumed that only medium-small, large-small, and large
facilities handle dry bulk pesticides.
New Containment Pads: Outdoor Bulk Liquid Storage. Table 4.2 presents estimated capital,
O&M, and intermittent costs for two outdoor containment pad scenarios. Scenario 1 evaluates
the capital costs of facilities that also must have secondary containment of bulk storage
containers. For these facilities, costs range from $5,850 for the small-small pad to $34,060 for
the large pad. Scenario 2 estimates capital costs to facilities that require only a new containment
pad, including the costs of a pump and hose. Costs at these facilities are estimated to range from
$6,600 for a small-small pad to $34,810 for a large pad. Capital costs under Scenario 1 are lower
than those estimated under Scenario 2 because the costs of a portable pump and hose have
already been accounted for within the overall secondary containment costs under Scenario 1.
(See Table H.7 for itemized capital costs.) O&M and intermittent costs are the same across both
scenarios. Annual O&M costs cover spill cleanup, rinsate/precipitation pumping, transporting
the rinsate/precipitation off-site for application to crops, and monthly inspection and
recordkeeping. These costs are estimated to range from $1,190 per year for the small-small pad
to $5,100 per year for the large pad. Intermittent costs are estimated at no more than $70 for all
pad sizes to cover the repair of cracks, gaps, and seams. (See Table H.9 for itemized O&M and
intermittent costs.)
New Containment Pads: Indoor Bulk Liquid Storage. Table 4.2 presents the estimated
capital, O&M, and intermittent costs for two indoor containment pad scenarios. Scenario 1
estimates capital costs for pads built over existing concrete floors. For these facilities, costs
range from $6,860 for the small-small pad to $50,570 for the large pad. Scenario 2 estimates
capital costs for facilities where the existing concrete floor is removed prior to construction of
the containment pad. Costs at these facilities are between $8,790 for the small-small pad and
$53,840 for the large pad. The condition and age of the existing concrete floor will likely be a

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 55

primary factor in deciding whether to remove it prior to construction. (See Table H.8 for
itemized capital costs.) Annual O&M costs for spill cleanup, rinsate/precipitation pumping, and
monthly inspections/recordkeeping are estimated to be between $740 for the small-small indoor
containment pad and $1,490 for the large pad (Table 4.2). Intermittent costs to repair cracks are
no more than $70 for all pad sizes (Table 4.2). (See Table H.9 for itemized O&M and
intermittent costs.)
4.1.2 Representative Facility Annualized Costs to Agricultural Refillers
Compliance costs have been converted to represent the annual costs associated with the
construction of new secondary containment units and containment pads, based on the facilitylevel costs previously discussed. Appendix B presents the non-discounted facility-level schedule
of costs across the 20-year analysis period from which annualized costs are based. Summary
tables of annualized costs (using the methodology discussed in Appendix A) are provided in
Tables 4.3-4.6.
Annualized Costs: Secondary Containment Units. Tables 4.3 and 4.4 present the estimated
annual requirements (calculated using a 3 percent and 7 percent discount/interest rate,
respectively) across representative facility sizes for both outdoor (liquid and dry) and indoor
(liquid) secondary containment.36 For small-small facilities, annualized costs are estimated at
$1,253 for sites with outdoor bulk liquid storage and $718 for sites with indoor bulk liquid
storage. For medium-small facilities, estimated annualized costs are $1,842 for sites with
outdoor liquid storage and $991 for sites with indoor liquid storage. For large-small and large
facilities, estimated annualized costs are $3,277 for sites with outdoor liquid storage and $1,415
for sites with indoor liquid storage. Medium-small, large-small, and large facilities that also
have dry bulk storage will incur additional annualized costs of $994 for one dry bulk container.
No costs are estimated for small-small refiller facilities with outdoor bulk dry storage, since it is
assumed that only medium-small, large-small, and large facilities handle dry bulk pesticides.
(See Table 4.3.)
Annualized Costs: Secondary Containment Pads. Annualized costs for containment pads for
outdoor and indoor facilities are shown under two different scenarios in Tables 4.5 and 4.6. It is
assumed that small-small and medium-small facilities will require a small pad and large-small
and large agricultural refiller facilities will require a medium-sized pad.37 The containment pad
annualized costs for indoor agricultural facilities range from $997 at a small-small facility to
$1,990 at a large facility, if existing concrete floors are used as the base for a new containment
pad. If the existing floor is removed prior to constructing a new pad, estimated annualized costs
range from $1,112 at a small-small facility to $2,303 at a large facility. (See Table 4.5.)
Outdoor pad scenarios are calculated for facilities that require both secondary units and pads
(Scenario 1) and facilities that require pads only (Scenario 2). For outdoor bulk storage, a smallsmall and medium-small facility will incur annualized costs for a small containment pad of
36

Note: All annual revenue figures are calculated using both a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate in the
discounting procedure and both a 3 percent and 7 percent interest rate in the annualization procedure. When referred
to in the text, the annual costs at the 3 percent rate will be presented. A separate table is presented for costs at each
rate.
37
Costs for a large pad are applicable only to aerial applicators.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 56

between $1,290 under Scenario 1 and $1,335 under Scenario 2.38 Small-small agricultural
refiller facilities that need only a containment pad because they are conducting operational
activities from
Table 4.3. Summary of Annualized Costs for Compliance with Containment Regulations,
Representative Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Aerial and Ground
Applicators, a Install NEW Secondary Containment Units, 2005$, 3% Discount Rate
Location/Design Option

Small-Small

Secondary Containment, Agricultural Refillers
Liquid bulk, outdoors
Liquid bulk, indoors
Dry bulk, outdoors
One container
Two containers

Medium-Small

Large-Small

Large

1,253
718

1,842
991

3,277
1,415

3,277
1,415

n/a
n/a

994
1,351

994
1,351

994
1,351

Secondary Containment, Commercial Applicators
Liquid bulk, outdoors b
Aerial c
1,253
1,850
3,301
n/a
Ground d
n/a
n/a
1,850
n/a
a
Annualized costs based on non-discounted cost estimates, annualized using the methodology discussed in
Appendix A. Individual non-discounted cost estimates are shown in Appendix B. Estimated 1992 facility-level
costs have been inflated to 2005 dollars based on reported trends in the Consumer Price Index, “All Items” (U.S.
Department of Labor, 2005).
b
No independent commercial applicators are known to store bulk quantities of dry pesticides (greater than 4000
pounds).
c
The annualized cost for the small-small, medium-small and large-small representative agricultural facility is used
as a proxy for any affected small-small, medium-small and large-small commercial aerial applicators.
d
The annualized cost for the medium-small representative agricultural facility is used as a proxy for any affected
large commercial ground applicators.

38

Costs are higher under Scenario 2 because the cost for a pump and portable hose is included. This cost is included
as a “secondary containment” cost under Scenario 1 and is not included to avoid double-counting.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 57

Table 4.4. Summary of Annualized Costs for Compliance with Containment Regulations,
Representative Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Aerial and Ground
Applicators, a Install NEW Secondary Containment Units, 2005$, 7% Discount Rate
Location/Design Option

Small-Small

Medium-Small

Large-Small

Large

1,225
682

1,838
932

3,270
1,335

3,270
1,335

n/a
n/a

986
1,338

986
1,338

986
1,338

Secondary Containment, Agricultural Refillers
Liquid bulk, outdoors
Liquid bulk, indoors
Dry bulk, outdoors
One container
Two containers

Secondary Containment, Commercial Applicators
Liquid bulk, outdoors b
Aerial c
1,225
1,838
3,270
n/a
Ground d
n/a
n/a
1,838
n/a
a
Annualized costs based on non-discounted cost estimates, annualized using the methodology discussed in
Appendix A. Individual non-discounted cost estimates are shown in Appendix B. Estimated 1992 facility-level
costs have been inflated to 2002 dollars based on reported trends in the Consumer Price Index, “All Items” (U.S.
Department of Labor, 2005).
b
No independent commercial applicators are known to store bulk quantities of dry pesticides (greater than 4000
pounds).
c
The annualized cost for the small-small, medium-small and large-small representative agricultural facility is used
as a proxy for any affected small-small, medium-small and large-small commercial aerial applicators.
d
The annualized cost for the medium-small representative agricultural facility is used as a proxy for any affected
large commercial ground applicators.

smaller non-bulk containers have annualized costs of $1,335 for the small pad. Annualized costs
range from $2,706 under Scenario 1 to $2,838 under Scenario 2 for the medium pad used by
large-small and large agricultural refillers. (See Table 4.5.)
Annualized Costs: Secondary Containment Units and Pads. To comply with the final
containment standards, many refillers may incur costs across more than one of the individual
cost components evaluated in this analysis. These costs are combined to derive the total
annualized cost estimate for a single representative facility (Tables 4.7 and 4.8). For this
economic analysis, a small-small agricultural refiller with outdoor liquid bulk storage that needs
both secondary containment and a containment pad will have annualized costs estimated at
$2,544 per facility. A medium-small facility requiring both structures has estimated annualized
costs of $3,133 per facility, and large-small and large facilities have annualized costs of $5,983
per facility. Small-small and medium-small facilities requiring only a containment pad will have
annualized costs of $1,335 per facility. Large-small and large facilities requiring only a
(medium) containment pad have estimated annualized costs of $2,838 per facility. Both largesmall and large facilities that require a containment pad only are assumed to already have
secondary containment structures in place. (See Table 4.7.)
Small-small agricultural refillers that do not have bulk storage but that require a containment pad
for certain operational activities associated with smaller non-bulk containers (e.g., refilling
refillable containers from a 500-gallon container) have estimated annualized costs of $1,335 per

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 58

facility (Table 4.7). Facilities with indoor storage facilities requiring both secondary
containment and a pad will have annualized costs between $1,715 (small-small facility) and
$3,405 (large facility). Indoor facilities that require only a new containment pad have estimated
annualized costs ranging from $1,112 at a small-small and a medium-small facility to $2,303 at a
large-small and a large facility. (See Table 4.7.)
Refillers with both liquid and dry bulk storage face the highest annual cost to comply with the
final containment regulations. In addition to costs for a containment pad, such facilities have
been assigned two annualized costs for secondary containment: one for the liquid bulk containers
and one for a single dry bulk container. Separate secondary containment units are assumed for
liquid and dry pesticides, but it is assumed that liquid and dry pesticides will be placed in close
proximity so that one containment pad may be used for dispensing activities of both types.
Under these conditions, annualized costs per facility are estimated at $4,483 for the mediumsmall representative facility and $5,983 for the large-small and large facilities (Table 4.7). If the
dry bulk container at actual facilities is not adjacent to the liquid bulk containers, costs will likely
be greater. In that case, a second containment pad would be needed and additional annualized
costs of $2,838 per facility would be incurred (Table 4.7). Annualized costs for secondary
containment may be overstated, if the dry bulk container can be contained within the same
secondary containment structure as the liquid bulk containers.
Aggregate industry costs are then computed by multiplying the estimated annualized costs by the
estimated number of facilities potentially affected by the regulations (see Chapter 3 for a
description of the number of affected agricultural refiller facilities). Aggregate industry costs
incurred to construct new containment structures at agricultural refiller facilities are estimated at
$2.47 million on an annualized basis (Table 4.7). The breakdown of this estimated aggregate
cost by type of facility is as follows: (1) for agricultural refillers with outdoor liquid bulk storage,
the estimated cost across all facilities is $0.88 million; (2) for agricultural refillers that also have
dry bulk storage, the estimated cost across all facilities is an additional $0.14 million; (3) for
agricultural refillers with indoor liquid bulk storage, the estimated cost across all facilities is
$0.25 million; (4) for agricultural refillers with indoor liquid bulk storage that need only
containment pad, the estimated cost across all facilities is $0.12 million, and (5) for agricultural
refillers refilling from smaller (non-bulk) storage containers, the estimated cost across all
facilities is $0.75 million. By facility size, the aggregate industry costs are estimated at $2.00
million for small-small refiller facilities, $0.32 million for medium-small refiller facilities, $0.08
million for large-small refiller facilities, and $0.06 million for large refiller facilities. (See Table
4.7.)

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 59

Table 4.5. Summary of Annualized Costs for Compliance with Containment Regulations,
Representative Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Aerial and Ground
Applicators, Install NEW Secondary Containment Units and Pads, 2005$, 3% Discount
Ratea
All Affected Facilities ($/Facility)
Small Pad
(15’ x 30’)

Medium Pad b
(25’ x 50’)

Large Pad
(60’ x 50’)

OUTDOOR CONTAINMENT PADS
Scenario 1: Facilities requiring both secondary containment and containment pads
Small-Small/Medium-Small agricultural refiller
Large-Small/Large agricultural refiller
Any size aerial applicator (Small-, Medium-, and
Large-Small)
Large-Small ground applicator

1,290
-----

--2,706
---

----6,054

---

2,706

---

--2,838
---

----6,098

2,838

---

--1,990

-----

Scenario 2: Facilities requiring only a containment pad for compliance c
Small-Small/Medium-Small agricultural refiller
Large-Small/Large agricultural refiller
Any size aerial applicator (Small-, Medium-, and
Large-Small)
Large-Small ground applicator

1,335
-------

INDOOR CONTAINMENT PADS

d

Scenario 1: Use existing concrete floor as base for new containment pad
Small-Small/Medium-Small agricultural refiller
Large-Small/Large agricultural refiller

997
---

Scenario 2: Demolish existing concrete floor and construct new containment pad
Small-Small/Medium-Small agricultural refiller
1,112
----Large-Small/Large agricultural refiller
--2,303
--a
Annualized costs based on non-discounted cost estimates, annualized using the methodology discussed in
Appendix A. Individual non-discounted cost estimates are shown in Appendix B. Estimated 1992 facility-level
costs have been inflated to 2005$ dollars based on reported trends in the Consumer Price Index, “All Items” (U.S.
Department of Labor, 2005).
b
The annualized costs for the medium-sized containment pad have been assigned to both the large-small and large
representative agricultural facilities. The large for-hire ground applicator has been assigned the same annualized
cost as the large-small agricultural facility.
c
The cost for a pad is higher than under Scenario 1 because the cost for a pump and portable hose are included.
That cost is included as a “secondary containment” cost under Scenario 1 and is not included as a pad cost to avoid
double counting.
d
Indoor bulk pesticide storage facilities that dispense into or out of indoor bulk containers are assumed to be
conducting such activities over a concrete floor. Owners/operators may elect to use the existing concrete as a base
for the containment pad, or they may choose to demolish the existing concrete prior to construction of the pad.
Annualized costs are shown for both scenarios. The annualized cost for the medium containment pad has been
assigned to both the large-small and large representative agricultural facilities. The large for-hire ground applicator
has been assigned the same annualized cost as the large-small agricultural facility.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 60

Table 4.6. Summary of Annualized Costs for Compliance with Containment Regulations,
Representative Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Aerial and Ground
Applicators, Install NEW Secondary Containment Units and Pads, 2005$, 7% Discount
Ratea
All Affected Facilities ($/Facility)
Small Pad
(15’ x 30’)

Medium Pad b
(25’ x 50’)

Large Pad
(60’ x 50’)

OUTDOOR CONTAINMENT PADS
Scenario 1: Facilities requiring both secondary containment and containment pads
Small-Small/Medium-Small agricultural refiller
Large-Small/Large agricultural refiller
Any size aerial applicator
Large ground applicator

1,262
-------

--2,719
--2,719

----6,046
---

--2,878
--2,878

----6,100
---

--2,128

-----

Scenario 2: Facilities requiring only a containment pad for compliance c
Small-Small/Medium-Small agricultural refiller
Large-Small/Large agricultural refiller
Any size aerial applicator
Large ground applicator

1,316
-------

INDOOR CONTAINMENT PADS d
Scenario 1: Use existing concrete floor as base for new containment pad
Small-Small/Medium-Small agricultural refiller
Large-Small/Large agricultural refiller

1,019
---

Scenario 2: Demolish existing concrete floor and construct new containment pad
Small-Small/Medium-Small agricultural refiller
1,158
----Large-Small/Large agricultural refiller
--2,505
--a
Annualized costs based on non-discounted cost estimates, annualized using the methodology discussed in
Appendix A. Individual non-discounted cost estimates are shown in Appendix B. Estimated 1992 facility-level
costs have been inflated to 2005$ dollars based on reported trends in the Consumer Price Index, “All Items” (U.S.
Department of Labor, 2005).
b
The annualized costs for the medium-sized containment pad have been assigned to both the large-small and large
representative agricultural facilities. The large for-hire ground applicator has been assigned the same annualized
cost as the large-small agricultural facility.
c
The cost for a pad is higher than under Scenario 1 because the cost for a pump and portable hose are included.
That cost is included as a “secondary containment” cost under Scenario 1 and is not included as a pad cost to avoid
double-counting.
d
Indoor bulk pesticide storage facilities that dispense into or out of indoor bulk containers are assumed to be
conducting such activities over a concrete floor. Owners/operators may elect to use the existing concrete as a base
for the containment pad, or they may choose to demolish the existing concrete prior to construction of the pad.
Annualized costs are shown for both scenarios. The annualized cost for the medium containment pad has been
assigned to both the large-small and large representative agricultural facilities. The large for-hire ground applicator
has been assigned the same annualized cost as the large-small agricultural facility. As compared to existing
facilities, the pad size requirements are different (see Table 4.11). Existing facilities are more overbuilt (see Section
4.2), therefore it is assumed that for new facilities agricultural refillers will require smaller pad.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 61

Table 4.7. Summary of Annualized Costs to Install New Secondary Containment Units and
Pads, Representative Agricultural Refillers, 3% Discount Rate
SmallSmall
Facility

Compliance Cost Item

MediumLarge-Small
Small Facility
Facility

Large
Facility

All
Facilities

AGRICULTURAL REFILLERS
Outdoor Liquid Storage
(A) Secondary Containment + Pad
Number of Affected Facilities a
Annualized Cost/facility ($)
Subtotal, aggregate cost

b

c

270

46

5

3

324

2,544

3,133

5,983

5,983

0

687,138

1,44,797

28,991

17,673

8,78,599

200

34

4

2

240

1,335

1,335

2,838

2,838

0

2,66,845

45,660

10,173

6,201

3,28,879

(B) Containment Pad Only
Number of Affected Facilities
Annualized Cost/facility ($)
Subtotal, aggregate cost
Outdoor Dry Storage
(A) Secondary Containment + Pad
Number of Affected Facilities

n/a

17

6

6

28

Annualized Cost/facility ($)

n/a

4,483

5,983

5,983

0

Subtotal, aggregate cost

n/a

76,158

33,882

33,882

1,43,922

116

20

2

1

139

1,715

1,988

3,405

3,405

0

1,98,559

39,381

7,070

4,310

2,49,320

86

15

2

1

103

1,112

1,112

2,303

2,303

0

95,258

16,300

3,538

2,157

1,17,253

Indoor Liquid Storage
(A) Secondary Containment + Pad d
Number of Affected Facilities
Annualized Cost/facility ($)
Subtotal, aggregate cost
(B) Containment Pad Only
Number of Affected Facilities
Annualized Cost/facility ($)
Subtotal, aggregate cost
Non-Bulk Storage/Dispensing
(A) Containment Pad
Number of Affected Facilities
Annualized Cost/facility ($)
Subtotal, aggregate cost

e

561 n/a

n/a

n/a

561

1,335 n/a

n/a

n/a

0

7,49,049 n/a

n/a

n/a

7,49,049

ALL AG. REFILLERS INDUSTRY
19,96,849
3,22,296
83,654
64,224 2,467,023
TOTAL
a
Number of facilities taken from Table G.3.
b
Represents an aggregation of all relevant annualized costs per facility. Costs in the table may not add due to
rounding. Annualized costs are based on those presented in Tables 4.3 and 4.5.
c
Subtotals are not the exact product of number of affected facilities and Cost/Facility shown here due to rounding of
number of facilities.
d
Assumes affected facilities will use existing concrete floor as a base for building a containment pad.
e
Refillers that conduct activities such as refilling refillable containers from smaller (non-bulk) containers.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 62

Table 4.8. Summary of Annualized Costs to Install New Secondary Containment Units and
Pads, Representative Agricultural Refillers, 7% Discount Rate
SmallSmall
Facility

Compliance Cost Item

MediumLarge-Small
Small Facility
Facility

Large
Facility

All Facilities

AGRICULTURAL REFILLERS
Outdoor Liquid Storage
(A) Secondary Containment + Pad
Number of Affected Facilities a
Annualized Cost/facility ($)
Subtotal, aggregate cost

b

c

270

46

5

3

324

2,487

3,101

5,988

5,988

0

671,837

143,322

29,015

17,688

861,863

200

34

4

2

240

1,316

1,316

2,878

2,878

0

263,105

45,020

10,317

6,289

324,731

(B) Containment Pad Only
Number of Affected Facilities
Annualized Cost/facility ($)
Subtotal, aggregate cost
Outdoor Dry Storage
(A) Secondary Containment + Pad
Number of Affected Facilities

n/a

17

6

6

28

Annualized Cost/facility ($)

n/a

4,439

5,988

5,988

0

Subtotal, aggregate cost

n/a

75,404

33,910

33,910

143,224

116

20

2

1

139

1,701

1,951

3,462

3,462

0

196,939

38,645

7,190

4,383

247,158

86

15

2

1

103

1,158

1,158

2,505

2,505

0

99,169

16,969

3,849

2,346

122,332

Indoor Liquid Storage
(A) Secondary Containment + Pad d
Number of Affected Facilities
Annualized Cost/facility ($)
Subtotal, aggregate cost
(B) Containment Pad Only
Number of Affected Facilities
Annualized Cost/facility ($)
Subtotal, aggregate cost
e

Non-Bulk Storage/Dispensing
(A) Secondary Containment + Pad
Number of Affected Facilities
Annualized Cost/facility ($)
Subtotal, aggregate cost

561 n/a

n/a

n/a

561

1,316 n/a

n/a

n/a

0

738,552 n/a

n/a

n/a

738,552

ALL AG. REFILLERS
1,969,603
319,360
84,280
64,617
2,437,860
INDUSTRY TOTAL
a
Number of facilities taken from Table G.3.
b
Represents an aggregation of all relevant annualized costs per facility. Costs in the table may not add due to
rounding. Annualized costs based on those presented in Tables 4.4 and 4.6.
c
Subtotals are not the exact product of number of affected facilities and Cost/Facility shown here due to rounding of
number of facilities.
d
Assumes affected facilities will use existing concrete floor as a base for building a containment pad.
e
Refillers that conduct activities such as refilling refillable containers from smaller (non-bulk) containers.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 63

4.1.3 Representative Facility Costs (Non-Discounted) for Commercial Applicators
This section presents estimated capital costs, operating and management (O&M) costs, and
intermittent costs for new secondary containment structures and pads by representative facility
for commercial (for-hire) aerial and ground applicators. These facility-level cost tables are
aggregated are in Appendix H. All final costs are converted to current 2005 dollars, adjusting for
inflation based on reported trends in the Consumer Price Index (U.S. Department of Labor,
2005). Costs are also presented as constant-level, annualized costs per year.
All independent commercial applicators (aerial and ground) are assumed to be small (i.e., smallsmall, medium-small, and large-small), and all bulk storage facilities for aerial and ground
applicators are assumed to be outdoors. Furthermore, it is assumed that independent commercial
applicators do not store bulk quantities of dry pesticides (i.e., there are no known facilities with
containers that have a capacity greater than two metric tons).
New Containment Structures: Commercial Aerial Applicators. To estimate capital, O&M,
and intermittent costs applicable for commercial aerial applicators with total bulk liquid storage
ranging from 1,500 gallons to 20,000 gallons, we have transferred the cost estimates from
similarly sized agricultural refiller facilities (e.g., small-small representative aerial applicator
facilities are assumed to have the same secondary containment costs as the small-small
representative agricultural refiller, because both have one 1,500 gallon container). (Table H.10
lists facility-level compliance costs transferred from similarly sized agricultural refiller
facilities.)
Inflated to current 2005 dollars, estimated non-discounted capital costs to construct a secondary
containment structure at aerial applicator facilities range from $5,600 at a small-small facility to
$18,250 at a large-small facility, covering the cost for a precipitation/rinsate tank and sump, and
other related construction costs (Table 4.2). Annual O&M costs are between $1,160 (smallsmall) and $2,760 (large-small). Intermittent repair costs are between $50 (small-small) and
$130 (large-small) (Table 4.2). (See Table H.1 for itemized capital costs and Table H.2 for
itemized O&M and intermittent costs.)
New Containment Structures: Commercial Ground Applicators. Preliminary research
indicates that the majority of commercial ground applicators work from non-bulk containers such
as minibulks (Myrick, 1991a). Ground applicators are not profiled as representative facilities,
but are considered to be comprised of all large-small facilities. For this analysis, ground
applicators have been assigned the same capital, O&M, and intermittent costs as those estimated
for medium-small agricultural refillers. Accordingly, capital costs for secondary containment
structures are $10,300 per large-small facility. Annual O&M costs are $1,550 per facility, and
intermittent costs are $120 per large-small facility (Table 4.2). (See Table H.1 for itemized
capital costs and Table H.2 for itemized O&M and intermittent costs.)
4.1.4 Representative Facility Aggregate Annualized Costs to Commercial Applicators
Compliance costs have been converted to annualized costs and represent the annual costs
associated with the construction of new secondary containment units and containment pads from
the facility-level costs presented previously. Appendix B presents the non-discounted facility7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 64

level schedule of costs across the 20-year analysis period from which annualized costs are based.
Summary tables of annualized costs (using the methodology discussed in Appendix A) are
provided in Tables 4.3-4.6.
Annualized Costs: Secondary Containment Units. Aerial applicators with liquid bulk storage
may incur annualized costs for secondary containment units that range from $1,253 for smallsmall facilities to $3,277 for large-small facilities (Table 4.3).39 Large-small ground applicators
are assumed to incur annualized costs for secondary containment similar to that estimated for
small-medium agricultural refillers at $1,842per facility (Table 4.3).
Annualized Costs: Secondary Containment Pads. Facilities that only require a large pad
(aerial applicators) may face annualized costs of $6,061 per facility for facilities requiring both a
secondary containment unit and a pad, and $6,106 per facility for facilities requiring a pad only
(Table 4.5).40 The same annualized cost for a medium containment pad estimated for largesmall/large agricultural refillers is assumed for ground applicators: $2,708 per facility for
facilities requiring both a secondary containment unit and a pad, and $2,840 per facility for
facilities requiring a pad only (Table 4.5).
Annualized Costs: Secondary Containment Units and Pads. Combined annualized costs to
aerial applicator facilities that require secondary containment units and a large containment pad
range from $7,307 for a small-small facility to $9,355 for a large-small facility (Table 4.9). The
annualized costs for ground applicator facilities are $4,556 for facilities that require secondary
containment structures and a pad, and $2,838 for facilities that require only a pad (Table 4.9).41
Aggregate industry costs are then computed by multiplying the estimated annualized costs by the
estimated number of affected facilities (see Chapter 3 for a description of the number of affected
commercial applicator facilities). For commercial aerial and ground applicators, the aggregate
industry cost to construct new containment structures is estimated at $0.22 million on an
annualized basis (Table 4.9). The breakdown of estimated costs by category of facility is
estimated at $0.12 million for aerial applicator facilities with outdoor liquid bulk storage
requiring secondary containment units and pads, and is estimated at $0.02 million for ground
applicators with outdoor liquid bulk storage requiring secondary containment units and pads
(Table 4.9). For aerial applicator and ground applicator facilities requiring only the installation
of a pad, estimated costs are $0.06 million and $0.01 million, respectively (Table 4.9).
The breakdown in costs by facility size is estimated at $0.05 million for small-small commercial
applicators, $0.12 million for medium-small applicators, and $0.06 million for large-small
applicators (Table 4.9).

39

Note: All annual revenue figures are calculated using both a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate in the
discounting procedure and both a 3 percent and 7 percent interest rate in the annualization procedure. When referred
to in the text, annual costs will be presented using the 3 percent rate. Tables 4.7 and 4.9 present the estimated costs
at a 3 percent discount rate, while Tables 4.8 and 4.10 present the estimated costs at a 7 percent discount rate.
40
The cost for a pad is higher when both secondary containment units and pads are required, because the costs for a
pump and portable hose are included as “secondary containment” costs. To avoid double-counting, these costs are
not included when only a pad is required.
41
See Table 4.10 for annualized costs at a 7 percent discount rate.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 65

4.1.5 Total Aggregate Annualized Costs
The total aggregate annualized costs to install new containment structures for all agricultural
refillers and commercial applicators is $2.7 million (Table 4.9). Given that there are
significantly more agricultural refiller facilities affected by the containment regulations, more
than 90 percent (or $2.5 million) of the total cost of the installation of new containment
structures is incurred by agricultural refillers. The breakdown in estimated costs by facility size
is $2.0 million for small-small facilities (agricultural refillers account for 95 percent), $0.44
million for medium-small facilities (agricultural refillers account for 75 percent), $0.14 million
for large-small facilities (agricultural refillers account for 60 percent), and $0.06 million for large
facilities (agricultural refillers account for 100 percent—there are assumed to be no large
commercial applicators in this analysis—see Table 4.9.)

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 66

Table 4.9. Summary of Annualized Costs to Install New Secondary Containment Units and
Pads, Representative Commercial Applicator Facilities, 3% Discount Rate
Small-Small
Facility

Compliance Cost Item

MediumSmall
Facility

Large-Small
Facility

Large
Facility a

All Facilities

AERIAL APPLICATORS
Outdoor Liquid Storage
(A) Secondary Containment + Pad
Number of Affected Facilities b
Annualized Cost/facility ($)

c

Subtotal, aggregate cost

6

9

1

0

16

7,307

7,903

9,355

0

0

45,594

70,815

7,484

0

1,23,893

(B) Containment Pad Only
Number of Affected Facilities

na

7

3

0

10

Annualized Cost/facility ($)

na

6098

6,098

0

0

Subtotal, aggregate cost

na

44,721

19,166

0

63,887

GROUND APPLICATORS

d

Outdoor Liquid Storage
(A) Secondary Containment + Pad
Number of Affected Facilities

na

na

5

0

5

Annualized Cost/facility ($)

na

na

4,556

0

0

Subtotal, aggregate cost

na

na

22,779

0

22,779

Number of Affected Facilities

na

na

3

0

3

Annualized Cost/facility ($)

na

na

2,838

0

0

Subtotal, aggregate cost

na

na

9,291

0

9,291

(B) Containment Pad Only

ALL COMMERCIAL
APPLICATORS
INDUSTRY TOTAL
ALL AG. REFILLERS
INDUSTRY TOTAL e

45,594

1,15,536

58,720

0

2,19,850

1,996,849

3,22,296

83,654

64,224

2,467,023

ALL REFILLERS &
APPLICATORS
COMBINED INDUSTRY TOTAL
2,042,443
437,832
142,374
64,224
2,686,874
(Install New Structures)
a
There are no commercial applicators that fit the definition of a large facility.
b
Number of facilities taken from Table G.3.
c
Represents an aggregation of all relevant annualized costs per facility. Costs in the table may not add due to
rounding. Annualized costs based on those presented in Tables 4.3 and 4.5.
d
All bulk facilities are assumed to be large-small, with a bulk storage profile similar to the medium-small
agricultural refiller (e.g., annualized costs calculated for the medium-small agricultural refiller are used as proxies
for the large-small ground applicator).
e
Estimates from Table 4.7.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 67

Table 4.10. Summary of Annualized Costs to Install New Secondary Containment Units
and Pads, Representative Commercial Applicator Facilities, 7% Discount Rate
SmallSmall
Facility

Compliance Cost Item

MediumSmall
Facility

Large-Small
Facility

Large
Facility a

All Facilities

AERIAL APPLICATORS
Outdoor Liquid Storage
(A) Secondary Containment + Pad
Number of Affected Facilities b

6

9

1

0

16

7,271

7,884

9,316

0

0

45,370

70,645

7,453

0

123,468

Number of Affected Facilities

na

7

3

0

10

Annualized Cost/facility ($)

na

6,100

6,100

0

0

Subtotal, aggregate cost

na

44,736

19,173

0

63,909

Annualized Cost/facility ($)

c

Subtotal, aggregate cost
(B) Containment Pad Only

GROUND APPLICATORS

d

Outdoor Liquid Storage
(A) Secondary Containment + Pad
Number of Affected Facilities

na

na

5

0

5

Annualized Cost/facility ($)

na

na

4,557

0

0

Subtotal, aggregate cost

na

na

22,785

0

22,785

Number of Affected Facilities

na

na

3

0

3

Annualized Cost/facility ($)

na

na

2,878

0

0

Subtotal, aggregate cost

na

na

9,422

0

9,422

ALL COMMERCIAL
APPLICATORS
INDUSTRY TOTAL

45,370

115,381

58,832

0

219,584

1,969,603

319,360

84,280

64,617

2,437,860

(B) Containment Pad Only

ALL AG. REFILLERS
INDUSTRY TOTAL e

ALL REFILLERS &
APPLICATORS
COMBINED INDUSTRY TOTAL
2,014,973
434,741
143,113
64,617
2,657,444
(Install New Structures)
a
There are no commercial applicators that fit the definition of a large facility.
b
Number of facilities taken from Table G3.
c
Represents an aggregation of all relevant annualized costs per facility. Costs in the table may not add due to
rounding. Annualized costs based on those presented in Tables 4.4 and 4.6.
d
All bulk facilities are assumed to be large-small, with a bulk storage profile similar to the medium-small
agricultural refiller (e.g., annualized costs calculated for the medium-small agricultural refiller are used as proxies
for the large-small ground applicator).
e
From Table 4.8.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 68

4.2 Compliance Costs for Existing Containment Structures
This section presents the cost assumptions and unit cost data that are used to compute the costs
of complying with EPA’s “critical” standards for existing containment structures. The results of
the facility-level cost analysis are also presented. To comply with the final containment
regulation, facilities will incur costs to retrofit existing secondary containment structures and
pads. Costs of compliance with these standards are calculated by representative facility for
agricultural refillers and for commercial (for-hire) applicators. Actual costs per facility will
depend on the number of structures to retrofit and the degree to which such structures or
containers are out of compliance (see Chapter 3 for a description of the level of compliance).
Many facilities may have only a secondary containment structure, and some may have only a
containment pad.
Existing Secondary Containment Units. All existing secondary containment units are assumed
to already comply with the requirement that construction materials be reinforced concrete or
some other rigid material compatible with the pesticide(s) stored within the unit. As a result, unit
costs were not developed to represent the retrofit of existing structures to concrete from some
other material, such as natural earthen material, unfired clay, and asphalt, which are specifically
prohibited construction materials. Even though some states may allow lined earthen containment
structures,42 no facility is known to have such a structure for pesticide containment. Earthen
structures are generally used to provide containment for larger fertilizer storage containers. In
addition, all existing bulk liquid units are assumed to have the containment capacity required by
the critical standards to store 100 percent of the volume of the largest container, plus any
displacement volume. Furthermore, existing walls have sufficient freeboard to prevent water
from seeping or flowing onto the containment structures from adjacent land. These assumptions
are based on information obtained from industry experts and state agency personnel, indicating
that most secondary containment units are “overbuilt” in terms of capacity. As a result, the cost
items for retrofitting existing secondary containment units include the cost to seal floor and
discharge outlets; repair all cracks, gaps, and seams; and conduct monthly inspections and keep
inspection and maintenance records. All costs are in 2005 dollars based on trends in the
Consumer Price Index.43 The unit costs are presented in Appendix H (Table H.11).
To estimate costs associated with sealing all cracks, gaps, and seams, we used a unit cost of
$2.84/ft for routing, cleaning, and grouting cracks—whether to initially seal cracks to comply
with the final regulations or to routinely seal cracks over time. Any floor drains or discharge
outlets must also be sealed: labor and grout costs are estimated at $54.78 per hour and at
$11.41/ft3, respectively. The cost for a portable pump and hose to remove collected precipitation
or other material is estimated at $548. (See Table H.11.)

42

Minnesota, Vermont, and Wisconsin have pesticide containment regulations specifying that earth or asphalt with a
liner may be used. Regulations in six states (Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, and West Virginia)
do not specify the type of containment material.
43
To update final industry compliance costs to current year dollars (April 2005), we apply a CPI-U “All Items”
based adjustment factor to account for general price inflation (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005).

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 69

No unit costs were developed for the protection of appurtenances and containers against damage
from personnel and moving equipment.44 Unit costs were also not developed for O&M
requirements, such as the handling of collected pesticide residues or the cleanup of spills or
leaks, since owners/operators of existing containment units are already managing these activities.
However, monthly inspection and recordkeeping costs of $28 per hour are included (Table
H.11).
Typically, stationary dry bulk pesticide storage containers are installed over concrete pads. The
facilities are expected to incur cost to repair cracks, gaps and seams. These estimates are the
same as those for the bulk liquid containers. Since only the medium-small, large-small and large
agricultural refillers are assumed to have bulk dry containers; these costs are applicable to only
these categories.
Existing Containment Pads. Retrofitting containment pads to comply with the critical criteria
specified in the final containment regulations will involve sealing cracks, gaps, and seams in the
structure; repairing new cracks as they appear; and conducting monthly inspections and
recordkeeping. To calculate costs, similar unit costs apply as those represented for new
containment structures (see Section 4.1). Some existing containment pads are expected to have
drains that will require sealing. Unit labor costs are estimated at $54.78 per hour. Grout is
estimated at $11.41/ft3. (See Table H.12.)
A significant number of existing containment pads are assumed to be flat, with no sump.
Although sloping to a sump is not required by the final rule for existing pads, 750-gallon
capacity is required and could be achieved by a berm and/or a sump. For the purpose of this
analysis, the cost of both a sump and a berm were included. Unit costs are based on the addition
of a sump to an existing concrete containment pad. Unit costs for the sump include cutting into
the existing concrete at $4.95/ft; demolishing the concrete over the sump area at $5.66/ft2;
excavation at $5.14 per cubic yard; gravel at $15.28 per cubic yard; reinforced concrete at $268
per cubic yard; steel edging (frame) at $11.58/ft; and a grate at $6.76/ft2. (See Table H.12.)
The analysis also assumes that the height of the berm must be increased. The unit cost to rough
up the existing concrete and apply a bonding agent is estimated at $4.10/ft2. Concrete forms are
calculated at $2.74/ft, and reinforcement bars are estimated at $3.02/ft. The cost of concrete for
the berm is between $1.78/ft2 and $3.02/ft2, depending on the height of the berm. The
excavation, gravel, and concrete unit costs for concrete ramps are the same as those assumed for
the sump. (See Table H.12.) The unit cost for repairing cracks gaps and seams is the same as
those assumed for existing secondary containment structures.
Existing bulk pesticide storage containers. The final rule requires existing containers to be
anchored to prevent flotation in case of a spill. In order to prevent flotation, new containers must
be anchored or elevated. Typical bulk liquid storage containers at agricultural refiller and
applicator facilities have an assumed capacity range of 1,500 gallons to 6,000 gallons, and are
44

Possible means of protection include supports to prevent sagging, flexible connections, the use of guardrails,
barriers, and protective cages. The berm itself should serve as a protection for bulk storage containers within a
secondary containment unit, and simple blocks of wood or concrete blocks can be used, at an insignificant cost, to
prevent the sagging of piping.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 70

constructed of either plastic or steel. Owners/operators may replace flat-bottomed containers
with cone-shaped containers, but costs will likely be greater and will vary, depending on the
capacity and construction material of the container. We assume that all facilities incur the same
anchoring cost regardless of facility size and bulk container type (plastic or steel). Initial costs
are $479 per container to move the container and to cover the labor for drilling in anchors and
altering the plumbing. Contractor’s and contingency fees are $72 and $28, respectively. Annual
costs to inspect the containers and maintain records are $32.45 (See Table H.13.)
4.2.1 Representative Facility Costs (Non-Discounted) for Agricultural Refillers
This section presents capital, O&M, and intermittent costs to retrofit existing containment
structures and bulk storage containers of bulk liquid and dry pesticides. Costs associated with
meeting the critical standards are estimated by representative facility for agricultural refillers
(refilling establishments). Costs (non-discounted) are estimated at the facility level for
representative firms in 2005 dollars. These facility-level cost tables are aggregated in Appendix
H (Tables H.11-H.13). All final costs, discussed below, are inflated to current 2005 dollars
based on reported trends in the Consumer Price Index, and are also converted to constant-level,
annualized costs as per the method described in Appendix A. Appendix B presents the nondiscounted facility-level schedule of costs across the 20-year analysis period from which
annualized costs are based.
Existing Secondary Containment Structures. Compliance costs to retrofit existing secondary
containment units for bulk liquid storage containers include the sealing of floor drains or
discharge outlets; the repair of cracks, gaps, and seams; and monthly inspection of facilities.
Costs associated with expanding liquid containment capacity are not estimated, since all existing
liquid bulk units are already assumed to have the required containment capacity to store 100
percent of the volume of the largest container. For dry bulk storage, costs are estimated for the
repair of all cracks, gaps, and seams; and for monthly inspection of facilities.
Initial costs (i.e., seal floor drains and outlets, and repair existing cracks, gaps, and seams) for
bulk liquid containment are $740 for all facility sizes (Table 4.11). Intermittent costs (i.e., repair
existing cracks, gaps, and seams) are incurred every 5 years (years 8, 13, and 18) assuming that
the containment structure would be brand new in the compliance year throughout the life of the
existing units. Assuming that these structures meet the requirement that secondary containment
structures be leakproof, the intermittent costs are estimated between $40 for a small-small
facility and $140 for a large facility. Annual O&M costs include monthly inspection and the
recording of inspection information, estimated at $30 across all facility sizes. For dry bulk
containment at medium-small, large-small, and large agricultural refiller facilities, intermittent
costs are estimated at $100. O&M costs are also $30 per facility for bulk dry containers (Table
4.11). (See Table H.11 for itemized costs.)
Existing Containment Pads. Table 4.11 presents the costs for facilities to comply with the
critical standards for existing containment pads, expressed in 2005 dollars. Compliance costs to
retrofit existing pads include the addition of a 750-gallon capacity sump, the sealing of all drains;
the repair of all cracks, gaps, and seams; and monthly inspection of facilities (Table H.12).
45

The numbers in table are rounded to the nearest $10.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 71

Capital costs of adding a sump range from $1,660 for a small-small facility to $4,870 for a large
facility. Initial costs to seal drains or discharge outlets in the containment pad are estimated at
$80 per pad, regardless of size. Sealing all existing cracks, gaps, and seams costs $30 for a small
containment pad, $60 for a medium pad, and $70 for a large pad. O&M costs include $30 for
monthly inspections/recordkeeping per facility. (See Table 4.11.)
Existing bulk pesticide storage containers. We assume that all facilities incur the same
anchoring cost regardless of facility size and bulk container type (plastic or steel) (Table H.13).
Initial costs are $580 for moving the container, the labor for drilling in anchors and altering the
plumbing, as well as the contractor’s and contingency fees. Annual O&M costs to inspect the
containers and maintain records are $30. (See Table 4.11.)

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 72

Table 4.11. Summary of Facility-Level Costs (2005$) to Retrofit Existing Secondary
Containment Units and Pads, Representative Agricultural Refillers and Commercial
Applicator Facilities
$ per Facility a
Small-Small
Facility

Compliance Cost Item

MediumSmall Facility

Large-Small
Facility

Large Facility

AGRICULTURAL REFILLERS
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Capital

0

0

0

0

Initial

740

740

740

740

O&M

30

30

30

30

40

110

140

140

Capital

0

0

0

0

Initial

0

0

0

0

O&M

0

30

30

30

Intermittent (1 container)

0

100

100

100

0

0

Intermittent
Secondary Containment - Bulk Dry/Outdoor

b

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS

b

Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid Storage (Outdoor)
Capital
0

0

Initial

740

740

740 na

O&M

30

30

30 na

40

110

140 na

Intermittent

REFILLERS AND APPLICATORS
Containment Pads - Outdoor (Scenarios 1&2) c
Capital

1660

2560

4870

4870

Initial

80

80

80

80

O&M

30

30

30

30

Intermittent

30

60

70

70

0

0

0

0

Initial

580

580

580

580

O&M

30

30

30

30

Container Anchoring (Plastic and Steel)
Capital

Intermittent
0
0
0
0
a
Inflated to 2005$ from trends in the Consumer Price Index “All Items” (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005). See
Tables H.11-H.13 for unit costs. Figures may not match totals in Appendix H due to rounding.
b
Both aerial and ground applicators.
c
Applicable to facilities based on pad size requirements: small-small agricultural facility (small pad); medium-small
facility (medium pad); and large-small and large facility (large pad). As compared to new facilities the pad size
requirements are different (see Table 4.6). Existing facilities are more overbuilt (see Section 4.2), therefore it is
assumed that for new facilities agricultural refillers will require smaller pad. All aerial applicators are assumed to
have containment pads of similar size (large), sufficient in width to allow for the entire wingspan of airplanes (plus
some margin) to be over the pad area. Ground applicators are assumed to require a medium pad.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 73

4.2.2 Representative Facility and Aggregate Annualized Costs to Agricultural Refillers
Table 4.14 presents the facility-level annualized costs to retrofit existing containment structures
among agricultural refiller to comply with the final containment regulations.46 For secondary
liquid containment units, annualized facility-level costs to retrofit are estimated at between $73
for a small-small facility and $87 for a large-small facility. For secondary dry containment units,
the annualized facility-level costs are same for all facility size categories at $37.
Aggregate annualized costs are best presented in terms of total industry costs because of
differences in the number of facilities that will be affected by the individual rule requirements for
existing containers, aggregate annualized costs are best presented in terms of total industry costs
(Table 4.12). Facilities may only be subject to portions of a particular standard for existing
containment structures. Due to the way we estimate the number of facilities that are subject to
the existing containment standards (see Table G.4 for the estimated number of facilities required
to retrofit existing containers), we are unable to estimate the extent to which each individual
facility will incur multiple compliance costs (capital, initial, O&M, and intermittent) associated
with a particular standard. Furthermore, the number of impacted facilities presented in Table
G.4 do not reflect any particular facility-size category but the number of impacted facilities in the
industry as a whole. To split out the number of impacted facilities by containment standard and
size category, we apply the industry-wide percent distribution of small-small, medium-small,
large-small, and large facilities for agricultural refillers and the industry-wide percent
distribution of small-small, medium-small, and large-small commercial applicators (see Chapter
3).47 With these considerations in mind, we therefore do not present the total number of
aggregated facilities impacted by the standards for existing containment structures. We do,
however, present the number of facilities impacted by regulation and compliance cost type in the
economic impact analysis presented in Chapter 5. The costs presented in Table 4.12 are
calculated by multiplying the annualized cost (presented as total of capital, initial O&M and
intermittent in Tables 4.14 and 4.15) with the total number of facilities expected to incur these
costs (Table G.4) to arrive at industry level costs.48 These costs are then distributed by size
category based on the industry-wide percent distribution of small-small, medium-small and
large-small commercial applicators.49
For agricultural refiller facilities that handle bulk liquid pesticides, annualized industry costs are
$45,063 across all small-small agricultural refiller facilities, $8,106 across all medium-small
46

Tables 4.14 and 4.15 present costs calculated using both the 3 percent and the 7 percent discount/interest rate
scenarios, respectively. All annual revenue figures are calculated using both a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate
in the discounting procedure and both a 3 percent and 7 percent interest rate in the annualization procedure. When
referred to in the text, annual costs will be presented at the 3 percent rate. Appendix B presents the non-discounted
facility-level schedule of costs across the 20-year analysis period from which annualized costs are based.
47
The industry-wide facility size distribution for agricultural refillers is: 83.33 percent small-small, 14.26 percent
medium-small, 1.50 percent large-small, and 0.91 percent large. The industry-wide facility size distribution for
commercial applicators is: 39 percent small-small, 56 percent medium-small, and 5 percent large-small.
48
For example, out of the $73 facility level cost for small-small agriculture refillers for secondary liquid
containment reported in Table 4.14, $44 is for initial, $24 for O&M and $5 is for intermittent. These are multiplied
by the number of facilities expected to incur each of these expenses presented in Table G.4 (333 will incur initial,
1602 O&M and 295 will incur intermittent). To obtain the cost for small-small refillers, each of the cost item was
multiplied by 83.33 (see footnote 47) and then these components were added to obtain 45,063
=($44*333+$24*1602+$5*295)*83.33 (components do not add because of rounding).
49
See footnote 47.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 74

agricultural refiller facilities, $867 across all large-small agricultural refiller facilities, and $529
across all large agricultural refiller facilities. Across all medium-small, large-small, and large
agricultural refiller facilities that handle liquid and dry bulk pesticides, annualized costs are
$264, $28, and $17, respectively. Annualized costs to retrofit containment pads are $58,372
across all small-small agricultural refiller facilities, $12,719 across all medium-small agricultural
refiller facilities, $2,043 across all large-small agricultural refiller facilities, and $1,246 across all
large agricultural refiller facilities. Annualized costs to anchor bulk containers are $91,739
across all small-small agricultural refiller facilities, $15,698 across all medium-small agricultural
refiller facilities, $1,645 across all large-small agricultural refiller facilities, and $1,003 across all
large agricultural refiller facilities. (See Table 4.12.)
Aggregate industry costs incurred to retrofit existing containment structures and anchor bulk
containers at agricultural refiller facilities are estimated to be $195,174 across all small-small
facilities, $36,787 across all medium-small facilities, $4,584 across all large-small facilities, and
$2,794 across all large facilities. Aggregate industry costs among agricultural refillers to retrofit
existing containment structures are estimated at $0.25 million on an annualized basis. The
breakdown by category of structure estimated at $0.06 million for refiller facilities with liquid
bulk storage, $0.0003 million for refiller facilities with liquid and dry bulk storage, $0.07 million
for containment pads, and $0.11 million for anchoring liquid bulk containers. (See Table 4.12.)50

50

The numbers are rounded off from the tables for the text. For example, the aggregate industry cost to retrofit
existing containment structures is $245,126 in Table 4.12, which is rounded off to $0.25 million in the text.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 75

Table 4.12. Summary of Aggregate Industry Annualized Costs (2005$) a to Retrofit
Existing Secondary Containment Units and Pads and Liquid Bulk Containers for
Representative Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Applicator Facilities, 3% Discount
Rate
Small-Small
Facilities

Item

MediumSmall
Facilities

LargeSmall
Facilities

Large
Facilities

Total

AGRICULTURAL REFILLERS
Secondary Liquid Containment
Industry annualized costs for facilities

45,063

8,106

867

529

54,565

264

28

17

309

b

Secondary Dry Containment
Industry annualized costs for facilities

na

Containment Pads
Industry annualized costs for facilities

58,372

12,719

2,043

1,246

74,380

Bulk Liquid Containers (Anchoring)
Industry annualized costs for facilities

91,739

15,698

1,645

1,003

110,085

195,174

36,787

4,584

2,794

239,339

AGRICULTURAL REFILLERS
INDUSTRY TOTAL

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS
Secondary Liquid Containment
Industry annualized costs for facilities

704

1,011

Containment Pads
Industry annualized costs for facilities

944

1,672

222

na

2,838

Bulk Liquid Containers (Anchoring)
Industry annualized costs for facilities

446

641

57

na

1,144

2,094

3,324

369

na

5,787

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS,
INDUSTRY TOTAL

90 na

1,805

ALL REFILLERS &
APPLICATORS, COMBINED
INDUSTRY TOTAL (Retrofit
Existing Structures)
197,268
40,111
4,953
2,794
245,126
a
Represents an aggregation of all relevant annualized costs per facility adjusted against the estimated number of
affected facilities. The information that feeds into these calculations (number of affected facilities; annualized
costs/facility; subtotal, aggregate cost) is derived from Table G.4 and Table 4.14 and the percentage of facilities by
size class. The industry-wide facility size distribution for agricultural refillers is: 83.33 percent small-small, 14.26
percent medium-small, 1.50 percent large-small, and 0.91 percent large. The industry-wide facility size distribution
for commercial applicators is: 39 percent small-small, 56 percent medium-small, and 5 percent large-small
b
All bulk dry storage containers are assumed to be located at medium-small, large-small, and large facilities.

4.2.3 Representative Facility Costs (Non-Discounted) for Commercial Applicators
This section presents capital, O&M, and intermittent costs incurred by applicators that must
retrofit existing containment structures and bulk storage containers of bulk liquid and dry
pesticides. Costs associated with meeting the critical standards are estimated for all independent
commercial applicators combined, both aerial and ground applicators. Aerial and ground
applicators are assumed to have only bulk liquid storage, with no costs attributable to the
containment of bulk dry containers. It is assumed that all facilities meet the containment
capacity requirement, and that commercial applicators with existing containment structures are
located in states with containment regulations.
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 76

Costs (non-discounted) calculated at the facility level for representative firms are aggregated in
Appendix H (Tables H.11–H.13). All final costs are in 2005 dollars based on reported trends in
the Consumer Price Index (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005).51 Appendix B presents the nondiscounted facility-level schedule of costs across the 20-year analysis period from which
annualized costs are based.
Table 4.13. Summary of Aggregate Industry Annualized Costs (2005$) a to Retrofit
Existing Secondary Containment Units and Pads and Liquid Bulk Containers for
Representative Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Applicator Facilities, 7% Discount
Rate
Small-Small
Facilities

Item

MediumSmall
Facilities

LargeSmall
Facilities

Large
Facilities

Total

AGRICULTURAL REFILLERS
Secondary Liquid Containment
Industry annualized costs for facilities

44,052

7,873

840

512

53,278

Secondary Dry Containment
Industry annualized costs for facilities

na

235

25

15

275

Containment Pads
Industry annualized costs for facilities

61,312

13,747

2,296

1,400

78,754

Bulk Liquid Containers (Anchoring)
Industry annualized costs for facilities

85,343

14,603

1,531

933

102,410

Agricultural Refillers Industry Total

190,706

36,458

4,692

2,860

234,717

b

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS
Secondary Liquid Containment
Industry annualized costs for facilities

670

962

86

na

1,718

Containment Pads
Industry annualized costs for facilities

975

1,782

247

na

3,003

Bulk Liquid Containers
Industry annualized costs for facilities

416

597

53

na

1,067

2,061

3,341

386

na

5,788

Commercial Applicators, Industry
Total

ALL REFILLERS &
APPLICATORS, COMBINED
INDUSTRY TOTAL
192,768
39,800
5,077
2,860
240,505
(Retrofit Existing Structures)
a
Represents an aggregation of all relevant annualized costs per facility adjusted against the estimated number of
affected facilities. The information that feeds into these calculations (number of affected facilities; annualized
costs/facility; and subtotal, aggregate cost) are derived from Table G.4, Table 4.15 and the industry-wide facility
size distribution for agricultural refillers (83.33 percent small-small, 14.26 percent medium-small, 1.50 percent
large-small, and 0.91 percent large) and the industry-wide facility size distribution for commercial applicators (39
percent small-small, 56 percent medium-small, and 5 percent large-small).
b
All bulk dry storage containers are assumed to be located at medium-small, large-small, and large facilities.

51

Note: All annual revenue figures are calculated using both a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate in the
discounting procedure and both a 3 percent and 7 percent interest rate in the annualization procedure. When referred
to in the text, annual costs will be presented at the 3 percent rate.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 77

Existing Secondary Containment Structures. Actions required to retrofit secondary
containment units for bulk liquid storage containers at commercial applicator facilities are
similar to those incurred by agricultural refillers: seal floor drains or discharge outlets; anchor
bulk tanks; repair cracks, gaps, and seams; and inspect facilities. Initial estimated costs to seal
floor drains are $740 for all facility sizes (Table 4.11). Intermittent costs will be incurred to
repair cracks in the structure, on average, every 5 years (Table H.11); repair costs are between
$40 for a small-small facility and $140 for a large-small facility. Annual O&M costs to maintain
monthly inspections and other recordkeeping requirements are estimated at $30 per facility. (See
Table 4.11).
Existing Containment Pads. Table 4.11 presents the potential costs for facilities to comply
with EPA’s critical standards for existing containment pads. The costs of large containment pads
are relevant only to aerial applicators, given that the pads are required to accommodate airplanes.
Large-small ground (land) applicator businesses are assumed to require a medium pad. Costs to
retrofit containment pads include adding a sump; sealing all drains; repairing all cracks, gaps,
and seams; and making monthly inspections (Table H.12).
All commercial applicators are assumed to be located in regulated states. Therefore, these
facilities already must meet requirements to seal cracks in the containment pad, and no additional
compliance costs for sealing are incurred. Sump (capital) costs are estimated at between $1,660
for small-small commercial applicator facilities and $4,870 for large-small commercial
applicator facilities. Drains or discharge outlets (initial costs) in containment pads must be
sealed at a cost of $80 per pad. Intermittent repair costs (repairing all cracks, gaps, and seams)
are estimated at between $30 for a small-small facility and $70 for a large-small facility.
Monthly inspections and written records of inspections and related maintenance (O&M costs) are
estimated at $30 per facility. (See Table 4.11.)
Existing Bulk Storage Containers. Facility-level costs to retrofit bulk containers at agricultural
facilities apply equally to commercial applicators, and include the cost of anchors and monthly
inspection/recordkeeping costs. Anchoring of bulk containers (plastic and steel) is required,
costing $580 per container. O&M costs for monthly inspections and recordkeeping are estimated
at $30 per container. (See Table 4.11.)
4.2.4 Representative Facility and Aggregate Annualized Costs to Commercial Applicators
Table 4.14 presents the aggregated annualized costs to retrofit existing containment structures
among independent commercial applicators to comply with the final containment regulations.52
For secondary liquid containment units, annualized facility-level costs to retrofit are estimated at
between $73 for a small-small facility and $87 for a large-small facility. Facilities that require a
medium containment pad (ground applicators) will incur annualized costs of $189 per facility;

52

Tables 4.14 and 4.15 present costs calculated using both the 3 percent and the 7 percent discount/interest rate
scenarios, respectively. All annual revenue figures are calculated using both a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate
in the discounting procedure and both a 3 percent and 7 percent interest rate in the annualization procedure. When
referred to in the text, annual costs will be presented at the 3 percent rate. Appendix B presents the non-discounted
facility-level schedule of costs across the 20-year analysis period from which annualized costs are based.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 78

and facilities that require a large containment pad (aerial applicators) will incur annualized costs
of $329 per facility. (See Table 4.14 for facility-level annualized costs.)

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 79

Table 4.14. Summary of facility-level annualized costs to comply with containment
regulations representative by facility size for agricultural refillers and commercial aerial
and ground applicators to retrofit existing secondary containment units and pads, and
liquid bulk containers (2005$), 3% discount rate

Retrofit Item

Small-Small
Facility

Medium-Small
Facility

Large-Small
Facility

Agricultural Refillers
Secondary Liquid Containment
73
83
Secondary Dry Containment
n/a
37
All Applicators
Secondary Liquid Containment
73
83
Agricultural Refillers and All Applicators
Containment Pads
132
189
a
Bulk Liquid Containers
58
58
a
One plastic or steel flat-bottomed bulk storage container is assumed per facility.

Large Facility
87
37

87
37

87n/a
329
58

329
58

Table 4.15. Summary of facility-level annualized costs to comply with containment
regulations representative by facility size for agricultural refillers and commercial aerial
and ground applicators to retrofit existing secondary containment units and pads, and
liquid bulk containers (2005$), 7% discount rate

Retrofit Item

Small-Small
Facility

Medium-Small
Facility

Agricultural Refillers
Secondary Liquid Containment
79
87
Secondary Dry Containment
n/a
32
All Applicators
Secondary Liquid Containment
79
87
Agricultural Refillers and All Applicators
Containment Pads
150
218
a
Bulk Liquid Containers
63
63
a
One plastic or steel flat-bottomed bulk storage container is assumed per facility.

Large-Small
Facility

Large Facility
90
32

90
32

90

0

386
63

386
63

Aggregate annualized costs are best presented in terms of total industry costs because of
differences in the number of facilities that will be affected by the individual rule requirements for
existing containers (Table 4.12).53 For applicators that need to retrofit existing bulk liquid
53

Facilities may only be subject to portions of a particular standard for existing containment structures. Due to the
way we estimate the number of facilities that are subject to the existing containment standards (see Table G.4 for the
estimated number of facilities required to retrofit existing containers), we are unable to estimate the extent to which
each individual facility will incur multiple compliance costs (capital, initial, O&M, and intermittent) associated with
a particular standard. Furthermore, the number of impacted facilities presented in Table G.4 does not reflect any
particular facility-size category but the number of impacted facilities in the industry as a whole. To split out the
number of impacted facilities by containment standard by size category, we apply the industry-wide percent
distribution of small-small, medium-small, large-small, and large facilities for agricultural refillers and the industry-

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 80

secondary units, annualized industry costs are $704 across all small-small facilities, $1,011
across all medium-small facilities, and $90 across all large-small facilities.54 The estimated costs
to retrofit containment pads are $944 annually across all small-small facilities, $1,672 across all
medium-small facilities, and $222 across all large-small facilities. The estimated costs to anchor
existing bulk containers are $446 across all small-small facilities, $641 across all medium-small
facilities, and $57 across all large-small facilities. (See Table 4.12.)
For commercial aerial and ground applicators, the aggregate industry cost to retrofit existing
containment structures is estimated at $0.006 million on an annualized basis. The breakdown in
estimated costs by category of facility is estimated at $0.002 million for applicator facilities with
secondary liquid containment, $0.003 million for containment pads, and $0.001 million for
anchoring of liquid bulk containers.55 The breakdown in estimated costs by facility size is
estimated at $0.002 million for small-small applicators, $0.003 million for medium-small
applicators, and $0.0004 million for large-small applicators. (See Table 4.12.)
4.2.5 Uncertainty of Cost Estimates
Many of the assumptions present in the compliance cost analysis discussion are inherently
uncertain, though every effort has been made to use the best available data to inform our
assumptions. Despite efforts to minimize the uncertainty, the sensitivity of certain key inputs
and assumptions are discussed in this section based on the magnitude of the impact on the total
regulatory compliance costs estimated.
The total compliance cost estimate varies considerably based on assumptions used for estimating
the number of regulated entities affected and the unit cost of each regulatory requirement. For
example, in this analysis we have assumed that 100 percent of facilities in the states that have
regulations for bulk storage have secondary containment units and that 40 percent of facilities in
the unregulated states have secondary containment. Similarly, we assume that 100 percent of
facilities in states with mixing/loading or operational pad regulations meet EPA’s containment
pad requirements and that 25 percent of facilities in other states have a pad. Further, as
discussed in detail in the sections above, we make additional assumptions about the percent of
facilities that might be affected by the EPA’s containment regulations to retrofit existing
containment structures and to install new units and pads (see Tables G.3 and G.4). Even though,
these assumptions are based on inputs from various states, and have been the basis of the
economic analysis in the proposed containment rule economic impact analysis, it is possible that
these percentages can be somewhat different from our assumptions. We expect that there is less
uncertainty about our assumption that 100 percent of all facilities in regulated states will be in
wide percent distribution of small-small, medium-small, and large-small commercial applicators (see Chapter 3).
With these considerations in mind, we therefore do not present the total number of aggregated facilities impacted by
the standards for existing containment structures. The costs presented in Table 4.12 are calculated by multiplying
the annualized cost (capital, initial O&M and intermittent) with the total number of facilities expected to incur these
costs (Table 3.2) to arrive at industry level costs. These costs are then distributed by size category based on the
industry-wide percent distribution of small-small, medium-small and large-small commercial applicators. We do,
however, present the number of facilities impacted by regulation and compliance cost type in the economic impact
analysis presented in Chapter 5 (Table I.3).
54
The annualized industry costs are calculated similar to the process described in section 4.2.2.
55
The numbers are rounded off from the tables for the text. For example, the aggregate industry costs to retrofit
existing containment structures is $245,915 in Table 4.12, which is rounded off to $0.25 million in the text.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 81

compliance. The estimates of the number of facilities that are in compliance, on the other hand,
may be either 5 percent greater or smaller which should not affect our cost estimates
significantly.
Another source of uncertainty is our assumption that 90 percent of all bulk facilities store in
undivided quantities greater than 500 gallons and are therefore regulated. We have verified this
assumption by contacting several state-level government and agricultural extension staff.
However, it is possible that this percentage varies across different states, which might affect the
total cost estimates.
4.2.6 Total Aggregate Annualized Costs
The total estimated aggregate annualized costs to retrofit existing containment structures for all
agricultural refillers and commercial applicators is $0.25 million (Table 4.12). Given that there
are significantly more agricultural refiller facilities affected by the containment regulations, more
than 95 percent (or $0.24 million) of the total cost of retrofitting existing containment structures
is incurred by agricultural refillers. The breakdown in estimated costs by facility size is $0.20
million for small-small facilities (agricultural refillers account for 99 percent), $0.04 for
medium-small facilities (agricultural refillers account for 92 percent), $0.005 million for largesmall facilities (agricultural refillers account for 93 percent), and $0.003 million for large
facilities (agricultural refillers account for 100 percent—there are assumed to be no large
commercial applicators in this analysis). (See Table 4.12.)
In summary, this chapter has presented all of the estimated facility-level costs of compliance
with the final pesticide bulk containment regulations for agricultural refillers and commercial
applicators. Building on the estimates of facility compliance with the final containment
regulations presented in Chapter 3 for new and existing facilities with bulk containment, Chapter
4 presented, by facility size for agricultural refillers and commercial applicators, the unit costs of
compliance for new and existing liquid and dry secondary containment units and containment
pads; and the discounted and annualized cost of compliance for new and existing containment
structures. The estimated aggregate industry costs of compliance were also presented for
agricultural refillers and commercial applicators to install new containment units and pads, and
to retrofit existing containment units and pads. The next chapter, Chapter 5, presents the total
estimated annualized industry costs of compliance, along with a comparison of the estimated
costs of compliance with the final containment regulations and the proposed regulations.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 82

5.0 Industry and State Impact Analysis
Chapter 4 presented the facility-level costs of compliance with the final containment
regulations for agricultural refillers and commercial applicators. This chapter presents the total
costs of compliance with the final containment regulations, which are simply an aggregation of
the compliance costs presented in Chapter 4. The chapter also compares the estimated economic
impacts (i.e., costs of compliance) of both the proposed and final containment regulations and
presents additional analyses of the costs of compliance to agricultural and commercial applicator
businesses.
The first section (Section 5.1) describes the results of the facility-level cost analysis developed in
the previous chapter and compares economic impacts under the proposed and the final rules.
Section 5.2 provides an economic impact assessment of the pesticide containment regulations,
measured in terms of compliance costs as a share of facility revenue.
5.1 Aggregate Compliance Costs of Regulations
This section presents the results of the facility-level cost analysis in terms of aggregate
(annualized) industry costs to construct new containment structures and to retrofit existing
containment structures under EPA’s final pesticide containment standards.
5.1.1 Aggregate Annualized Costs under the Final Regulations
From the core facility-level cost analysis developed for this economic analysis (presented in
Chapter 4), we can determine aggregate industry costs. Total industry regulatory costs are
calculated from estimated annualized costs per facility multiplied by the number of affected
facilities with bulk pesticide storage in the agricultural refiller and commercial applicator
industries. Industry costs are estimated across all facilities with bulk pesticide storage that will
be required either to install new containment structures (new facilities and facilities without
secondary containment units and containment pads) or to retrofit existing containment structures
(facilities with containment structures that do not meet EPA’s critical standards). Tables 5.1 and
5.2 present the total compliance costs to agricultural refillers and to commercial (for-hire) aerial
and ground applicators under EPA’s final pesticide containment rule. This analysis of
compliance costs considers two discount/interest rate scenarios: a 3 percent scenario and a 7
percent scenario.56 Where applicable, all discounted and annualized costs are presented using the
3 percent rate.
The final rule defines existing containment structures as those for which “installation” began on
or before 3 months after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The
“beginning of installation” is defined as: the owner or operator has obtained all federal, state, and
local approvals or permits necessary to begin physical construction of the containment structure,
and either

56

Note: All annual revenue figures are calculated using both a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate in the
discounting procedure and both a 3 percent and 7 percent interest rate in the annualization procedure. When referred
to in the text, annual costs will be presented at the 3 percent rate.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 83

Table 5.1. Annualized Industry Costs of Compliance Under EPA’s Final Rule (2005$), 3% Discount Rate

Industry Annualized Costs

SmallSmall
Facilities

Agricultural Refillers
(Refilling Establishments)

For-Hire Commercial Applicators
(Aerial and Ground)

Medium- LargeLarge
Small
Small
Facilities Facilities Facilities

Small- Medium LargeSmall
-Small
Small
Facilities Facilities Facilities Subtotal

Subtotal

TOTAL

Percent
of Total

Construction of New Containment Structures
Outdoor liquid bulk storage
(secondary containment +
pads)

687,138

144,797

28,991

17,673

Outdoor liquid bulk storage
(containment pads only)

266,845

45,660

10,173

6,201

328,879 na

76,158

33,882

33,882

143,922 na

na

na

198,559

39,381

7,070

4,310

249,320 na

na

95,258

16,300

3,538

2,157

117,253 na
749,049 na

Outdoor liquid & dry bulk
storage (secondary containment
+ pads)

na

Indoor liquid bulk storage
(secondary containment + pads)
Indoor liquid bulk storage
(containment pads only)
Outdoor liquid non-bulk storage
(containment pads only)
Subtotal

749,049 na

na

45,594

70,815

30,263

146,673

1,025,272

35.0%

44,721

28,457

73,178

402,057

13.7%

na

143,922

4.9%

na

na

249,320

8.5%

na

na

na

117,253

4.0%

na

na

na

749,049

25.5%

322,296

83,654

64,224

2,467,023

45,594

115,536

58,720

219,850

2,686,874

91.6%

Retrofitting of Existing Containment Structures
Secondary containment,
bulk liquid storage containers
45,063
8,106

867

529

54,565

704

1,011

90

1,805

56,370

1.9%

264

28

17

309

0.0%

58,372

12,719

2,043

1,246

74,380

944

1,672

222

2,838

77,218

2.6%

91,739

15,698

1,645

1,003

110,085

446

641

57

1,144

111,229

3.8%

195,174

36,787

4,584

2,794

239,339

2,094

3,324

369

5,787

245,126

8.4%

Total Industry
Annualized Costs
2,192,023
Source: Tables 4.7, 4.9, and 4.12.

359,083

88,238

67,018

2,706,362

47,688

118,860

59,089

225,637

2,932,000

100.0%

Secondary containment,
bulk dry storage containers
Containment pads
Bulk storage pesticide
containers
Subtotal

1,996,849

na

878,599

na

309 na

na

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 84

na

na

Table 5.2. Annualized Industry Costs of Compliance under EPA’s Final Rule (2005$), 7% Discount Rate

Industry Annualized Costs

SmallSmall
Facilities

Agricultural Refillers
(Refilling Establishments)

For-Hire Commercial Applicators
(Aerial and Ground)

Medium- LargeLarge
Small
Small
Facilities Facilities Facilities

Small- Medium LargeSmall
-Small
Small
Facilities Facilities Facilities Subtotal

Subtotal

TOTAL

Percent
of Total

Construction of New Containment Structures
Outdoor liquid bulk storage
(secondary containment + pads)

671,837

143,322

29,015

17,688

Outdoor liquid bulk storage
(containment pads only)

263,105

45,020

10,317

6,289

324,731 na

75,404

33,910

33,910

143,224 na

na

na

196,939

38,645

7,190

4,383

247,158 na

na

99,169

16,969

3,849

2,346

122,332 na
738,552 na

Outdoor liquid & dry bulk
storage (secondary containment
+ pads)

na

Indoor liquid bulk storage
(secondary containment + pads)
Indoor liquid bulk storage
(containment pads only)
Outdoor liquid non-bulk storage
(containment pads only)

738,552 na

na

45,370

70,645

30,238

146,253

1,008,116

34.8%

44,736

28,595

73,331

398,062

13.7%

na

143,224

4.9%

na

na

247,158

8.5%

na

na

na

122,332

4.2%

na

na

na

738,552

25.5%

319,360

84,280

64,617

2,437,860

45,370

115,381

58,832

219,584

2,657,444

91.7%

Retrofitting of Existing Containment Structures
Secondary containment,
bulk liquid storage containers
44,052
7,873

840

512

53,278

670

962

86

1,718

54,996

1.9%

235

25

15

275

0.0%

Subtotal

Secondary containment,
bulk dry storage containers

1,969,603

na

861,863

na

275 na

na

na

na

Containment pads

61,312

13,747

2,296

1,400

78,754

975

1,782

247

3,003

81,757

2.8%

Bulk storage pesticide
containers

85,343

14,603

1,531

933

102,410

416

597

53

1,067

103,476

3.6%

190,706

36,458

4,692

2,860

234,717

2,061

3,341

386

5,788

240,505

8.3%

2,160,309

355,819

88,972

67,477

2,672,576

47,431

118,722

59,218

225,372

2,897,948

100.0%

Subtotal
Total Industry
Annualized Costs
Source: Tables 4.8, 4.10, 4.13.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 85

continuous on-site physical construction has begun, or contractual obligations for construction
are in effect and cannot be canceled or modified without substantial loss. The rule defines new
containment structures as those for which installation began more than 3 months after the
publication of the final rule. The critical standards apply to existing structures in existing
facilities or establishments. If an existing facility or establishment has bulk pesticide storage and
no secondary containment structures, the containment unit or pad that must be constructed will
be considered “new” and subject to the full federal standards. If a facility or establishment has
such minimal secondary containment that the expense of retrofitting to the critical standards
would require substantial expense, it is expected that state authorities would recommend or
require construction to full federal standards. If major reconstruction is necessary, the
incorporation of the additional requirements of the full standards would provide additional
environmental protection at minimal additional cost.
Compliance costs for all agricultural refiller and commercial applicator facilities to construct
new containment structures that meet EPA standards are estimated at $2.69 million (an estimated
$2.47 million for agricultural refillers and an estimated $0.22 million for commercial
applicators). Compliance costs across both sectors to retrofit existing containment structures are
estimated at $0.25 million ($0.24 million for agricultural refillers and $0.006 million for
commercial applicators). Combined compliance costs (i.e., the compliance cost to install new
containment structures plus the cost to retrofit existing containment structures) to all agricultural
refiller and commercial applicator facilities under EPA’s final pesticide containment standards
are estimated at $2.93 million ($2.71 million for agricultural refillers and $0.23 for commercial
applicators, as shown in Table 5.1).
These cost figures show that nearly 93 percent of the estimated total industry costs of compliance
are expected to be incurred by agricultural refillers, including 92 percent of the cost to install
new containment structures and 98 percent of the costs to retrofit existing structures. The
remaining costs will be borne by commercial aerial and ground applicators.
Aggregate industry costs incurred to construct new containment structures at agricultural refiller
facilities are estimated at $2.47 million on an annualized basis (Table 5.1). By facility size, the
aggregate industry costs to install new structures are estimated at $2.00 million for small-small
businesses, $0.32 million for medium-small facilities, $0.08 million for large-small facilities, and
$0.06 million for large agricultural refiller facilities. Aggregate industry costs among
agricultural refillers to retrofit existing containment structures is estimated at $0.25 million on an
annualized basis. The breakdown in costs by facility size is estimated at $0.196 million for
small-small refillers, $0.037 million for medium-small refillers, $0.005 million for large-small
facility refillers, and $0.003 million for large facilities. (See Table 5.1.)
For commercial aerial and ground applicators, the aggregate industry cost to install new
containment structures is estimated at $0.22 million on an annualized basis (Table 5.1).
Breakdown in costs by facility size is estimated at $0.05 million for small-small applicators,
$0.12 million for medium-small applicators, and $0.06 million for large-small applicators.57 The
aggregate industry costs for commercial applicators to retrofit existing containment structures are
estimated at $0.006 million on an annualized basis. Breakdown in costs by facility size is
57

In this analysis, it is assumed that there are no large commercial applicators.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 86

estimated at $0.002 million for small-small applicators, $0.003 million for medium-small
applicators, and $0.0004 million for large-small applicators. (See Table 5.1.)
5.1.2 Comparison of Aggregate Annualized Costs: Proposed Versus Final Regulations
As discussed in the preceding section, combined compliance costs to all agricultural refillers and
commercial applicator facilities under EPA’s final pesticide containment standards are estimated
at $2.94 million (Table 5.1). This compares to $12.96 million in economic impacts to bulk
pesticide storage facilities estimated under EPA’s proposed rule,58 marking a more than twothirds reduction in regulatory costs under both discount/interest rate scenarios. This reduction in
expected costs is attributable to changes in the rule requirements, as recommended by the
Agency following a review of the public comments to the proposed rule and further deliberations
by EPA. Among these changes are the elimination of the interim period requirements to retrofit
existing structures and also elimination of the more costly requirements of the proposed rule,
such as the hydraulic conductivity standard and reduction in capacity requirements. The current
analysis also extends the time for which costs are calculated; from a 15-year period of analysis to
a 20-year period. Due to the discounting and annualization of facility costs, a longer period of
analysis results in lower annualized costs.
Table 5.1 and Table 5.3 present the industry costs of compliance for agricultural refillers and
commercial applicators under the final and proposed pesticide containment standards,
respectively.
Differences between estimated costs of the proposed and final rules are also partially attributable
to the fact that more states now regulate pesticide bulk storage facilities. Consequently, fewer
facilities located in these states are affected by the final rule. During the early 1990s, 14 states
regulated pesticide containment structures, accounting for 71 percent of all agricultural bulk
storage facilities. By 1998, 19 states had passed containment regulations and other states had
regulations pending, accounting for 85 percent of all bulk storage facilities in the agricultural
refiller industry. For this economic analysis, the number of affected facilities excludes those
facilities that are assumed to be in compliance with the rule based on their location in states with
regulations that meet EPA’s requirements for pesticide containment.
Since most facilities with bulk pesticide storage are already covered under state regulations, costs
are not assessed for these facilities in this economic analysis. For example, in the analysis for
the proposed rule, it was estimated that 765 agricultural refiller facilities would require both
secondary containment units and pads and that 562 facilities would need new pads only. For the
final rule, it is estimated that 491 refiller facilities would require both units and pads and 343
facilities would require pads only. For commercial applicators, the number of facilities
estimated to require construction of new containment units and pads declined from 147 facilities
58

EPA (1993), inflated to 2005$. The estimated $12.96 million in economic impacts was under Regulatory Option
2 for the proposed rule, which was EPA’s recommended option. The requirements of this option are discussed in
detail in Chapter 2 and Appendices E and F. Regulatory Option 1 represented the baseline; leaving 40 CFR Part 165
unchanged by retaining the current recommendations for pesticide storage. There were no increased costs estimated
for compliance with this option. Regulatory Option 3 represented a higher level of stringency than Option 2.
Additional requirements under this option included at each facility a groundwater monitoring system and leachate
detection system. The estimated cost of compliance with Regulatory Option 3 was $34.91 million in 2005$.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 87

under the proposed rule to 21 facilities under the final rule, determined from compliance
information for agricultural refillers (i.e., approximately 90 percent of all agricultural bulk
facilities are assumed in compliance with the secondary containment standards based on the
distribution of facilities across states with and without existing regulations). Thus, changes in
the estimated size of the affected community have contributed to the differences in total industry
costs shown in Tables 5.1 and 5.3. In some cases, these differences reflect shifts between
categories of costs to construct new facilities and costs to retrofit existing ones.
Despite the above-mentioned effects of changes in the size of the regulated community on the
estimated regulatory costs, changes in the actual regulatory requirements have contributed to the
bulk of the reduction in incremental regulatory costs, as discussed in the following sections.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 88

Table 5.3. Annualized Industry Costs of Compliance under EPA’s Proposed Regulation
Agricultural Refillers
(Refilling Establishments)

Small
Facilities

Medium
Facilities

2,915,630

202,694

1,076,414

43,840

1,503,168

0

130,943

86,202

254,541

392,977

647,518

n/a

n/a

274,151

544,389

12,274

830,814

n/a

140,643

304,042

15,655

460,339

Outdoor liquid non-bulk storage
(containment pads only)

1,281,302

n/a

n/a

Subtotal

3,094,409

4,028,709

Industry Annualized Costs

Small
Facilities

Medium
Facilities

Large
Facilities

963,585

1,901,136

50,908

434,728

1,024,600

n/a

For-Hire Commercial Applicators
(Aerial and Ground)
Subtotal

Large
Facilities

Subtotal

TOTAL

Percent
of Total

Construct New Containment Structures
Outdoor liquid bulk storage
(secondary containment +
pads)
Outdoor liquid bulk storage
(containment pads only)
Outdoor liquid & dry bulk
storage (secondary
containment + pads)
Indoor liquid bulk storage
(secondary containment +
pads)
Indoor liquid bulk storage
(containment pads only)

571,079 1,850,187

4,765,816

36.8%

217,144

1,720,312

13.3%

n/a

0

647,518

5.0%

n/a

n/a

0

830,814

6.4%

n/a

n/a

n/a

0

460,339

3.6%

1,281,302

n/a

n/a

n/a

0

1,281,302

9.9%

515,654

7,638,771

202,694

1,207,356

657,280 2,067,331

9,706,102

74.9%

Retrofit Existing Containment Structures, Interim Period
Secondary containment, bulk
liquid storage containers
Secondary containment, bulk dry
storage containers
Containment pads
Bulk storage pesticide containers

29,754

105,021

5,146

139,921

127

1,127

377

1,631

141,552

1.1%

n/a
37,575
20,271

237
149,914
195,898

647
6,243
27,753

885
193,731
243,922

n/a
117
32

n/a
1,370
2,407

n/a
549
1,427

0
2,037
3,865

885
195,768
247,787

0.0%
1.5%
1.9%

Subtotal

87,600

451,070

39,790

578,459

276

4,905

2,353

7,533

585,992

4.5%

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 89

Table 5.3. Annualized Industry Costs of Compliance under EPA’s Proposed Regulation (Continued)
Agricultural Refillers
(Refilling Establishments)

Industry Annualized Costs

Small
Facilities

Medium
Facilities

Large
Facilities

For-Hire Commercial Applicators
(Aerial and Ground)

Subtotal

Small
Facilitie
s

Medium
Facilities

Large
Facilities

Subtotal

TOTAL

Percent
of Total

Retrofit Existing Containment Structures, after Interim Period
Secondary containment, bulk
liquid storage containers
Secondary containment, bulk dry
storage containers
Containment pads

70,761

397,488

34,042

502,291

373

4,324

2,376

7,073

509,364

3.9%

n/a

9,261

22,243

31,504

n/a

n/a

n/a

0

31,504

0.2%

215,199

1,668,259

69,628

1,953,085

4,206

39,566

13,669

57,441

2,010,526

15.5%

10,946

90,505

10,861

112,311

48

606

471

1,125

113,436

0.9%

296,906

2,165,513

136,773

2,599,191

4,627

44,495

16,516

65,638

2,664,830

20.6%

Total Industry
Annualized Costs
3,478,914
Source: EPA (1993), inflated to 2005$.

6,645,291

692,216 10,816,421

207,598

1,256,756

676,149 2,140,503

12,956,924

100.0%

Bulk storage pesticide containers
Subtotal

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 90

5.1.2.1 Costs to Construct New and Retrofit Existing Structures
Under the proposed regulation, nearly 75 percent ($9.7 million) of the estimated industry costs of
compliance were expected to be incurred by agricultural refillers and commercial applicators to
install new containment structures. The remaining 25 percent of costs ($3.3 million) were
expected to cover the retrofitting expenses for existing containment structures. Under the final
rule, aggregate costs to install new containment structures constitute 92 percent (or $2.6 million)
of the total costs, and costs to retrofit existing structures constitute the remaining 8 percent (or
$0.2 million) of total costs. (See Tables 5.1 and 5.3.)
The estimated reduction in retrofitting costs reflects the elimination in the final rule of the
interim period requirements and the establishment of critical standards for existing structures.
Existing structures that do not meet EPA’s critical standards in the final rule will incur
retrofitting costs to meet them without an interim period. Still, the requirements under the final
rule represent a substantial reduction in compliance costs compared to the proposed regulation,
estimated at 75 percent less for facilities with existing containment structures ($3.3 million
versus $0.2 million). The major regulatory requirement that contributes to this reduction is the
elimination of the hydraulic conductivity standard (and related coating/recoating and
recordkeeping requirements). Other changes in the regulatory requirements that contribute to
this decline in estimated costs are a reduction in the capacity requirements and elimination of the
requirement that containers be elevated to facilitate leak detection. In addition, the requirement
in the proposed rule that existing pads be sloped to a sump after the interim period has been
removed.
The estimated reduction in construction costs for new secondary containment structures and pads
primarily reflects the removal of the coating requirement for floors, pads, and berms required in
conjunction with meeting a hydraulic conductivity standard. For outdoor and indoor secondary
structures, elimination of this requirement resulted in roughly a 20 percent decrease in all
facility-level costs. For pads, removal of all coating costs in the final cost analysis resulted in
facility-level costs of one-third less than that estimated under the proposed rule cost analysis.
Related contractor and contingency costs, which are calculated as a percentage of total direct
costs, as well as additional recordkeeping requirements, also lowered facility-level costs. For
agricultural refiller facilities with secondary dry bulk containment, costs estimated for the final
analysis were one-third of those estimated for the proposed rule, due to the reduction in the
capacity requirements that resulted in a substantial decrease in concrete and berm costs.
For all new containment structures, costs were added in the final analysis to include expenses for
the addition of rinsate and precipitation tanks. Although neither the proposed nor the final rule
required rinsate tanks, they are recommended as good management practice, and their cost is
included. The Agency is not requiring structures to enclose the rinsate tanks.
5.1.2.2 Costs to Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Applicators
Agricultural refillers are expected to incur $2.7 million in regulatory costs to install new and
retrofit existing containment structures, constituting the bulk (93 percent) of the total estimated
compliance costs under the final rule (Table 5.1). Expressed on a percentage basis, this is a
larger proportion of total costs than the distribution observed under the proposed rule, which was
estimated at more than $10.8 million (84 percent) of the total industry costs of compliance (Table
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 91

5.3). Since several additional operational scenarios are assumed for agricultural refillers based
on the types of structures required for bulk pesticide storage, as compared to commercial
applicators, the reduction in costs was proportionally greater for agricultural refillers. For
example, large cost reductions due to changes in the capacity requirements for dry bulk
containment—which are assumed to apply to agricultural refiller facilities only—pushed
aggregate costs for agricultural refillers downward. Costs were also lowered due to the removal
of the hydraulic conductivity standard and associated coating/recoating requirements. Also,
because of proportionately lesser reductions in the rule’s pad requirements, which are the major
cost component for commercial applicators, costs to individual facilities did not change
substantially. Nevertheless, reductions in the regulatory requirements for secondary containment
structures and pads lowered overall estimated costs to commercial applicators from $2.1 million
under the proposed rule to $0.2 million under the final rule. (See Tables 5.1 and 5.3.)
For agricultural refillers, the costs to construct new secondary containment units and pads in the
final rule comprise the bulk of all regulatory costs, estimated at $2.5 million (Table 5.1). Costs
to retrofit existing containment structures at agricultural refiller facilities account for a much
smaller share of total costs, estimated at $0.24 million (Table 5.1). Compared to estimated costs
under the proposed rule (a combined total of $3.2 million for interim and full standards),
retrofitting costs are significantly lower (Table 5.3).
Among commercial applicators, costs to retrofit existing structures in the final rule ($0.006
million) comprise a smaller share of the total costs, accounting for approximately 3 percent of
total commercial applicator costs to retrofit existing structures under the final rule (Table 5.1).
This is less than that estimated for the proposed rule ($0.07 million) (Table 5.3).
In addition to regulatory changes between the proposed containment regulations and the final
regulations that lowered costs, the differences in costs between the two analyses are largely
attributed to the change in the mix of facilities subject to the containment requirements. The
change in the mix of facilities manifests itself in two ways. First, because the final analysis
assumes that all facilities in the states with existing bulk pesticide containment programs are in
compliance with the final regulations, the actual number of facilities subject to the containment
requirements is less for the final regulations than for the proposed regulations. This will,
obviously, lead to a reduction in industry-level regulatory compliance costs.
Second, of the facilities included in the current analysis for the final containment regulations, we
consider more facilities “small” than in the analysis of the proposed rule. Because costs are less
for smaller facilities, a distribution skewed toward smaller facilities will result in lower overall
regulatory compliance costs compared to a distribution of facilities skewed toward larger facility
sizes. In the proposed rule, the number of containers was split between small, medium, and large
size categories with unit costs of compliance calculated based on size assumptions. That
analysis assumed that 25 percent of all agricultural refillers were small, 72 percent were medium,
and 3 percent were large. For commercial applicators, the proposed rule analysis assumed that 9
percent of applicators were small, 69 percent were medium, and 22 percent were large. In the
current analysis, facilities are assigned to small-small, medium-small, large-small, and large
facility size categories (only agricultural refillers have “large” facilities; commercial applicators
do not). Based on the latest data on the percentage of companies in the different size categories

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 92

in the D&B database, we assume that 83 percent of refillers are small-small facilities, 14 percent
are medium-small facilities, 2 percent are large-small facilities, and 1 percent are large
facilities.59 For commercial applicators, we assume that 39 percent are small-small facilities, 56
percent are medium-small facilities, and 5 percent are large-small facilities. The larger
percentage of facilities in smaller facility size categories results in lower regulatory compliance
costs than if those facilities were in larger size categories, since the unit costs of compliance are
less for small facilities.
5.1.2.3 Distribution of Costs among Representative Facilities
Across all small-small, medium-small, large-small, and large agricultural refiller and commercial
applicator facilities in the final rule, nearly 77 percent of the total industry costs (or $2.23
million) are expected to be incurred by small-small agricultural refiller and commercial
applicator facilities. About 16 percent of all costs (or $0.48 million) are estimated to be borne by
medium-small firms. Large-small firms are estimated to account for 5 percent of total costs
($0.15 million). Large firms are estimated to account for the remaining 2 percent of all costs
($0.07 million). (See Table 5.1.) In total, these costs are roughly 30 percent of the costs
estimated in the cost analysis for the proposed rule: small firms ($3.7 million); medium-sized
firms ($7.9 million); and large firms ($1.4 million) (Table 5.3). Because of the different
definitions for facility sizes used in each analysis, it is difficult to compare the differences
between the two analyses by facility sizes.
5.2 Economic Impacts of the Final Pesticide Containment Regulations
The economic impacts of EPA’s containment regulations are estimated at the facility level, in
terms of annualized costs as compared to representative facility revenues (as provided in Chapter
3, section 3.3). As evaluated for this economic analysis, it is not expected that a substantial
number of small facilities will be significantly impacted by the final containment regulations.
Costs have been assessed at the facility level based on the estimated annualized costs for each
representative facility, as presented in Chapter 4. Annualized costs include capital costs and
other related operating and management costs, covering the full 20-year period of analysis. To
examine the effects of the final rule at the facility level, we compare estimated annualized costs
of the rule by representative facility with total facility-level revenue. For purposes of the
SBREFA (Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act) analysis,60 the three subcategories as defined for the final rule within the “small” size class (i.e., small-small, mediumsmall, and large-small) were combined into a single “small” size class (as defined by the Small
Business Administration) for each regulated entity type (See Appendix I, Tables I.1 - I.4).61 The
estimated impacts are presented for both the general, small facility size class and for each
subcategory of small business.

59

The detailed procedure for assigning facilities to size categories is discussed in Chapter 3 (Table 3.4).
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the 1996 SBREFA.
61
All annual revenue figures are calculated using both a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate in the discounting
procedure and both a 3 percent and 7 percent interest rate in the annualization procedure. When referred to in the
text, annual costs will be presented at the 3 percent rate. Tables I.1 and I.3 present costs at the 3 percent rate, and
Tables I.2 and I.4 present costs at the 7 percent rate.
60

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 93

Economic impacts are estimated for businesses that will be required either to install new
structures or to retrofit existing structures. Tables I.1 and I.2 present the results of the economic
analysis and show, respectively, total facility-level annualized costs as a share of current
revenues to both install new secondary containment units and pads and to retrofit existing units
and pads. A threshold for regulations potentially causing significant impacts to small businesses
is an annual cost to revenue ratio of greater than 1 percent. Another consideration is the number
of facilities that are affected beyond this threshold. The economic impacts are not expected to be
significant if the number of facilities with annual cost to revenue ration greater than the 1 percent
threshold is small. Potentially affected industries under the rule include agricultural refillers and
commercial applicators with bulk pesticide storage.
To further assist in the examination of small business impacts, Tables I.1 and I.2 present the
number of facilities impacted by each containment standard. It should be noted, however, that
not all facilities impacted by the same containment standard for existing structures will incur the
same costs. As described in Chapter 3, some facilities may only need to comply with portions of
a particular standard. For example, because states may already have standards in place that
cover one or more of the components of this standard, agricultural refillers subject to the
secondary containment standards for existing bulk liquid outdoor storage may be subject to one
or all of the standards’ components. These include (1) the initial cost of sealing the floor drain or
discharge outlet, (2) the operating and maintenance (O&M) cost of recordkeeping and
maintenance, and (3) the intermittent cost of repairs.
In the compliance profile (Chapter 3), we estimate the level of compliance by making
assumptions about the extent to which facilities with existing secondary containment structures,
both within and outside of states with state-level containment regulations, are or are not already
in compliance with the national containment standards (see Table G.4). Because these
compliance assumptions apply to different facilities, it is impossible to estimate one single,
facility-level cost associated with compliance with the containment standards for existing
structures. To calculate facility-level economic impacts, however, we make the conservative
assumption that the average facility will incur all costs associated with bringing its existing
containment structure into compliance with the national standards. Though this is an
overestimate of the facility-level compliance costs that most facilities will incur (both refillers
and applicators), the impact analysis still reveals that the overall economic impacts of the
existing containment structure standards are less than 0.28 percent of revenues for all size
categories (Table I.3).
5.2.1 Facility-Level Impacts for Agricultural Refiller Facilities
This section describes estimated facility-level economic impacts for agricultural refillers that
install new containment structures or retrofit existing structures. Facility-level impacts are
assessed in terms of annualized costs as compared to facility-level revenue.
Under the containment rule, some facilities with bulk pesticide storage will incur costs to install
a new secondary containment unit and a containment pad. Table I.1 compares the total facility
annualized costs with the facility’s revenue, and indicates that representative agricultural refiller
facilities will not be adversely impacted by the final containment regulations.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 94

Across all small facilities (small-small, medium-small, and large-small), the economic impacts of
installing a new secondary containment unit and pad are estimated to be small, with estimated
annualized costs for secondary containment accounting for no more than 0.14 percent of
revenues. Total facility impacts to install only a containment pad are similar across each bulk
pesticide storage facility type; only small facilities with non-bulk activities have a higher
compliance cost to revenue ratio (0.18 percent). For small-small agricultural refillers, estimated
annualized costs for new secondary containment structures account for no more than 0.34
percent of revenue across all bulk storage facility types. Economic impacts on medium-small,
large-small, and large facilities are also not significant, with annual cost to revenue ratios
estimated at no more than 0.07 percent for both discount/interest rate scenarios. (See Table I.1.)
Table I.3 compares facility revenues to the maximum potential facility-level annualized costs to
retrofit existing secondary containment units and pads. The results of this analysis indicate that
agricultural refiller facilities with existing structures will not incur significant adverse economic
impacts in complying with EPA’s critical standards. A small agricultural refiller facility with
both types of containment structures and one bulk storage container is estimated to incur
annualized compliance costs under 0.02 percent of total revenue. All other small facility types
(i.e., bulk liquid storage, bulk dry storage, containment pad only, or bulk liquid container) have
even smaller compliance cost to revenue ratios. Small-small facilities face estimated compliance
costs that are less than 0.04 percent of revenues. Medium-small, large-small, and large facilities
have higher annual costs but estimated lower economic impacts due to larger revenues. (See
Table I.3.)
As mentioned above, a threshold for regulations potentially causing significant impacts to small
businesses is an annual cost to revenue ratio of greater than 1 percent. Based on this we find that
the impact of containment regulations on agriculture refiller facilities is not significant.
5.2.2 Facility-Level Impacts for Commercial Applicator Businesses
This section describes estimated facility-level economic impacts at commercial (for-hire) aerial
and ground applicator businesses needing to install new containment structures or retrofit
existing structures. Facility-level impacts are assessed in terms of annualized compliance costs
as compared to current facility-level revenue.
Estimated facility-level economic impacts to install secondary containment structures at
representative small (including small-small, medium-small, and large-small) for-hire applicator
businesses with bulk pesticide storage are shown in Table I.1. The combined effects on aerial
applicator facilities that require construction of both a secondary containment unit and pad, as
well as those facilities that require a new pad only, indicate that small representative facilities
may experience economic impacts larger than those experienced by agricultural refillers. Small
aerial applicators requiring both a secondary containment unit and pad have an estimated annual
cost to revenue ratio of 2.7 percent (Table I.1). This is greater than the 1 percent threshold;
however, only an estimated 16 facilities (six small-small facilities, nine medium-small facilities,
and one large-small facility)—out of a total of 160 aerial applicator facilities with bulk storage—
are likely to face this level of impact. For small-small facilities the annual cost to revenue ratio
is estimated to be higher than the general small facility category, at 7.8 percent, while mediumsmall and large-small aerial facilities needing both a secondary containment unit and pad have an
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 95

annual cost to revenue ratio that is lower, 2.1 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively. (See Table
I.1.) Even though this is greater than the 1 percent threshold, the overall impact is not expected to
be significant because only six facilities will be affected.
Small aerial applicator facilities requiring only a containment pad have an estimated annual cost
to revenue ratio of 1.25 percent, which is again greater than the threshold of 1 percent for
regulations potentially causing significant impacts to small businesses. An estimated 10
facilities (seven medium-small facilities and three large-small facilities)—out of a total of 160
aerial applicator facilities with bulk storage—could face this level of impact. Using the
alternative definition of small business, medium-small facilities and large-small facilities
needing just a containment pad62 have estimated annualized costs of 1.63 percent and 0.81
percent of revenues, respectively. (See Table I.1.)
Table I.3 presents the aggregate facility-level impacts to retrofit existing secondary containment
units and pads at commercial applicator facilities. As shown, commercial applicators with
existing structures are not expected to be significantly affected by the rule requirements to
retrofit existing structures. Across all small applicators required to retrofit existing containment,
aggregate annualized costs are estimated to be 0.11 percent of current annual revenues.
Aggregate annualized costs to small-small aerial applicators with existing containment are
estimated to account for 0.28 of revenues, while medium-small and large-small aerial applicators
have annualized costs estimated less than 0.09 percent of revenues. Large-small ground
applicators with existing structures are estimated to have annual cost to revenue ratios below
0.06 percent. (See Table I.3.)
In summary, the number of small businesses significantly impacted by the final containment
regulations is not expected to be substantial for agricultural refillers. The facility-level impact on
commercial applicators is significant; however, only a small number of facilities is likely to be
affected. Measured in terms of a ratio between the annualized cost of compliance with the final
regulations to current annual revenues (i.e., annual cost to revenue ratio), the impacts to small
agricultural refiller facilities to install new containment structures and to retrofit existing
structures is less than 0.3 percent for all small facilities, which is less than the threshold of 1
percent for regulations potentially causing significant impacts to small businesses. For small
commercial aerial applicator facilities, 26 facilities (out of a total of 160 facilities with bulk
pesticide storage) may face cost to revenue ratios of more than 1 percent to install new
containment structures. The cost to revenue ratio for small aerial applicators to retrofit existing
structures is less than 0.3 percent for all small facilities. The cost to revenue ratio for ground
applicator facilities to install new containment structures and to retrofit existing structures is less
than 1 percent for all small facilities.
The cost analysis presented in Chapters 4 and 5 has shown that the total industry costs of
compliance with the final containment regulations are estimated at $2.93 million (Table 5.1), and
that the impacts of compliance with the final regulations on small facilities are not expected to be
significant (Tables I.1 and I.3). The next and final chapter, Chapter 6, presents the estimated
benefits of compliance with the final containment regulations.
62

It is assumed that only medium-small and large-small aerial facilities are affected by the containment pad
requirement; small-small facilities are not expected to engage in activities that require a pad.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 96

5.3 State Level Costs
The burden on the State agencies considered in this analysis is the administrative burden
associated with determining whether a State’s regulations for bulk pesticide containment
structures, if they exist, offer equivalent environmental protection to the federal regulations. If a
State has bulk pesticide containment structures regulations, the State may choose to prepare
documentation that the State regulations provide environmental protection equivalent to the
federal regulations. This is not required, but it is assumed that the 19 States which currently
regulate bulk pesticide containment structures will choose to submit the documentation. For
these States the following activities would apply: reading the rule instructions, planning
activities, gathering and creating information, monitoring and enforcing the regulations, storing
and maintaining data, and corresponding with the Agency regarding their regulations. For the
remaining 31 States, which do not currently have regulations for bulk pesticide containment
structures, only a subset of these activities would apply (i.e., reading the instructions, monitoring
and enforcing, and storing and maintaining data), so their burden will be less. The paperwork
burden is only expected to occur in the first year of the regulations.
For the 19 States which currently have bulk pesticide containment regulations, it is estimated that
nine and one half hours will be spent on information collection activities. At a cost of $43 per
hour for state administrative labor 63, the estimated yearly cost for nine and one half hours of
time spent on the information collection, per State, is $409.50. The total paperwork burden
across all States with bulk pesticide containment regulations, assuming that 19 States currently
have regulations, is 180.5 hours. The total cost across all 19 States is an estimated $7,761.50.
The annual burden for the States without bulk pesticide containment regulations is an estimated
four hours per state or $172 per state. The total annual paperwork burden across all States,
assuming 31 states do not currently have bulk pesticide containment regulations, is 124 hours.
The total cost across all 31 States is an estimated $5,332. Including the cost for those 19 States
with bulk pesticide containment regulations, the total cost of the paperwork burden is
$13,093.50.

63

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics. State and Local Government, by major occupational and industry group.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t03.htm

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 97

6.0 Benefits of Bulk Pesticide Storage Containment
This chapter discusses the human health and environmental benefits estimated to result from
fewer uncontrolled releases of pesticides into the environment as a result of the final containment
regulations, and the magnitude or value of such benefits. These benefits will include fewer and
less severe incidents of damage to natural resources and public and private property, reductions
in cleanup and remediation costs, and lower health risks to workers and area residents.
The final standards for containment of pesticides at bulk pesticide storage facilities are intended
to prevent pesticide contamination of soil and water resources at facilities where pesticides are
stored in bulk containers and facilities where container refilling operations occur. One useful
categorization of pesticide contamination resulting from accidental releases at bulk storage
facilities is (1) on-site contamination versus (2) off-site contamination. The distinction is useful
because on-site and off-site contamination pose different potential risks. On-site contamination
poses potential health risks to workers on the site at the time of the release. If the released
pesticides are transported off-site via surface runoff or groundwater flow, they can pose health
risks to the general population and to ecological systems that are not necessarily in the
immediate vicinity of the containment structure. The information and methods necessary to
quantify off-site risks are different from those necessary to quantify on-site risks. A flow
diagram of the links between accidental releases of pesticides from bulk storage facilities and the
different types of risk posed is shown in Figure 6.1.
As in any benefit analysis, the benefits of the pesticide containment rule depend in part on how
the baseline scenario (i.e., “the world in the absence of the rule”) is defined. This analysis
incorporates into the baseline the fact that large accidental releases of pesticides are likely to be
followed by remediation efforts. That is, some of the potential human health risk and
environmental damage resulting from a spill would be avoided in the baseline scenario, at some
remediation cost. If cleanup were complete and instantaneous, then none of the three categories
of damages shown in Figure 6.1 would be relevant because none would occur; all that would be
relevant to a benefits analysis would be the remediation costs avoided. As discussed more fully
below in Section 6.3, however, this is not likely to be the case, nor would it be optimal. The total
benefits of the pesticide containment rule are therefore comprised of both the avoided
remediation costs and the value of avoiding the human health risks and ecological damages that
would occur prior to remediation efforts and/or remain after remediation efforts in the baseline
scenario.
A quantitative analysis of the total benefits expected to result from the rule would require a
substantial amount of information, beginning with the identification of the specific pesticides
accidentally released from such facilities and the human health risks and ecological risks
associated with acute and/or chronic exposure to those pesticides. There is currently insufficient
information, however, to support such a quantitative analysis of the total benefits of the pesticide
containment rule. An analysis of the partial benefits of avoided remediation costs, however,
provides lower-bound estimates of benefits. This approach estimates the remediation costs in the
baseline scenario (in the absence of the pesticide containment rule) that would be avoided in the
control scenario (i.e., with the implementation of the rule).

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 98

Figure 6.1. Flow Diagram of Potential Damages from Pesticide Containment Structures

Spills and Leakage

On-site Contamination
Transport of pesticides off-site via
runoff and groundwater flow

Occupational Health Risks
Off-site contamination

Contamination of
Ecosystems

Ecological damage

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 99

Contamination of
drinking water

Public health risks

This chapter presents the results of the analysis of partial benefits supported by the available
information, as well as an outline of the analysis of total benefits that would be carried out if
there were sufficient information. Section 6.1 discusses the types of releases that occur and
presents the evidence of these releases. Section 6.2 discusses the valuation of the benefits of the
pesticide containment rule and presents the results of an analysis of the partial benefits of
avoided remediation costs. Section 6.3 outlines the information necessary to estimate the
potential total benefits of a pesticide containment rule. Finally, Sections 6.4 and 6.5 qualitatively
discuss the two broad categories of risk shown in Figure 6.1, human health risks and ecological
damage, respectively. Human health risks resulting from both on-site occupational exposure and
from off-site drinking water exposure are considered jointly.
6.1 Types and Evidence of Spills and Leakage
In general, uncontrolled releases from pesticide bulk storage facilities fall into two categories:
(1) infrequent, large-volume accidental releases and (2) chronic, small-volume operational
releases (drippage, spillage, and equipment washoff). Although chronic small leaks from bulk
containers and appurtenances may often be responsible for environmental contamination, the less
frequent, large-volume accidental spills are better documented, perhaps because of existing
reporting requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 403, and the Environmental Planning and Community Rightto-Know Act (EPCRA) Section 304.
In its Federal Register notice of the proposed rule (59 FR 6712, February 11, 1994), EPA cited
the causes of major spills as “(1) bulk container failure (due to structural defects, corrosion of the
containers by incompatible pesticides, improper installation, fire, collisions with equipment,
etc.), (2) failure of pipes, hoses, valves, or pumps, (3) operator errors (e.g., neglecting to shut off
valves, overfilling, leaving transfer operations unattended), and (4) vandalism.”
6.1.1 Evidence of the Occurrence of Spills
The evidence of the occurrence of spills, which comes from both federal and state sources, is
presented in Table 6.1 below. In some cases the number of incidents during the reporting period
is given, but there is insufficient information from which to estimate an annual release
probability; in other cases, the estimated frequency per year out of a known number of bulk
storage facilities is given, from which annual release probabilities can be derived. Although the
available information on the occurrence of spills is undoubtedly incomplete, it provides an
indicator of the magnitude of the problem, and is used to estimate the frequency of spills per
year, a necessary input to the estimation of avoided remediation costs resulting from the
pesticide containment rule (see Section 6.2 below).

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 100

Table 6.1. Reported Incidence of Spills from Pesticide Bulk Storage Facilities

Source of
Information

Reporting Period

National Response
Center (U.S. Coast
Guard)

1982 - 1991

Nebraska Dept. of
Environmental
Control

1981 - 1991

Wisconsin Dept. of
Agriculture, Trade
and Consumer
Protection

1981 - mid-1984

Michigan Dept. of
Natural Resources

1987 - early 1991

MacDonald, 1991

1984 - 1990

Number of
Incidents During
the Reporting
Period

Estimated
Annual
Release
Probability a

Range of
Release
Quantity

---

2 - 1,000
gallons

70% herbicides

40

---

a few
gallons to
1,400
gallons

all herbicides

20

9

---

15 b

4/300 (1.3%)

---

0.9% of
Nebraska’s
350
containment
sites

a few
gallons to
1,700
gallons

Pesticides Spilled

---

---

---

---

---

EPA (Howard, 1991) 1986 - 1990
--1.0 – 1.5%
----The annual release probability is estimated as the number of accidental releases divided by the number of bulk
storage facilities.
b
Estimate based on reported characteristics of incident.
a

The last three entries in Table 6.1 provide limited information on the frequency of spills from
bulk storage facilities. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Pollution
Emergency Alerting System (PEAS) was used to compile a summary of agriculture-related
pollution emergency incidents from 1987 through early 1991. This compilation covered
incidents pertaining to fertilizers, pesticides, unspecified chemicals, and animal wastes (manure,
offal, carcasses, and blood). An inspection of the incidents show that they relate to lawn care,
nurseries, and other non-agricultural activities as well as to traditional agriculture. In general,
the types of activities covered include application, transportation, and storage.
The MDNR data cover 180 agriculture pollution incidents for the period of 1987 to early 1991.
Using a process of elimination that subjectively considers the source, the nature of the complaint,
and the volume of material, incidents that suggested a possible major bulk storage or loading
release were identified. It was estimated that 15 of the 180 incidents, or 8.3 percent, were related
to pesticide storage or loading/refilling releases.
Over the 5-year period, the 15 MDNR agricultural emergency incidents conservatively classified
as storage or loading/refilling releases equate to about three to five releases occurring per year
from pesticide dealers. Assuming these are primarily from bulk storage or refilling activities,
this implies that about one out of every 75 Michigan pesticide dealers experiences an emergency
release annually (4 out of 300). Thus, the probability of a release would be about 0.013 (1.3
percent).
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 101

EPA obtained similar data for the state of Nebraska (MacDonald, 1991), which indicate that
reported storage or refilling spills occurred at the rate of about three per year for the period 1984
through 1990. With an estimated 350 bulk storage and refilling facilities in Nebraska, the
resulting spill or leak incidence rate would be 0.9 percent.
These findings are consistent with independent estimates obtained from EPA (Howard, 1991),
which solicited spill/leak incidence data from registrants whose products are frequently stored by
dealers in bulk. Two registrants provided approximations of the percentage of dealers’ bulk
storage sites that experience leaks or spills with their products. One registrant estimated that for
the period of 1986 through 1990, about 1.5 percent of the sites experienced a leak or spill each
year. The other registrant estimated that about 1.0 percent of the sites per year experienced such
releases.
While there is general agreement on estimated spill or release frequency from the sources
mentioned above, the rate of spills and releases may actually be greater than estimated. Factors
such as the following could result in unreported spills and leaks:
•
•
•

Reporting of incidents involving certain chemicals or spills may not be required by law;
Facility operators may be unaware of low-volume, chronic leaks, or may not perceive them
as spills significant enough to warrant reporting; and
Facilities may be reluctant to report some incidents due to liability and publicity concerns.

6.1.2 Evidence of On-Site and Off-Site Contamination
Evidence that spills and leakage result in both on-site and off-site contamination comes from
several sources. Sources in several states have documented soil, surface water, and groundwater
contamination from various operations of agricultural chemical distributors, repackagers, and
applicators.
Illinois Department of Health Study. Dr. Thomas Long of the Illinois Department of Health
sampled groundwater pesticide contamination in 1987 and 1988 at or adjacent to agricultural
pesticide refillers in the state (Long, 1989). The samples showed pesticide residues in
groundwater at between 65 and 75 percent of the agricultural pesticide refiller facilities sampled.
Although Dr. Long’s research does not identify site-specific sources of this pollution, he points
out that it could occur due to “back-siphonage, sloppy mixing and loading procedures, lack of
rinsate collection and improper waste disposal...” He also points out that “production wells at
facilities are often shallow, improperly constructed or poorly located” with respect to facility
activities and implies that wells, too, are part of the problem.
The degree to which pesticide residues in groundwater result in potential human exposure,
however, depends on several factors, including the location of point sources in relation to
drinking wells and the nature of the wells themselves. Dr. Long (1989) notes that:
Despite the pesticide and nitrate contamination beneath these facilities, the potential human exposure may
be limited or non-existent in many such circumstances. Many of these facilities are isolated, and the wells

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 102

are not sources of drinking water. Even when the wells are sources of potable water, they usually do not
serve as the sole source of cooking and drinking water for exposed individuals.
In certain instances, however, this groundwater contamination can affect surrounding wells. In a number of
small communities, agrichemical mixing and loading facilities are close to homes with private drinkingwater wells. Most of these private wells are old, shallow, and poorly constructed. Thus, they are highly
susceptible to deterioration due both to surface runoff and groundwater contamination. At least 10 such
sites are within a 25-mile radius of Springfield, Illinois.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Studies. Similar cases of pesticide groundwater
contamination at agricultural pesticide refiller facilities have been documented by A.G. Taylor,
Agriculture Advisor for the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Taylor, undated), as
summarized in Table 6.2. Mr. Taylor’s findings were presented as testimony for proposed state
regulations regarding pesticide storage and handling. Although the direct cause of contamination
in his case studies was usually unknown, the findings indicate that groundwater contamination is
associated with the types of facilities that would be subject to regulation.
Iowa. There were similar findings of contamination of public or private drinking water wells
located near Iowa farm supply dealerships. Hallber (1986) cites 10 Iowa case studies where
pesticide concentrations in groundwater near dealerships were 100-fold or more concentrated
than background levels. Further, in Iowa, in more than 80 percent of the instances in which
herbicides other than atrazine have been detected in public wells, the wells were located near
commercial applicator and agricultural pesticide refillers facilities (Fawcett, 1989).
The Iowa Fertilizer and Chemical Association (IFCA) estimates that approximately 90 percent of
the Iowa agricultural chemical dealer sites have some level of detectable environmental
contamination and that up to 40 to 50 percent will require some form of eventual remediation.
They attribute most of these environmental concerns primarily to “past practices before our
investment in dikes and containment.” Furthermore, IFCA indicates that containment “is not the
total answer, but when combined with other management changes, future contamination can be
avoided.” IFCA believes that dikes and containment have been installed at over 800 sites but is
pressing for legislative action to help finance the cleanup of the environmental contamination
that occurred before containment was installed (Frieberg, 1991).

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 103

Table 6.2. Pesticides Identified in Wells on or Near Agricultural Facilities in Illinois

Location
Ag-Pro Chemical Company
Woosung, IL
Ogle County

Pesticides Detected

Concentration

Well Type

Potential Cause

Detection in Other
Nearby Wells
(Y = Yes; N = No)

Atrazine
Alachlor
Metolachlor
Diazinon
Chlorpyrifos

180 ppb
38 ppb
145 ppb
5 ppb
19 ppb

Residential well
located near facility

Unknown

Y

Alachlor

Trace levels

Well located inside
fertilizer storage
building

Unknown

---

Crop Protection Service a
Biggsville, IL
Henderson County

5 herbicides

Detectable levels

Facility well

Backsiphonage

---

Erie Ag Service
Erie, IL
Whiteside County

3 herbicides

$ USEPA health

Facility well

Unknown

N

Galesville Chemical
Company
Galesville, IL
Piatt County

Alachlor
Atrazine
Metolachlor
Metribuzin

> 200 ppb

Non-domestic use
private well
downgradient from
facility

Mixing & Loading

N

Kaiser Agricultural Chemical
Company
Cantrall, IL
Sangamon County

Various

Trace levels

Several wells in vicinity
of dealership b

Unknown

Y

Kaiser Agricultural Chemical
Company
Oconee, IL
Christian County

Various

3.09 ppm Non-drinking water well
facility

Unknown

Yc

MDM Fertilizer
Sharpsburg, IL
Christian County

Various

Unknown

Yd

Burrough’s Trucking
Company
Rutland, IL
LaSalle County

advisory levels

300 ppb

Facility well

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 104

Table 6.2. Pesticides Identified in Wells on or Near Agricultural Facilities in Illinois (Continued)
Location

Pesticides Detected

Concentration

Well Type

Detection in Other
Nearby Wells
(Y = Yes; N = No)

Potential Cause

Montgomery County Service Atrazine
Company
Alachlor
Butler, IL
Metolachlor
Montgomery County

21 ppb
12 ppb
54 ppb

Old facility well

Unknown

Ne

Rusk Spraying Service
Kankakee, IL
Kankakee County

Alachlor

Trace

Facility well

Mixing/loading
operations
contaminating soils

---

Sidwell Farm Service
Ohlman, IL
Montgomery County

4 herbicides

1.1 ppb - 21.0 ppb

Facility well

Unknown

Yf

Waller Farm Service
Bardolph, IL
McDonough County

Alachlor g

Trace

Private well on property
next to

Chronic spillage and
runoff

---

Atrazine
49 ppb
Non-functional facility
Unknown
Nh
Metolachlor
17 ppb
well
Cyanazine
3.6 ppb
Alachlor
7 ppb
a
Extensive soil and surface water contamination also found.
b
Included one well on elementary school property. The well on-site also contained over 200 ppm nitrates.
c
Several herbicide chemicals and nitrate-N concentrations exceeding 400 ppm were detected in a private well used by a nearby auto repair shop.
d
Eleven of 17 wells sampled were contaminated with herbicide chemicals. The highest concentrations analyzed were in samples from the MDM Fertilizer well.
e
Four residential wells near the facility were tested and no pesticides were detected.
f
A residence one-half mile from the facility also showed trace levels of herbicides. Wells at three neighboring residences showed trace levels of alachlor,
metolachlor, and Malathion.
g
Surface drainage contained high concentrations of herbicide and fertilizer products.
h
A private well 100 yards from the facility tested the same day did not contain herbicides.
Webb Fertilizer Service, Inc.
Fairview, IL
Fulton County

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 105

Michigan. In a 1989 survey, the Michigan Department of Agriculture sampled well water from
50 bulk storage sites of commercial agricultural pesticide refillers. The Department reasoned
that the combined conditions of permeable geological strata and intensive handling of pesticides
and fertilizers would represent a “worst case scenario for agricultural chemical impacts on
groundwater quality.” Pesticides were detected and confirmed in well water from eight (16
percent) of the sites (pesticide concentrations in soils were not determined). Health advisory
levels for pesticides were exceeded in three (6 percent) of the wells. The draft report concluded
that bulk storage operations of agricultural pesticide refillers located on hydrogeologically
vulnerable sites pose a threat to groundwater quality (Michigan Department of Agriculture,
1989).
Utah. A study of pesticide dealerships in Utah found pesticide contamination resulting from a
variety of handling activities, including spills of pesticides in bulk storage and dispensing
operations, mixing and loading of pesticides into application equipment (for dealerships that
engaged in custom application), and equipment cleaning activities, among others. The pesticide
detections were located in the pesticide handling areas of the facilities as well as off-site in
ponded depressions, drainage-ways, gravel driveways, and parking lots (Novak, 1991).
Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection
(WDATCP) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) jointly investigated
20 Wisconsin facilities to provide more specific information on: sources of pesticide
contamination; pesticide concentrations in surface water and groundwater; the total concentration
of pesticide compounds in soil; specific compound concentration in the surface soils and
multiple soil depth; and pre- and post-investigation concentrations where remediation was
implemented. The WDATCP/WDNR study resulted in several general conclusions (Habecker,
1989):
•
•
•
•
•

Contamination comes from a wide range of pesticides, and the level of residues for each type
is highly variable.
Chronic release areas had the highest number of pesticide residue types and greatest ranges
of pesticide residue levels found.
The compounds most frequently found in soils at the sites were alachlor, atrazine, and
metolachlor, with 80 percent of the facilities containing all three of these compounds.
The three most highly contaminated facility areas were acute spill areas, burn areas, and
mixing/loading areas.
Follow-up soil sampling indicated that spillage appears to be an ongoing problem, especially
in the mixing/loading and pesticide equipment parking areas.

In 1991, the Wisconsin agencies reported the results of a related environmental survey of 27
randomly selected agricultural pesticide application business sites. (The study was designed to
assess operations representative of the industry as a whole, since contamination had not
previously been reported at these study sites.) The investigation revealed the presence of
pesticides in soil at 25 of the 27 locations. Soil samples from 18 (66 percent) of the sites had
concentrations exceeding field application rates, and these facilities may eventually require soil
remediation. Pesticides were also found in groundwater at more than half (55 percent) of the

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 106

sites; at nine of these locations (33 percent of all sites), groundwater contamination levels were
greater than allowed by Wisconsin enforcement standards.
Given these results, the agencies subsequently concluded that between 45 and 75 percent of the
state’s commercial mix/load sites may need some soil remediation and that 29 to 63 percent
potentially exceed the state’s groundwater enforcement standard. Many of the latter may also
require remediation (Morrison and Kefer, 1991).
Some monitoring programs have found pesticide concentrations in groundwater wells far in
excess of state enforcement standards (which are usually based on health and/or ecological
effects). For example, alachlor has a state enforcement standard of 0.5 parts per billion (ppb) in
Wisconsin, but it was found at levels up to 1,800 ppb at a groundwater supply well (Habecker,
1989). EPA’s maximum concentration level for alachlor is 2 ppb (EPA, 2005c). Atrazine,
metolachlor, and other pesticides shown in Table 6.2 have also been found at levels exceeding
state standards or guidelines. The National Survey of Pesticides in Groundwater estimates that
approximately 10 percent of the community water system wells in the United States contain one
or more pesticides and that 4 percent of the nation’s rural domestic wells contain pesticides. It is
not known, however, to what extent the presence of pesticides in the wells covered in this survey
is due to accepted application practices or to incidents such as spills, leaks, misuse, or improper
disposal.
While the data from the various sources cited above are not statistically comparable, they do
confirm that pesticide releases and contamination are occurring at agricultural pesticide refiller
facilities. In addition, various field contacts and general press reviews suggest that releases from
bulk pesticide storage and refilling/repackaging activities are specific problem areas, and
containment is perceived as a major deficiency at some operations. Most of these releases may
occur from accidents or acts of vandalism and not from deterioration of tanks and equipment
(Beal, Ohio Department of Agriculture, 1991; Gingery, Montana Department of Agriculture,
1991; Flowers, Arkansas Plant Board, 1991; Rogers, Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality, 1991; Frank, West Virginia Department of Agriculture, 1991; Uram, Pennsylvania
Department of Agriculture, 1991; Chada, Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, 1991). The
frequency or magnitude of releases from dispensing/refilling areas is unknown but likely to be on
the same order of magnitude as large volume releases from storage facilities. Drippage and other
chronic, small-volume releases are likely to occur more frequently for dispensing/refilling areas
than for bulk container areas.
An indirect form of evidence for the potential threat of spills and leaks is that major registrants
have established safety programs for dealers handling their products in bulk. Syngenta provides
price incentives and fire, theft, and pollution insurance for their products if dealers have
approved bulk storage and rinsate pad containment. Other companies also operate bulk storage
programs for herbicides which require containment for bulk storage containers prior to sales of
product to a dealer. Also, the Mid America CropLife Association has developed model bulk
pesticide guidelines that recommend containment in both the bulk storage and permanent
handling and loading areas.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 107

As additional indirect evidence, 19 states (see Table G.2), most of which are major agricultural
states with large numbers of agricultural pesticide refiller facilities (farm supply and fertilizer
dealers), have already promulgated regulations for the bulk storage of pesticides. Minnesota is
one state that has introduced more stringent bulk pesticide storage rules; however, a 1996 survey
found that contamination continues to be a problem (MDA, 1996). In 1989, data concerning
pesticide leaching and contamination of groundwater around agrichemical facilities became
widely available. In response the Minnesota retailers improved their pesticide handling
practices. The 1996 sampling plan was designed to find a “before and after” comparison in
which 30 agrichemical facilities were selected at random and sampled during the summer of
1996. Pesticides were detected in soil at 28 of the 30 facilities. Of the 93 samples taken, 68
percent had detection of pesticides registered after 1989, indicating that even after the improved
practices the problem persists. The greatest number of pesticide detections occurred in the bulk
pesticide mix and load areas. Results of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture study show
that the current Minnesota bulk pesticide storage rules are an excellent baseline regulation
helping to prevent contamination from large releases, but that they cannot be effective without
proper management and adequate housekeeping.
6.2 Valuation of the Benefits of the Pesticide Containment Rule
6.2.1 Theoretical Approach
For this analysis, remediation efforts and associated costs are assumed as part of the baseline
scenario. The benefit of a pesticide containment rule is therefore the difference between the
social cost of accidental releases in the absence of the rule, assuming that spills are followed by
remediation efforts, and the social cost in the presence of the rule. The social costs associated
with a single spill are diagrammed in Figure 6.2.
Figure 6.2a shows the case in which the level of remediation undertaken in the baseline scenario
is optimal, i.e., the case in which the percentage of the spill cleaned up (p*) is such that the
marginal cost of cleanup equals the marginal benefit of cleanup, so that the net benefit of cleanup
is maximized. The total benefit of remediation is shown as the area under the marginal benefit
curve to the left of p*, or areas 1 plus 2. The cost of the cleanup is the area under the marginal
cost curve to the left of p*, or area 2. The net benefit of cleanup is area 1, total benefit less cost
of cleanup. At this optimal level of cleanup in the baseline scenario there is contamination
remaining, with the potential for environmental damage. The value of avoiding this damage is
depicted as the area under the marginal benefit curve to the right of p*, or area 3, which is less
than the cost of cleaning it up (area 3 plus area 4). The benefit of preventing the spill in the first
place (i.e., the benefit that would be achieved by the pesticide containment rule if it prevented
the spill) is the sum of the avoided remediation costs (area 2) and the value of the avoided
environmental damage that would remain after cleanup, or area 3. The benefit achieved by the
pesticide containment rule by preventing this spill is therefore area 2 plus area 3.
Figure 6.2b shows two cases in which the level of remediation undertaken in the baseline
scenario is suboptimal. Cleanup of p1 percent is a case of insufficient cleanup; cleanup of p2
percent is a case of too much cleanup. Whatever the level of cleanup in the baseline, however,
the calculation of the benefit of preventing the spill in the first place follows the same logic as
when the optimal level of cleanup was undertaken. The value of avoiding the spill is the value of
avoided remediation cost (the area under the marginal cost curve to the left of the level of
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 108

cleanup) plus the value of avoiding the environmental damages that would have occurred prior to
and/or remain after remediation was undertaken (the area under the marginal benefit curve to the
right of the level of cleanup).
If, for example, the level of cleanup in the baseline scenario is p1 (i.e., if there is insufficient
cleanup), then the value of avoiding the spill in the first place is area 2 (the avoided remediation
costs) plus the sum of areas 3, 4, and 5 (the value of avoiding the environmental damage that
would have remained after cleanup). If the level of cleanup in the baseline scenario is p2 (i.e., if
there is too much cleanup), then the value of avoiding the spill in the first place is the sum of
areas 2, 4, and 6 (the avoided remediation costs) plus area 5 (the value of avoiding the
environmental damage that would have remained after cleanup).
Figure 6.2 illustrates several things. First, it shows that there are two components to the benefit
of avoiding a spill: (1) the avoided remediation costs, and (2) the value of avoiding the
environmental damages (i.e., the human health risks and ecological damages) that would occur
prior to and/or remain even after remediation had occurred. Second, it illustrates that the
magnitude of the benefit of avoiding the spill depends on what would have been done in the
baseline scenario (i.e., in the absence of the pesticide containment rule)—in particular, it depends
on the level of remediation that would have been undertaken. Finally, it shows that how well an
estimate of avoided remediation cost approximates the total benefit of avoiding the spill in the
first place depends on the percent cleanup that would be undertaken in the baseline scenario. If
in the baseline scenario a spill was 100 percent cleaned up (which would not be the optimal level
of cleanup), then the avoided remediation cost would be the total benefit of avoiding the spill.
As the baseline level of cleanup decreases, however, avoided remediation cost constitutes less of
the total benefit of avoiding the spill, and so becomes a poorer estimate of the total benefit of
avoiding the spill.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 109

Figure 6.2. The Costs and Benefits of Remediation (Cleanup) in the Baseline Scenario and
the Calculation of the Benefits of Avoiding a Spill

Figure 2a: The Optimal Level of Cleanup

Marginal Cost
of Cleanup
$
1

Marginal
Benefit of
Cleanup

4
2

3
P*

100%

Percent Cleanup

Figure 2b: The Suboptimal Level of Cleanup

Marginal Cost
of Cleanup
$

1

3

6
4

2
P1

Percent Cleanup

Marginal
Benefit of
Cleanup

7
5
P2

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 110

100%

6.2.2 An Outline of the Estimation of the Total Benefits of a Pesticide Containment Rule
As noted above, this analysis assumes that some remediation will occur in the baseline scenario.
Given this assumption, the total benefits of a pesticide containment rule would be comprised of
the avoided remediation costs plus the value of avoiding the environmental damage (the human
health risks and ecological damage) that would occur prior to and/or remain after remediation
was undertaken.
The general sequence of steps for a complete benefits analysis is as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Identify the specific pesticides accidentally released from bulk storage facilities;
Estimate the change in probability of releases that would be expected to result from
implementing the proposed standards;
Estimate the avoided remediation costs expected to result from the reduced probability of
release;
Estimate the change in human health risks and ecological damages occurring prior to and/or
remaining after remediation efforts that would result from the predicted changes in releases;64
Value those risk and damage reductions; and
Add the value of risk and damage reductions to the avoided remediation costs.

The estimation of avoided remediation costs will be discussed in discussed in Section 6.3. To
derive an estimate of the total benefits of the pesticide containment rule, in addition to estimating
the avoided remediation costs, it would be necessary to estimate (1) what health and ecological
damages would be likely to occur prior to remediation and/or remain after remediation efforts
and (2) the value of avoiding those damages. For adverse effects associated with off-site
contamination in particular, the estimation of the changes in risks that would result from
reductions in the frequency of accidental releases would require an analysis of the fate and
transport of the pesticides released. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of what is feasible
here. Valuing the risk and damage reductions is also particularly difficult, and, due in large part
to limitations in the available data, will not be attempted in this analysis. However, the final two
sections, 6.4 and 6.5, present a qualitative discussion of the human health and ecological benefits
of the final containment regulations.
6.3 Estimation of the Partial Benefits from Avoided Costs of Remediation
This section provides an estimate of the partial benefits of the pesticide containment rule from
avoided costs of remediation following a release from a bulk pesticide storage facility. An
estimate of the total benefits, including the value of risk reduction from avoided human health
and ecological damage, cannot be determined without additional research. This benefits analysis
therefore uses the available information on remediation costs to provide partial (lower-bound)
estimates of the benefits that are likely to result from the pesticide containment rule. The total
(upper-bound) benefits are not estimated, but a qualitative discussion of the human health and
ecological benefits that would accrue under the pesticide containment rule is provided in
Sections 6.4 and 6.5.
64

The health risks and ecological damage associated with a given pesticide will depend on the levels at which
exposure occurs. Not only the incidence of a given (human health or ecological) endpoint but also the type of
endpoint may change as the exposure level and duration change.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 111

6.3.1 Avoided Costs of Remediation to Agricultural Pesticide Refillers and Agricultural
Commercial Applicators
Estimation of the avoided remediation costs that would result from the pesticide containment
rule requires information on the number of bulk storage facilities covered by the rule, the
probability of a release at a bulk storage facility with and without the rule, and the cost of
remediating such releases.
There are several unknown factors that preclude quantifying with accuracy the partial benefits
that would accrue from avoided remediation costs. Perhaps the principal unknown is the percent
probability that a release will occur. Other unknown factors include the value of the damage,
which will tend to be highly variable according to the severity of the spill, and site-specific
considerations. Also, the baseline level of cleanup required at these spill sites is generally not
known. Even in those cases in which estimates of remediation costs are available, such estimates
do not indicate the percent cleanup associated with those costs. In addition, there is insufficient
information to estimate the value of avoiding the environmental damages occurring prior to or
remaining after remediation. For this analysis, these numbers have been approximated based on
available data and information, and other general underlying assumptions.
This benefits analysis therefore uses the available information on remediation costs to provide
lower-bound estimates of the benefits that are likely to result from the pesticide containment
rule. Depending on the baseline degree of remediation and the valuation of the benefits of
cleanup, these may substantially understate the total benefits that would result from the rule.
The avoided remediation costs attributable to the regulation are calculated as:
C = N * Δp * m
where:
•
•
•
•
•
•

C = the total cost of remediation;
N = the number of bulk storage facilities covered by the regulation;
po = the probability of a release at each of the N bulk storage facilities in the baseline case
(without the regulation);
p1 = the probability of a release at each of the N bulk storage facilities in the control case
(with the regulation);
Δp = po - p1 = the change in probability of a release induced by the regulation; and
m = the average cost of remediation.

The values for most of these variables are not well documented. Therefore, only general ranges
of estimates are presented here based on estimates shown below.
6.3.1.1 Estimation of the Number of Bulk Storage Facilities Covered by the Rule (N)
As shown in Chapter 3, approximately 5,250 agricultural pesticide refiller and commercial
applicator facilities store agricultural pesticides in bulk storage containers. These facilities plus
an additional 561 facilities that store agricultural pesticides, but are classified as non-bulk
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 112

storage, perform dispensing/refilling activities that could be subject to regulation. This results in
a total of 5,811 (= 5,250 + 561) units (see Table 3.2).65
6.3.1.2 Estimation of the Baseline Accidental Release Probability (po)
As summarized in Table 6.1, the limited number of estimates of the annual frequency of spills
from bulk storage facilities ranges from 0.9 percent to 1.5 percent. That is, the annual
probability of an accidental release from a randomly selected bulk storage facility is anywhere
from 0.009 to 0.015. A reasonably conservative estimate, then, based on the limited information
available, would be 0.01 (a 1 percent probability). This means that, out of the approximately
5,811 facilities in the United States, about 58 (= 0.01 x 5,811) would be expected to experience
an accidental release annually in the baseline scenario.
The 58 accidental releases in the baseline scenario would be expected to occur either at those
facilities with existing containment structures that need to be retrofitted to comply with the new
rule, or at those bulk storage facilities without existing containment structures. Because the
estimate of a 1 percent release probability is based on information from past years (the reporting
periods were from the mid-1980s to 1990 or 1991, as shown in Table 6.1), the estimate of
1 percent may be biased either up or down. In particular, if the percentage of bulk storage
facilities without existing containment structures or with existing containment structures in need
of retrofitting is substantially smaller at present than during the reporting periods listed in Table
6.1 (for example, if many facilities are now in compliance with state regulations implemented
since those reporting periods), then the estimate of 1 percent could be biased upward. For
reasons noted above, however, the estimate of 1 percent could be biased downward (because, for
example, it most likely excludes many non-reported spills and chronic leaks). Because there are
two possible biases in opposite directions, and in the absence of further information on the extent
of the possible biases, this analysis uses the estimate of a 1 percent release probability, noting
that this estimate could change in the future if further information becomes available.
6.3.1.3 Estimation of the Average Cost of Remediation per Release (m)
Remediation costs are highly variable and are dependent on the magnitude of the release and
other site-specific conditions. Based on available data and information, however, a
representative range would be $10,000 to $1 million per spill. This range was determined based
on the following information and is presented in Table 6.3.
From approximately 100 dealership remediation cases, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture
has estimated that 50 to 60 percent of the contaminated sites will be remediated for at least
$20,000 to $50,000, not counting certain costs such as attorney fees; 20 percent will be
remediated for $50,000 to $200,000; and 20 percent for more than $200,000, with costs
occasionally crossing the million-dollar mark (EPA, 2005a).

65

The 5,040 agricultural pesticide refiller facilities, 561 non-bulk facilities, and 210 agricultural commercial
applicator facilities include facilities with bulk pesticide storage both with existing containment structures and those
without existing containment structures. Facilities without existing containment structures will have to install
structures to comply with the new rule. Some facilities with existing containment structures will already be in
compliance with the new rule; others will have to retrofit to be in compliance.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 113

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency noted that, while firm substantiating data do not
yet exist, it seems likely that two-thirds of the state’s 1,500 commercial agrichemical sites could
eventually be found to warrant some degree of remediation for contamination “hot spots.”
Typical costs for assessment and remediation for most facilities are estimated to average between
$15,000 and $50,000. Fifteen percent of the facilities are projected to require more extensive
cleanup (cost range $50,000 to $250,000), and 2 percent to 5 percent could encounter even
greater remediation costs (Taylor, 1991).
Table 6.3. Estimation of Average Costs for Assessment and Remediation of Uncontrolled
Spills at Agricultural Chemical Dealers and Applicators
Cost Category a
Range
$1 to $19,999

Frequency Distribution b
Point
Estimate
$13,800

Low Cost

High Cost

Weighted Average Costc
Low Cost

High Cost

25%

10%

$3,450

$1,380

$82,800

35%

25%

$28,980

$20,700

$241,500

20%

35%

$48,300

$84,525

$250,000 to $499,999

$517,500

15%

20%

$77,625

$103,500

$500,000 to $999,999

$1,035,000

5%

9%

$51,750

$93,150

$1,000,000 or more

$1,725,000

0%

1%

$0

$17,250

$20,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $249,999

TOTAL—Calculated
100%
100%
$210,105
$320,505
(Rounded)
($210,000)
($320,000)
a
Costs represent the remediation of individual uncontrolled spill events. Therefore, the costs do not represent the
costs for cleanup of sites with a long-term contamination history.
b
DPRA Incorporated estimates based on a review of literature and field contacts. Key sources include EPA (2005)
in Minnesota and Taylor (1991) in Illinois for the low-cost estimate. The high-cost scenario reflects consideration
that certain transaction costs (lawyer fees and management costs) may not be included and future remediation
requirements and costs will be more stringent.
c
Weighted average costs are calculated by multiplying the point estimate with the corresponding frequency
distribution. For example, for the $1-$19,999 range, the weighted average cost (low) is [13,800*0.25] = 3,450. Cost
ranges and point estimates are based on data from the early 1990s and are reported in 2005 dollars.

In 1993, the State of Illinois completed a study on the cost of remediating agrichemical sites in
the state. State officials estimated that the cost of site characterization and remediation for all
sites in the state (1,200 sites) would be about $48 million to $124 million or $40,000 to $100,000
per site. This is interpreted as a mean for all sites; several sites are not likely to incur any
remediation costs. Also, the cost estimates do not include any costs for groundwater remediation
because of data limitations and do not include engineering costs associated with site
characterization, which can range between $5,000 and $20,000 per facility (Illinois Department
of Agriculture, 1993).
Similarly, a study conducted by the WDATCP indicates that 45 to 75 percent of the commercial
pesticide mixing and loading facilities are likely to require soil remediation, and many may also
need groundwater remediation (Morrison and Kefer, 1991). Typical costs for soil remediation
range from $10,000 to $50,000. However, if groundwater contamination is encountered,
especially if municipal water supplies are affected, the costs can be much higher. For example,
in a case with which the WDATCP was involved, an agricultural pesticide refiller facility paid
about $100,000 to characterize a groundwater contamination plume that affects a municipal
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 114

drinking water supply. The facility projects that it will pay an additional $250,000 to install
groundwater remediation equipment. Operational costs will add another $20,000 for each year
the equipment is used. In addition, the facility may need to demolish, excavate below, and
replace a new $30,000 containment system that was built over contaminated soil (Morrison,
1991).
In Iowa, where roughly half of the pesticide dealerships are estimated to require remediation,
direct costs for site assessments and monitoring and remediation of dealerships could reach $50
million to $100 million (Frieberg, 1991). The Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation completed 22
case studies of site remediation for agricultural chemical dealers covering remediation for
chronic releases as well as sudden spills. At the time of the study, costs of $1.8 million had been
incurred at the 22 sites, but only five had conducted or were conducting remediation. Most sites
had been conducting only assessment and monitoring. Costs varied greatly, but the site farthest
along in remediation had spent $325,000. Another site had already spent $400,000 in 3 years to
achieve an earlier stage of the remediation process. The study concluded, however, that cleaning
up contamination from single spills, for which pesticide containment would be most useful, was
less expensive (Gannon, undated).
The State of Illinois has established a fund to help dealers pay for environmental cleanup costs
after a pesticide release incident. This program, administered by the Illinois Department of
Agriculture, will reimburse dealers for up to $0.5 million annually for cleanup costs (Simmonds
and Brosten, 1991). At two or three incidents per year, this is equivalent to costs of $170,000 to
$250,000 per incident. However, there are documented instances where remediation costs for a
major soil and groundwater contamination incident are expected to be much greater. An
example of this is a March 28, 1990, incident at Myers, Inc., an agricultural pesticide refiller in
Lexington, Illinois, that had a fire (Simmonds and Brosten, 1991). Cleanup at this site will cost
$1.0 to $1.5 million. Similarly, insurance companies recommend that agricultural chemical
dealers have a minimum of $1 million in pollution insurance coverage (Pelzer, 1992).
6.3.1.4 Estimation of the Total Cost of Remediation (C)
The above information does not, in itself, provide an estimate of the average cost of remediation.
For this analysis, we developed a high estimate and a low estimate of the average cost of
remediation, based on the documented general range of costs and two reasonable distributions (a
“high-cost” distribution and a “low-cost” distribution) of remediation costs. A simple average of
the two distributions was taken to arrive at average high and low estimates. These two cost
distributions and the resulting low and high estimates of the average cost of remediation are
shown in Table 6.3.66
Based on these distributions, the average avoided remediation costs would range from about
$210,000 to $320,000 per incident avoided. These costs are assumed to be applicable for both
bulk storage releases and dispensing/refilling/mixing/loading area releases as no information is
available to justify a difference, although the dispensing/refilling type incidents might be smaller.

66

The low and high cost estimated in Table 6.3 is based on the point estimate for each range of remediation cost and
the probability of that remediation cost occurring.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 115

The costs are also assumed to occur over a relatively short time period because responses to
sudden spills start rapidly67 and are assumed to be completed in less than 1 year.
The estimation of avoided remediation costs assumes that all accidental releases would be
prevented by the pesticide containment rule. That is, given that the initial probability of release
was 0.01 and it will be reduced to zero, the change in the probability of a release (Δp) is
assumed to be 0.01. Given 5,811 facilities covered by the rule, and using the lower-bound
estimate of $210,000 as the average remediation cost per release, the lower-bound estimate of
avoided remediation costs to agricultural pesticide refillers and agricultural commercial
applicators with bulk pesticide storage would be:
C = N * Δp * m = 5,811 * 0.01 * $210,000 = $12.2 million
Using the upper-bound estimate of $320,000 as the average remediation cost per release, the
upper-bound estimate of avoided remediation costs to agricultural pesticide refillers and
agricultural commercial applicators would be:
C = N * Δp * m = 5,811 * 0.01 * $320,000 = $18.6 million
As mentioned earlier, these estimates represent the partial (lower-bound) estimates of the
benefits that are likely to result from the pesticide containment rule. The total (upper-bound)
benefits that would include the benefits of risk reduction to human health and ecological systems
are not valued due to a lack of available data.
6.3.2 Uncertainties in the Estimate of Avoided Remediation Costs
Some uncertainty surrounds all three component inputs used to calculate the remediation costs
that would be avoided by implementing the pesticide containment rule (N, Δp, and m.). The
number of facilities covered by the rule (N) is not readily available, and is based primarily on
1992 data from multiple sources in the proposed EPA containment rule RIA. EPA’s efforts to
validate this estimate failed to provide a more accurate estimate of the actual number of facilities
covered by the rule, which may now be either higher or lower.
As discussed above, there is substantial uncertainty surrounding the estimates of the change in
the probability of an accidental release that would be induced by the rule (Δp). There are just
three studies available that provide an estimate of the baseline probability of release (po), and
these studies may or may not be indicative of the probability of release for all facilities covered
by the rule. These studies were published in the early 1990’s, and several States have since
promulgated containment regulations. The probability of release in States with regulations may
be lower than 1%. On the other hand, two of the studies reporting incidents were in States that
have regulations. There is also the potential for a higher baseline probability of release in States
without containment regulations. The estimate of a 1% probability of release may be an
underestimate or overestimate of the actual probability of release.
67

We contacted state officials in Ohio, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Florida, and Kansas by telephone regarding the timing
of cleanup for pesticide spills. Their responses indicated that cleanups of major spills at tank facilities are initiated
quickly; responses ranged from immediately (MacKedanz, 1993; Lee, 1993; Kline, 1993); within hours (Buttermore,
1993; Belt, 1993); to within days (Beal, 1993).

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 116

The analysis also assumes full compliance with the regulations and that there will be no
accidental releases with full compliance. However, there may be facilities that do not fully
comply with the regulations, resulting in a probability of release with the regulation greater than
zero. As mentioned above, two studies report incidents in States with regulations. Possible
explanations are that the regulations in these States were not as comprehensive as the EPA
regulations, resulting in accidental releases, or that facilities were not in full compliance with the
States’ regulations.
There is also uncertainty in the estimate of the average remediation cost per accidental release
(m). Similar to the other inputs, the information on the cost per accidental release is not readily
available, and the available data are not recent. The estimates are based on eight studies from the
early 1990s. Although the analysis accounts for the range of costs presented in these studies,
these studies may not represent the full range of remediation costs.
Any change in the assumptions made regarding N, Δp, and m will result in a different estimate of
the remediation costs avoided as a result of the regulations. Since the direction of the uncertainty
is unknown, the impact of the uncertainty on the estimate of avoided costs (i.e., whether the
uncertainty results in higher or lower costs) is unknown, as well.
The following example demonstrates the impacts of varying these assumptions on the estimated
remediation costs avoided. Suppose that the baseline probability of a release (po) is actually
0.004 (rather than 0.01). Suppose further that instead of reducing the probability of an accidental
release to 0 (as was assumed in the analysis), the pesticide containment rule reduces the control
scenario release probability to 20 percent of the baseline scenario release probability—or 0.2 x
0.004 = 0.0008. The change in release probability (Δp) would then be 0.004 - 0.0008 = 0.0032.
Given the original estimates of N and m, the lower-bound estimate of avoided remediation cost to
agricultural pesticide refillers and agricultural commercial applicators would be:
C = N * Δp * m = 5,811 * 0.0032 * $210,000 = $3.9 million.
The upper-bound estimate of avoided remediation costs would be:
C = N * Δp * m = 5,811 * 0.0032 * $320,000 = $6.0 million.
6.3.3 Uncertainties in the Estimate of the Benefits of the Pesticide Containment Rule
Various sources of uncertainty in the estimation of the benefits that would result from
implementation of the pesticide containment rule have been discussed in previous sections.
Recalling the discussion of total benefits in Section 6.2, there are two broad categories of
benefits that would be expected to result from implementation of the pesticide containment rule:
(1) avoided remediation costs and (2) the benefits of avoiding the human health risks and
ecological damages that would occur prior to and/or remain after remediation efforts were
undertaken. The second component of benefits was not estimated for this analysis, but we
provide a qualitative discussion of the benefits that may accrue from reduced risks to human
health (Section 6.4) and ecological systems (Section 6.5).
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 117

The relevant uncertainty is how well the estimate of avoided remediation costs approximates the
total benefits of implementing the pesticide containment rule. Restated, there are two broad
sources of uncertainty: (1) uncertainty about how well avoided remediation costs are estimated,
and (2) uncertainty about how well avoided remediation costs estimate total benefits. The
uncertainties surrounding the estimate of avoided remediation costs are discussed in Section
6.3.2. How well avoided remediation costs approximate total benefits depends on the shapes of
the marginal cost and marginal benefit (of remediation) curves (diagrammed in Figure 6.2) and
on the percent cleanup that would be undertaken in the baseline scenario. As the percent
remediation that would be undertaken in the baseline scenario increases, avoided remediation
costs provide a better approximation of the total benefits of the pesticide containment rule.
6.4 The Potential Human Health Risks Associated with Exposure to Pesticides
The benefits of the pesticide containment regulations include reductions in health risks both to
the general population in the geographic areas in which the bulk storage facilities are located and
to pesticide handlers from improved containment of bulk pesticides in facilities operated by
agricultural refillers and commercial applicators. As discussed in Section 6.1, there is ample
evidence that spills and leaks are occurring at agricultural refiller and commercial applicator
facilities with bulk pesticide containment. Unfortunately, data are not available to quantify the
effects of these spills and leaks on humans (or the environment).
The limited data that are available provide some information on the frequency of exposure (i.e.,
frequency of leaks and spills) and on the types of pesticides that are being spilled (see Section
6.1). For example, based on the available data, we estimate that as many as 58 accidental
releases occur each year from bulk storage facilities (see Section 6.3), and that pesticides, such as
atrazine, alachlor, chlorpyrifos and diazinon, are frequently detected on or near agricultural
facilities in Illinois (see Table 6.2). However, information on the level of human exposure from
these spills is not readily available, nor is information on the human health effects of this
exposure. In the absence of these data, we cannot estimate any human health benefits associated
with the final containment regulations.
The following two sections describe, first (in Section 6.4.1), the exposed populations and the
data limitations on identifying the frequency and level of exposure for these populations relative
to bulk pesticide containment, and second (in Section 6.4.2), the pesticides that the at-risk
populations are more often exposed to and risks associated with these pesticides.
6.4.1 Exposed Populations
6.4.1.1 The General Population
Releases from bulk storage areas may allow pesticides to enter the air, soil, or water. The nature
of the contaminated media will depend on the type of release (e.g., sudden or chronic) as well as
on the physical and chemical characteristics of the pesticides and their inert ingredients.
Improvements in bulk storage facilities are anticipated to reduce exposure of the general
population that has resulted in the past from pesticides being released from bulk storage facilities
by accidental spills, fires, or leakage. To result in exposure of the general population, these

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 118

releases have had to migrate into aquifers, volatilize into the air, and/or contaminate soil used to
grow food.
Food contamination may occur: (1) through direct exposure (e.g., direct spillage onto food
products); (2) through food plant uptake from contaminated soil or water; and (3) through
bioaccumulation in plant or animal life that is itself a food source or is food for animals that are
ultimately consumed by people.
Airborne releases may occur due to simple volatilization or as a result of fires. The latter type of
release is often more serious (Buzicky, et al., 1992). The water used in fire management may
spread the pesticide widely, contaminating soil and water. With this release scenario, the public
is, again, primarily exposed via water.
There are a number of sources of data on spills. However, it is important to note that these data
only describe spill incidents that were clearly noticeable. Chronic small spills largely go
unnoticed. Further, the data do not specify the cause of the spill (e.g., a breach in pesticide
containment, which is necessary to associate the spill with the final pesticide containment
standards), the population exposed, or the level of exposure. The data sources include a federal
reporting mechanism in place at the National Response Center (NRC), for some specified
substances above a threshold quantity. In addition, the Nebraska Department of Environmental
Control maintains a spill incident database that includes reports of pesticide spills. The
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (WDATCP) also has
information on pesticide spills. Finally, the Michigan Department of Agriculture has a compiled
summary of agriculture-related pollution emergency incidents that includes bulk storage
facilities.
6.4.1.2 Pesticide Handlers
Pesticide handlers will interact with safer containment equipment as a result of the rule, which
should reduce the number of spills and human contact. This reduction is expected to
consequently reduce inhalation and dermal exposure. Data do not specifically address exposure
at containment facilities. However, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR)
conducts ongoing surveillance of people and the environment to detect the potential for pesticide
exposure as part of its pesticide safety program. CDPR’s Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program
(PISP) has required mandatory reporting of pesticide illnesses since 1971, making it the most
comprehensive monitoring program in the country. Under a California state statute, physicians
are required to report any suspected case of pesticide-related illness or injury to the local health
officer within 24 hours of examining the patient.
In addition, CDPR reviews doctor’s reports for workers’ compensation claims under PISP. Staff
members investigate any claim that mentions (1) pesticides as a possible cause of illness or
injury or (2) unspecified chemicals if the setting is one in which pesticide use is likely. CDPR
also works with the California Poison Control System to facilitate reporting of pesticide-related
illnesses by health care workers. In 1999, CDPR reported 1,201 episodes in which the pesticide
exposure was at least a possible contributing factor to illness or injury (CDPR, 2001a,b).

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 119

However, the CDPR data largely have information on small container spills, and no episodes
were found in the database related to bulk pesticide containment-related spills.68
6.4.2 Pesticides Evaluated
Pesticide-contaminated soil and groundwater on, or near, commercial agricultural chemical
facilities have been measured in numerous states. Dozens of chemicals have been found. For
purposes of this benefits assessment, we examined a short list of pesticides found in a major
agricultural state, Illinois, for potential human health effects.
A list of the pesticides identified in wells on or near agricultural facilities in Illinois, and the
contaminant level measured, was presented in Table 6.2.69 Although the potential cause of
contamination is not listed for many facilities, loss from bulk storage facilities through leakage
or spills probably contributes to the contaminant levels. Table 6.2 contains results from one of
many well studies. No national studies are available that enumerate pesticides specifically
associated with spills and leakage from containment facilities.
The Illinois data are used as a reasonable sampling of pesticide contamination that is likely to
occur. The pesticides identified in wells in Table 6.2 are in high use in many agricultural areas
of the United States.70 The observed human health effects associated with the pesticides listed in
Table 6.4 provide an indication of the types of risks that are likely to be reduced as a result of
improvements in bulk storage facilities.71

68

For the container rule, EPA examined case summaries from the Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program (PISP)
database maintained by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) for 1999 (CDPR 2001a,b) and
estimated the number of cases that are “very likely,” “possibly,” and “unlikely” to be avoided as a result of the
regulations. The estimates of cases that were “very likely” to be avoided as a result of the regulations were used to
calculate the ratio of pesticide container design/residue-related cases to total pesticide product incidents in
California. EPA applied this state-level proportion to the United States as a whole to estimate the annual national
number of avoided pesticide product illnesses that are expected as a result of the container design and residue
removal regulations.
69
Fifty-six wells near commercial pesticide facilities were tested in Illinois by the Department of Health. Fortythree (77 percent) were contaminated by pesticides (Fawcett, 1989).
70
The WDATCP/WDNR study (discussed in Section 6.2) found several of the same pesticides (e.g., alachlor,
atrazine, and metolachlor) as soil contaminants at 20 facilities in Wisconsin (Habecker, 1989) as were found in the
Illinois study.
71
The health effects information provided in Table 6.4 is a summary of health effects reported from numerous
sources. The text source (Cunningham and Hallenbeck, 1984) lists health effects reported primarily from the
egistration data submitted to EPA by pesticide manufacturers. In addition, toxicology texts and journal articles were
used to develop the lists of effects reported in this book (full citations in text).

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 120

Table 6.4. Potential Health Effects of Selected Pesticides
Pesticide

Class

Health Effects

alachlor

acetanilide

abdominal distress, anemia, ataxia, brown blood, cancer, chills, collapse, convulsions, cyanosis, dermal effects (irritation,
dermatitis, sensitization), diarrhea, dizziness, dyspnea, eye irritation, gastrointestinal irritation, jaundice, liver damage,
mucous membrane irritation, muscular weakness, nausea, nephritis, ocular damage, postnatal damage, prenatal damage,
shock, sweating, vomiting, death due to central nervous system depression, circulatory or respiratory failure.

atrazine

triazine

abdominal pain, adrenal function impairment, adrenal degeneration, anemia, anorexia, brain edema and dystrophy, cardiac
dilation, central nervous system abnormalities, convulsions, dermatitis, diarrhea, erythema, eye irritation, conjunctivitis,
exopthalmia, corneal opacity, iritis, growth retardation, hematocrit depression, hemoglobin depression, hypothermia, liver
hemorrhage, mutagenesis, nausea, ovarian hemorrhage, paralysis, prenatal damage, respiratory edema and hemorrhage,
pneumonia, bronchitis, bradypnea, dyspnea, hyperpnea, salivation, spasms, spleen hemorrhage, thiamine and riboflavin
function disturbed, tremors, vomiting. (Bioaccumulates in fat of animals and humans.)

chlorpyrifos

organophosphate
(One of the most
common pesticides
in reports of
human poisonings)

acidosis, presence of alkyl phosphates in urine, anorexia, anoxia, aphasia, areflexia, ataxia, cardiac abnormalities
(bradycardia/tachycardia, heart block), cholinesterase inhibition, central nervous system impairment, coma, confusion,
convulsions, cyanosis, dermatitis, diarrhea, dizziness/vertigo, electroencephalograph abnormalities, eye abnormalities
(miosis/mydriasis, pain, pressure, tearing, dark or blurred vision, cataracts), gastrointestinal distress (hyperperistalsis, heart
burn, cramps), hallucinations, headache, hyperglycemia, hypertension, hyperthermia, incontinence, leukopenia, liver
damage, muscle atrophy and twitching, nausea, pallor, paresis, parethesias, psychosis, renal damage, respiratory distress
(apnea, rales, ronchi, wheezing, pulmonary edema), salivation, shock, somnolence, sweating, vomiting, weakness, death
due to respiratory failure.

cyanazine

triazine

abdominal pain, adrenal degeneration, adrenal function impairment, anemia, dermal sensitization, dermatitis, diarrhea, eye
irritation, hepatic degeneration, myocardial degeneration, mucous membrane irritation, nausea, renal degeneration, thiamine
and riboflavin function disturbed, vomiting. (Bioaccumulates in fat of animals and humans.)

diazinon

organophosphate

acidosis, presence of alkyl phosphates in urine, anorexia, anoxia, aphasia, areflexia, ataxia, cardiac abnormalities
(bradycardia/tachycardia, heart block), cholinesterase inhibition, central nervous system impairment, coma, confusion,
convulsions, cyanosis, dermatitis, diarrhea, dizziness/vertigo, electroencephalograph abnormalities, eye abnormalities
(miosis/mydriasis, pain, pressure, tearing, dark or blurred vision, cataracts), gastrointestinal distress (hyperperistalsis,
heartburn, cramps), hallucinations, headache, hyperglycemia, hypertension, hyperthermia, incontinence, leukopenia, liver
damage, muscle atrophy and twitching, nausea, pallor, paresis, parethesias, psychosis, renal damage, respiratory distress
(apnea, rales, ronchi, wheezing, pulmonary edema), salivation, shock, somnolence, sweating, vomiting, weakness, death
due to respiratory failure.

metolachlor

acetanilides

abdominal distress, anemia, ataxia, brown blood, cancer, chills, collapse, convulsions, cyanosis, dermal (irritation,
dermatitis, sensitization), diarrhea, dizziness, dyspnea, eye irritation, gastrointestinal irritation, jaundice, liver damage,
mucous membrane irritation, muscular weakness, nausea, nephritis, prenatal damage, shock, sweating, vomiting, death due
to central nervous system depression, circulatory, or respiratory failure.

metribuzin

triazine

abdominal pain, adrenal function impaired, anemia, dermatitis, diarrhea, eye irritation, mucous membrane irritation, nausea,
thiamine and riboflavin function disturbed, vomiting. (Bioaccumulates in fat of animals and humans.)
Source: Cunningham and Hallenbeck, 1984.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 121

6.5 The Potential Ecological Damages Associated with Exposure to Pesticides
The final pesticide containment regulations will reduce the adverse effects on ecosystems of
sudden and chronic releases of pesticides from containment facilities. This includes reductions
in adverse impacts on flora and fauna including fish, mammals, reptiles, insects, and plants. Due
to the complex interrelationships among plants and animals and the ability of toxic chemicals to
move through the food chain, pesticide contamination of biomaterials is often difficult to track,
contain, or remedy. In some cases contamination can move up the food chain and become a
human health risk.
To estimate the benefits associated with avoided environmental incidents, data are needed from
which one can relate containment-related spills to property damage and the related costs of
cleanup. However, the extent to which pesticide-related environmental incidents occur in the
United States is not very well documented. The primary clearinghouse for the reporting of such
incidents is the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS), a database maintained by the
Ecological Fate and Effects Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs. The two primary
source of incident reports that are submitted to the EIIS are reports filed by pesticide registrants
and government agencies. Although FIFRA requires that pesticide registrants or manufacturers
report to EPA any information related to known adverse environmental effects due to releases of
their registered pesticides, many of these ecological incidents are probably not observed or
reported.
For example, the California Department of Pesticide Regulations (CDPR) is thought to be at the
forefront of state agencies in terms of pesticide recordkeeping, management, monitoring, and
reporting. However, very few ecological incidents that occur in California are logged into the
CDPR’s database of priority investigations—their only statewide database that tracks such
events (EPA, 2005a). In California, pesticide-related releases are initially investigated by county
agricultural commissioners. If a particular release is deemed to meet “priority investigation
status,” it is referred to the CDPR and logged into their database of priority investigations. An
annual summary of all priority investigations, if any, are then provided to the EPA for input into
the EIIS. For non-health incidents, the current thresholds for categorizing an environmental
incident as a priority investigation in California include:
Animals and Wildlife: Any pesticide incident with associated level of mortality that exceeds
the following:
Non-Target Birds: 50
Non-Target Fish: 500
Listed Endangered or Threatened Species: 1
Domesticated, Game, or Other Non-Target Animals: 5
As one can see from the priority investigation criteria, it is likely that many pesticide-related
incidents occur but never warrant priority investigation status. California maintains no records
of such incidents, and of the records it does maintain and submit to EPA, only three spill-related
environmental incidents were reported between 1968 and the present.
The spill/leak-related incidents are singled out in the EIIS since they are the incidents most likely
to be avoided by the promulgation of the pesticide containment regulations. Within the EIIS,
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 122

there have been 43 spill/leak-related aquatic and terrestrial environmental incidents reported
since its inception in 1992 (with reports dating back to 1968). In total, 15 states have submitted
spill-related environmental incident reports with varying degrees of severity. Incidents have
ranged from an unknown number of species incapacitated to thousands of acute cases of animal
mortality. Species affected include minnow, trout, catfish, largemouth bass, salmon, blue crab,
banded water snake, American alligators, egrets, wood storks, and turkey vultures to name only a
few. Of the spill-related incidents, however, the cause of only a handful can be categorized as
potentially pesticide containment-related.
In fact, of the 43 spill-related incidents in the EIIS database that had sufficient description in the
incident report, only two could be considered containment-related. They are summarized as
follows:
•

•

Chlorpyrifos termicide leaked while a technician was repairing a tank. A significant quantity
spilled onto the driveway. The technician washed the spilled chemical into a storm drain,
which ran into a public duck pond resulting in a possible fish kill. The total number of
species affected was not reported (EIIS #I001849-001).
A fish kill occurred on a creek in Sangamon County, Illinois, due to a leaking sight valve on
a 1,000 gallon tank. The type of pesticide was not reported (EIIS #I0000659-001).

The extent of national pesticide containment-related environmental incidents reported in the EIIS
is likely an underestimate of the actual number of containment-related incidents. Therefore,
caution should be taken in using EIIS to characterize the number and size of national pesticide
containment-related incidents that could be avoided once the final regulations are in place.
Though this type of benefit is not quantified in the current analysis, it should be noted that such
benefits are likely to exist in association with the pesticide containment standards.
Apart from EIIS, another database that tracks hazardous material releases is the Accidental
Release Information Program (ARIP) database, maintained by the Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) within the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER). This database contains 4,946 records of incidents that occurred between
1986 and 1999. EPA administers the ARIP to learn about the causes and consequences of
accidental releases of hazardous substances from fixed facilities and the actions that have been or
could have been effective in preventing them from occurring. EPA uses select releases collected
in the Emergency Response Notification System database for the ARIP questionnaire, targeting
those accidental releases at fixed facilities that resulted in off-site consequence or environmental
damage. Unfortunately, a search of the database and the questionnaire suggests that there is not
sufficient information to identify containment-related spills.
Similar to the human health-related benefits section above (Section 6.4), the following two
sections describe, first (in Section 6.5.1) the exposed populations, and, second (in Section 6.5.2),
the pesticides that the at-risk populations are more often exposed to and risks associated with
these pesticides.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 123

6.5.1 Exposed Populations
Ecosystems are complex systems comprised of many interactions and interdependencies among
species. Consequently, a minor deleterious effect at a low trophic level of the food chain can
have major ramifications at higher levels. Alterations may or may not directly affect a species.
They may affect its habitat or metabolic mechanisms, thereby altering survival, density,
diversity, and reproduction (Morrison and Meslow, 1984a and 1984b; Rattner et al., 1982a and
1982b). The initially exposed population may not be the population that is ultimately of greatest
concern. Pesticides may bioaccumulate up the food chain, reaching much higher concentrations
(and greater toxicity) in the higher levels of an ecosystem (Cooper, 1991).
Assessment of exposed populations requires determination of the various species inhabiting the
different portions of an ecosystem. These typically include avian, terrestrial, and waterborne
animals, as well as plants. Because species are interdependent, a direct impact on one species
may have a cascade effect on numerous others. It is therefore reasonable to assume that a
reduction in exposure of any species may have benefits for multiple species in the same
geographic area (occupying the same ecosystem).
Unlike human exposures, where the waterborne pathway is anticipated to be the primary
mechanism of exposure, both water and soil contamination may be a substantial concern with
respect to damage of biomaterials. Microorganisms and small insects that are critical to
maintaining the food web of lower animals are affected by soil contamination. In addition, lower
animals often interact directly with soil, and soil contamination may be delivered to target tissues
through oral, dermal, or inhalation exposures. Soil contamination may directly and quickly kill
insects; microorganisms; and, under high-dose conditions, small animals.
Waterborne contaminants may pose greater problems due to the rapid movement of water out of
the immediate area of contamination. Under normal circumstances, water is anticipated to carry
pesticide releases much greater distances, thereby causing more widespread contamination. In
addition, aquatic organisms are intermittently or continuously submerged, resulting in relatively
greater exposure as compared with other exposure pathways. Water contamination has been
identified in fish and bird kills over many decades. Bioaccumulation of contaminants in fish
who survive their exposure has led to toxic burdens in mammals that use them as food sources.
6.5.2 Pesticides Evaluated
The pesticides listed in Table 6.2 may also cause damage to most animals, and there exist similar
research and data as presented in Table 6.4 on species-specific effects. There is no national
listing of pesticides released from agricultural chemical facilities and their ecological effects.
However, as discussed earlier (Section 6.4), the pesticides observed in Illinois are a reasonably
representative subset of pesticides that may be released from bulk storage facilities.
Most pesticides are not species-specific in their effects. They cause the same types of effects
across species (e.g., cholinesterase inhibition) and are capable of poisoning both target and nontarget species (Cooper, 1991). While not identical in all respects, the functioning of the major
organ systems is strikingly similar across most mammalian species. It is also similar in most
respects to that of birds, fish, and reptiles. Various toxicological source data are available that
provide acute and chronic toxicity measures for selected species.
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 124

Because of differences in the size, absorption, distribution, metabolism, presence or absence of
target tissues, elimination, and detoxification mechanisms of different species, there are
differences in the doses that will cause toxic effects and the occurrence of effects in different
species (Cooper, 1991). For example, most small animals have a more rapid metabolism than
larger animals and consequently consume more food in relation to their body weight. As a result
of this, their exposure to contaminants will be greater on the basis of weight (in mg/kg). Some
species have detoxification mechanisms for specific types of chemicals that cause them to be less
susceptible than others. This makes prediction of adverse effects on specific species from a
single study difficult and uncertain. EPA requires testing of pesticides on biomaterials, and the
test data can provide additional insight into potential impacts. However, there are limited data of
this type.
Fish and birds have unique susceptibilities due to their specialized breathing and movement
adaptations. These have led to anatomical and physiological adaptations that increase their
susceptibilities to some contaminants. A well-recognized example of this is the softening of
eggshells among birds exposed to DDT (Cooper, 1991), which led to the near-extinction of some
avian species. Fish, being immersed in water, have a much greater intake of and exposure to
waterborne pesticides than most other species. Considerable pesticide-specific information is
available regarding the toxic effects of pesticides to wildlife (Cooper, 1991). This information is
readily available through the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/pesticides).
The benefits of avoiding damage to ecosystems include maintenance of species diversity and
critical population levels. Destruction of members of a species may reduce the population to
levels that cannot be sustained in an area. Impairment of reproduction (a common effect of
pesticides—see Table 6.4) may lead to the same consequences. As noted above, the species in
an ecosystem are interdependent, so that elimination of one species may have an impact on
numerous others.
6.6 Summary of the Benefits of the Final Bulk Pesticide Storage Containment Regulations
and Comparison with Proposed Regulations
6.6.1 Summary of the Benefit of the Final Containment Regulations
Uncontrolled releases of pesticides into the environment are well documented. The
establishment of regulations for bulk pesticide containment structures at agricultural refiller and
commercial applicator facilities will reduce such uncontrolled releases. This analysis attempted
to measure the benefits of such regulations in reducing environmental contamination. In
summary, the analysis estimates a cost savings from the final containment regulations of $12.2
million to $18.6 million from avoiding the cleanup of accidental releases from bulk pesticide
containment facilities (Section 6.3). Due to a lack of available data on the human and
environmental effects of exposure from accidental pesticide releases, the benefits of a reduction
in the number of accidental releases to humans and the environment (i.e., a reduction in the
exposure to pesticides) is not valued in this analysis. If quantified, these benefits would likely
result in significantly higher benefits associated with the final containment regulations.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 125

6.6.2 Comparison of the Benefits of the Final and Proposed Containment Regulations
The analysis of the benefits of the proposed containment regulations is similar to the analysis
presented here for the final containment regulations. The primary differences in the analyses are
the assumptions made in the analysis of the avoided costs of remediation. As in this analysis, the
main component of the value of the benefits of the proposed containment regulations is the
estimation of the cost savings from a reduction in the number of accidental releases of pesticides
from bulk storage facilities; and, due to the lack of available data on the human and
environmental effects of pesticide exposure from bulk pesticide storage facilities, the analysis of
the benefits of the proposed regulations did not estimate the benefits of the regulations to humans
and the environment.
The primary differences between the two analyses are the assumptions used in the calculation of
the avoided costs of remediation between the two analyses. The benefits analysis of the
proposed containment regulations assumes that the probability of release is 1.5 percent, whereas
the benefits analysis of the final regulations assumes 1 percent. Also, the benefits analysis for the
proposed regulations assumes that 3,000 bulk pesticide storage facilities could have an accidental
release, whereas the benefits analysis of the final regulations assumes that 5,811 bulk pesticide
facilities could have an accidental release. These differences result in an estimate of the benefits
of the proposed regulations of $9.3 million to $15.6 million; and an estimate of the benefits of
the final regulations of $12.2 million to $18.6 million.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 126

References
The American Bankers Association. 1990. Agricultural Lenders Guide to Environmental
Liability. Washington, DC.
American Business Information (ABI). 1992 (January). Lists of 9 Million Businesses. Omaha,
NE.
Beal, Matt. 1993 (August 3). Personal communication. Department of Agriculture, Columbus,
OH. (614) 466-2737.
Beal, Matt. 1991 (April 22). Personal communication. Pesticide Control Supervisor, Pesticide
Regulations, Dept. of Agriculture, Columbus, OH. (614) 466-2737.
Belt, Paul. 1993 (August 4). Personal communication. Spill Coordinator for the State of Kansas
Health and Environment, Topeka, KS. (913) 296-1679.
Belz, Douglas. 1991 (November 4). Personal communication. Washington Department of
Natural Resources, Forest Land Management Division, Olympia, WA. (206) 753-0671.
Berven, Brad. 1991 (April 18). Personal communication. Dept. of Agriculture, Pierre, SD.
(605) 773-3375.
Borem, David. 1991 (November 15). Personal communication. Woodland Research Manager,
Georgia-Pacific, Savannah, GA. (912) 964-2230.
Bradley, Don. 1991 (May 1). Personal communication. American Cyanamid, Wayne, NJ.
(201) 831-2867.
Breedlove, Phil. 1991 (April 18). Personal communication. Kansas Board of Agriculture,
Topeka, KS. (913) 296-5395.
Broadbent, Bob. 1991 (April 30 and May 6). Personal communication. Production Planning
Manager, Rohm and Haas Company, Ag Chemicals Group, Philadelphia, PA. (215) 5922783.
Buttermore, Gary. 1993 (August 5). Personal communication. Environmental Control
Department, Lincoln, NE. (402) 472-4255.
Buzicky, G., P. Liemandt, S. Grow and D. Read. 1992. “Agricultural Chemical Site Remediation
and Regulations,” in Pesticide Waste Management: Technology and Regulation, Bourke,
J.B., A.S. Felsot, T.J. Gilding, J.K. Jensen and J.N. Sieber, editors. Americal Chemical
Society, Washington, DC.
Chada, Bob. 1991 (April 25). Personal communication. Dept. of Agriculture, Oklahoma City,
OK. (405) 521-3864.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 127

Coldman, Barry. 1991 (August 28). Personal communication. Dept. of Agriculture, Bismarck,
ND. (701) 224-4922.
Cole, Carl A., Jr. 1991 (Summer). “Improve Your Facility to Protect Water.” Farm Chemicals.
Collins, Harold. 1991 (August 21). Personal communication. National Agricultural Aviation
Association, Washington, DC. (202) 546-5722.
Commission of Agriculture & Forestry. Odom, Bob. 1991 (August 12). News release. Baton
Rouge, Louisiana.
Cooper, K. 1991. “Effects of pesticides on wildlife.” Handbook of Pesticides Toxicology:
General Principles. Academic Press, New York, USA, pp: 463-496.
Crooker, Dave. 1991 (November 21). Personal communication. Plum Creek Timber Company,
Inc., Seattle, WA. (206) 467-3600.
California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program
(PISP). 2001a (February 15). “Pesticide-Related Illnesses/Injuries Reported by California
Physicians, Summarized by Pesticide(s), Type of Illness and Degree of Relationship, 1999.”
California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program
(PISP). 2001b (February 15). “Pesticide-Related Illnesses/Injuries Reported by California
Physicians, Summarized by Activity and Type of Exposure, 1999.”
Darling, Ben. 1991 (May 2). Personal communication. Dept. of Agriculture, Lansing, MI.
(517) 373-1087.
Donaldson, George. 1991 (August 28). Personal communication. Director of Regulatory
Affairs, Wilbur-Ellis Company, Fresno, CA. (209) 226-1834.
Eckermann, Charles. 1991 (April 16, May 17 and August 20). Personal communication.
Pesticides Bureau, Dept. of Agriculture, Des Moines, IA. (515) 281-8590.
Faulconer, Lee. 1991 (April 25, August 8). Personal communication. Washington Dept. of
Agriculture, Pesticide Management Division, Olympia, WA. (206) 753-5050.
Fawcett, R.S. 1989. Agrichemical Age, October. (From EPA Draft NPRM Containment
Preamble, December 9, 1991.)
Fertig, Dr. S.N. (Stan). 1991 (August 27). Personal communication. National Pesticide Impact
Assessment Group, USDA.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 128

Flowers, Charlie. 1991 (April 23). Personal communication. Plant Board, Little Rock, AR.
(501) 225-1598.
Foster, Rick. 1991 (April 25). Personal communication. Division of Plant Industries, Dept. of
Agriculture, Nashville, TN. (615) 360-0130.
Frank, Bob. 1991 (April 23). Personal communication. Dept. of Agriculture, Charleston, WV.
(304) 348-3550.
Frieberg, Dan. 1991 (March 7). Environmental Clean-up of Fertilizer and Agchemical Dealer
Sites, Iowa Fertilizer and Chemical Association, Des Moines, IA.
Fulton, Harry. 1991 (April 19, August 28). Personal communication. Division of Plant
Industry, Department of Agriculture and Commerce, Jackson, MS. (601) 325-3390.
Gannon, Eileen. Undated. Environmental Clean-up of Fertilizer and Agri-chemical Dealer
Sites: 28 Iowa Case Studies. Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, Des Moines, IA.
Gilding, Tom. 1991 (May 3). Personal communication. National Agricultural Chemicals
Association, Washington, DC. (202) 296-1585.
Gingery, Gary. 1991 (April 23, August 6). Personal communication. Division of
Environmental Management, Department of Agriculture, Helena, MT. (406) 444-3144.
Gomersall, Jennifer. 1991 (November 15). Personal communication. Environmental Office,
Louisiana-Pacific, Samoa, CA. (707) 443-7511.
Habecker, Melinda A. 1989 (September). Environmental Contamination at Wisconsin Pesticide
Mixing/Loading Facilities: Case Study, Investigation and Remedial Action Evaluation.
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Agriculture Resource
Management Division.
Hallber, G. 1986. Agricultural Impacts on Ground Water: A Conference. National Well
Association. (From EPA Draft NPRM Containment Preamble, December 9, 1991.)
Hardcastle, Rick. 1991 (August 7). Personal communication. (817) 552-9591.
Heitman, Dennis. 1991 and 1992 (April 25, February 20). Personal communication.
Environmental Control Dept., Lincoln, NE. (402) 471-4210.
Howard, Dennis. 1991 (Various dates). Personal communications. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate Division/Pesticide
Management and Disposal Staff, Washington, DC. (703) 557-5288.
Illinois Department of Agriculture. 1993. Agrichemical Facility Site Contamination Study
(Executive Summary). Springfield, IL.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 129

Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association (IFCA). 1991 (April). Economic Impact on Illinois
Agrichemical Facilities for Compliance with Bulk Containment Rules and Proposed
Technical Standards. St. Anne, IL.
Kammel, D.W., R.T. Noyes, G.L. Riskowski, and V.L. Hofman. 1991. Designing Facilities for
Pesticide and Fertilizer Containment. Midwest Plan Service, Iowa State University, Ames,
IA.
Keffer, Charles. 1991 (May 1, May 30, July 1, and September 2). Personal communication.
Director of Environmental Affairs, Monsanto, St. Louis, MO. (314) 694-1000.
Kirby, Chris. 1991 (April 26). Personal communication. Plant Division, Dept. of Agriculture,
Salem, OR. (503) 378-4152.
Kline, Duane. 1993 (August 3). Personal communication. Department of Agriculture, Madison,
WI. (608) 266-7896.
Lee, Greg. 1993 (August 4). Personal communication. Emergency Response Department, FL.
(904) 488-0190.
LeJeune, Larry. 1991 (April 23). Personal communication. Dept. of Agriculture and Forestry,
Baton Rouge, LA. (504) 922-1234.
Leslie, Joe. 1991 (April 25). Personal communication. Plant Industries Division, Dept. of
Agriculture, Jefferson City, MO. (314) 751-3359.
Lewis, Bill. 1991 (April 30 and May 1). Personal communication. Corn Herbicide Manager,
ICI Americas Inc., Ag Products, Wilmington, DE. (302) 886-1159.
Licht, Alice. 1991 (August 8). Personal communication. Nebraska Fertilizer Association,
Lincoln, NE. (402) 476-1528.
Long, Tom. 1989. Groundwater Contamination in the Vicinity of Agrichemical Mixing and
Loading Facilities. Illinois Department of Public Health.
MacDonald, Brenda. 1991 (July 17). Memo and data to Dennis Howard, Biologist, Pest
Management and Disposal Staff of EPA: “Summarization of Nebraska Agrichemical Spill
Data.” Mitchell Systems.
MacKedanz, Roger. 1993 (August 3). Personal communication. Consultant, Agronomy Service
Incident Response Unit, St. Paul, MN. (612) 282-2697.
Michigan Department of Agriculture. 1989. Survey 1989. (From EPA Draft NPRM
Containment Preamble, December 9, 1991.)

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 130

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 1991. Pollution Emergency Alerting
System (PEAS): Summary of Agricultural Related Incidents. Compiled by B.P. Darling,
Michigan Dept. of Agriculture, Pesticide and Plant Pest Management Division.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA). 1996. Results of 1996 Soil Sampling of
Pesticides on Crop Production Retailer Facilities. Soil Sampling report, Agronomy and
Plant Protection Services, Minnesota Department of Agriculture.
Morrison, P., and S. Kefer. 1991. Report on Wisconsin Pesticide Mixing and Loading Site
Study. (From EPA Draft NPRM Containment Preamble, December 9, 1991.)
Morrison, Paul. 1991 (April 17). Personal communication. Director of Groundwater and
Regulatory Services, Dept. of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Madison, WI.
(608) 266-7135.
Morrison, M.L. and E.C. Meslow. 1984a. “Effects of the Herbicide Glyphosate on Bird
Community Structure, Western Oregon,” Forest Science Vol 30. pp 95-106.
Morrison, M.L. and E.C. Meslow. 1984b. “Response of Avian Communities to Herbicideinduced Vegetation Changes,” Journal of Wildlife Management Vol 48. pp 14-22.
Musselman, Craig. 1991 (May 3). Personal communication. Du Pont Company, Ag Products,
Wilmington, DE. (1-800) 441-7515.
Myrick, Chris. 1991a (April 8, July 19, July 29 and August 15). Personal communication.
Legislative Affairs Director, National AgriChemical Retailers Association (NARA),
Washington, DC. (202) 457-0825.
Narikawa, Susan. 1991 (April 18 and April 23). Personal communication. Dept. of Agriculture,
St. Paul, MN. (612) 297-2614.
National Agricultural Aviation Association, 2001. Pesticide Use Survey Report for Agricultural
Aviation.
National Weather Service, Technical Paper 40, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States for
Durations from 30 minutes to 24 Hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100 Years (1961).
Novak, M.T. 1991. Survey of Potential Soil and Groundwater Contamination at Licensed
Pesticide Dealers in Utah. (From EPA Draft NPRM Containment Preamble, December 9,
1991.)
Owens, Mike. 1991 (August 21). Personal communication. Extension Weed Specialist,
Midwest Plan Service, Iowa State University. (515) 294-1923.
Parker, Douglas. 1991 (November 6). Personal communication. Pesticide Specialist, U.S.
Forest Service, Washington, DC. (202) 205-1600.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 131

Paulson, Donald. 1992 (August 19). Personal communication. Ciba-Geigy, NC. (919) 6322174.
Pelzer, David. 1992 (March/April). “Liability Insurance: Increase Your Coverage and Reduce
Your Premium.” Solutions.
Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News. 1991a (August 21). “EPA May Change Registration Status
of Azinphos-Methyl.” Volume 19, Number 42, p. 6. Food Chemical News, Inc.,
Washington, DC.
Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News. 1991b (August 14). “Azinphos-Methyl Linked to Kill of
Half Million Fish in LA.” Volume 19, Number 41, p. 22. Food Chemical News, Inc.,
Washington, DC.
Peterson, Jack. 1991 (April 19 and July 26). Personal communication. Dept. of Agriculture,
Bismarck, ND. (701) 224-2231.
Rattner, B.A., L. Sileo and C.G. Scanes. 1982a, “Hormonal Responses and Tolerance to Cold of
Female Quail following Parathion Ingestion.” Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology. Vol
18, pp 132-138.
Rattner, B.A., L. Sileo and C.G. Scanes. 1982b, “Oviposition and the plasma concentrations of
LH, Progesterone and corticosterone in bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) fed parathion.”
Journal of Reproduction and Fertility. Vol 66, pp 147-155.
Renchie, Don. 1991 (April 25). Personal communication. Dept. of Agriculture, Austin, TX.
(512) 463-7543.
Rogers, Bob. 1991 (April 24). Personal communication. Emergency Service Branch Chief,
Dept. of Environmental Quality, Jackson, MS. (601) 961-5079.
Rogler, Debra. 1991 (April 19). Personal communication. Plant Industry Division, Dept. of
Agriculture, Montpelier, VT. (802) 828-2500.
Rowdowca, John. 1991 (August 20). Personal communication. Wilbur-Ellis, Almond, WI.
(715) 366-2500.
R.S. Means Company, Inc. 1992. Means Site Work Cost Data, 11th Annual Edition. Kingston,
MA: Construction Consultants & Publishers.
R.S. Means Company, Inc. 1991a. Building Construction Cost Data, 49th Annual Edition.
Kingston, MA: Construction Consultants & Publishers.
R.S. Means Company, Inc. 1991b. Means Site Work Cost Data, 10th Annual Edition.
Kingston, MA: Construction Consultants & Publishers.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 132

Scott, Dave. 1991 (April 19). Personal communication. State Chemist’s Office, Indianapolis,
IN. (317) 494-1492.
Simmonds, Brenda, and Dennis Brosten. 1991 (January). “The Gap.” Agrichemical Age.
Simpson, G. Scott. 1990 (August). The Impact of Investments in Environmental Containment on
Retail Dealer Costs and Returns. Field Programs Dept., Div. of Technology Introduction,
National Fertilizer & Environmental Research Center, Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle
Shoals, AL.
Small Business Administration (SBA). 2002. Small Business Size Standards Matched to North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) (Effective February 22, 2002).
Stilwell, Doug. 1991 (November 21). Personal communication. Environmental Audit Manager,
Weyerhaeuser, Tacoma, WA. (206) 924-6825.
Striley, Dave. 1991 (November 15). Personal communication. Manager, Forest Product
Programs, Champion International Corp., Hamilton, OH. (515) 868-4261.
Tatman, Mike. 1991 (April 18). Personal communication. Farm Land Insurance Company, Des
Moines, IA.
Taylor, A.G. 1991 (May 1). Personal communication. Illinois EPA, Office of Chemical Safety.
(217) 785-0830.
Taylor, A.G. Undated. Testimony in Support of Regulatory Proposals Regarding Agrichemical
Storage and Handling Facilities. Exhibit J—IEPA Agrichemical Facility Investigations
Involving Pesticide Contamination of Private Well Waters, Exhibit K—Frequency of
Pesticides Detected in Private and Community Wells Near Agrichemical Handling Sites.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
Uram, Joe. 1991 (April 25 and July 29). Personal communication. Pesticide Case Reviewer,
Plant Industries Division, Dept. of Agriculture, Harrisburg, PA. (717) 787-4843.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2002. North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS)–Revisions for 2002. Available online at
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Various years. Census of Wholesale
Trade. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2005. National Response Center. U.S. Coast Guard.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index, 2005
http://www.bls.gov

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 133

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005a EPA Staff Research on Container and
Containment Regulation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005b Economic Analysis of The Final Pesticide
Container Design and Residue Removal Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005c. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
Consumer Fact Sheet on: Alachlor. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002 (August). Pesticides Industry Sales Usage 1998
and 1999 Market Estimates. Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002 (August). Guidelines for Preparing Economic
Analyses. Office of the Administrator. EPA 240-R-00-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999a (October). “Standards for Pesticide Containers
and Containment; Proposed Rule Supplemental Notice.” Federal Register 64:56917-56944.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999b (October). “Standards for Pesticide
Containers and Containment; Proposed Rule Supplemental Notice.” Federal Register
64:569917-56944.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. Pretreatment Standards and New Source
Performance Standards for Pesticide Formulation, Packaging and Repackaging.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994 (February) 40 CFR Parts 156 and 165 Standards
for Pesticide Containers and Containment. Proposed Rule Federal Register Vol. 26, No. 29
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993a (September). “Regulatory Impact Analysis:
Standards for Pesticide Containment Structures Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act as Amended, 1988.”
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993b (September 7). Personal communication. Bob
Buloski, OPPTS\Field Operations Division\Certification and Training Branch.
(703) 305-7371.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992 (September). State of the States Report: Pesticide
Storage, Disposal and Transportation. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances. EPA 734-R-92-012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991 (December 9). Draft Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NRPM) (40 CFR Part 165/156).

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 134

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Code of Federal Regulations. 1990 (July 1). Title 40,
Part 165. Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 135

Appendix A: Methodology for Calculating Annualized Compliance Costs
The analysis of the bulk pesticide containment standards calculates costs across a 20-year period.
Affected facilities incur some compliance costs only once (initial and capital costs), other costs
annually (operations and maintenance), and other costs at regular future intervals (intermittent
costs). We therefore need to account for the time dimension of this analysis.
We calculate the annual cost of complying with the containment standards by:
•
•
•

Calculating the non-discounted cost in each year of the 20-year period;
Calculating the present discounted value of the resulting stream of costs; and
Annualizing this present discounted value.

Facilities will have 3 years to come into compliance with regulations under the containment
regulations. We assume that initial and capital costs associated with the containment regulations
will be incurred beginning at the end of the third year. Operation and maintenance costs will be
incurred in each year beginning in year 4 and continuing to year 20. Intermittent costs will be
incurred in every fifth year after the end of the compliance period (years 8, 13, and 18). To
calculate the present discounted value of the costs of a regulation, all costs are discounted back
to the beginning of the first year of the 20-year period.
The costs incurred in a single year are the sum of initial, capital, operation and maintenance, and
intermittent costs, if any of the four cost types occur in that year. If:
•
•
•
•
•

INTLn denotes the initial cost of complying with the regulation in the nth year (n=1, ..., 20),
CAPn denotes the capital cost of complying with the regulation in the nth year,
OMn denotes the operation and maintenance cost of complying with the regulation in the nth
year,
INTERn denotes the intermittent cost of complying with the regulation in the nth year, and
N denotes the number of facilities out of compliance with the regulation annually,

Then the cost of complying with the regulation in the nth year is:
(INTLn + CAPn + OMn + INTERn) * N.
Regulatory costs, however, may differ for facilities in different size classes, and the cost analysis
attempts to capture those differences whenever possible. For example, it is more expensive for a
large agricultural refiller to install a new outdoor bulk liquid storage structure with a containment
pad than a small-small agricultural refiller because the large facility requires a storage area with
more square footage, including a larger containment pad. This results in substantially greater
compliance costs for the average large agricultural refiller than the average small-small one.
We display the 20-year schedules of facility-level, non-discounted costs associated with the
containment standards for the average agricultural refiller and commercial (aerial and ground)
applicator in each size class in Appendix B.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 136

The present discounted value (pdv) of the 20-year stream of compliance costs (CC) associated
with the ith regulation for the average facility in the jth size class is:
20

CCijpdv = ∑
n =1

CCijn
(1 + d ) n

where d is the discount rate. We considered two discount rates: 3 percent and 7 percent.
For example, costs to install a new outdoor secondary containment structure for bulk liquids
begin in year 3 and continue through year 20. In year 3, there are capital costs associated with
the construction of the structure; in subsequent years there are operating and maintenance costs
associated with the structure (years 4-20) and intermittent costs associated with the repair of the
structure (years 8, 13, and 18). The (undiscounted) compliance cost associated with new bulk
liquid outdoor containment structures for a small-small agricultural refiller, for example, in year
3 is $5,610. The (undiscounted) compliance cost associated with new bulk liquid outdoor
containment structures in subsequent years 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, and 19-20 is $1,160. The
(undiscounted) compliance cost associated with the same structures in intermittent years 8, 13,
and 18 is $1,220. Table B.1 in Appendix B details each of the non-discounted regulatory
compliance costs for the entire 20-year policy scenario period. Using a 3 percent discount rate,
and discounting back to the beginning of year 1, the present discounted value of the stream of
costs associated with the regulations requiring a new bulk liquid outdoor containment structure
for a small-small agricultural refiller is $19,234 and the annualized cost of this at the 3 percent
discount rate is $1,255.
The present discounted value of the cost of complying with a regulation was then annualized
over the 20-year period, using two interest rates (r) that were assumed to be the same as the two
discount rates used to obtain present discounted values (that is, when the discount rate was
assumed to be 3 percent, the interest rate was also assumed to be 3 percent, and similarly for
7 percent). We calculated the annualized cost of complying with the ith regulation for the
average facility in the jth size class, using interest rate r, as:72
⎛
⎞
r
CCijann. = ⎜⎜
⎟ ∗ CCijpdv
− 20 ⎟
⎝ [1 + r ] ∗ [1 − (1 + r ) ] ⎠
We show the estimated facility-level annual cost of complying with the containment standards
for new structures in each facility size class in Tables I.1-I.4. We display the industry-wide cost
of complying with the containment standards for existing structures in each facility size class in
Tables I.1-I.4. We assume both a discount rate and an interest rate of 3 and 7 percent.

72

The procedure for annualization is based on the guidelines for economic analyses that are published by EPA
(EPA, 2000)

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 137

Appendix B: Non-Discounted Facility-Level Costs of Compliance for the Bulk
Pesticide Containment Standards
Table B.1. Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide Containment
Standards for New Structures, Agricultural Refillers (2005$)
Year a
Compliance Cost Item

b

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Small-Small

5600

1160

1160

1160

1160

1210

1160

1160

Medium-Small

10300

1540

1540

1540

1540

1660

1540

1540

Large-Small/Large c

18250

2760

2760

2760

2760

2890

2760

2760

Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Indoor
Small-Small
2170
740

740

740

740

790

740

740

Medium-Small

2500

1050

1050

1050

1050

1170

1050

1050

Large-Small/Large c

3780

1490

1490

1490

1490

1620

1490

1490

Secondary Containment - Bulk Dry, 1 Container
Small-Small d
na
na
na

na

na

na

na

na

Medium-Small

5230

850

850

850

850

950

850

850

Large-Small/Large c

5230

850

850

850

850

950

850

850

a

The period of analysis for the bulk pesticide containment standard cost analysis is 20 years. We assume that
there is a 3-year compliance period. Compliance costs and initial costs are incurred at the end of the third year.
Overhead and maintenance costs occur in each year after the compliance period (years 4-20). Intermittent costs
occur every 5 years after the compliance period (years 8, 13, and 18).
b
Cost taken from Table 4.2
c
Large-small and large facilities are assumed to incur the same costs.
d
No costs are estimated for small-small refiller facilities, because it is assumed that only medium-small, largesmall, and large facilities have outdoor bulk dry storage.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 138

Table B.1 (Continued). Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide
Containment Standards for New Structures, Agricultural Refillers (2005$)
Compliance Cost Item

b

Year a
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

1160 1160

1210

1160

1160

1160

1160

1210

1160

1160

1540 1540

1660

1540

1540

1540

1540

1660

1540

1540

2760 2760

2890

2760

2760

2760

2760

2890

2760

2760

Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Indoor
Small-Small
740
740

790

740

740

740

740

790

740

740

Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small/Large

c

Medium-Small

1050

1050

1170

1050

1050

1050

1050

1170

1050

1050

Large-Small/Large

1490

1490

1620

1490

1490

1490

1490

1620

1490

1490

Secondary Containment - Bulk Dry, 1 Container
Small-Small
nad
na
na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

Medium-Small

850

850

950

850

850

850

850

950

850

850

Large-Small/Large

850

850

950

850

850

850

850

950

850

850

a

The period of analysis for the bulk pesticide containment standard cost analysis is 20 years. We assume that
there is a 3-year compliance period. Compliance costs and initial costs are incurred at the end of the third year.
Overhead and maintenance costs occur in each year after the compliance period (years 4-20). Intermittent costs
occur every 5 years after the compliance period (years 8, 13, and 18).
b
Costs taken from Table 4.2.
c
Large-small and large facilities are assumed to incur the same costs.
d
No costs are estimated for small-small refiller facilities, because it is assumed that only medium-small, largesmall, and large facilities have outdoor bulk dry storage.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 139

Table B.2. Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide Containment
Standards for New Structures, Commercial Applicators (2005$)
Year a
Compliance Cost Item

b

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

AERIAL APPLICATORS
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Small-Small

5600

1160

1160

1160

1160

1210

1160

1160

Medium-Small

10300

1550

1550

1550

1550

1670

1550

1550

Large-Small

18250

2790

2790

2790

2790

2920

2790

2790

GROUND APPLICATORS

c

Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Indoor
Small-Small

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

Medium-Small

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

Large-Small

10300

1550

1550

1550

1550

1670

1550

1550

a

The period of analysis for the bulk pesticide containment standard cost analysis is 20 years. We assume that
there is a 3-year compliance period. Compliance costs and initial costs are incurred at the end of the third year.
Overhead and maintenance costs occur in each year after the compliance period (years 4-20). Intermittent costs
occur every 5 years after the compliance period (years 8, 13, and 18).
b
Costs taken from Table 4.2.
c
Ground applicators are considered to be comprised of all large-small facilities. For this analysis, ground
applicators have been assigned the same costs as those estimated for medium-small agricultural refillers.

Table B.2 (Continued). Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide
Containment Standards for New Structures, Commercial Applicators (2005$)
Compliance Cost Item

b

Year a
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

AERIAL APPLICATORS
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Small-Small

1160

1160

1210

1160

1160

1160

1160

1210

1160

1160

Medium-Small

1550

1550

1670

1550

1550

1550

1550

1670

1550

1550

Large-Small

2790

2790

2920

2790

2790

2790

2790

2920

2790

2790

GROUND APPLICATORS

c

Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Indoor
Small-Small

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

Medium-Small

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

Large-Small

1550

1550

1670

1550

1550

1550

1550

a

1670

1550

1550

The period of analysis for the bulk pesticide containment standard cost analysis is 20 years. We assume that
there is a 3-year compliance period. Compliance costs and initial costs are incurred at the end of the third year.
Overhead and maintenance costs occur in each year after the compliance period (years 4-20). Intermittent costs
occur every 5 years after the compliance period (years 8, 13, and 18).
b
Costs taken from Table 4.2.
c
Ground applicators are considered to be comprised of all large-small facilities. For this analysis, ground
applicators have been assigned the same costs as those estimated for medium-small agricultural refillers.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 140

Table B.3. Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide Containment
Standards for New Structures, Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Applicators
Compliance Cost Item

b

Year a
3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

5850

1190

1190

1190

1190

1230

1190

1190

Medium-Small

16100

2210

2210

2210

2210

2260

2210

2210

Large-Small/Large

34060

5100

5100

5100

5100

5170

5100

5100

Containment Pads - Outdoor Scenario 1
Small-Small

Containment Pads - Outdoor Scenario 2
Small-Small

c

c

6600

1190

1190

1190

1190

1230

1190

1190

Medium-Small

18310

2210

2210

2210

2210

2260

2210

2210

Large-Small/Large

34060

5100

5100

5100

5100

5170

5100

5100

740

740

740

740

780

740

740

Containment Pads - Indoor Scenario 1
Small-Small

d

6860

Medium-Small

18730

1100

1100

1100

1100

1150

1100

1100

Large-Small/Large

50570

1490

1490

1490

1490

1560

1490

1490

8790

740

740

740

740

780

740

740

Medium-Small

23970

1100

1100

1100

1100

1150

1100

1100

Large-Small/Large

53840

1490

1490

1490

1490

1560

1490

1490

Containment Pads - Indoor Scenario 2
Small-Small

d

a

The period of analysis for the bulk pesticide containment standard cost analysis is 20 years. We assume that
there is a 3-year compliance period. Compliance costs and initial costs are incurred at the end of the third year.
Overhead and maintenance costs occur in each year after the compliance period (years 4-20). Intermittent costs
occur every 5 years after the compliance period (years 8, 13, and 18).
b
Costs taken from Table 4.2.
c
Outdoor Scenario 1 evaluates the capital costs of facilities that must also have secondary containment of bulk
storage containers. Scenario 2 estimates capital costs to facilities that require only a new containment pad,
including the costs of a pump and a hose. Capital costs under Scenario 1 are lower than Scenario 2 because the
costs of a portable pump and hose have already been accounted for within the overall secondary containment costs
under Scenario 1.
d
Indoor Scenario 1 estimates capital costs for pads built over existing concrete floors. Scenario 2 estimates capital
costs for facilities where the existing concrete floor is removed prior to construction of the containment pad.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 141

Table B.3 (Continued). Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide
Containment Standards for New Structures, Agricultural Refillers and
Commercial Applicators
Compliance Cost Item

b

Year a
11

Containment Pads - Outdoor Scenario 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

c

Small-Small

1190

1190

1230

1190

1190

1190

1190

1230

1190

1190

Medium-Small

2210

2210

2260

2210

2210

2210

2210

2260

2210

2210

Large-Small/Large

5100

5100

5170

5100

5100

5100

5100

5170

5100

5100

Containment Pads - Outdoor Scenario 2

c

Small-Small

1190

1190

1230

1190

1190

1190

1190

1230

1190

1190

Medium-Small

2210

2210

2260

2210

2210

2210

2210

2260

2210

2210

Large-Small/Large

5100

5100

5170

5100

5100

5100

5100

5170

5100

5100

740

740

780

740

740

740

740

780

740

740

Medium-Small

1100

1100

1150

1100

1100

1100

1100

1150

1100

1100

Large-Small/Large

1490

1490

1560

1490

1490

1490

1490

1560

1490

1490

740

740

780

740

740

740

740

780

740

740

Medium-Small

1100

1100

1150

1100

1100

1100

1100

1150

1100

1100

Large-Small/Large

1490

1490

1560

1490

1490

1490

1490

1560

1490

1490

Containment Pads - Indoor Scenario 1
Small-Small

Containment Pads - Indoor Scenario 2
Small-Small

d

d

a

The period of analysis for the bulk pesticide containment standard cost analysis is 20 years. We assume that
there is a 3-year compliance period. Compliance costs and initial costs are incurred at the end of the third year.
Overhead and maintenance costs occur in each year after the compliance period (years 4-20). Intermittent costs
occur every 5 years after the compliance period (years 8, 13, and 18).
b
Costs taken from Table 4.2.
c
Outdoor Scenario 1 evaluates the capital costs of facilities that must also have secondary containment of bulk
storage containers. Scenario 2 estimates capital costs to facilities that require only a new containment pad,
including the costs of a pump and a hose. Capital costs under Scenario 1 are lower than Scenario 2 because the
costs of a portable pump and hose have already been accounted for within the overall secondary containment costs
under Scenario 1.
d
Indoor Scenario 1 estimates capital costs for pads built over existing concrete floors. Scenario 2 estimates capital
costs for facilities where the existing concrete floor is removed prior to construction of the containment pad.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 142

Table B.4. Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide Containment
Standards for Existing Structures, Small-Small Facilities
Compliance Cost Item

b

Year a
3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

AGRICULTURAL REFILLERS
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Initial
740
0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Overhead & Maintenance

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

Intermittent

0

0

0

0

0

40

0

0

Secondary Containment - Bulk Dry/Outdoor
Initial
n/a
n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Overhead & Maintenance

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Intermittent

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Initial

740

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Overhead & Maintenance

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

Intermittent

0

0

0

0

0

40

0

0

REFILLERS AND APPLICATORS
Containment Pads - Outdoor (Scenarios 1&2)
Capital

1660

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

80

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Overhead & Maintenance

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

Intermittent

0

0

0

0

0

30

0

0

Container Anchoring (Plastic and Steel)
Initial
580

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

Initial

Overhead & Maintenance

0

a

The period of analysis for the bulk pesticide containment standard cost analysis is 20 years. We assume that
there is a 3-year compliance period. Compliance costs and initial costs are incurred at the end of the third year.
Overhead and maintenance costs occur in each year after the compliance period (years 4-20). Intermittent costs
occur every 5 years after the compliance period (years 8, 13, and 18).
b
Costs taken from Table 4.11. Facility compliance with the standards for existing containment structures is not
uniform across facilities. Different facilities will have to comply to the existing containment standards to varying
degrees, incurring some or all of the capital, initial, overhead and maintenance, and intermittent costs associated
with each standard. Because compliance and the associated costs of compliance do not accrue to facilities
uniformly, we present the capital, initial, overhead and maintenance, and intermittent costs separately.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 143

Table B.4 (Continued). Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide
Containment Standards for Existing Structures, Small-Small Facilities
Compliance Cost Item

b

Year a
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

AGRICULTURAL REFILLERS
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Initial
Overhead & Maintenance
Intermittent

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

0

0

40

0

0

0

0

40

0

0

Secondary Containment - Bulk Dry/Outdoor
Initial
n/a
n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Overhead & Maintenance

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Intermittent

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Initial
Overhead & Maintenance
Intermittent

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

0

0

40

0

0

0

0

40

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

REFILLERS AND APPLICATORS
Containment Pads - Outdoor (Scenarios 1&2)
Capital
Initial
Overhead & Maintenance
Intermittent

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

0

0

30

0

0

0

0

30

0

0

Container Anchoring (Plastic and Steel)
Initial
Overhead & Maintenance

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

a

The period of analysis for the bulk pesticide containment standard cost analysis is 20 years. We assume that
there is a 3-year compliance period. Compliance costs and initial costs are incurred at the end of the third year.
Overhead and maintenance costs occur in each year after the compliance period (years 4-20). Intermittent costs
occur every 5 years after the compliance period (years 8, 13, and 18).
b
Costs taken from Table 4.11. Facility compliance with the standards for existing containment structures is not
uniform across facilities. Different facilities will have to comply to the existing containment standards to varying
degrees, incurring some or all of the capital, initial, overhead and maintenance, and intermittent costs associated
with each standard. Because compliance and the associated costs of compliance do not accrue to facilities
uniformly, we present the capital, initial, overhead and maintenance, and intermittent costs separately.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 144

Table B.5. Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide Containment
Standards for Existing Structures, Medium-Small Facilities
Year a
Compliance Cost Item

b

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

AGRICULTURAL REFILLERS
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Initial

740

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Overhead & Maintenance

0

30

30

30

Intermittent

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

0

110

0

0

Secondary Containment - Bulk Dry/Outdoor
Initial

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Overhead & Maintenance

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

0

0

0

0

0

110

0

0

Intermittent

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Initial
740
0
Overhead & Maintenance
Intermittent

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

0

0

0

0

0

110

0

0

REFILLERS AND APPLICATORS
Containment Pads - Outdoor (Scenarios 1& 2)
Capital
2560
0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Initial

0

0

0

80

0

0

0

0

Overhead & Maintenance

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

Intermittent

0

0

0

0

0

60

0

0

580

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

Container Anchoring (Plastic and Steel)
Initial
Overhead & Maintenance
a

The period of analysis for the bulk pesticide containment standard cost analysis is 20 years. We assume that
there is a 3-year compliance period. Compliance costs and initial costs are incurred at the end of the third year.
Overhead and maintenance costs occur in each year after the compliance period (years 4-20). Intermittent costs
occur every 5 years after the compliance period (years 8, 13, and 18).
b
Costs taken from Table 4.11. Facility compliance with the standards for existing containment structures is not
uniform across facilities. Different facilities will have to comply to the existing containment standards to varying
degrees, incurring some or all of the capital, initial, overhead and maintenance, and intermittent costs associated
with each standard. Because compliance and the associated costs of compliance do not accrue to facilities
uniformly, we present the capital, initial, overhead and maintenance, and intermittent costs separately.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 145

Table B.5 (Continued). Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide
Containment Standards for Existing Structures, Medium-Small Facilities
Compliance Cost Item

b

Year a
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

AGRICULTURAL REFILLERS
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Initial

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

0

0

110

0

0

0

0

110

0

0

Secondary Containment - Bulk Dry/Outdoor
Initial
0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Overhead & Maintenance
Intermittent

Overhead & Maintenance
Intermittent

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

0

0

110

0

0

0

0

110

0

0

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Initial
Overhead & Maintenance
Intermittent

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

0

0

110

0

0

0

0

110

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

REFILLERS AND APPLICATORS
Containment Pads - Outdoor (Scenarios 1& 2)
Capital
Initial
Overhead & Maintenance
Intermittent

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

0

0

60

0

0

0

0

60

0

0

Container Anchoring (Plastic and Steel)
Initial
Overhead & Maintenance

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

a

The period of analysis for the bulk pesticide containment standard cost analysis is 20 years. We assume that
there is a 3-year compliance period. Compliance costs and initial costs are incurred at the end of the third year.
Overhead and maintenance costs occur in each year after the compliance period (years 4-20). Intermittent costs
occur every 5 years after the compliance period (years 8, 13, and 18).
b
Costs taken from Table 4.11. Facility compliance with the standards for existing containment structures is not
uniform across facilities. Different facilities will have to comply to the existing containment standards to varying
degrees, incurring some or all of the capital, initial, overhead and maintenance, and intermittent costs associated
with each standard. Because compliance and the associated costs of compliance do not accrue to facilities
uniformly, we present the capital, initial, overhead and maintenance, and intermittent costs separately.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 146

Table B.6. Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide Containment
Standards for Existing Structures, Large-Small and Large Facilities
Year a
Compliance Cost Item

b

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

AGRICULTURAL REFILLERS
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Initial

740

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Overhead & Maintenance

0

30

30

30

Intermittent

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

0

140

0

0

Secondary Containment - Bulk Dry/Outdoor
Initial

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Overhead & Maintenance

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

0

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

Intermittent

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Initial
740
0
Overhead & Maintenance
Intermittent

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

0

0

0

0

0

140

0

0

REFILLERS AND APPLICATORS
Containment Pads - Outdoor (Scenarios 1&2)
Capital
4870
0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Initial

0

0

0

80

0

0

0

0

Overhead & Maintenance

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

Intermittent

0

0

0

0

0

70

0

0

580

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

Container Anchoring (Plastic and Steel)
Initial
Overhead & Maintenance
a

The period of analysis for the bulk pesticide containment standard cost analysis is 20 years. We assume that
there is a 3-year compliance period. Compliance costs and initial costs are incurred at the end of the third year.
Overhead and maintenance costs occur in each year after the compliance period (years 4-20). Intermittent costs
occur every 5 years after the compliance period (years 8, 13, and 18).
b
Costs taken from Table 4.11. Facility compliance with the standards for existing containment structures is not
uniform across facilities. Different facilities will have to comply to the existing containment standards to varying
degrees, incurring some or all of the capital, initial, overhead and maintenance, and intermittent costs associated
with each standard. Because compliance and the associated costs of compliance do not accrue to facilities
uniformly, we present the capital, initial, overhead and maintenance, and intermittent costs separately.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 147

Table B.6 (Continued). Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide
Containment Standards for Existing Structures, Large-Small and Large Facilities
Compliance Cost Item

b

Year a
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

AGRICULTURAL REFILLERS
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Initial

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

0

0

140

0

0

0

0

140

0

0

Secondary Containment - Bulk Dry/Outdoor
Initial
0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Overhead & Maintenance
Intermittent

Overhead & Maintenance
Intermittent

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS
Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor
Initial
Overhead & Maintenance
Intermittent

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

0

0

140

0

0

0

0

140

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

REFILLERS AND APPLICATORS
Containment Pads - Outdoor (Scenarios 1& 2)
Capital
Initial
Overhead & Maintenance
Intermittent

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

0

0

70

0

0

0

0

70

0

0

Container Anchoring (Plastic and Steel)
Initial
Overhead & Maintenance

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

a

The period of analysis for the bulk pesticide containment standard cost analysis is 20 years. We assume that
there is a 3-year compliance period. Compliance costs and initial costs are incurred at the end of the third year.
Overhead and maintenance costs occur in each year after the compliance period (years 4-20). Intermittent costs
occur every 5 years after the compliance period (years 8, 13, and 18).
b
Costs taken from Table 4.11. Facility compliance with the standards for existing containment structures is not
uniform across facilities. Different facilities will have to comply to the existing containment standards to varying
degrees, incurring some or all of the capital, initial, overhead and maintenance, and intermittent costs associated
with each standard. Because compliance and the associated costs of compliance do not accrue to facilities
uniformly, we present the capital, initial, overhead and maintenance, and intermittent costs separately.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 148

Appendix C: Comparison of Critical and State Containment Standards
State

Standard

Comment Source

TOPIC: Material
Critical: Rigid, watertight (no earth, asphalt).
CO

Permeability 1x10-7; material compatible w. pesticide,
resist corrosion; rigid steel, concrete or synthetic.

1994 regs., p.5

IL

Steel, concrete, solid masonry; 1x10-6 (constructed),
1x10-6 (maintained).

1990 Dept. of Ag. regs, p.10

IN

Steel, poured concrete, solid masonry; full hydrostatic
head of discharged liq. + wt. of construction material.

1992 IN regs/rules, p. 13

IA

Concrete, steel or impervious material, compatible w.
pesticides stored/shipped;1x10-6 (constructed), 1x10-6
(maintained).

1991 Regs. Dept. of Ag. Stewardship,
p. 2

KS

Material of sufficient thickness & density, composition to
confine discharged liquid or solid material; compatible
with pesticides and conditions of storage.

1993 KS Board of Ag. rules, p. 1

LA

Solidly constructed of impervious material sufficient to
contain leaks, spills, accumulated pesticides/rinsates.

1984 Dept. Ag. & Forestry regs., p.42

MI

Steel, reinforced concrete, solid masonry, precast concrete 1982 MI Dept. Ag. regs. p. 5
modules.

MN

Ferrous metal, inorganic soil, stainless steel, reinforced
concrete, solid masonry; full hydrostatic head.

1989 rules, Dept. Ag., p. 12

MO

Suitable material compatible w. specs. of product being
stored; synthetic liner option; 1x10-7.

1992 Dept. Nat. Rscs. rules, p. 82.

NE

Concrete or solid masonry lined vault/synthetic, metal
liner; tank inside another tank is acceptable.

1992 rules/regs., Dept. Envir. Qual.,
p. 9

NH

Reinforced concrete or other rigid material; full
hydrostatic head; hydraulic conductivity 10-6 interim,
1x10-7 new.

Rules/regs. p. 6

ND

Material sufficient to contain spills, discharges, leaks.

Telcon Barry Coleman 701 328 4756.

OH

Sufficient thickness, density, composition to contain spills 1984 OH Pesticide Law
or discharges.

SD

Concrete, excluding blocks, bricks of sufficient thickness,
strength; hydrostatic head. Steel, or cross-linked
polyolefin.

Pesticide Rules, p. 35, 43, 44.

VT

Earth, steel, concrete or solid masonry to withstand
hydrostatic pressure; liners can be used.

1991 Dept. Ag. regs. p. 65

WA

Steel, poured reinforced concrete, solid masonry, precast
concrete; solid masonry; hydrostatic capacity; sealed to
prevent leaks.

1997 Dept. Ag. rules, p. 3

WV

Constructed w. 2ndary containment to prevent discharge,
facilitate recovery; sufficient thickness, density,
composition. Liquid tight.

Title 61 Legislative Rules p. 5

WI

Walls of earth, steel, concrete or solid masonry; full
hydrostatic head. Earth walls must be lined to meet
specific requirements.

Admin. Code Ag./Trade & Consumer
Protection, p. 695

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 149

State

CO

Standard

Comment Source

TOPIC: Appurtenances
Critical: Protected against damage.
Constructed, installed, maintained to prevent discharge of 1994 Regs., p. 7
liq. pesticide; resistant to corrosion, puncture, cracking.

IL

Designed to handle operating and other foreseeable
mechanical stresses.

1990 Dept. Ag. regs. p. 14

IN

Designed to handle operating stresses (static head,
pressure build-up) and other mechanical stresses.

1992 IN rules/regs. p. 7

IA

Containers, pipes, valves protected against reasonably
foreseeable risks of damage by moving vehicles.

1991 regs. Dept. of Ag., p. 3

KS

None

Telcon Greg Krissek 913 296 0086

LA

Must all be within 2ndary containment area.

Telcon Larry Lejeune 504 925 3713

MI

Containers, pipes, valves protected against reasonably
foreseeable risks of damage by moving vehicles.

1992 regs. MI Dept. Ag., p. 6

MN

Containers, pipes, valves protected against reasonably
foreseeable risks of damage by moving vehicles.

1989 regs. Dept. of Ag., p. 9

MO

Able to handle operating stresses, hydrostatic head,
pressure build-up, mechanical stresses, moving vehicles;
located within containment.

1992 Dept. Nat. Rscs. rules, p. 82

NE

Containers, pipes, valves protected against reasonably
foreseeable risks of damage by moving vehicles.

1992 rules/regs. Dept. Env. Qual. p.
17

OH

Containers, pipes, valves protected against reasonably
foreseeable risks of damage by moving vehicles.

Rules/regs. p. 8

ND

No specific regs.

Telcon Barry Coleman 701 328 4756

OH

No

Telcon Jim Belt 614 728 6987

SD

No specific regs.

Telcon Brad Barron 605 773 3724

VT

Designed to handle operating stresses (static head,
pressure build-up) and other mechanical stresses from
pumps, compressors and moving vehicles.

1991 regs., Dept. of Ag. p. 62, 64

WA

Containers, pipes, valves protected against reasonably
foreseeable risks of damage by moving vehicles.

1997 rules Dept. Ag. p. 5

WV

No specifics, but recommend lock on gate valve to protect Telcon Doug Hudson 304 558 2209
drains in secondary containment.

WI

Should not be located where they can be run over or
backed into. Protected, e.g., by overhead suspension,
large curb, RR ties or dike wall.

CO

TOPIC: Inspection
Critical: Monthly
Visually inspected at least once a week.

Admin. Code Ag./Trade & Consumer
Protection, p. 9

1994 regs., p. 11

IL

At least once a week

1990 Dept. Ag. regs. p. 17

IN

2ndary containment: intervals of not > 6 months; valves,
appurtenances weekly; vents at least monthly.

1992 IN regs./rules, p. 16

IA

Routine inspection against concrete cracks.

1991 regs. part of Ag/Land
Stewardship Law p. 6

KS

None

Telcon Gary Krissek 913 296 0086

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 150

State

Standard

Comment Source

LA

Use internal checklist; annual inspections; more
frequently when circumstances warrant.

Telcon Larry Lejeune 504 925 3763

MI

Regular inspections/maintenance on a monthly basis.
MDA staff conducts annual official inspection.

1992 regs, MDA p. 8

MN

Container/appurtenances weekly; containment area
monthly.

1989 Dept. Ag. rules p. 17

MO

Inspection before permit issued; no other inspection
requirement.

Telcon Roger Korneberg 573 526
5804.

NE

Weekly facility inspections; monthly bulk container
measurements; quarterly inventory reconciliation of
pesticides.

1992 rules/regs. p. 18 Dept. Envir.
Qual.

NH

Monthly when pesticides stored/handled; when no suitable Rules/regs. p. 10/12
means to observe leaks, reconcile pesticide contents
weekly.

ND

None

Telcon Barry Coleman 701 328 6987

OH

None

Telcon Jim Belt 614 728 6987

SD

Inspection of new, existing, or altered storage facility
Telcon Brad Barvan 605 773 3724
prior to permit; biennial or more frequent as determined at
time of permit.

VT

Valves, appurtenances weekly; contents of bulk storage
measured weekly; containment monthly.

1991 regs., Dept. Ag. p. 67

WA

Containers/appurtenances monthly when in use.

1997 Dept. Ag. p. 10

WV

Containers/appurtenances at least weekly; 2ndary
containment and operational areas at least monthly.

Title 61 Legislative rules p. 8

WI

2ndary containment inspected at intervals not greater than
12 months.

Admin. Code Ag./Trade & Consumer
Protection, p. 9

TOPIC: Spill Cleanup
Critical: End of day at latest
CO

Promptly recovered.

1994 regs. p. 6

IL

Daily cleanup.

1990 Dept. of Ag. regs. p. 18

IN

Promptly recovered.

1993 IN regs./rules p. 11

IA

Promptly recovered to the maximum extent possible.

1991 regs. Dept. Ag. Land Stew. p. 2

KS

None

Telcon Gary Krissek 913 296 0086

LA

Requirement to maintain area in an orderly fashion, end of Telcon Larry Lejeune 504 925 3763
work shift, end of day.

MI

Manually activated pump/sump and containment area
cleanup within 18 hours of accumulation.

1992 regs. MDA p. 7

MN

Recovered ASAP - must be used, stored or disposed.

1989 rules Dept. Ag. p. 14

MO

Recovered promptly.

1992 Dept. Nat. Rscs. rules p. 14

NE

Contaminated material shall be promptly recovered and
used or disposed.

1992 rules/regs. p. 16 Dept. Env.
Qual. p. 16

NH

Clean up ASAP; traveling spills or leaks cleaned
immediately.

Rules/regs. p. 15

ND

Immediately.

Telcon Barry Coleman 701 328 4756

OH

Follow building and product label instructions.

Telcon Jim Belt 614 728 6987

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 151

State

Standard

Comment Source

SD

Immediately recovered using absorbent materials, pumps
or similar means

Telcon Brad Barron 605 773 3724

VT

Discharges promptly recovered.

1991 regs. Dept. Ag. p. 64

WA

Dry pesticide spills/promptly cleaned & recovered. Bulk
spills immediately recovered.

1997 rules Dept. Ag. p. 5, 9

WV

Discharges immediately and fully recovered in operational Title 61 Legislative rules p. 3
area.

WI

Discharges at storage facility promptly recovered.

Admin. Code Ag./Trade & Consumer
Protection, p. 697

TOPIC: Liquid Bulk
Critical: 100% of Largest Container
1994 Regs p. 4

CO

110% indoor

IN

100% I/O (indoor/outdoor) + 6” freeboard if outdoors

Reg 2/92

IL

100% + 6” freeboard (25-yr/24-hr) + displaced volume

SoS Report - 92

IA

100%/110% I/O + displaced volume

SoS Report - 92

KS

110% outdoor; suitable design indoor

Fitz - 93
Sub-std for indoors

LA

110% if outdoor

SoS Report - 92
Indoor?

MI

100%/110% I/O + displaced volume + 6” freeboard if
outdoor

Fitz - 93

MN

110%/125% I/O + displaced volume

SoS Report - 92

MO

110%/125% I/O + displaced volume

Fitz - 93

NE

110% + displaced volume, + 25-yr/24-hr storm if outside

SoS Report - 92

NH

Interim:110% of the largest unprotected from
precipitation/100% protected; when interim period
expires: 125% unprotected, 100% protected

regs/rules p. 11

ND

110%/120% I/O + max. rain accumulation of 25% of
containment capacity or 7 days

Fitz - 93

OH

110% outdoor, suitable measures for indoor

Fitz - 93
May be sub-std for indoor

SD

110% + displaced volume

Fitz - 93

VT

110% + displaced volume

SoS Report - 92

WA

Indoor: 100% + displaced volume; outdoor: 125% +
displaced volume

1997 rules, Dept. of Ag., p.3

WV

Outdoor: 110% of largest + displaced vol. of tanks,
appurtenances, etc. Indoor: 100% + displaced, etc., as
with outdoor

SoS Report - 92

WI

100%/125% I/O + displaced volume

Fitz - 93

MO
NE

TOPIC: Dry Bulk
Critical: Protected from precipitation; 6” curb 2’ away
Pesticides stored inside/surface water runoff diverted
1992 Dept. of Nat. Rscs. rules p. 83
away from storage/individual catchment basins.
None.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 152

State

Standard

Comment Source

NH

Contain 100% of volume of largest stationary bulk
container.

rules/regs. p. 12

ND

6” curb, 3’ away from containers; roof or tarp. against
1992 D. Ag. p. 34
rain. Concrete/impervious floor/pallets on raised platform.

OH

Follow building or product label instructions.

Telcon Jim Belt 614 728 6987

SD

No specifics; no distinction between wet/dry (110%
capacity indirectly covers dry bulk).

Telcon Brad Barron 605 773 3724

VT

Roof/tarp/pallets or raised concrete platform.

1991 Dept. Ag. p.62

WA

Pallets or raised platform with roof/tarp. M/L done on a
paved surface of size/design to contain and allow for spill
collection.

1997 rules Dept. Ag. p.8

WV

Tarps or other suitable synthetic material to withstand all
foreseeable loading conditions/compatible w. pesticides.

Title 61 Legislative rules p. 3

WI

Roof/tarp/raised on pallets or concrete platform.

Admin. Code Consumer Protection, p.
698

TOPIC: Pad Capacity
Critical: At least 750 gallons
CO

150% of largest container/minimum of 1,800 gallons of
discharged liquid.

1994 regs/, p. 6

IL

Volume of largest tank + precipitation of 6” rain.

Dept. Ag. p. 13

IN

Combined total of at least 750 gallons.

1992 regs. p. 11

IA

Volume of largest tank parked (average 1,000 gal.).
Overriding factors: transfers attended by person who is
responsible and liable for spills if pad smaller than
required.

Telcon Chick Eckermann 515 281
8590

KS

110% of largest container.

Telcon Greg Krissek
913 296 2263

LA

Only states that immediate notification must be made of
spill.

1984 Dept. Ag. p. 46

MI

Minimum 10’ wide, 2’ long; adequate catch basins
1992 MDA p. 6
designed to contain minimum of 1500 gallon discharge.
Unless container or mobile container less than 1000
gallons, then basin adequate to hold 110% of whichever is
larger (container or mobile container).

MN

Minimum of 1,000 gallons.

1989 Dept. Ag. p. 10

MO

Contain spills for amount of time needed for cleanup and
recovery.

1992 Dept. Nat. Rscs. p. 84

NE

Minimum of 1,800 gallons or 1.5 times largest container,
whichever is smaller.

1992 regs. Dept. Env. Qual. p. 13

NH

1,000 gal. or 100% of largest tank if none exceeds 1,000
gallons.

Rules/regs. p. 13

ND

No specifics.

Telcon Barry Coleman 701 328 4756

OH

Applicator responsible for containing spills to pad.

Telcon Jim Belt 614 728 6987

SD

Sufficient capacity & area to contain discharge from
1992 Pesticide Rules p. 44
largest container/application system operated within and
prevent spillage into unprotected area. Minimum capacity
250 gals.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 153

State

Standard

Comment Source

VT

125% of largest mobile container.

1991 Dept. Ag. p. 64

WA

125% of largest container/equipment up to a maximum of
1,500 gallons.

1997 rules DA p. 12-13

WV

Minimum of 250 gallons, and must provide 125% of
largest container or vehicle operated in area.

Title 61 rules p. 3

WI

Large enough to contain spillage from all portions of
vehicle involved in loading. Minimum size 10’ by 10’
with curb, 15” by 15” if only slope is used w/o curb.

Administrative Code p. 8

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 154

Appendix D: Overview of Current Federal and State Regulations
The storage of pesticides in bulk quantities is regulated by an interrelated combination of federal
regulations, state regulations, market forces, and public pressures. The development of specific
containment regulations will alter the regulatory baseline and will correct deficiencies within the
current regulatory scheme, as summarized below.
D.1 Federal Regulations
Secondary containment for bulk pesticide storage containers and containment pads to be used in
conjunction with pesticide dispensing activities are not directly regulated by federal statutes.
However, federal regulations or laws do indirectly provide significant incentives to properly
manage pesticide storage, including construction of containment structures.
The federal law providing the greatest incentive to install such structures is the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and its subsequent
amendments. CERCLA’s liability requirements make operators; owners; and, in some cases,
lenders liable for cleanup costs and environmental damages due to pollution. Owners and
operators reduce their liability through safer operating procedures that reduce the potential for
release into the environment.
Moreover, lenders are highly sensitive to CERCLA liability exposure and will not make loans on
collateral that they perceive may become contaminated and then go into default, leaving the
lender responsible for the cleanup. Thus, to obtain loans, pesticide dealers must exhibit
improved environmental risk management. The significance of this is exemplified through
recent actions by the American Bankers Association’s Agricultural Bankers Division to develop
a handbook to provide guidance to bankers on exercising environmental “due diligence” and
assessing environmental risk. The ABA handbook, Agricultural Lenders Guide to
Environmental Liability (1990), sends a strong message to agribusiness to minimize bankers’ and
their own exposure to environmental risks/damages if they wish to continue to have access to
debt financing.
At the time of the proposed rule, the existing regulations regarding procedures for storage and
disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers were listed under Part 165 of Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 165). In March 1995, as part of President Clinton’s
initiative to streamline regulations, Part 165 was deleted as unnecessary (60 FR 32094). Subpart
A contained scope and definitions. Subpart B dealt with EPA’s disposal of suspended and
canceled pesticides, and EPA has completed disposal of all pesticides for which it was
responsible under these regulations. Subparts C and D contained recommended procedures for
storage and disposal of pesticide containers. These subparts were superseded by the passage of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in 1976. FIFRA Section 19, as revised in 1988
and 1996, contains authority for EPA in the area of pesticide storage and disposal, and the final
pesticide container and containment regulations promulgated are being inserted into a newly
established Part 165.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 155

Part 165 of the Code of Federal Regulations contained recommended procedures and criteria for
the storage of pesticides and pesticide containers (40 CFR §165.10). Secondary containment
was addressed as follows for storage sites (§165.10(b)):
“...Where warranted, drainage from the site should be contained (by natural or artificial
barriers or dikes), monitored...”
This was only a recommendation, rather than a requirement, and, by itself, probably had limited
effect on the use of secondary containment in bulk storage areas.
Other federal regulations that influence pesticide storage activities include the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards under the
Clean Water Act, the Environmental Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA),
and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). OSHA, in general, outlines safety
standards and guidance for worker safety at pesticide storage facilities. The effluent guidelines
establish limitations on the pollutants discharged into U.S. waters from industrial point sources,
including pesticide formulating, packaging, and repackaging (refilling) establishments. EPCRA
was enacted as part of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). Its
purpose is to alert communities about dangerous chemicals present in their area and to plan for
emergency releases before they happen. In the case of pesticides, this could cause some dealers
to install secondary containment, although such action is not specifically required. This law was
prompted by such disastrous pesticide release incidents as in Institute, West Virginia, and
Bhopal, India. RCRA has a lesser influence on storage except that contaminated soil resulting
from a pesticide storage tank release or other pesticide spill could be a RCRA waste (40 CFR
§261.33(d)). Secondary containment and/or containment pads would reduce the quantity of
waste generated from cleanup of a release.
The overall effect of these federal regulations cannot be documented. However, they do
represent a set of factors that encourage installation of some containment structures for pesticide
bulk storage and for dispensing activities.
D.2 State Regulations
By October 1998, 19 states had promulgated containment regulations for bulk pesticide storage.
These states are Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In addition to the states with existing regulations,
Massachusetts and North Carolina have draft regulations pending. A summary of regulations in
these states is provided in Appendix C, based on a comprehensive review conducted by EPA’s
Office of Pesticide Programs in January 1998.
For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that affected facilities in the 19 regulated states will
not incur additional costs as a result of federal regulations, unless it is evident that the states’
regulations do not address a general federal requirement. Rather, it is assumed that the affected
facilities have incurred or will soon incur costs as a result of state regulations. Facility-level
costs are calculated for the two states with pending regulations since facilities in these states are

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 156

expected to incur costs as a result of the federal regulations prior to enactment of state
regulations.
A review of the regulations promulgated by several states indicates that there are differences
between states regarding the volume of pesticides in one container that triggers “bulk” storage
criteria, differences in the site activity that triggers compliance, differences in secondary
containment requirements (for example, differences in the capacity required for secondary
containment structures), differences in operational containment pad requirements, and
differences in the entities to be regulated. Adjusted against the number of facilities with bulk
pesticide storage in each state based on commercial, state, and government business census data,
facilities in the 19 states with containment regulations (4,220 facilities) represent approximately
84 percent of total number of bulk dealers (5,040) in the United States.
Table D.1. State Regulations of Bulk Pesticide Storage
Secondary
Containment
Required

Operational
Containment Pad(S)
Required

Last Revision

Colorado

Yes

Yes

1992

Illinois

Yes

Yes

1991

Indiana

Yes

Yes

1993

Iowa

Yes

Yes

1991

Kansas

Yes

No

b

1985

Kentucky

Yes

Yes

1998

Yes

No

b

1984

Michigan

Yes

Yes

1993

Minnesota

Yes

Yes

1989

Missouri

Yes

Yes

1992

Nebraska

Yes

Yes

1992

New Hampshire

Yes

Yes

1985

North Dakota

Yes

No

b

1992

Ohio

Yes

Yes

1991

South Dakota

Yes

Yes

1992

Vermont

Yes

Yes

1992

Washington

Yes

Yes

1994

West Virginia

Yes

Yes

1993

Yes

Yes

1989

Yes

Yes

TBD

State

Louisiana

Wisconsin
Massachusetts

a
a

North Carolina
Yes
Yes
TBD
Source: Regulatory Review conducted by EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, Pesticide Management, and Disposal
Staff (January 1998) from personal communications with various state agency personnel; review of state regulations.
a
Regulations pending.
b
Regulations do not specify operational pad, but do require secondary containment for storage/handling of bulk
pesticide, defined as any container greater than 55 gallons.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 157

Some state regulations, however, do not adequately address all federal requirements. For
example, Louisiana and North Dakota have promulgated containment regulations that do not
strictly meet EPA’s containment pad requirements. Louisiana’s containment regulations apply to
handling facilities as well as storage facilities. However, the regulations specify only immediate
notification of spills, and not construction requirements. Requirements in North Dakota do not
specifically mention containment pads, although the regulations specify that “bulk storage
containers and loading areas must be constructed and located on a site in a manner so that
pesticides will not contaminate streams and water supplies.” Therefore, costs are calculated to
construct pads that meet federal requirements in these states.
In addition, nine states have regulations that may not be consistent with EPA’s recommended
containment material: three states (Minnesota, Vermont, and Wisconsin) specifically allow earth
or asphalt secondary containment with liners. Six other states (Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri,
North Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia) do not specify construction material but give general
performance standards that could be met by lined earth or asphalt.
Pesticide containment regulations in Minnesota, Vermont, and Wisconsin are virtually identical,
specifying that when earth or asphalt are used, both the walls and base of the containment must
be lined with reinforced concrete, a synthetic liner, inorganic soil, ferrous metal, or stainless
steel.73 No facilities have been identified in these three states that store pesticides with lined
earth or asphalt secondary containment; however, such containment structures are used for
fertilizer storage. No problems of leakage or spills have been noted from the fertilizer storage,
and state representatives have stated a policy that future pesticide storage facilities would not be
approved for use with lined earth or asphalt. Facilities in Vermont currently store only fertilizer
in such containment structures. Representatives would not necessarily rule out approval of a
future pesticide bulk storage facility; however, they would evaluate approval of such a facility
on a case-by-case basis, considering the size, geology, and hydrology of the area.
State regulations in Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, and West Virginia were
also reviewed. These states have containment regulations that do not specify containment
material but define the characteristics of secondary containment walls in such a way that they
could be satisfied by lined earth or asphalt. None of these six states have existing pesticide
storage facilities that use earth or asphalt containment, but most have a few fertilizer storage
facilities with lined earth containment. Ohio estimates that less than 5 percent of fertilizer
facilities use earthen containment, but they are inspected and must ensure permeability less than
1 x 10-5 cm/sec. It is possible that Ohio officials would approve future pesticide storage
containment constructed of earth if it could be proven to be impervious. Missouri does not allow
asphalt, and estimates that 5 percent of its fertilizer facilities are contained within earthen walls.
Such facilities protect large outdoor tanks (up to 1 million gallons) and are required to have a
containment capacity of 125 percent of the volume of the largest tank within the containment.
73

Requirements in these states include: (1) containment walls that withstand a full hydrostatic head of any released
liquid; (2) walls must be lined and protected from erosion, and must have a horizontal to vertical slope of at least 3
to 1, unless a steeper slope is consistent with good engineering practice; (3) walls may not exceed 6 feet in height
above the interior grade; and (4) liners may be concrete, synthetic (minimum thickness 0.8 mm, chemically
compatible, photo-resistant and puncture-resistant, with 12 inches of soil above and 6 inches below), or soil. Soil
liners may be inorganic soil treated with bentonite clay. Specifications are given in the regulation for thickness,
permeability, plasticity, and soil particle size.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 158

Louisiana, North Dakota, and Kansas stated that lined earth or asphalt would not be approved for
pesticide containment structures. West Virginia would strongly discourage such a construction if
it were proposed.
D.3 Business and Market Considerations
The combination of federal and state regulations, insurance considerations, public relations,
consumer demands, and business risks creates a business or market climate that encourages
better stewardship of the distribution and use of pesticides. One result of this is the increased
adoption of such practices as secondary containment.
Many of the major registrants of pesticides (including Monsanto and BASF) require secondary
containment for bulk storage containers at facilities that purchase their products in bulk. One
major registrant, Syngenta, provides price incentives and various types of insurance for its
products if dealers have approved bulk storage and rinsate pad containment. Some companies
and associations have developed bulk storage guidelines for bulk pesticide handlers. Thus, many
facilities in unregulated states will be in compliance with the proposed regulations because of
manufacturers’ requirements. In addition, insurance companies provide dealers with loss control
surveys that suggest improved pesticide bulk storage practices (Tatman, 1991). While these
business and market forces are real, the extent of their influence is uncertain.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 159

Appendix E: EPA’s Proposed Pesticide Containment Standards
This Appendix describes the requirements to construct new and to retrofit existing containment
structures and pads, as proposed in the 1994 Federal Register Notice of the Proposed Rule (EPA,
1994) Separate categories of the proposed requirements included: (1) general requirements for
containment structures; (2) secondary containment for stationary liquid bulk containers;
(3) secondary containment for stationary dry bulk containers; (4) containment for pesticide
dispensing areas; and (5) recordkeeping requirements. Several of these requirements have been
modified or eliminated from the final rule requirements following the public comment period
and subsequent deliberations by the Agency.
Compliance with federal standards was initially proposed within 2 years after publication of the
final rule for new structures and within 10 years for existing structures. An 8 year phase-in
period was provided for existing containment structures, during which time “interim” standards
would apply rather than the “full” standards. The phase-in period was to begin 24 months after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Full standards for existing facilities, which
included structural features that might not be readily incorporated without major modification,
were to be required 10 years after the publication of the final rule. This compliance period
represented one-half to two-thirds of the 15- to 20-year service life of an average well-built and
well-maintained containment structure.
E.1 General Requirements for Containment Structures
Certain general requirements affecting both secondary containment structures and containment
pads did not differ between the interim and full standards under the proposed rule. These
included: (1) materials of construction; (2) stormwater controls; (3) protection of appurtenances
and containers; (4) anchoring of liquid bulk tanks; (5) handling of collected pesticide, spills, and
rinsates; (6) presence of an attendant during transfer of pesticides; (7) inspection and
maintenance; and (8) sealing of cracks and gaps.
General requirements applicable after the interim period under the proposed full standards
included:
•

•

Hydraulic Conductivity: To prevent pesticides from penetrating into the concrete or other
material of construction, a hydraulic conductivity standard of <1 x 10-6 centimeters per
second (cm/sec) had to be met during the interim period, and a standard of <1 x 10-7 cm/sec
applied after the interim period would have expired. Since even minor fractures or cracks
would reduce the hydraulic conductivity of concrete below the proposed standard, surface
sealants or coatings, liners beneath the structure, or some combination thereof had to be used
to meet the full standard.
Appurtenances: No appurtenances, discharge outlets, or gravity drains through the base or
wall of the containment structure were allowed under the full standards, and appurtenances
were to be configured so that leakage can be readily observed (not applicable during the
interim period).

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 160

E.2 Secondary Containment for Stationary Liquid Bulk Containers
The full standards for new liquid bulk containment structures in the 1994 proposed rule specified
that secondary containment structures not protected from precipitation should have a capacity of
at least 125 percent of the capacity of the largest stationary bulk container within the
containment unit, plus the volume displaced by other containers and appurtenances. If the
structure were protected from precipitation (e.g., an indoor storage facility or an outdoor storage
area with a roof), capacity would have had to be at least 110 percent of the capacity of the largest
bulk container plus the volume displaced by other containers and appurtenances.
For existing structures, the proposed capacity requirements for secondary containment structures
were set lower under the interim standards than under the full standards. Under the interim
standards, a secondary containment area protected from precipitation would have been required
to have a minimum capacity equal to 100 percent of the capacity of the largest stationary bulk
container within the area plus the displaced volume. If the container was not protected from
precipitation, the proposed rule specified a minimum capacity equal to 110 percent of the
capacity of the largest stationary container within the area plus the displaced volume of other
containers and appurtenances. This was subsequently referred to as the 100/110 standard for
interim period facilities. Following expiration of the interim period, the proposed full standard
would have been more stringent at 110/125 (i.e., the capacity requirement for the largest
container within a secondary containment area was proposed at 110 percent for a protected area
and 125 percent for an unprotected area).
Under the full standards, the rule proposed that the secondary containment area allow for the
observation of leakage from the base of any enclosed stationary bulk container. Two types of
containers are commonly used by pesticide refilling and dispensing facilities: cone-shaped and
flat bottomed containers. Leakage from cone-shaped containers is easily observed. Flatbottomed containers, on the other hand, rest flush with the floor of the containment area, and
would have required a method for leak detection to meet the full standards. To comply with the
proposed rule, flat-bottomed containers would have needed to be elevated through the use of
legs, skids, raised beds of gravel, or other methods to meet the full standards. During the interim
period, any tanks not easily observed for leakage were to be inventoried and reconciled each
month. All stationary bulk containers were to be anchored to prevent flotation, should the
containment area become completely filled with liquid. This requirement applied under both the
interim and full standards.
E.3 Secondary Containment for Stationary Dry Bulk Containers
The proposed full standards for new dry bulk containment structures required capacity of at least
100 percent of the volume of the largest stationary dry bulk container within the containment,
plus the volume displaced by other containers and appurtenances. No minimum capacity
requirements were proposed for existing secondary containment structures for stationary dry
bulk containers during the interim period.
E.4 Secondary Containment for Pesticide Dispensing Areas
For existing and new pesticide dispensing areas, the proposed standards required that
containment pads have a minimum holding capacity of 1,000 gallons, or, if no equipment used

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 161

on the pad exceeded 1,000 gallons, at least 100 percent of the capacity of the largest equipment
used on the pad. All existing and new pads also had to have a means of removing and recovering
spilled, leaked, or discharged material and rainfall.
The proposed rule required that, after the interim period, all pads had to slope toward a liquidtight sump, maintaining the requirement for removal and recovery. Manually activated pumps
were allowed, but pumps lacking automatic overflow cutoff switches were prohibited.
The rule proposed three conditions under which a pesticide dispensing area would be exempt
from the containment pad requirements: (1) if the only pesticides handled in the dispensing area
are pesticides that would be gaseous if released at 20°C and at sea level; (2) if the only pesticide
containers refilled within the pesticide dispensing area are stationary bulk containers protected
by a secondary containment structure meeting the standards; or (3) if the pesticide dispensing
area is used solely for dispensing pesticides from a railcar that is not a stationary bulk container.
E.5 Recordkeeping Requirements
Recordkeeping requirements under both the proposed interim and full standards would have
required that records be kept of each inspection and all maintenance for each containment
structure and stationary bulk container and its appurtenances. Also required under both the
interim and full standards were records of the duration for which a pesticide remained in the
same location in any bulk container not protected by a secondary containment area. Written
confirmation of hydraulic conductivity and pesticide-resistance statements were required under
both the interim period and full standards, covering the entire period during which the referenced
product was used at a facility. Records of inventory and reconciliation, kept only during the
interim period for tanks not readily observable for leakage, were also required under the
proposed rule.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 162

E.6 Stationary Containers Included
In the proposed rule, stationary bulk containers designed to hold undivided quantities of
agricultural pesticides greater than 793 gallons of liquid pesticides or greater than 4,409 pounds
of dry pesticides were subject to the containment regulations. The rule did not require containers
with capacity less than these volume/weight thresholds to be protected with a secondary
containment unit. A stationary bulk container includes any bulk container, including transport
vehicles that are fixed or remain at a facility for at least 30 consecutive days.
Table E.1. Containment Proposed Rule Options Costs (2005$)
Regulation

Option 1
Costs
Regulatory Option 1
is no change in the
containment
requirements, with no
additional cost.

Option 2

Option 3

General Requirements for
361,223
365,442
Containment Structures a
Secondary Containment for
6,247,546
18,823,259
Stationary Liquid Bulk
Containers
Secondary Containment for
679,907
1,332,786
Stationary Dry Bulk Containers
Secondary Containment for
5,668,247
14,049,479
Pesticide Dispensing Areas b
Recordkeeping Requirements
Incorporated in containment cost estimates.
Total Costs
0
12,956,923
34,570,965
Benefits
$9.3 million-$ 15.6 million
a
This is the cost under the proposed rule of complying pesticide container requirements, including having containers
anchored or elevated to prevent floatation in the event that the secondary containment unit fills to capacity with
liquid. If not elevated, all containers would be required to be inventoried and reconciled monthly to detect leakage.
The General Requirements for Containment Structures in the proposed rule also includes many other provisions,
such as standards for secondary containment construction.
b
For facilities that would be required to install both new bulk storage secondary containment and new containment
pads for dispensing areas, the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposed rule reported the costs of both together.
The combined costs are included here under Secondary Containment for Bulk Storage Containers.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 163

Appendix F: Comparison of the Proposed and Final Containment Regulations
Table F.1 presents a comparison of the proposed and final pesticide bulk containment
regulations. Compared to the proposed standards, the most significant changes under the final
rule are as follows:
•
•
•
•

The final rule deletes hydraulic conductivity standards and associated recordkeeping and
inventory reconciliation.
The final rule deletes the interim standards, and establishes a set of standards for existing
structures and more stringent full standards for new structures.
The final rule adjusts capacity standards for new and existing structures.
The final rule reduces recordkeeping responsibilities.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 164

Table F.1. Comparison of Proposed and Final Standards for New Containment Structures
Criteria

Proposed

Final

Facilities
§165.141

Facilities including refilling establishments, custom
blenders, and applicators for compensation.

Same.

Bulk Containers
§165.142a

All stationary bulk containers in affected facilities must
have secondary containment except emptied tanks, rinsate
and wash water tanks, gas pesticide tanks, and nonpesticide use tanks.

Same.

Pesticide
Dispensing Areas
§165.142b

Pesticide dispensing areas include: (1) dispensing or
refilling pesticides from a stationary bulk container for any
purpose; (2) dispensing from a non-stationary bulk
container for refilling; (3) emptying, cleaning, or rinsing
refillables; (4) filling a stationary bulk container from a
transport vehicle.

Same, except for: (4) filling a refillable container from a
transport vehicle.

Define New
§165.144

Begin installation at least 3 months after final rule is
published.

Same.

Material
§165.146a

Reinforced concrete or other rigid material to withstand full Same.
hydrostatic head. Asphalt and earthen material prohibited.

Hydraulic
Conductivity
§165.146a3

Interim period standards: 1 X 10-6 cm/sec.
Permanent standards: 1 X 10-7.cm/sec.

Delete all references to specific hydraulic conductivity
standard.

Sealants
§165.146a3

Sealants can be used to achieve hydraulic conductivity
standard.

Delete tests and five-year replacement costs from cost analysis.
Facility may voluntarily choose sealants to achieve liquidtightness.

Material
§165,146a(4)

Pesticide resistant.

Pesticide compatible.

Design - Stormwater
§165.146b(1)

Prevents water from seeping or flowing onto it from
adjacent land structures during a 25-year, 24-hour rain
event.

Has sufficient freeboard to prevent water from seeping or
flowing onto it from adjacent land.

Appurtenances
§165.146b(2) & (3)

Appurtenances protected, no outlets or drains at base.
Configured so leaks can be observed.

Same.

Operation
§165.146c(1)-(4)

Prevents escape of pesticide; all transfers attended; lockable Same.
valves; cleanup no later than end of day of spill.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 165

Table F.1. Comparison of Proposed and Final Standards for New Containment Structures (Continued)
Criteria

Proposed

Final

Inspection
§165.146d(1)

Monthly when pesticides are stored or dispensed.

Same.

Maintenance
§165.146d(2)-(3)

Repair cracks or gaps, removal of pesticide. No storage
until repaired.

Same, except deletion of reference to hydraulic conductivity
standard.

Liquid Capacity
§165.148a

Interim: 110 percent / 100 percent (outdoor/indoor)
Permanent: 125 percent / 110 percent (outdoor/indoor)

Delete reference to interim period. Retain 110 percent / 100
percent for permanent standard.

Design - Elevation &
Anchoring
§165.148b

Assured by elevation of bulk container on legs, gravel, etc.
Anchored to prevent flotation.

Delete reference to interim period. Delete requirement for
elevated tanks. Retain requirement to anchor tanks to prevent
flotation.

Inventory Reconciliation
§165.148c

Monthly during interim period.

Delete.

Dry Bulk Capacity
§165.150a - B

100 percent of largest container plus displaced volume.

Protected from wind/rain, on pallets or concrete platform to
prevent water in or under the pesticide. Enclosed by 6-inch
high curb that extends at least 2 feet beyond the perimeter of
container.

Pad Capacity
§165.152a

1,000 gallons or 100 percent of largest container.

750 gal or 100 percent of largest container.

Pad Design
§165.152b

Intercept spills, base sloped toward liquid-tight sump;
Same.
means of removing discharged material or rainfall. Surface
extends completely beneath any container on pad except
transport vehicles, for which pad must accommodate
coupling devices.

Integrated Systems
§165.153

Pads and secondary containment units may be combined.

Same.

Segregation
§165.153

Multiple pesticides can be stored in same containment.

Same.

Compliance Date
§165.156

2 year (interim) / 8 year (permanent)

Delete reference to interim period. Three years for existing
structures to meet critical standards; 3 years for new structures
to meet full standards.

Recordkeeping and
Inspection §165.157

Monthly inspection. Maintain records for 3 years:
inventory reconciliation during interim period; nonstationary bulk tanks duration at facility; hydraulic
conductivity.

Delete recordkeeping for inventory reconciliation and
hydraulic conductivity. Retain monthly inspection and 3-year
recordkeeping for inspection and non-stationary bulk tanks.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 166

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 167

Appendix G. Estimated Number of Affected Facilities
Table G.1. Estimated Number of Agricultural Pesticide Refillers by State, 1992 *

State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DC
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan

State
Reg.
(Y/N)
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
P
Y

1992 American Business Information’s Lists of 9.3 Million Businesses a
Agchem Dealers
(SIC 5191.02 +
Farm Supply Dealers
Fertilizer Dealers
(SIC 5191.02)
(SIC 5191.14)
5191.14)
# Estab.
% Total
# Estab.
% Total
# Estab.
% Total
215
3.69%
178
1.71%
393
2.42%
1
0.02%
1
0.01%
2
0.01%
24
0.41%
72
0.69%
96
0.59%
148
2.54%
148
1.42%
296
1.82%
32
0.55%
283
2.72%
315
1.94%
58
1.00%
183
1.76%
241
1.48%
6
0.10%
47
0.45%
53
0.33%
7
0.12%
22
0.21%
29
0.18%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
164
2.81%
339
3.26%
503
3.10%
240
4.12%
287
2.76%
527
3.25%
0
0.00%
26
0.25%
26
0.16%
57
0.98%
147
1.41%
204
1.26%
347
5.96%
909
8.73%
1,256
7.74%
188
3.23%
547
5.26%
735
4.53%
291
4.99%
575
5.53%
866
5.33%
158
2.71%
450
4.32%
608
3.75%
300
5.15%
195
1.87%
495
3.05%
148
2.54%
139
1.34%
287
1.77%
20
0.34%
21
0.20%
41
0.25%
53
0.91%
107
1.03%
160
0.99%
13
0.22%
50
0.48%
63
0.39%
158
2.71%
253
2.43%
411
2.53%

1992 Census of
Wholesale Trade
Farm Supply
(SIC 5191) b
# Estab.
% Total
303
1.73%
9
0.05%
181
1.04%
349
2.00%
1129
6.46%
200
1.14%
57
0.33%
37
0.21%
1
0.01%
665
3.81%
510
2.92%
50
0.29%
203
1.16%
1033
5.91%
627
3.59%
953
5.46%
304
1.74%
421
2.41%
284
1.63%
47
0.27%
141
0.81%
108
0.62%
365
2.09%

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 168

# of Dealers
Estimated
by State
Experts

350 d

500 e
1,799 f

Total
Agricultural
Pesticide Refillers
(Adjusted) c
393
2
96
350
315
241
53
29
0
503
527
26
204
1,256
500
866
608
495
287
41
160
63
411

Table G.1. Estimated Number of Agricultural Pesticide Refillers by State, 1992 (Continued)

State

State
Reg.
(Y/N)

Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia

Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
P
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y

1992 American Business Information’s Lists of 9.3 Million Businesses a
Agchem Dealers
Farm Supply Dealers
Fertilizer Dealers
(SIC 5191.02 +
5191.14)
(SIC 5191.02)
(SIC 5191.14)
# Estab.
% Total
# Estab.
% Total
# Estab.
% Total
177
3.04%
500
4.80%
677
4.17%
201
3.45%
167
1.60%
368
2.27%
250
4.29%
563
5.41%
813
5.01%
62
1.06%
91
0.87%
153
0.94%
155
2.66%
339
3.26%
494
3.04%
9
0.15%
10
0.10%
19
0.12%
6
0.10%
15
0.14%
21
0.13%
19
0.33%
59
0.57%
78
0.48%
20
0.34%
49
0.47%
69
0.43%
124
2.13%
147
1.41%
271
1.67%
265
4.55%
412
3.96%
677
4.17%
69
1.18%
252
2.42%
321
1.98%
222
3.81%
382
3.67%
604
3.72%
131
2.25%
232
2.23%
363
2.24%
52
0.89%
123
1.18%
175
1.08%
103
1.77%
155
1.49%
258
1.59%
1
0.02%
5
0.05%
6
0.04%
126
2.16%
141
1.35%
267
1.64%
56
0.96%
147
1.41%
203
1.25%
232
3.98%
194
1.86%
426
2.62%
379
6.50%
652
6.27%
1,031
6.35%
39
0.67%
30
0.29%
69
0.43%
23
0.39%
20
0.19%
43
0.26%
172
2.95%
212
2.04%
384
2.37%
80
1.37%
205
1.97%
285
1.76%
40
0.69%
20
0.19%
60
0.37%

1992 Census of
Wholesale Trade
Farm Supply
(SIC 5191) b
# Estab.
% Total
674
3.86%
257
1.47%
707
4.05%
146
0.84%
529
3.03%
45
0.26%
23
0.13%
220
1.26%
88
0.50%
642
3.68%
553
3.17%
161
0.92%
558
3.19%
293
1.68%
269
1.54%
471
2.70%
23
0.13%
214
1.23%
204
1.17%
356
2.04%
1,339
7.67%
84
0.48%
51
0.29%
322
1.84%
406
2.32%
87
0.50%

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 169

# of Dealers
Estimated
by State
Experts

Total
Agricultural
Pesticide Refillers
(Adjusted) c

1,335 g
438 h

677
438
813
153
700
19
21
78
69
271
677
321
660
370
175
216
6
267
300
225
1,500
69
43
384
285
140

580 i
700 j

996 k
660 l
370 m
216 n

600 o
225 p
1,500 q

140 r

Table G.1. Estimated Number of Agricultural Pesticide Refillers by State, 1992 (Continued)
1992 Census of
1992 American Business Information’s Lists of 9.3 Million Businesses a
Wholesale Trade
# of Dealers
Total
Agchem Dealers
State Farm Supply Dealers
Estimated
Agricultural
Fertilizer Dealers
(SIC 5191.02 +
Farm Supply
(SIC 5191) b
Reg.
5191.14)
by State
Pesticide Refillers
(SIC 5191.02)
(SIC 5191.14)
(Adjusted) c
State
Experts
(Y/N) # Estab.
% Total
# Estab.
% Total
# Estab.
% Total
# Estab.
% Total
Wisconsin
Y
169
2.90%
278
2.67%
447
2.75%
715
4.09%
447
Wyoming
N
17
0.29%
28
0.27%
45
0.28%
55
0.31%
45
Totals
5,827
100%
10,407
100%
16,234
100%
17,469
100%
16,795
Totals may not add due to rounding. Y = State regulations as of 2002. P = Pending proposed regulations. State Reg. indicates whether or not the state has state
containment regulations. * The estimated number of agricultural pesticide refillers is from the proposed EPA containment rule RIA, which is based on 1992 data. By
using these data, EPA assumes that the number of facilities in the industry did not change.
a
For this analysis based on 1992 data, SIC codes were used instead of NAICS codes for convenience. American Business Information data was identified as the only
source of information found that provides separate data for farm supply and fertilizer dealer categories within SIC 5191.
b
SIC 5191 at the 4-digit level includes all establishments primarily engaged in the wholesale distribution of animal feeds, fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, pesticides,
seeds, and other farm supplies, except grains. Thus, many of the establishments listed in SIC 5191 do not handle pesticides.
c
State estimates where available; otherwise, SIC 5191.02 + SIC 5191.14 from the American Business Information Lists of 9 Million Businesses, 1990.
d
Flowers, Plant Board, Little Rock, AR; Registered Use Pesticide (RUP) dealers, with a few non-RUP dealers in the state.
e
Scott, IN State Chemist’s Office.
f
Breedlove, KS Department of Agriculture.
g
Narikawa, MN Department of Agriculture; includes all pesticide storage facilities, including those handling non-agricultural pesticides in small packages of less than 56
gallons. Estimates by SIC code are believed to more closely represent agricultural pesticide refillers (agchemical dealers).
h
Fulton, MS Department of Agriculture and Commerce; estimate reflects Registered Use Pesticide dealers.
i
Gingery, MT Department of Agriculture; includes both agricultural and industrial pesticide dealers. Estimates by SIC code are likely more representative of agricultural
pesticide refillers (agchemical dealers).
j
Heitman, Environmental Control Department, Lincoln, NE; estimate represents fertilizer/agricultural dealers.
k
Dixon, NC Department of Agriculture; estimate reflects number of licensed commercial pesticide dealers in NC. Since this estimate includes non-ag dealers, estimates
by SIC are likely more representative of agricultural pesticide refillers (agchemical dealers).
l
Beal, OH Department of Agriculture.
m
Chada, OK Department of Agriculture; Restricted Use Pesticide dealers.
n
Uram, PA Department of Agriculture; estimate reflects 25% of the 864 licensed pesticide dealers in PA. Remaining 75% represent stores such as K-Mart that sell nonrestricted pesticides.
o
Berven, SD Department of Agriculture; estimate likely includes industrial and other non-ag dealers, so is adjusted downward for state total.
p
Foster, TN Department of Agriculture; estimate reflects 75% of 300 Restricted Use Pesticide dealers as agricultural; remaining 25% non-ag.
q
Renchie, Texas Department of Agriculture.
r
Frank, WV Department of Agriculture; estimate reflects Registered Use Pesticide dealers.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 170

Table G.2. Regulatory Compliance Baseline for Agricultural Pesticide Refillers with Bulk Pesticide Storage ***

State

State Reg
(Y/N)

Adjusted #
Agchem
Dealers a

Percent
Dealers with
Bulk b

No. of bulk
dealers
(>55 gal.) c

Total bulk
dealers
(>500 gal.) d

Secondary
Containment e
With

Without

Roofed or Indoor
Storage
With

f

Without

g

Containment Pads
With h
Without i

Alabama

N

393

10%

39

35

14

21

11

25

9

26

Alaska

N

2

10%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Arizona

N

96

10%

10

9

4

5

3

6

2

7

j

40

36

14

22

11

25

9

27

Arkansas

N

350

California

N

315

25%

79

71

28

43

21

50

18

53

Colorado

Y

241

25%

60

54

54*

0

16

38

54

0

Connecticut

N

53

10%

5

5

2

3

2

4

1

4

Delaware

N

29

10%

3

3

1

2

1

2

1

2

D.C.

N

0

10%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Florida

N

503

10%

50

45

18

27

14

32

11

34

Georgia

N

527

10%

53

47

19

28

14

33

12

35

Hawaii

N

26

10%

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

Idaho

N

204

10%

20

18

7

11

5

13

5

14

1,256

100%

k

1,250

1,125

1,125*

0

338

788

1,125

0

l

Illinois

Y

11%

Indiana

Y

500

50%

250

225

225*

0

68

158

225

0

Iowa

Y

866

92% m

800

720 m

720*

0

216

504

720

0

Kansas**

Y

608

26% n

157

141

141*

0

42

99

35

106

Kentucky

Y

495

25%

124

111

111*

0

33

78

112

0

Louisiana**

Y

287

25%

72

65

65*

0

19

45

16

48

Maine

N

41

10%

4

4

2

2

1

3

1

3

Maryland

N

160

10%

16

14

6

8

4

10

4

11

Massachusetts

P

63

10%

6

6

2

3

2

4

2

5

411

73%

o

300

270

270*

0

81

189

270

0

75%

p

Michigan

Y

Minnesota

Y

677

505

455

455*

0

136

318

455

0

Mississippi

N

438

5% q

23

21

8

13

6

15

5

16

Missouri

Y

813

9% r

75

68

68*

0

20

47

68

0

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 171

Table G.2. Regulatory Compliance Baseline for Agricultural Pesticide Refillers with Bulk Pesticide Storage (Continued)

State

State Reg
(Y/N)

Adjusted #
Agchem
Dealers a

Percent
Dealers with
Bulk b

No. of bulk
dealers
(>55 gal.) c

Total bulk
dealers
(>500 gal.) d

Secondary
Containment e

With

f

Without

Containment Pads
g

With h

Without i

Montana

N

153

53

47

With
19

14

33

12

35

Nebraska

Y

700

50%

350

315

315*

0

95

221

315

0

Nevada

N

19

10%

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

New Hampshire

Y

21

10%

2

2

2*

0

1

1

1

0

New Jersey

N

78

10%

8

7

3

4

2

5

2

5

New Mexico

N

69

10%

7

6

2

4

2

4

2

5

New York

N

271

25%

68

61

24

37

18

43

15

46

North Carolina

P

677

10%

68

61

24

37

18

43

15

46

321

30%

t

96

86

86*

0

26

60

22

65

u

North Dakota**

Y

34%

s

Without
28

Roofed or Indoor
Storage

Ohio

Y

660

44%

292

263

263*

0

79

184

263

0

Oklahoma

N

370

14% v

50

45

18

27

14

32

11

34

Oregon

N

175

10%

18

16

6

10

5

11

4

12

Pennsylvania

N

216

25%

54

49

20

29

15

34

12

37

Rhode Island

N

6

10%

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

South Carolina

N

267

10%

27

24

10

14

7

17

6

18

South Dakota

Y

300

40% w

120

108

108*

0

65 w

43

108

0

225

3%

x

6

5

2

3

2

4

1

4

10%

y

150

135

54

81

41

95

34

101

7

6

2

4

2

4

2

5

Tennessee

N

Texas

N

1,500

Utah

N

69

10%
z

Vermont

Y

43

7

6

6*

0

2

4

6

0

Virginia

N

384

10%

38

35

14

21

11

25

9

26

Washington

Y

285

25%

71

64

64*

0

19

45

64

0

140

aa

3

3

3*

0

1

2

3

0

West Virginia

Y

16%

2%

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 172

Table G.2. Regulatory Compliance Baseline for Agricultural Pesticide Refillers with Bulk Pesticide Storage (Continued)

State

State Reg
(Y/N)

Adjusted #
Agchem
Dealers a

Percent
Dealers with
Bulk b

No. of bulk
dealers
(>55 gal.) c

Total bulk
dealers
(>500 gal.) d

Secondary
Containment e

Wisconsin

Y

447

35% ab

154

139

With
139*

Wyoming

N

45

10%

5

4

2

5,601

5,040

4,548

Totals

16,795

Without
0

Roofed or Indoor
Storage

Containment Pads

With f

With h

Without g

Without i

7 ab

132

139

0

2

1

3

1

3

491

1,510

3,530

4,206

834

States w/ regs
9,071
4,688
4,220
4,220
0
1,264
2,956
4,001
219
States w/o regs
7,724
913
820
328
491
246
574
205
615
Totals may not add due to rounding. Y = State regulations. P = Pending regulations. * Secondary containment standards required by state regulations. ** State
regulations do not specify standards for pads. *** The estimates of compliance and the number of agricultural chemical dealers are based on the proposed EPA
containment rule RIA. For the final rule the estimates of compliance were updated based on discussions with State agencies and a review of State agency information.
a
Adjusted # of dealers from Table G.1.
b
Regional factors used if state estimate not available; Corn Belt states = 50%, other major ag states = 25%, remaining states = 10%.
c
The baseline estimate of bulk facilities based primarily on data from states which regulate all undivided quantities greater than 55 gallons as bulk.
d
Based on the estimate in the proposed EPA containment rule RIA that 90% of all bulk facilities store in undivided quantities greater than 500 gallons.
e
Assumes 100% of facilities in states regulating bulk storage (>250 gallons) have secondary containment units. In unregulated states, 40% of bulk facilities are assumed
to have secondary containment.
f
State estimates of roofed or indoor facilities range from 5% to 60%; figures in this column are based on the estimates used in the proposed EPA containment rule RIA,
with a value of 30% unless footnoted.
g
Total bulk dealers less number of facilities with roofs.
h
Assumes 100% of facilities in state with mixing/loading or operational pad regulations meet EPA’s containment pad requirements; otherwise, we estimate 25% of
facilities currently have pads, based on estimates used in the proposed EPA containment rule RIA.
i
Total bulk dealers less number of dealers with mixing/loading or containment pads.
j
Flowers, Plant Board, Little Rock, AR; 40 to 50 bulk “sites” registered by manufacturer; some dealers may have more than one “site.”
k
Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Association (1991). Registered agrichemical facilities. Adjusted to exclude formulators.
l
Scott, State Chemist’s Office, IN; estimate reflects 50% of pesticide dealers have bulk facilities.
m
Eckerman, IA Department of Agriculture; 813 regulated facilities; 13 are formulators. All facilities are greater than 250 gallons. Adjusted to exclude formulators.
n
Kansas Department of Agriculture data base; adjusted to exclude formulators.
o
Darling, MI Department of Agriculture, midpoint of estimated 200 to 400 bulk facilities.
p
Narikawa, MN Department of Agriculture; 1990 pesticide storage survey results indicate 180 firms with containers from 56 to 499 gallons; 325 firms with containers
greater than 500 gallons.
q
Fulton, MS Department of Agriculture and Commerce; 20 to 25 dealers with bulk facilities.
r
Leslie, MO Department of Agriculture; 50% of the estimated 150 bulk facilities handle only minibulks.
s
Gingery, MT Department of Agriculture; 200 out of 580 agricultural and industrial pesticide dealers have bulk facilities.
t
Peterson, ND Department of Agriculture; 100 permanent bulk facilities; most are dealers and distributors; less than 5 solely commercial applicators.
u
Beal, OH Department of Agriculture; about 300 bulk facilities; a few may be non-agricultural. Adjusted to exclude formulators.
v
Chada, OK Department of Agriculture; about 50 bulk storage facilities.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 173

w

Berven, SD Department of Agriculture; at least 150 facilities, of which 80% are dealers. 60% of bulk storage facilities are indoors.
Foster, TN Department of Agriculture; one large distribution center for cooperatives; 5 or 6 other bulk facilities.
y
Renchie, TX Department of Agriculture; 7.5 to 10% of pesticide dealers have bulk facilities.
z
Rogler, VT Department of Agriculture; 6 or 7 facilities.
aa
Frank, WV Department of Agriculture; 2 or 3 facilities.
ab
Morrison, WI Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection; 250 facilities, including 10 manufacturers or formulators and 30 wood preservers.
x

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 174

Table G.3. Number of Bulk Pesticide Containment Facilities to Install New Units and Pads*
Number of Affected Facilities

Item
Agricultural Pesticide Refillers

SmallSmall
Facility

MediumSmall
Facility

LargeSmall
Facility

Large
Facility

Total

270

46

5

3

324 b

200

34

4

2

240 b

n/a

17

6

6

28 c

116

20

2

1

139 b

86

15

2

1

103 b

561

n/a

n/a

n/a

561 d

6

9

1

n/a

16 f

n/a

7

3

n/a

10 f

a

Outdoor Liquid Bulk Storage:
Secondary containment + containment pad
Number of affected facilities
Containment pad only
Number of affected facilities
Outdoor Liquid and Dry Bulk Storage:
Secondary containment + containment pad
Number of affected facilities
Indoor Liquid Bulk Storage:
Secondary containment + containment pad
Number of affected facilities
Containment pad only
Number of affected facilities
Outdoor Non-bulk Storage:
Small containment pad only
Number of affected facilities
Independent Aerial Applicators e
Outdoor Liquid Bulk Storage:
Secondary containment + large containment pad
Number of affected facilities
Large containment pad only
Number of affected facilities
Independent Ground Applicators e

Outdoor Liquid Bulk Storage:
Secondary containment + medium containment pad
n/a
n/a
5
n/a
5f
Number of affected facilities
Medium containment pad only
n/a
n/a
3
n/a
3f
Number of affected facilities
Totals may not add due to rounding. * 2005 estimates based on the proposed EPA containment rule RIA.
a
Distribution of agricultural pesticide refillers among small, medium and large representative facilities assumes the
following percent shares across all facilities: small-small (83.3%); medium-small (14.3%); large-small (1.5%); and
large (0.9%) (see Table 3.4). Two exceptions made for “Outdoor Liquid and Dry Bulk Storage” and ‘Outdoor NonBulk Storage” are described under footnotes b and f, respectively.
b
The number of agricultural pesticide refillers without secondary containment and pads is estimated at 491 facilities
and the number of facilities without containment pads is estimated at 834 facilities (Table 3.2). Excluding the 491
facilities that require secondary containment units and pads, the remaining 343 facilities (834-491) will require
containment pads only. Excluding the estimated 28 facilities that handle both liquid and dry pesticides, the
distribution of the remaining 463 facilities between those that require outdoor and indoor secondary structures is
assumed at 70%-30% split (324 and 139 facilities, respectively). Similarly, the distribution of the estimated 343
facilities that require containment a pad only, also assumes a 70%-30% split between outdoor-indoor structures (240
and 103 facilities, respectively), and further assumes that affected facilities will use existing concrete floor as a base
for building a containment pad.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 175

Table G.3. Number of Bulk Pesticide Containment Facilities to Install New Units and Pads
(Continued)
c

An estimated 175 agrichemical facilities handle, dispense or store bulk quantities of dry pesticides. It is assumed
that 90% (158 facilities) of dry bulk facilities are located in eight states (IN, IL, IA, MI, MN, ND, OH, SD). Based
on a review of containment regulations in these states, weighted against the number of liquid bulk facilities in these
states, 140 facilities (89 percent) are in compliance. Among the facilities in the remaining states, it is assumed that
40% (7 facilities) are in compliance, given lack of better information. Therefore, an estimated 147 facilities have
existing dry bulk storage structures and an estimated 28 facilities will need to construct new secondary units and
pads. Assumes all dry bulk containment facilities are jointly located at facilities that also have liquid bulk storage.
Assumed distribution: medium-small (60%); large-small (20%); and large (20%).
d
An estimated 561 non-bulk facilities that may require pad construction based on the number of facilities with bulk
liquid storage less than 500 gallons (5601-5040 facilities). See Table G.2.
e
Distribution of agricultural commercial applicators among small, medium and large representative facilities is based
on the assumption in the container rule EIA and assumes the following percent shares across all facilities: small-small
(39%); medium-small (56%); and large-small (5%) (EPA, 2005b). The analysis assumes that no large agricultural
commercial applicators exist. Only medium-small and large-small aerial facilities are assumed to be affected by
containment pad requirements, with 70% and 30% shares of the affected facilities, respectively. Small-small
facilities are not expected to engage in activities that require a pad. It is assumed that only large-small ground
applicators are affected by containment pad requirements.
f
The estimated number of agricultural commercial applicator facilities with bulk facilities is estimated at 160 aerial
applicators and 50 ground applicators (see Table 3.2). Based on information for agricultural pesticide refillers, 90%
of all facilities are estimated to be in compliance with the secondary containment standards and 83% of all facilities
are expected to be in compliance with the containment pad standards. Therefore, an estimated 189 facilities have
existing secondary containment, and an estimated 21 facilities (16 aerial applicators and 5 ground applicators) will
need to construct new secondary units and pads. An estimated 13 facilities (10 aerial applicators and 3 ground
applicators) will need to construct new containment pads only. It is assumed that only medium-small and large-small
aerial facilities affected by containment pad requirements; Small-small facilities are not expected to engage in
activities that require a pad. It is assumed that only large-small ground applicators are affected by containment pad
requirements.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 176

Table G.4. Number of Bulk Pesticide Containment Facilities Affected by EPA’s
Containment Regulations to Retrofit Existing Containment Structures
Number of Affected Facilities

Item

Agricultural Pesticide
Refillers a

Agricultural
Commercial
Applicators b

Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid Containers
Seal floor drain or discharge outlet

333

8

Seal all cracks/gaps/seams

295

0

1,602

62

Repair all cracks/gaps/seams

15

n/a

Monthly inspection/records of inspection and maintenance

70

n/a

Containment Pads
Seal drain

263

7

Add sump and berm

343

11

Repair all cracks/gaps/seams

185

n/a

Monthly inspection/records of inspection and maintenance
Secondary Containment - Bulk Dry Containers

Monthly inspection/records of inspection and maintenance
1,445
57
Totals may not add due to rounding. For this analysis, compliance rates have been calculated for bulk pesticide
storage facilities based on a review of current containment regulations in 19 states (Appendix C) to identify those
states with regulations that are consistent with EPA standards. Compliance in the identified number of states has
been weighted against the number of bulk liquid pesticide storage facilities in those states. Where data are not
available or where it is not clear whether state requirements are consistent with EPA standards, rates that were
established for use in the RIA of the proposed rule are used. These rates were estimated in the proposed EPA
containment rule RIA estimates based on a review of state regulations in conjunction with information from industry
source data.
a
SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE REFILLERS:
Number of facilities with existing secondary containment structures for bulk liquid containers 4,548 (100%)
Number of facilities in regulated states
4,220 (93%)
Number of facilities that also have bulk dry containers
28
Number of facilities in non-regulated states
328 (7%)
STATIONARY BULK LIQUID CONTAINMENT:
Seal floor drain or discharge outlet: An estimated 96 percent of secondary containment structures in regulated
states are in compliance with EPA standards. It is assumed that about half that percentage, or 50 percent, are in
compliance in non-regulated states. Thus, 333 structures are not in compliance and must retrofit
[(4220*0.04)+(328*0.50)] by sealing floor drains or discharge outlets.
Seal all cracks: Assumes that 100 percent of structures in regulated states are in compliance because of state
requirements to seal all cracks/gaps/seams, but assumes that 10 percent of structures in non-regulated states are in
compliance. An estimated 295 structures (328*0.90) are not in compliance.
Monthly inspection/recordkeeping: Weekly or monthly inspections of containment structures are currently
required within 11 of the 19 states with containment regulations. Weighted against the number of liquid bulk
facilities in these regulated states, an estimated 67% of all facilities in regulated states are in compliance. About
30% all remaining facilities are in compliance. Overall, the number of facilities that will require monthly
inspection under the rule is estimated at 1,602 facilities
[(4220*0.325)+(328*0.70)].
STATIONARY DRY BULK CONTAINERS: An estimated 147 facilities have existing structures (see Table
3.2).
Repair cracks: Although all regulated states have a requirement to seal all cracks, and although all facilities with
dry bulk storage are assumed to be located in regulated states, it is assumed that 90% of all facilities (15) with
existing structures (147*0.10) will be affected by this requirement.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 177

Table G.4. Number of Bulk Pesticide Containment Facilities Affected by EPA’s
Containment Regulations to Retrofit Existing Containment Structures (Continued)

b

Monthly inspection/recordkeeping: See footnote under ‘Stationary Bulk Liquid Containment: Agricultural
pesticide refillers” for analytical method used to derive percentage compliance rates. Overall, the number of
facilities that will require monthly inspection under the rule is estimated at 70 facilities.
CONTAINMENT PADS, AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE REFILLERS:
Estimated number of facilities with existing containment pads 4,206 (100%)
Number of facilities in regulated states
4,001 (95%)
Number of facilities in non-regulated states
205 (5%)
Seal drain: About 96 percent of containment pads in regulated states meet the standard for no drains. It is assumed
that about 50 percent meet the standard in non-regulated states. Thus, 263 structures are out of compliance
[(4,001*0.04)+(205*0.50)] and must seal existing drains.
Add berm: An estimated 94 percent of containment pads in regulated states have a minimum capacity of 750
gallons or 100% of the largest container on the pad and are in compliance. It is assumed that about 50 percent of
existing pads in non-regulated states are in compliance. The estimated number of pads required to retrofit is 343
[(4,001*0.06)+(205*0.50)]. The cost for a portable pump and hose for removing collected liquid materials and/or
rainfall are included with the secondary containment costs.
Repair cracks: Assumes 100 percent of structures in regulated states are in compliance because of state
requirements to seal all cracks/gaps/seams, but assumes only 10 percent of structures in non-regulated states are in
compliance. An estimated 185 structures (205*0.90) are not in compliance.
Monthly inspection/recordkeeping: See footnote under “Stationary Bulk Liquid Containment: Agricultural
pesticide refillers” for analytical method used to derive percentage compliance rates. Overall, the number of
facilities that will require monthly inspection under the rule is estimated at 1,445 facilities
[(4001*0.325)+(205*0.70)].
SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS:
Number of facilities with existing secondary containment structures for bulk liquid containers 189
Number of facilities in regulated states
189 (100%)
Independent (for-hire) aerial applicators
144 (76% of 189)
Independent (for-hire) ground applicators
45 (24% of 189)
STATIONARY BULK LIQUID CONTAINMENT:
Seal floor drain or discharge outlet: An estimated 96 percent of secondary containment structures in regulated
states are in compliance with these facilities. Thus, 8 structures are not in compliance and must retrofit
(189*0.04). It is assumed that these 8 must retrofit by sealing floor drains or discharge outlets.
Seal all cracks: Because all regulated states have a requirement to seal all cracks, and because all independent
applicator structures are assumed to be located in regulated states, no structure is affected by this requirement.
Monthly inspection/recordkeeping: Weekly or monthly inspections of containment structures are currently
required within 11 of the 19 states with containment regulations. Weighted against the number of liquid bulk
facilities in these regulated states, an estimated 67% of all facilities in regulated states are in compliance. The
number of facilities that will require monthly inspection under the rule is estimated at 62 facilities (189*0.33).
CONTAINMENT PADS, AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS:
Estimated number of facilities with existing containment pads
175
Number of facilities in regulated states
175 (100%)
Independent (for-hire) aerial applicators
134 (77% of 177)
Independent (for-hire) ground applicators
42 (23% of 177)
Seal drain: About 96 percent of containment pads in regulated states meet the standard for no drains. Because all
independent applicator containment pads are assumed to be located in regulated states, only 7 (175*0.04) are
estimated as out of compliance with this requirement.
Add berm: The estimated level of compliance with the requirement to have a minimum capacity of 750 gallon,
achieved by a sump or a berm, is 94 percent. Thus, 11 structures (175*0.06) are estimated as out of compliance.
Repair new cracks: Because all applicators are assumed to be located in regulated states, all are expected to be in
compliance.
Monthly inspection/recordkeeping: See footnote under ‘Stationary Bulk Liquid Containment: Independent
Applicators’ for analytical method used to derive percentage compliance rates. The number of facilities that will
require monthly inspection under the rule is estimated at 57 facilities (175*0.33).

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 178

Appendix H. Representative Facility Costs of Compliance with Secondary
Containment Regulations
Table H.1. Capital Costs of Compliance with Secondary Containment Regulations for
Small-Small, Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large Agricultural Refilling Representative
Facility to Install NEW Secondary Containment of Outdoor Bulk Liquid Pesticides, 2005$ a
$/Facility

Capital Cost

$/Unit

Small-Small
Representative
Facility

Medium-Small
Representative
Facility

Large-Small and
Large Represent.
Facility

OUTDOOR SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, BULK LIQUIDS
Concrete pad
Berm b
Portable pump and hose
Rinsate/precp. storage tank c
Sump
Roof
Pipes and fixtures
Contractor’s fees
Contingency

5.48/sq ft
13.74-21.97/ft
548/each
589-2356/each
959-3013/each
4.79/sq ft
2% of direct costs
30% of direct costs
5% of direct
costs+fees

1,096
850
548
589
959
0
81
1,212
263

2,739
850
548
1,653
1,644
0
149
2,230
483

6,163
1,096
548
2,356
3,013
0
264
3,953
856

TOTAL, Year 3 d
10,300
18,250
5,600
Costs inflated from 1992 to 2005 using the CPI-U “All Items” based adjustment factor of 1.37 (U.S. Department of
Labor, 2005).
b
The cost of the berm for all sizes of facilities will range from $13.74 to $21.97 per foot, depending on the wall
height. The higher the wall, the higher the unit cost.
c
Unit costs for an outdoor rinsate/precipitation storage tank are estimated at $589 (small), $1,653 (medium) to $2,356
(large).
d
All totals have been rounded to the nearest $10. It is assumed that secondary containment structures are completed
by the end of year 3, with the facility in compliance at the beginning of year 4. Capital costs are expected to occur at
the end of year 3.
a

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 179

Table H.2. Operating and Management (Annual) and Intermittent Costs of Compliance
with Containment Regulations for Small-Small, Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large
Agricultural Refilling Representative Facility to Install NEW Secondary Containment of
Outdoor Bulk Liquid Pesticides, 2005$ a
$/Facility
O&M or
Intermittent Cost

$/Unit

Small-Small
Representative
Facility

Medium-Small
Representative
Facility

Large-Small and
Large Represent.
Facility

OUTDOOR SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, BULK LIQUIDS
Operating and management (O&M) costs
Spill cleanup
28/hr
Rinsate/precipitation
28/hr
pumping
Rinsate/precipitation off62-151/trip
site b
Monthly inspection/
28/hr
recordkeeping c
Total O&M, Years 4-20 d

668

950

1,361

39
372

116
373

218
1,056

77

103

128

1,160

1,540

2,760

41
8

96
19

109
22

Intermittent (every 5 years) costs
Repair cracks/gaps/seams
Contractor’s fees +
contingency

2.84/ft
20% intermittent
costs

Total intermittent, Years
50
120
130
8,13, and 18 d
a
Costs inflated from 1992 to 2005 using the CPI-U “All Items” based adjustment factor of 1.37. (U.S. Department of
Labor, 2005).
b
Assumes off-site hauling costs of $62 per trip for a small-small and medium-small facilities and $151 per trip for a
large-small facility.
c
Assumes monthly inspection takes 14 minutes per month in a small-small facility, 18 minutes per month in a
medium-small facility, and 23 minutes per month in a large-small and large facility.
d
Totals have been rounded to nearest $10 in 1992$ and inflated to 2005$ using CPI-U “All Items” therefore the totals
may not add due to rounding and inflation. It is assumed that secondary containment structures are completed by the
end of year 3, with the facility in compliance at the beginning of year 4. Intermittent costs expected to occur every 5
years incurred in years 8, 13, and 18 of the 20-year period of analysis. If, on average, secondary containment
structures have a useful life of 20 years, intermittent costs beyond year 20 will be associated with a replacement
structure.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 180

Table H.3. Capital Costs of Compliance with Containment Regulations for Small-Small,
Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large Agricultural Refilling Representative Facilities to
Install NEW Secondary Containment of Indoor Bulk Liquid Pesticides, 2005$ a
$/Facility

Capital Cost

$/Unit

Small-Small
Representative
Facility

Medium-Small
Representative
Facility

Large-Small and
Large Represent.
Facility

INDOOR SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, BULK LIQUIDS
b

Concrete pad
Berm c
Rinsate/precipitation tank d
Portable pump and hose
Pipes and fixtures
Contractor’s fees
Contingency

---9.53/ft - 17.82/ft
342-1,301/each
411/each
2% of direct costs
25% of direct costs
5% of direct
costs+fees

--876
342
411
33
407
102

--876
589
411
38
469
117

--1,124
1,301
411
57
709
177

TOTAL, Year 3 e
2,170
2,500
3,780
Costs inflated from 1992 to 2005 using the CPI-U “All Items” (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005)
b
No costs are incurred for a concrete pad because it is assumed that all existing indoor tanks are already installed
over a concrete floor.
c
The cost of the berm for all sizes of facilities will range from $9.53 to $17.82 per foot, depending on the berm
height (smaller units have to have a higher berm to contain the required volume). The higher the berm, the higher the
unit cost. For this analysis, the following berm costs were assumed across facilities: $17.82/ft (small-small); $9.53/ft
to $17.82/ft (medium-small); $9.53/ft (large-small, large).
d
Unit costs for an indoor rinsate/precipitation storage tank are estimated at $342 (small-small), $589 (medium-small)
to $1,301 (large-small, large).
e
Totals have been rounded to nearest $10 in 1992$ and inflated to 2005$ using CPI-U “All Items” therefore the totals
may not add due to rounding and inflation. It is assumed that secondary containment structures are completed by the
end of year 3, with the facility in compliance at the beginning of year 4. Capital costs are expected to occur at the
end of year 3.
a

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 181

Table H.4. Operating and Management and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with
Containment Regulations for Small-Small, Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large
Agricultural Refilling Representative Facilities to Install NEW Secondary Containment of
Indoor Bulk Liquid Pesticides, 2005$ a
$/Facility
O&M or
Intermittent Cost

$/Unit

Small-Small
Representative
Facility

Medium-Small
Representative
Facility

Large-Small and
Large Represent.
Facility

INDOOR SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, BULK LIQUIDS
Operating and management (O&M) costs
Spill cleanup
28/hr
Monthly inspection/
28/hr
recordkeeping b

668
77

950
103

1,361
128

Total O&M, Years 4-20 a

740

1,050

1,490

41
8

96
19

110
22

Intermittent (every 5 years) costs
Repair cracks/gaps/seams
2.84/ft
Contractor’s fees +
20% intermittent
contingency
costs

Total intermittent, Years 8, 13, and 18 a
50
120
130
a
All totals have been rounded to the nearest $10. The cost analysis is conducted for a 20-year period, beginning with
the year the regulations become effective. Pesticide bulk storage facilities without secondary containment structures
must have them built by the compliance date, which is at the end of the third year after the effective date of the
regulations. Thus, it is assumed that secondary containment structures are completed by the end of year 3, with the
facility in compliance at the beginning of year 4. Intermittent costs are expected to occur every 5 years after
completion of the structure, i.e., in years 8, 13 and 18 of the 20-year period of analysis.
b
Costs inflated from 1992 to 2005 using the CPI-U “All Items” (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005).

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 182

Table H.5. Capital Costs of Compliance with Containment Regulations for Small-Small,
Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large Agricultural Refilling Representative Facility to
Install NEW Secondary Containment of Stationary Dry Bulk Storage, 2005$ a
Storage of Dry Bulk
Pesticide ($/Facility)

Capital Costs
Unit Cost

One Dry Bulk
Container

SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, BULK SOLIDS:
Additional concrete pad (floor) b
6-inch berm
Grout
Rinsate/precipitation tank c
Reinforcement bars
Contractor’s fees
Contingency

5.48/ft
13.74/ft
1.24/ft
589/each
3.02/ft
30% of direct
costs
5% of direct
costs + fees

1,096
1,630
151
589
370
1,150
249

TOTAL, Year 3 d
5,230
a
Costs inflated from 1992 to 2005 using the CPI-U “All Items” (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005).
b
Assumes that there is a concrete pad under every stationary dry bulk container, and that the pad is extended
outwards as necessary.
c
A medium-sized rinsate/precipitation storage tank is assumed.
d
All totals have been rounded to the nearest $10. It is assumed that secondary containment structures are completed
by the end of year 3, with the facility in compliance at the beginning of year 4. Capital costs are expected to occur at
the end of year 3.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 183

Table H.6. Operating and Management (Annual) and Intermittent Costs of Compliance
with Containment Regulations for Small-Small, Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large
Agricultural Refilling Representative Facilities to Install NEW Secondary Containment of
Stationary Dry Bulk Pesticide Storage, 2005$ a
Storage of Dry Bulk Pesticide ($/Facility)
O&M or Intermittent Costs

$/Unit

One Dry Bulk Container

SECONDARY CONTAINMENT,
BULK SOLIDS:
Operating and management
(O&M) costs
Spill cleanup
Rinsate/precipitation pumping b
Monthly inspection/recordkeeping

28/hr
28/hr
28/hr

Total O&M, Years 4-20

668
103
77
850

Intermittent (every 5 years)
costs
Repair cracks/gaps/seams
Contractor’s fees and contingency

2.84/ft
20% of
intermittent costs

Total intermittent, Years 8, 13 and 18 c
a

82
16
100

Costs inflated from 1992 to 2005 using the CPI-U “All Items” (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005).
All collected rinsate/precipitation is assumed stored in minibulks or a storage container until it can be used as makeup water.
c
All totals have been rounded to the nearest $10. The cost analysis is conducted for a 20-year period, beginning with
the year the regulations become effective. Pesticide bulk storage facilities without secondary containment structures
must have them built by the compliance date, which is at the end of the third year after the effective date of the
regulations. Thus, it is assumed that secondary containment structures are completed by the end of year 3, with the
facility in compliance at the beginning of year 4. Intermittent costs are expected to occur every 5 years after
completion of the structure, i.e., in years 8, 13 and 18 of the 20-year period of analysis.

b

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 184

Table H.7. Capital Costs of Compliance with Containment Regulations for Small-Small,
Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large Agricultural Refilling Representative Facility to
Install NEW Outdoor Containment Units and Pads, 2005$ (Scenarios 1 & 2) a
All Affected Facilities, Outdoor Storage b
($/Facility)
Capital Cost

$/Unit

Small Pad
(15’ x 30’)

Medium Pad
(25’ x 50’)

Large Pad
(60’ x 50’)

OUTDOOR CONTAINMENT PADS
Scenario 1: Facilities requiring both secondary containment and a containment pad for compliance
Concrete pad
Berm
Sump
Rinsate/precipitation
storage tank c,d
Contractor’s fees
Contingency

5.48/sq ft
2.74/ft, forms
1.78/sq ft, concrete
1.24/ft, grout
274-411 each
589-2,356/each

2,876
548

8,902
822

20,955
1,233

274
589

411
1,657

411
2,356

30% of direct costs
5% of direct
costs+fees

1,286
279

3,538
767

7,486
1,622

5,850

16,100

34,060

Total, Scenario 1, Year 3 e

Scenario 2: Facilities requiring only a containment pad for compliance
Concrete pad
Berm
Sump
Rinsate/precipitation
storage tank c,d
Portable pump and hose
Contractor’s fees
Contingency

5.48/sq ft
2.74/ft, forms
1.78/sq ft, concrete
1.24/ft, grout
274-410 each
589-2,356/each

2,876
548

9,972
822

20,955
1,233

274
589

411
1,657

411
2,356

548/each
30% of direct costs
5% of direct
costs+fees

548
1,450
314

548
4,023
872

548
7,651
1,658

Total, Scenario 2, Year 3 e
6,600
18,310
34,810
a
Costs inflated from 1992 to 2005 using the CPI-U “All Items” (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005).
b
All agricultural refiller outdoor facilities needing a containment pad will incur costs for either the small or the
medium pad, whichever is appropriate. All commercial aerial applicators will incur costs for the large pad. The size
of the representative facility, i.e., small, medium or large, does not affect the cost of the pad. Rather, the operational
activities associated with a given facility determine whether a small, medium, or large pad is needed.
c
Costs for a portable pump and hose are not included under this scenario to avoid double-counting. It is assumed the
same pump can be used for both secondary containment structures and containment pads, and costs for the pump are
included in the capital cost tables for secondary containment structures. For this reason, costs under Scenario 1 are
less than that estimated for Scenario 2.
d
This analysis assumes that rinsate/precipitation storage tank size (volume) will vary by containment pad size, i.e.,
small pads will require smaller storage tanks ($589), medium pads will require medium tanks ($1,657), and large
pads will require larger tanks ($2,356). The costs may apply to single, large tanks as shown, or to multiple smaller
tanks.
e
All totals have been rounded to the nearest $10. It is assumed that secondary containment structures are completed
by the end of year 3, with the facility in compliance at the beginning of year 4. Capital costs are expected to occur at
the end of year 3.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 185

Table H.8. Capital Costs of Compliance with Containment Regulations for Small-Small,
Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large Agricultural Refilling Representative Facility to
Install NEW Containment Pads, 2005$ a
$/Facility
Capital Cost

$/Unit

Small Pad
(15’ x 30’)

Medium Pad
(25’ x 50’)

Large Pad
(60’ x 50’)

INDOOR CONTAINMENT PADS
Scenario 1: Use existing concrete floor as base for new pad
Berm

3.38/sq ft, rough
up concrete
2.74/ft, forms
2.53-419/sq ft,
concrete
1.24/ft, grout
3.02/ft, #4
reinforcing bars

Rinsate storage tank b
Concrete ramp

342-1,301/each
1.26/sq ft, rough
up concrete
0.71/sq ft, bonding
agent
268/cu yd,
concrete
30% of direct costs
5% of direct
costs+fees

Contractor’s fees
Contingency
Total, Scenario 1, Year 3 c

4,000

12,174

28,899

342
685

589
959

1,301
6,848

1,508
327

4,117
892

11,114
2,408

6,860

18,730

50,570

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 186

Table H.8. Capital Costs of Compliance with Containment Regulations for Small-Small,
Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large Agricultural Refilling Representative Facility to
Install NEW Containment Pads, 2005$ a (Continued)
$/Facility
Capital Cost

$/Unit

Small Pad
(15’ x 30’)

Medium Pad
(25’ x 50’)

Large Pad
(60’ x 50’)

Scenario 2: Demolish existing concrete floor; construct sloped pad
New concrete, allow for
sloping
Demolish and dispose
existing concrete

Concrete pad

Sump (includes coating)
Rinsate storage tank b
Contractor’s fees

Contingency

1.26/sq ft, rough
up concrete
0.71/sq ft, bonding
agent
268/cu yd,
concrete
342/ea.,
mob/demob
equipment
5.66/sq ft,
demolition
4.10/cu yd, loading
54.24/ton,
transport and
dispose
5.48/sq ft

5,684

16,558

37,732

411/each
342-1301/each 2/
30% of direct
costs,
excluding transport
and disposal
5% of direct
costs+fees

411
342
1,931

411
589
5,267

411
1,301
11,833

418

1,141

2,564

Total, Scenario 2, Year 3 c
8,790
23,970
53,840
Costs inflated from 1992 to 2005 using the CPI-U “All Items” based adjustment factor of 1.37. (U.S. Department of
Labor, 2005).
b
This analysis assumes that rinsate/precipitation storage tank size (volume) will vary by containment pad size, i.e.,
small pads will require smaller storage tanks ($342), medium pads will require medium tanks ($589), and large pads
will require larger tanks ($1301). The costs may apply to single, large tanks as shown, or to multiple smaller tanks.
c
All totals have been rounded to the nearest $10. It is assumed that secondary containment structures are completed
by the end of year three, with the facility in compliance at the beginning of year four. Capital costs are expected to
occur at the end of year three.
a

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 187

Table H.9. Operating and Management (Annual) and Intermittent Costs of Compliance
with Containment Regulation for Small-Small, Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large
Agricultural Refilling Representative Facility to Install NEW Containment Pad Regulations
for Indoor and Outdoor Storage Facilities, 2005$ a
$/Facility
O&M or Intermittent
Cost

$/Unit

Small Pad
(15’ x 30’)

Medium Pad
(25’ x 50’)

Large Pad
(60’ x 50’)

OUTDOOR CONTAINMENT PADS
Operating and management (O&M) costs
Spill cleanup
Rinsate/precipitation
pumping
Rinsate/precipitation offsite
Monthly
inspection/recordkeeping

28/hr
28/hr

668
154

1,027
154

1,361
591

150.1/trip

265

905

3,017

28/hr

103

128

128

1,190

2,210

34
7

41
8

55
11

40

50

70

Total O&M, Years 4–20
Intermittent (every 5 years) costs
Repair cracks/gaps/seams
Contractor’s fees and
contingency

5,100

b

2.84/ft
20% of
intermittent costs

Total Intermittent, Years 8, 13, and 18

INDOOR CONTAINMENT PADS
Operating and management (O&M) costs
Spill cleanup
28/hr
Monthly
28/hr
inspection/recordkeeping

668
77

1,027
77

1,361
128

Total O&M, Years 4–20

740

1,100

1,490

34
7

41
8

55
11

Intermittent (every 5 years) costs
Repair cracks/gaps/seams
Contractor’s fees and
contingency

b

2.74/ft
20% of
intermittent costs

Total Intermittent, Years 8, 13, and 18
40
50
70
Costs inflated from 1992 to 2005 using the CPI-U “All Items”. (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005).
b
Given that new structures must be in place within 3 years of the effective date of the regulations (by the end of year
3), intermittent repairs are assumed to be needed in years 8, 13, and 18 of the 20-year period of analysis. All totals
have been rounded to the nearest $10.
a

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 188

Table H.10. Capital, O&M, and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with Containment
Regulations for Small-Small, Medium-Small, and Large-Small Commercial Aerial and
Ground Applicator Facility to Install NEW Outdoor Secondary Containment Structures,
2005$ a,b
All Affected Facilities ($)
Representative Aerial
Applicator Facility Size

Total Bulk
Storage Capacity
(Gal.)

Capital costs for
secondary
containment c

O&M costs for
secondary
containment c

Intermittent costs for
secondary
containment c

Commercial Aerial Applicatorsd
Small-Small

1,500

5600

1160

50

Medium-Small

4,000

10300

1550

120

10,000

18250

2790

130

Large-Small
Commercial Ground Applicatorse
Small-Small
na

na

na

na

Medium-Small

na

na

na

na

Large-Small
10,000
10,300
1550
120
Costs inflated from 1992 to 2005 using the CPI-U “All Items” (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005).
b
Independent commercial (for-hire) aerial and ground applicators. All bulk storage facilities are assumed outdoors,
and no facilities are expected to store bulk quantities of dry pesticides (i.e., no known containers with a capacity
greater than 2 metric tons).
c
The cost analysis is conducted for a 20-year period, beginning with the year the regulations become effective.
Pesticide bulk storage facilities without secondary containment structures must have them built by the compliance
date, which is at the end of the third year after the effective date of the regulations. Thus, it is assumed that
secondary containment structures are completed by the end of year 3, with the facility in compliance at the beginning
of year 4. Capital costs therefore are incurred at the end of year 3 and operating and maintenance costs are incurred
in years 4-20. Intermittent costs are expected to occur every 5 years after completion of the structure (i.e., in years 8,
13, and 18 of the 20-year period of analysis).
d
For lack of better information, small-small, medium-small, and large-small representative aerial applicator facilities
are assumed to have the same secondary containment costs as the small-small, medium-small, and large-small
representative agricultural refillers. See Tables H.1 and H.2.
e
It is assumed that only large-small commercial ground applicator businesses will be affected by the rule. For lack of
better information, large ground applicators are assumed to incur the same level of costs as medium-sized agricultural
refillers. See Tables H.1 and H.2.
a

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 189

Table H.11. Capital, Initial, O&M and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with Containment Regulations by Representative
Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Aerial and Ground Applicators to Retrofit EXISTING Secondary
Containment Structures, 2005$ a
Agricultural refillers (refilling
establishments)
Costs of compliance
by facility size (in $)

Critical standards retrofitting cost element for
existing secondary containment structures
Secondary containment for
stationary bulk liquid containers f
1. Seal floor drain/discharge outlet
Labor
Grout
Portable pump and hose
Contractor's fees

Type of cost b
Initial (Year 3)

54.78/hr
11.41/cu ft
548/each
15% of direct costs
5% of direct costs
and fees

Contingency
Total d

2. Repair all cracks/gaps/seams
Rout crack(s); clean, grout & tamper
Contractor's fees
Contingency
Total d
3. Monthly inspection/records of inspection and
maintenance e

Unit cost ($/unit)

Commercial (for-hire)
applicators
Costs of compliance
by facility size (in $)
Number
Number of
Largeof
Facilities Small- Medium- Small, Facilities Small- Medium- LargeAffected c Small Small Large Affected Small Small Small

55
11
548
92

55
11
548
92

55
11
548
92

35
740

35
740

35
740

34
5

93
14

113
17

295

2
40

5
110

7
140

1,602

30

30

30

333

55
11
548
92

55
11
548
92

55
11
548
92

35
740

35
740

35
740

34
5

93
14

113
17

0

2
40

5
110

7
140

62

30

30

30

8

Initial and
intermittent
(Years 3, 8, 13,
and 18)
2.84/ft
15% of direct costs
5% of direct costs
and fees
O&M
(Years 4-20) 28/hr

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 190

Table H.11. Capital, Initial, O&M and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with Containment Regulations by Representative
Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Aerial and Ground Applicators to Retrofit EXISTING Secondary
Containment Structures, 2005$ a (Continued)
Agricultural refillers (refilling
establishments)
Costs of compliance
by facility size (in $)

Critical standards retrofitting cost element for
existing secondary containment structures
Secondary containment for
stationary dry bulk containers f

1. Repair all cracks/gaps/seams (one container)
Rout crack(s); clean, grout & tamper
Contractor's fees
Contingency
Total d

Type of cost b

Unit cost ($/unit)

Commercial (for-hire)
applicators
Costs of compliance
by facility size (in $)
Number
Number of
Largeof
Facilities Small- Medium- Small, Facilities Small- Medium- LargeAffected c Small Small Large Affected Small Small Small

Initial and
intermittent
(Years 3, 8, 13,
and 18)
2.84/ft
15% of direct costs
5% of direct costs
and fees
15

-------

83
13

83
13

-------

5
100

5
100

0

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------

O&M
2. Monthly inspection/records of inspection and
(Years 4-20) 24/hr
------------maintenance e
70
30
30
0
a
Costs inflated from 1992 to 2005 using the CPI-U “All Items” (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005).
b
Initial costs will be incurred during Year 3 in order to be in compliance with the critical standards by the beginning of Year 4 (the first year the critical standards are
effective for existing facilities). O&M costs will be incurred each year of the Year 4-Year 20 period in this analysis. Intermittent costs are incurred once every 5 years.
c
See Table G.4
d
All totals have been rounded to the nearest $10.
e
Assumes one hour for monthly inspection and recordkeeping. Rounded up to nearest $10.
f
Only Medium-Small, Large-Small and Large agricultural refillers are assumed to have bulk dry containers.

7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 191

Table H.12. Capital, Initial, O&M and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with
Containment Regulations by Representative Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and
Commercial Aerial and Ground Applicators to Retrofit EXISTING Containment Pads,
2005$ f

Critical Standards
Retrofitting Cost
Element For
Containment Pads
1. Seal drain
Labor
Grout
Contractor's fees
Contingency
Total
2. Add sump
Cut concrete for sump
Demolish concrete - sump
area
Sump construction:
Excavation
Gravel
Reinforced concrete
Steel edge (frame)
Grate
Additional berm:
Rough concrete/bond
agent
Concrete forms
Reinforcement bars
Concrete forms
Grout
Contractor's fees
Contingency
Total
3. Repair
cracks/gaps/seams
Rout crack(s); clean, grout
Contractor's fees

Estimated
Number of
Facilities
Affected
Agchem
refillers Indep.
a
Apps a
263
7

Type of Cost b
Initial (Year 3) d

Cost by Size of Containment
Pad ($) c
Small Medium Large
Pad
Pad
Pad
Unit Cost ($/Unit) (15'x30') (25'x50') (60'x50')
54.78/hr
11.41/cu ft
15% direct costs
5% of direct costs
and fees

343

185

11

0

57

55
11
10

55
11
10

4
80

4
80

4
80

4.95/ft

70

79

79

5.66/sq ft

68

90

90

5.14/cu yd
15.28/cu yd
268/cu yd
11.58/ft
6.76/sq ft

5
14
128
70
15

9
16
163
93
28

10
18
193
93
28

4.10/sq ft
2.74/ft
3.02/ft
1.78-3.02/sq ft
1.24/ft
30% direct costs
5% of direct costs
and fees

352
235

582
389

153
103
364

254
177
564

885
592
663
653
264
1,070

79
1,660

122
2,560

232
4,870

29
4

48
7

56
8

2
30

3
60

3
70

30

30

30

Capital (Year 3) d

Initial and
intermittent (Years
3, 8, 13 and 18) d

Contingency
Total
4. Monthly inspection/
Records of inspection
and maintenance e
1445

55
11
10

2.84/ft
15% direct costs
5% of direct costs
and fees

O&M (Years 4-20) d

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 192

28/hr

Table H.12. Capital, Initial, O&M and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with Containment
Regulations by Representative Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Aerial
and Ground Applicators to Retrofit EXISTING Containment Pads, 2005$ f (Continued)
a

See Table 3.2.
Initial costs will be incurred during Year 3 in order for containment pads to be in compliance with the critical standards
by the beginning of Year 4 (the first year the full standards are effective for existing facilities). Capital costs will also be
incurred in Year 3 to allow for compliance by Year 4. Intermittent costs will occur every 5 years. O&M costs will occur
each year of the full standards period.
c
Existing containment pads vary widely in size. For purposes of analysis, three general sizes are assumed. The two pads
sized 15'x30' and 25'x50' are representative of pads used by agricultural refillers (refilling establishments). The pad sized
60'x50' is appropriate for aerial applicators.
d
The cost analysis is conducted for a 20-year period, beginning with the year the regulations become effective. Pesticide
bulk storage facilities with existing secondary containment structures must have them brought into compliance by the
compliance date, which is at the end of the third year after the effective date of the regulations. Thus, it is assumed that
existing containment structures are modified by the end of Year 3, with the facility in compliance at the beginning of Year
4. Capital costs therefore are incurred at the end of year 3 and operating and maintenance costs are incurred in years 4-20.
Intermittent costs are expected to occur every 5 years after modification of the structure, i.e., in Years 8, 13 and 18 of the
20-year period of analysis.
e
Assumes one hour a year to walk to containment pad and back, conduct a visual inspection, and make necessary entries in
log.
f
Costs inflated from 1992 to 2005 using the CPI-U “All Items” (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005). All totals are rounded
up to the nearest $10.
b

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 193

Table H.13. Capital, Initial, O&M and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with Containment Regulations by Representative
Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Aerial and Ground Applicators to Retrofit EXISTING Liquid Bulk
Containers, 2005$ e
Full Standards Retrofitting Cost Element
for Bulk Containers in Existing Secondary
Containment Structures
Bulk Liquid Containers, Plastic
1. Anchor containers
Move container, labor for drilling in anchors,
alter plumbing
Contractor's fees

Potential Number of Facilities
Affected a
Agchem
Commercial
refillers
applicators
174

Type of
cost

Initial
2 (Year 3) d
479/container
15% direct costs
5% of direct costs
and fees

Contingency
Total b
2. Monthly inspection/records of inspection
and maintenance
Bulk Liquid Containers, Steel
1. Anchor containers
Move tank, labor for drilling in anchors, alter
plumbing
Contractor's fees
Contingency
Total b

Unit Cost ($/Unit)

Incremental Costs of Compliance
by Capacity of Affected Bulk
Containers ($) b
Small- Medium LargeSmall -Small Small Large

3,725

O&M
(Years 438
20) d

194

Initial
2 (Year 3) d

479
72

479
72

479
72

479
72

28
580

28
580

28
580

28
580

28/hr

30

30

30

30

479/container
15% direct costs
5% of direct costs
and fees

479
72

479
72

479
72

479
72

28
580

28
580

28
580

28
580

O&M
(Years 42. Monthly inspection/records of
401
4
28/hr
20) d
30
30
30
30
inspection and maintenance c
a
See Table 3.2. The number of containers is based on the assumption of the number of containers, by type, and the assumption on the percentage of containers in
compliance with specific aspects of the regulation in the proposed RIA (EPA, 1993a).
b
All totals have been rounded to the nearest $10.
c
Costs included in this line item allow 5 minutes per container per month to visually inspect the container and make necessary entries in a log. Facilities with
more than one bulk container will incur multiples of this cost. Rounded to nearest $10.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 194

Table H.13. Capital, Initial, O&M and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with Containment Regulations by Representative
Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Aerial and Ground Applicators to Retrofit EXISTING Liquid Bulk
Containers, 2005$ e
d

The cost analysis is conducted for a 20-year period, beginning with the year the regulations become effective. Pesticide bulk storage facilities with existing
secondary containment structures must have them brought into compliance by the compliance date, which is at the end of the third year after the effective date of
the regulations. Thus, it is assumed that existing containment structures are modified by the end of Year 3, with the facility in compliance at the beginning of
Year 4. Capital costs therefore are incurred at the end of year 3 and operating and maintenance costs are incurred in years 4-20. Intermittent costs are expected
to occur every 5 years after modification of the structure, i.e., in Years 8, 13 and 18 of the 20-year period of analysis.
e
Costs inflated from 1992 to 2005 using the CPI-U “All Items” (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005).

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 195

Appendix I. Facility Annualized Costs as a Share of Annual Revenue
Table I.1. Total Facility Annualized Costs as a Share of Annual Revenue to Install New
Secondary Containment Units and Containment Pads, Agricultural Refillers and
Commercial Applicators (2005$), 3% Discount Rate
Facility-Level
Annualized Costs
Impacted
facilities a
($/facility)
AGRICULTURAL REFILLER b
Outdoor Liquid Bulk Storage
(A) Both secondary containment and pad
Small c
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large
(B) Containment pad only
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large
Outdoor Dry Bulk Storage
(A) Both secondary containment and pad
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large
Indoor Liquid Bulk Storage
(A) Both secondary containment and pad
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large
(B) Containment pad only
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large
Nonbulk Activities
(A) Containment pad only
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large

Annual CostRevenue Ratio
(%)

321
270
46
5
3

2,680
2,544
3,133
5,983
5,983

0.14
0.34
0.05
0.03
0.003

238
200
34
4
2

1,358
1,335
1,335
2,838
2,838

0.07
0.18
0.02
0.01
0.002

23
0
17
6
6

4,858
n/a
4,483
5,983
5,983

0.05
na
0.07
0.03
0.003

138
116
20
2
1

1,780
1,715
1,988
3,405
3,405

0.10
0.23
0.03
0.02
0.002

102
86
15
2
1

1,130
1,112
1,112
2,303
2,303

0.06
0.15
0.02
0.01
0.001

561
561
n/a
n/a
n/a

1,335
1,335
na
na
na

0.18
0.18
na
na
na

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 196

Table I.1. Total Facility Annualized Costs as a Share of Annual Revenue to Install New
Secondary Containment Units and Containment Pads, Agricultural Refillers and
Commercial Applicators (2005$), 3% Discount Rate (Continued)
Facility-Level
Impacted
Annualized Costs
($/facility)
facilities
d
COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS

Annual CostRevenue Ratio
(%)

Outdoor Liquid Bulk Storage
(A) Both secondary containment and pad
Small
16
7,743
2.72
Small-Small
6
7,307
7.77
Medium-Small
9
7,903
2.11
Large-Small e
1 (5)
9,375 (4,567)
1.25 (0.61)
(B) Containment pad only
Small
10
6,098
1.25
Small-Small
n/a
na
na
Medium-Small
7
6,098
1.63
Large-Small e
3 (3)
6,106 (2,840)
0.81 (0.38)
a
Impacted facilities taken from Table G.4.
b
Small facility ($1.8 million annual revenue); small-small representative facility ($800,000 annual revenue);
medium-small representative facility ($6.7 million annual revenue); large-small representative facility ($22.7 million
annual revenue); large representative facility ($191.6 million annual revenue). See Table 3.3.
c
The small size category is comprised of small-small, medium-small, and large-small facilities. Total impacted
facilities are the sum of the facilities in each size sub-category. The facility-level annualized cost for small facilities
is the average of costs for each size sub-category, weighted by the number of facilities in each size sub-category.
The revenue used to calculate the small annual cost--revenue ratio is the average of facility revenue for each size
sub-category, again weighted by the number of facilities in each size sub-category.
d
Small facility ($280,000 annual revenue); small-small representative facility ($100,580 annual revenue); mediumsmall representative facility ($401,250 annual revenue); large-small representative facility ($802,500 annual
revenue). See Table 3.5.
e
Impact estimates for large ground operators shown in parentheses. The financial profile of a large-small ground
applicator is assumed to be similar to that of a medium-small aerial applicator.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 197

Table I.2. Total Facility Annualized Costs as a Share of Annual Revenue to Install New
Secondary Containment Units and Containment Pads, Agricultural Refillers and
Commercial Applicators (2005$), 7% Discount Rate
Facility-Level
Annualized Costs
($/facility)
AGRICULTURAL REFILLER b
Impacted facilities a

Outdoor Liquid Bulk Storage
(A) Both secondary containment and pad
c
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large
(B) Containment pad only
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large
Outdoor Dry Bulk Storage
(A) Both secondary containment and pad
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large
Indoor Liquid Bulk Storage
(A) Both secondary containment and pad
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large
(B) Containment pad only
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large
Nonbulk Activities
(A) Containment pad only
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large

Annual CostRevenue Ratio
(%)

321
270
46
5
3

2,628
2,487
3,101
5,988
5,988

0.14
0.33
0.05
0.03
0.003

238
200
34
4
2

1,340
1,316
1,316
2,878
2,878

0.07
0.18
0.02
0.01
0.002

23
n/a
17
6
6

4,826
n/a
4,439
5,988
5,988

0.05
n/a
0.07
0.03
0.003

138
116
20
2
1

1,763
1,701
1,951
3,462
3,462

0.10
0.23
0.03
0.02
0.002

102
86
15
2
1

1,178
1,158
1,158
2,505
2,505

0.06
0.15
0.02
0.01
0.001

561
561
n/a
n/a
n/a

1,316
1,316
na
na
na

0.18
0.18
na
na
na

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 198

Table I.2. Total Facility Annualized Costs as a Share of Annual Revenue to Install New
Secondary Containment Units and Containment Pads, Agricultural Refillers and
Commercial Applicators (2005$), 7% Discount Rate (Continued)
Facility-Level
Annualized Costs
($/facility)
d
COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS
Impacted facilities

Annual CostRevenue Ratio
(%)

Outdoor Liquid Bulk Storage
(A) Both secondary containment and pad
Small
16
7,717
2.72
Small-Small
6
7,271
7.73
Medium-Small
9
7,884
2.10
e
Large-Small
1 (5)
9,358 (4,557)
1.25 (0.61)
(B) Containment pad only
Small
10
6,100
1.25
Small-Small
n/a
na
na
Medium-Small
7
6,100
1.63
e
Large-Small
3 (3)
6,107 (2,880)
0.81 (0.38)
a
Impacted facilities taken from Table G.4.
b
Small facility ($1.8 million annual revenue); small-small representative facility ($800,000 annual revenue);
medium-small representative facility ($6.7 million annual revenue); large-small representative facility ($22.7 million
annual revenue); large representative facility ($191.6 million annual revenue). See Table 3.3.
c
The Small size category is comprised of small-small, medium-small, and large-small facilities. Total impacted
facilities are the sum of the facilities in each size sub-category. The facility-level annualized cost for small facilities
is the average of costs for each size sub-category, weighted by the number of facilities in each size sub-category.
The revenue used to calculate the small annual cost-revenue ratio is the average of facility revenue for each size subcategory, again weighted by the number of facilities in each size sub-category.
d
Small facility ($280,000 annual revenue); small-small representative facility ($100,580 annual revenue); mediumsmall representative facility ($401,250 annual revenue); large-small representative facility ($802,500 annual
revenue). See Table 3.5.
e
Impact estimates for large ground operators shown in parentheses. The financial profile of a large-small ground
applicator is assumed to be similar to that of a medium-small aerial applicator.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 199

Table I.3. Total Facility Annualized Costs as a Share of Annual Revenue to Retrofit
Existing Secondary Containment Units and Containment Pads, Agricultural Refillers and
Commercial Applicators (2005$), 3% Discount Rate
a

Maximum
Facility-Level
Annualized
Capital
Initial
O&M Intermittent
Costs
b
($/facility)
c
AGRICULTURAL REFILLER
Impacted facilities by Cost Type:

Bulk Liquid Storage
d
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large
Bulk Dry Storage
Small
Small-Small
n/a
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large
Containment Pads
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large
Bulk Liquid Container
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large
e
Aggregate Facility Impacts
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large

0
0
0
0
0

330
277
47
5
3

0

1588
1335
228
24
15

0
n/a

66
n/a

n/a

0
0
0

0
0
0

60
6
4

339
285
49
5
3

260
219
37
4
2

1432
1204
206
22
13

0
0
0
0
0

365
307
53
6
4

4089
3439
588
62
38

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS
Bulk Liquid Storage
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small

0
0
0
0

8
3
4
0

62
24
35
3

292
246
42
4
3

74
73
83
87
87

14

37

n/a
13 n/a
1
1

Annual
CostRevenue
Ratio (%)

0.004
0.010
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
n/a

37
37

0.001
0.0002
0.00002

183
154
26
3
2

142
132
189
329
329

0.008
0.018
0.003
0.002
0.0002

0
0
0
0
0

58
58
58
58
58

0.003
0.008
0.001
0.0003
0.00003

279
263
367
510
510

0.015
0.035
0.006
0.002
0.0003

79
73
83
87

0.03
0.08
0.02
0.01

f

0
0
0
0

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 200

Table I.3. Total Facility Annualized Costs as a Share of Annual Revenue to Retrofit
Existing Secondary Containment Units and Containment Pads, Agricultural Refillers and
Commercial Applicators (2005$), 3% Discount Rate (Continued)
Maximum
Facility-Level
Annualized
O&M Intermittent
Costs
($/facility)

Impacted facilities by Cost Type:
Capital

Initial

Annual
CostRevenue
Ratio (%)

Containment Pads
Small
11
7
57
0
174
0.06
Small-Small
4
3
22
0
132
0.14
Medium-Small
6
4
32
0
189
0.05
Large-Small
1
0
3
0
329
0.04
Bulk Liquid Container
Small
0
4
42
0
58
0.02
Small-Small
0
2
17
0
58
0.06
Medium-Small
0
2
24
0
58
0.02
Large-Small
0
0
2
0
58
0.01
Aggregate Facility Impacts
Small
311
0.11
Small-Small
263
0.28
Medium-Small
330
0.09
Large-Small
473
0.06
a
Impacted facilities taken from Table G.4. Facilities may only be subject to portions of a particular standard for
existing containment structures, therefore we present the number of facilities subject to each type of cost facilities
will incur to come into compliance with a standard. For example, 4% of facilities in regulated states and 50% of
facilities in unregulated states are expected to add a berm. These facilities will have to incur the initial costs while
others will not. Note that a particular facility may be counted more than once in each of the four compliance cost
categories (capital, initial, O&M, and intermittent).
b
We present the maximum compliance cost any facility in a particular size category may face (the sum, if
applicable, of capital, initial, O&M, and intermittent costs). This is an overestimate of costs the average facility will
face when coming into compliance with a standard, since many facilities will only incur costs associated with
portions of a standard.
c
Small facility ($1.8 million annual revenue); Small-Small representative facility ($800,000 annual revenue);
Medium-Small representative facility ($6.7 million annual revenue); Large-Small representative facility ($22.7
million annual revenue); Large representative facility ($191.6 million annual revenue). See Table 3.3.
d
The Small size category is comprised of Small-Small, Medium-Small, and Large-Small facilities. Total impacted
facilities are the sum of the facilities in each size sub-category. The facility-level annualized cost for Small facilities
is the average of costs for each size sub-category, weighted by the industry-wide percentage of facilities in each size
sub-category. The revenue used to calculate the Small annual cost-revenue ratio is the average of facility revenue
for each size sub-category, again weighted by the industry-wide percentage of facilities in each size sub-category.
e
Due to the way we estimate the number of facilities that are subject to the existing containment standards (see
Table G.4), we are unable to estimate the extent to which each impacted facility will incur multiple compliance costs
(capital, initial, O&M, and intermittent) associated with a particular standard. We therefore do not present the total
number of aggregated facilities impacted by the standards for existing containment structures.
f
Small facility ($280,000 annual revenue); Small-Small representative facility ($100,580 annual revenue);
Medium-Small representative facility ($401,250 annual revenue); Large-Small representative facility ($802,500
annual revenue). See Table 3.5.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 201

Table I.4. Total Facility Annualized Costs as a Share of Annual Revenue to Retrofit
Existing Secondary Containment Units and Containment Pads, Agricultural Refillers and
Commercial Applicators (2005$), 7% Discount Rate
Impacted facilities by Cost Type: a
Capital

Initial

Maximum
Annual CostFacility-Level
Annualized Costs Revenue Ratio
(%)
($/facility) b

Intermittent

O&M

AGRICULTURAL REFILLER c
Bulk Liquid Storage
Small d
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large
Bulk Dry Storage
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large
Containment Pads
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large
Bulk Liquid Container
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large
Aggregate Facility Impacts e
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Large

0
0
0
0
0

330
277
47
5
3

1,588
1,335
228
24
15

292
246
42
4
3

80
79
87
90
90

0.004
0.011
0.001
0.000
0.000

0
n/a
0
0
0

0
n/a
0
0
0

66
n/a
60
6
4

14
n/a
13
1
1

32
n/a
32
32
32

0.000
n/a
0.001
0.0002
0.00002

339
285
49
5
3

260
219
37
4
2

1,432
1,204
206
22
13

183
154
26
3
2

162
150
218
386
386

0.009
0.020
0.003
0.002
0.0002

0
0
0
0
0

365
307
53
6
3

4,089
3,439
588
62
38

0
0
0
0
0

62
63
63
63
63

0.003
0.008
0.001
0.0003
0.00004

309
292
400
571
571

0.017
0.039
0.006
0.003
0.0003

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS f
Bulk Liquid Storage
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small
Containment Pads
Small
Small-Small
Medium-Small
Large-Small

0
0
0
0

8
3
4
0

62
24
35
3

0
0
0
0

84
79
87
90

0.03
0.08
0.02
0.01

11
4
6
1

7
3
4
0

57
22
32
3

0
0
0
0

200
150
218
386

0.07
0.16
0.06
0.05

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 202

Table I.4. Total Facility Annualized Costs as a Share of Annual Revenue to Retrofit
Existing Secondary Containment Units and Containment Pads, Agricultural Refillers and
Commercial Applicators (2005$), 7% Discount Rate (Continued)
Impacted facilities by Cost Type:
Capital

Initial

O&M

Intermittent

Maximum
Annual CostFacility-Level
Annualized Costs Revenue Ratio
(%)
($/facility)

Bulk Liquid Container
Small
0
4
42
0
63
Small-Small
0
2
17
0
63
Medium-Small
0
2
24
0
63
Large-Small
0
0
2
0
63
Aggregate Facility Impacts
Small
347
Small-Small
292
Medium-Small
368
Large-Small
539
a
Impacted facilities taken from Table G.4. Facilities may only be subject to portions of a particular standard for
existing containment structures, therefore we present the number of facilities subject to each type of cost facilities
will incur to come into compliance with a standard. For example, 4% of facilities in regulated states and 50% of
facilities in unregulated states are expected to add a berm. These facilities will have to incur the initial costs while
others will not. Note that a particular facility may be counted more than once in each of the four compliance cost
categories (capital, initial, O&M, and intermittent).
b
We present the maximum compliance cost any facility in a particular size category may face (the sum, if
applicable, of capital, initial, O&M, and intermittent costs). This is an overestimate of costs the average facility will
face when coming into compliance with a standard, since many facilities will only incur costs associated with
portions of a standard.
c
Small facility ($1.8 million annual revenue); Small-Small representative facility ($800,000 annual revenue);
Medium-Small representative facility ($6.7 million annual revenue); Large-Small representative facility ($22.7
million annual revenue); Large representative facility ($191.6 million annual revenue). See Table 3.3.
d
The Small size category is comprised of Small-Small, Medium-Small, and Large-Small facilities. Total impacted
facilities are the sum of the facilities in each size sub-category. The facility-level annualized cost for Small facilities
is the average of costs for each size sub-category, weighted by the industry-wide percentage of facilities in each size
sub-category. The revenue used to calculate the Small annual cost-revenue ratio is the average of facility revenue
for each size sub-category, again weighted by the industry-wide percentage of facilities in each size sub-category.
e
Due to the way we estimate the number of facilities that are subject to the existing containment standards (see
Table G.4), we are unable to estimate the extent to which each impacted facility will incur multiple compliance costs
(capital, initial, O&M, and intermittent) associated with a particular standard. We therefore do not present the total
number of aggregated facilities impacted by the standards for existing containment structures.
f
Small facility ($280,000 annual revenue); Small-Small representative facility ($100,580 annual revenue);
Medium-Small representative facility ($401,250 annual revenue); Large-Small representative facility ($802,500
annual revenue). See Table 3.5.

7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 203

0.02
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.12
0.31
0.10
0.07