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. 
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page i 

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 ii 

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 iii 

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 iv 

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 v 

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 vi 

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 vii 

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 1 

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 2 

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 3 

• 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 4 

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 5 

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 6 

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. 

4

 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. 
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 7 

Table 1.1. Quantified Costs and Benefits of the Final Containment Regulations (2005$) a

Quantified Cost/Benefit Category 

Annualized Cost/Benefit at a 

3% Discount Rate 

Annualized Cost/Benefit at a 

7% Discount Rate 

Total Quantified Costs $2.93 million $2.90 million 

Construction of New Containment 

Facilities 

$2.69 million $2.66 million 

Retrofitting of Existing Containment 

Structures 

$0.25 million $0.24 million 

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 8 

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 9 

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 10 

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 11 

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 12 

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 13 

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 14 

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 15 

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 16 

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 17 

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$) 

Cost Item 

Compliance Cost for Final 

Containment Standards a

Compliance Cost for Proposed 

Containment Standards b

Total Cost of Compliance $2.94 million $12.96 million 

Total Cost of Compliance by Regulated Industry 

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 

Retrofitting Existing Containment 

Structures 

$0.25 million $3.25 million 

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 18 

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$) 

Benefit Category Final Containment Standards a Proposed Containment Standards b

Human Health-Related Benefits 

Not Estimated 

Non-Human Health-Related Benefits 

Probability of Release • 1% • 1.5% 

Facilities with Accidental 

Release 

• 5811 facilities • 3000 facilities 

Avoided Costs of 

Remediation 

• $12.2 million to $18.6 million • $9.3 million to $15.6 million 

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 19 

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 20 

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 21 

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 

Included 

in EA 

(Y/N) 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 1 to 9 employees 

Medium-Small 10 to 49 employees 

Small 100 or fewer 

employees 

Large-Small 50 to 100 employees 

Agricultural pesticide 

refillers

(NAICS 422910, Farm 

Supplies Wholesalers) 

Facilities with bulk 

pesticide storage only. 

Y 

Large 101 or more 

employees 

Large 101 or more 

employees 
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 22 

Table 3.1. Industries Regulated by EPA’s Containment Regulations (Continued) 

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 1 plane plus $93,750 

in sales 

Medium-Small 2 to 4 planes plus 

$375,000 in sales 

Small Maximum 

revenues of 

$6.0 million 

Large-Small 5 or more planes plus 

$750,000 in sales 

Agricultural 

commercial 

applicators

(NAICS 115112 Soil 

Preparation, Planting, 

and Cultivating) 

Facilities with bulk 

pesticide storage only. 

Y 

Large Revenues 

greater than 

$6.0 million 

Large Revenues greater than 

$6.0 million 

Custom blenders N 

Seed treatment 

facilities

N 

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. 

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 23 

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 24 

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 25 

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 26 

Table 3.2. Regulatory Compliance Baseline, Agricultural Pesticide Refillers and 

Commercial (Aerial and Ground) Applicators 

Secondary 

Containment c Containment Pad c

Type of Applicator Total 

Facilities 

with Bulk 

Storage b

With Without With Without 

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 

Total Agrichemical Dealers 16,795 a 

 Retail Liquid bulk 

 (>500 gal) 

 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 

Commercial Applicators 

Total Commercial Applicators 3,000 h 210 i 189 j 21 175 j 35 

 Aerial applicators 2,000 160 144 16 134 26 

 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 27 

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 28 

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 29 

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 30 

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 31 

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. 

15 Although these dry bulk facilities are assumed to be located in regulated states, not all state requirements are 

adequate to meet federal standards. 
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 32 

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 33 

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 34 

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 35 

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 36 

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 37 

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 38 

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 39 

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 

Characteristics 

SmallSmall MediumSmall LargeSmall Large 

Industry 

Total 

Operating Characteristics 

Number of industry establishments b 13,996 2,395 251 153 16,795

Number of industry establishments with bulk 

pesticides liquid storage and pesticide 

dispensing areas c

2,241 2,395 251 153 5,040

Number and size of bulk pesticides liquid 

storage containers d

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 --

Number of industry establishments with 

pesticide dispensing areas associated with 

smaller (non-bulk) containers g

561 -- -- -- 561

Number of employees h

Range in number of employees 

3

1 to 9

19

10 to 49

71 

50 to 100 

448 

101 or more 

173,858

--

Revenue Characteristics 

Average Revenue (2005$, millions) i $0.8 $6.7 $22.7 $191.6 $62,319 

a

 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 40 

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 41 

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

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

SBA-Defined Sizes Large 101 or more 

employees 

114 0.9% $21,843 47.1% $191.6 448 

Small 100 or fewer 

employees 

12,397 99.1% $24,580 52.9% $2.0 6 

Total 12,511 100.0% $46,423 100.0% $3.7 10 EPA Alternative Small Business Sizes dLarge-Small 50 to 100 

employees 

187 1.5% $4,246 9.2% $22.7 71 

Medium-Small 10 to 49 

employees 

1,784 14.3% $12,001 25.9% $6.7 19 

Small-Small 1 to 9 

employees 

10,426 83.3% $8,333 18.0% $0.8 3 

Total 12,397 99.1% $24,580 52.9% $2.0 6 a The percentage of total companies in the D&B sample data set was applied to the estimated number of agricultural pesticide refillers used b The average revenue of agricultural pesticide refillers for each entity size category was multiplied by the total number of entities for the g

c EPA estimate based on state estimates where available; otherwise, SIC 5191.02 + 5191.14 from the American Business Information Lists 

The same total number is estimated as presented in the 1999 Supplemental Notice on Standards for Pesticide Containers and Containment 

d EPA discussed alternative definitions of small businesses for some industry sectors in the 1999 Supplemental Notice on Standards for Pe

Containment (EPA, 1999b). EPA is concerned that using an overly broad definition of small business in the economic analysis of the contsignificant economic impacts on smaller entities that will be camouflaged when combined with information about potential impacts on thosize standard for small business but are not typical of a small business in that industry sector. 
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 42

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 

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 

25,000 

1,120 

110 

2-2,000 

2-4 

100,000 

100 

35 

1-6,000 

2-2,000 

5 or more 

200,000 

2,000 

160 

Unknown 

6,000+ 

Revenue Characteristics 

Application price/acre ($) g

Premium on chemical/acre ($) h

Revenues (2005$) i

3.75 

0.27 

100,580 

3.75 

0.27 

401,250 

3.75 

0.27 

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 43

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 44

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 45

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 46

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 47

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 48

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 49

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 50

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 51

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. 32 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. 
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 52

• 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 53

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 54

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

Intermittent 50 120 130 130

Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Indoor 

Capital 2170 2500 3780 3780

O&M 740 1050 1490 1490

Intermittent 50 120 130 130

Secondary Containment -Bulk Dry (1 Container) 

Capital na 5230 5230 5230

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 

Intermittent 50 120 130 na 

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

O&M 1190 2210 5100 5100

Intermittent 40 50 70 70

Containment Pads - Indoor (Scenarios 1 & 2) c 

Capital 6,860-8,790 18,730-23,970 50,570-53,840 50,570-53,840

O&M 740 1100 1490 740

Intermittent 40 50 70 40

a 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).
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 55

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 56

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 57

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 Medium-Small Large-Small Large 

Secondary Containment, Agricultural Refillers 

Liquid bulk, outdoors 

Liquid bulk, indoors 

1,253 

718 

1,842 

991 

3,277 

1,415 

3,277 

1,415 

Dry bulk, outdoors 

One container 

Two containers 

n/a 

n/a 

994 

1,351 

994 

1,351 

994 

1,351 

Secondary Containment, Commercial Applicators 

Liquid bulk, outdoors b

Aerial c

Ground d

1,253 

n/a 

1,850 

n/a 

3,301 

1,850 

n/a 

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 58

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 

Secondary Containment, Agricultural Refillers 

Liquid bulk, outdoors 

Liquid bulk, indoors 

1,225 

682 

1,838 

932 

3,270 

1,335 

3,270 

1,335 

Dry bulk, outdoors 

One container 

Two containers 

n/a 

n/a 

986 

1,338 

986 

1,338 

986 

1,338 

Secondary Containment, Commercial Applicators 

Liquid bulk, outdoors b

Aerial c

Ground d

1,225 

n/a 

1,838 

n/a 

3,270 

1,838 

n/a 

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 59

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 60

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 

--- 

2,706 

--- 

--- 

6,054 

--- 

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 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

2,838 

--- 

2,838 

--- 

--- 

6,098 

--- 

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 

--- 

--- 

1,990 

--- 

--- 

Scenario 2: Demolish existing concrete floor and construct new containment pad 

Small-Small/Medium-Small agricultural refiller 

Large-Small/Large agricultural refiller 

1,112 

--- 

--- 

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 61

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 

--- 

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 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

2,878 

--- 

2,878 

--- 

--- 

6,100 

--- 

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 

--- 

 --- 

2,128 

--- 

--- 

Scenario 2: Demolish existing concrete floor and construct new containment pad 

Small-Small/Medium-Small agricultural refiller 

Large-Small/Large agricultural refiller 

1,158 

--- 

--- 

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 62

Table 4.7. Summary of Annualized Costs to Install New Secondary Containment Units and 

Pads, Representative Agricultural Refillers, 3% Discount Rate 

Compliance Cost Item 

SmallSmall 

Facility 

MediumSmall FacilityLarge-Small 

Facility 

Large 

Facility 

All 

Facilities 

AGRICULTURAL REFILLERS 

Outdoor Liquid Storage 

(A) Secondary Containment + Pad

Number of Affected Facilities a 270 46 5 3 324

Annualized Cost/facility ($) b 2,544 3,133 5,983 5,983 0

Subtotal, aggregate cost c 687,138 1,44,797 28,991 17,673 8,78,599

(B) Containment Pad Only 

Number of Affected Facilities 200 34 4 2 240

Annualized Cost/facility ($) 1,335 1,335 2,838 2,838 0

Subtotal, aggregate cost 2,66,845 45,660 10,173 6,201 3,28,879

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

Indoor Liquid Storage 

(A) Secondary Containment + Pad d

 

Number of Affected Facilities 116 20 2 1 139

Annualized Cost/facility ($) 1,715 1,988 3,405 3,405 0

Subtotal, aggregate cost 1,98,559 39,381 7,070 4,310 2,49,320

(B) Containment Pad Only 

Number of Affected Facilities 86 15 2 1 103

Annualized Cost/facility ($) 1,112 1,112 2,303 2,303 0

Subtotal, aggregate cost 95,258 16,300 3,538 2,157 1,17,253

Non-Bulk Storage/Dispensing e

(A) Containment Pad 

 

Number of Affected Facilities 561 n/a n/a n/a 561

Annualized Cost/facility ($) 1,335 n/a n/a n/a 0

Subtotal, aggregate cost 7,49,049 n/a n/a n/a 7,49,049

ALL AG. REFILLERS INDUSTRY 

TOTAL 19,96,849 3,22,296 83,654 64,224 2,467,023 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 63

Table 4.8. Summary of Annualized Costs to Install New Secondary Containment Units and 

Pads, Representative Agricultural Refillers, 7% Discount Rate

Compliance Cost Item 

SmallSmall 

Facility 

MediumSmall FacilityLarge-Small 

Facility 

Large 

Facility All Facilities

AGRICULTURAL REFILLERS 

Outdoor Liquid Storage 

(A) Secondary Containment + Pad 

Number of Affected Facilities a 270 46 5 3 324

Annualized Cost/facility ($) b 2,487 3,101 5,988 5,988 0

Subtotal, aggregate cost c 671,837 143,322 29,015 17,688 861,863

(B) Containment Pad Only 

Number of Affected Facilities 200 34 4 2 240

Annualized Cost/facility ($) 1,316 1,316 2,878 2,878 0

Subtotal, aggregate cost 263,105 45,020 10,317 6,289 324,731

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

Indoor Liquid Storage 

(A) Secondary Containment + Pad d

Number of Affected Facilities 116 20 2 1 139

Annualized Cost/facility ($) 1,701 1,951 3,462 3,462 0

Subtotal, aggregate cost 196,939 38,645 7,190 4,383 247,158

(B) Containment Pad Only 

Number of Affected Facilities 86 15 2 1 103

Annualized Cost/facility ($) 1,158 1,158 2,505 2,505 0

Subtotal, aggregate cost 99,169 16,969 3,849 2,346 122,332

Non-Bulk Storage/Dispensing e

(A) Secondary Containment + Pad 

Number of Affected Facilities 561 n/a n/a n/a 561

Annualized Cost/facility ($) 1,316 n/a n/a n/a 0

Subtotal, aggregate cost 738,552 n/a n/a n/a 738,552

ALL AG. REFILLERS 

INDUSTRY TOTAL 1,969,603 319,360 84,280 64,617 2,437,860 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 64

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 facility-
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 65

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 66

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 67

Table 4.9. Summary of Annualized Costs to Install New Secondary Containment Units and 

Pads, Representative Commercial Applicator Facilities, 3% Discount Rate

Compliance Cost Item 

Small-Small 

Facility 

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

Annualized Cost/facility ($) c 7,307 7,903 9,355 0 0

Subtotal, aggregate cost 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

(B) Containment Pad Only 

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

ALL COMMERCIAL 

APPLICATORS 

INDUSTRY TOTAL 45,594 1,15,536 58,720 0 2,19,850

ALL AG. REFILLERS 

INDUSTRY TOTAL e 1,996,849 3,22,296 83,654 64,224 2,467,023

ALL REFILLERS & 

APPLICATORS 

COMBINED INDUSTRY TOTAL 

(Install New Structures) 2,042,443 437,832 142,374 64,224 2,686,874 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 68

Table 4.10. Summary of Annualized Costs to Install New Secondary Containment Units 

and Pads, Representative Commercial Applicator Facilities, 7% Discount Rate

Compliance Cost Item 

SmallSmall 

Facility 

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

Annualized Cost/facility ($) c 7,271 7,884 9,316 0 0

Subtotal, aggregate cost 45,370 70,645 7,453 0 123,468

(B) Containment Pad Only 

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

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

(B) Containment Pad Only 

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

ALL AG. REFILLERS 

INDUSTRY TOTAL e 1,969,603 319,360 84,280 64,617 2,437,860

ALL REFILLERS & 

APPLICATORS 

COMBINED INDUSTRY TOTAL 

(Install New Structures) 2,014,973 434,741 143,113 64,617 2,657,444 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 69

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 70

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 71

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 72

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 73

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

Compliance Cost Item 

Small-Small 

Facility 

MediumSmall FacilityLarge-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

Intermittent 40 110 140 140

Secondary Containment - Bulk Dry/Outdoor b

Capital 0 0 0 0

Initial 0 0 0 0

O&M 0 30 30 30

Intermittent (1 container) 0 100 100 100

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS b

Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid Storage (Outdoor) 

Capital 0 0 0 0

Initial 740 740 740 na 

O&M 30 30 30 na 

Intermittent 40 110 140 na 

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

Container Anchoring (Plastic and Steel) 

Capital 0 0 0 0

Initial 580 580 580 580

O&M 30 30 30 30

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 74

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 75

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 76

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 

Item 

Small-Small 

Facilities 

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

Secondary Dry Containment b

Industry annualized costs for facilities na 264 28 17 309

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

AGRICULTURAL REFILLERS 

INDUSTRY TOTAL 195,174 36,787 4,584 2,794 239,339

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS 

Secondary Liquid Containment 

Industry annualized costs for facilities 704 1,011 90 na 1,805

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

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS, 

INDUSTRY TOTAL 2,094 3,324 369 na 5,787

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 77

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 

Item 

Small-Small 

Facilities 

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 b

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

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

Commercial Applicators, Industry 

Total 2,061 3,341 386 na 5,788

ALL REFILLERS & 

APPLICATORS, COMBINED 

INDUSTRY TOTAL 

(Retrofit Existing Structures) 192,768 39,800 5,077 2,860 240,505 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 78

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 79

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 80

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 Large Facility

Agricultural Refillers 

Secondary Liquid Containment 73 83 87 87

Secondary Dry Containment n/a 37 37 37

All Applicators 

Secondary Liquid Containment 73 83 87 n/a 

Agricultural Refillers and All Applicators 

Containment Pads 132 189 329 329

Bulk Liquid Containers a 58 58 58 58 a One plastic or steel flat-bottomed bulk storage container is assumed per facility. 

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 

Large-Small 

Facility Large Facility

Agricultural Refillers 

Secondary Liquid Containment 79 87 90 90

Secondary Dry Containment n/a 32 32 32

All Applicators 

Secondary Liquid Containment 79 87 90 0

Agricultural Refillers and All Applicators 

Containment Pads 150 218 386 386

Bulk Liquid Containers a 63 63 63 63 a

 One plastic or steel flat-bottomed bulk storage container is assumed per facility. 

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 81

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 82

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 83

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 84

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

Agricultural Refillers 

(Refilling Establishments) 

For-Hire Commercial Applicators 

(Aerial and Ground) 

Industry Annualized Costs 

SmallSmall 

Facilities 

MediumSmall 

Facilities 

LargeSmall 

Facilities

Large 

Facilities Subtotal 

SmallSmall 

Facilities

Medium

-Small 

Facilities

LargeSmall 

Facilities Subt

Construction of New Containment Structures Outdoor liquid bulk storage 

(secondary containment + pads) 687,138 144,797 28,991 17,673 878,599 45,594 70,815 30,263 146

Outdoor liquid bulk storage (containment pads only) 266,845 45,660 10,173 6,201 328,879 na 44,721 28,457 73Outdoor liquid & dry bulk storage (secondary containment + pads) na 76,158 33,882 33,882 143,922 na na na na Indoor liquid bulk storage (secondary containment + pads) 198,559 39,381 7,070 4,310 249,320 na na na na Indoor liquid bulk storage (containment pads only) 95,258 16,300 3,538 2,157 117,253 na na na na Outdoor liquid non-bulk storage (containment pads only) 749,049 na na na 749,049 na na na na Subtotal 1,996,849 322,296 83,654 64,224 2,467,023 45,594 115,536 58,720 219Retrofitting of Existing Containment Structures Secondary containment, bulk liquid storage containers 45,063 8,106 867 529 54,565 704 1,011 90 1Secondary containment, bulk dry storage containers na 264 28 17 309 na na na na Containment pads 58,372 12,719 2,043 1,246 74,380 944 1,672 222 2Bulk storage pesticide containers 91,739 15,698 1,645 1,003 110,085 446 641 57 1Subtotal 195,174 36,787 4,584 2,794 239,339 2,094 3,324 369 5Total Industry Annualized Costs 2,192,023 359,083 88,238 67,018 2,706,362 47,688 118,860 59,089 225Source: Tables 4.7, 4.9, and 4.12. 
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 85

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

Agricultural Refillers 

(Refilling Establishments) 

For-Hire Commercial Applicators 

(Aerial and Ground) 

Industry Annualized Costs 

SmallSmall 

Facilities 

MediumSmall 

Facilities 

LargeSmall 

Facilities

Large 

Facilities Subtotal 

SmallSmall 

Facilities

Medium

-Small 

Facilities

LargeSmall 

Facilities Subt

Construction of New Containment Structures Outdoor liquid bulk storage (secondary containment + pads) 671,837 143,322 29,015 17,688 861,863 45,370 70,645 30,238 146Outdoor liquid bulk storage (containment pads only) 263,105 45,020 10,317 6,289 324,731 na 44,736 28,595 73Outdoor liquid & dry bulk storage (secondary containment + pads) na 75,404 33,910 33,910 143,224 na na na na Indoor liquid bulk storage (secondary containment + pads) 196,939 38,645 7,190 4,383 247,158 na na na na Indoor liquid bulk storage (containment pads only) 99,169 16,969 3,849 2,346 122,332 na na na na Outdoor liquid non-bulk storage (containment pads only) 738,552 na na na 738,552 na na na na Subtotal 1,969,603 319,360 84,280 64,617 2,437,860 45,370 115,381 58,832 219Retrofitting of Existing Containment Structures Secondary containment, bulk liquid storage containers 44,052 7,873 840 512 53,278 670 962 86 1Secondary containment, bulk dry storage containers na 235 25 15 275 na na na na Containment pads 61,312 13,747 2,296 1,400 78,754 975 1,782 247 3Bulk storage pesticide containers 85,343 14,603 1,531 933 102,410 416 597 53 1Subtotal 190,706 36,458 4,692 2,860 234,717 2,061 3,341 386 5Total Industry Annualized Costs 2,160,309 355,819 88,972 67,477 2,672,576 47,431 118,722 59,218 225Source: Tables 4.8, 4.10, 4.13.
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 86

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 87

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 88

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 89

Table 5.3. Annualized Industry Costs of Compliance under EPA’s Proposed Regulation 

Agricultural Refillers 

(Refilling Establishments) 

For-Hire Commercial Applicators 

(Aerial and Ground) 

Industry Annualized Costs 

Small 

Facilities 

Medium 

Facilities 

Large 

Facilities Subtotal 

Small 

Facilities 

Medium 

Facilities 

Large 

Facilities Subtotal 

Construct New Containment Structures Outdoor liquid bulk storage 

(secondary containment + pads) 

963,585 1,901,136 50,908 2,915,630 202,694 1,076,414 571,079 1,850,187 

Outdoor liquid bulk storage (containment pads only) 434,728 1,024,600 43,840 1,503,168 0 130,943 86,202 217,144 Outdoor liquid & dry bulk 

storage (secondary containment + pads) 

n/a 254,541 392,977 647,518 n/a n/a n/a 0 

Indoor liquid bulk storage 

(secondary containment + pads) 

274,151 544,389 12,274 830,814 n/a n/a n/a 0 

Indoor liquid bulk storage 

(containment pads only) 140,643 304,042 15,655 460,339 n/a n/a n/a 0 

Outdoor liquid non-bulk storage 

(containment pads only) 1,281,302 n/a n/a 1,281,302 n/a n/a n/a 0 

Subtotal 3,094,409 4,028,709 515,654 7,638,771 202,694 1,207,356 657,280 2,067,331 Retrofit Existing Containment Structures, Interim Period 

Secondary containment, bulk 

liquid storage containers 29,754 105,021 5,146 139,921 127 1,127 377 1,631 

Secondary containment, bulk dry 

storage containers n/a 237 647 885 n/a n/a n/a 0 

Containment pads 37,575 149,914 6,243 193,731 117 1,370 549 2,037 Bulk storage pesticide containers 20,271 195,898 27,753 243,922 32 2,407 1,427 3,865 Subtotal 87,600 451,070 39,790 578,459 276 4,905 2,353 7,533 
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 90

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

Agricultural Refillers 

(Refilling Establishments) 

For-Hire Commercial Applicators 

(Aerial and Ground) 

Industry Annualized Costs 

Small 

Facilities 

Medium 

Facilities 

Large 

Facilities Subtotal 

Small 

Facilitie

s 

Medium 

Facilities 

Large 

Facilities Subtotal 

Retrofit Existing Containment Structures, after Interim Period 

Secondary containment, bulk 

liquid storage containers 70,761 397,488 34,042 502,291 373 4,324 2,376 7,073 

Secondary containment, bulk dry 

storage containers n/a 9,261 22,243 31,504 n/a n/a n/a 0 

Containment pads 215,199 1,668,259 69,628 1,953,085 4,206 39,566 13,669 57,441 Bulk storage pesticide containers 10,946 90,505 10,861 112,311 48 606 471 1,125 

Subtotal 296,906 2,165,513 136,773 2,599,191 4,627 44,495 16,516 65,638 Total Industry Annualized Costs 3,478,914 6,645,291 692,216 10,816,421 207,598 1,256,756 676,149 2,140,503 

Source: EPA (1993), inflated to 2005$. 
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 91

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 92

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 93

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). 60 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. 
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 94

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 95

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 96

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 97

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 98

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 99

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

Off-site contamination

Occupational Health Risks

Contamination of

Ecosystems

Contamination of

drinking water

Ecological damage Public health risks
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 100

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 101

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

Source of 

Information Reporting Period 

Number of 

Incidents During 

the Reporting 

Period 

Estimated 

Annual 

Release 

Probability a

Range of 

Release 

Quantity Pesticides Spilled 

National Response 

Center (U.S. Coast 

Guard) 

1982 - 1991 

40 --- 

2 - 1,000 

gallons 

70% herbicides 

Nebraska Dept. of 

Environmental 

Control 

1981 - 1991 

20 --- 

a few 

gallons to 

1,400 

gallons 

all herbicides 

Wisconsin Dept. of 

Agriculture, Trade 

and Consumer 

Protection 

1981 - mid-1984 

9 --- 

a few 

gallons to 

1,700 

gallons 

--- 

Michigan Dept. of 

Natural Resources 

1987 - early 1991 15 b 4/300 (1.3%) --- --- 

MacDonald, 1991 1984 - 1990 

--- 

0.9% of 

Nebraska’s 

350 

containment 

sites 

--- --- 

EPA (Howard, 1991) 1986 - 1990 --- 1.0 – 1.5% --- --- 

a

 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. 

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 102

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 103

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 104

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

Location Pesticides Detected Concentration Well Type Potential Cause 

Ag-Pro Chemical Company Woosung, IL Ogle County 

Atrazine

Alachlor

Metolachlor

Diazinon

Chlorpyrifos

180 ppb

38 ppb

145 ppb

5 ppb

19 ppb

Residential well

located near facility

Unknown 

Burrough’s Trucking Company Rutland, IL LaSalle County 

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 

advisory levels

Facility well Unknown 

Galesville Chemical Company Galesville, IL Piatt County 

Alachlor

Atrazine

Metolachlor

Metribuzin

> 200 ppb Non-domestic use 

private well 

downgradient from 

facility

Mixing & Loading 

Kaiser Agricultural Chemical Company Cantrall, IL Sangamon County 

Various Trace levels Several wells in vicinity 

of dealership b

Unknown 

Kaiser Agricultural Chemical Company Oconee, IL Christian County 

Various 3.09 ppm Non-drinking water well 

facility

Unknown 

MDM Fertilizer Sharpsburg, IL Christian County 

Various 300 ppb Facility well Unknown 
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 105

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

Location Pesticides Detected Concentration Well Type Potential Cause 

Montgomery County Service Company Butler, IL Montgomery County 

Atrazine Alachlor Metolachlor 

21 ppb 12 ppb 54 ppb 

Old facility well Unknown 

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 

Waller Farm Service Bardolph, IL McDonough County 

Alachlor g Trace Private well on property 

next to 

Chronic spillage and runoff 

Webb Fertilizer Service, Inc. Fairview, IL Fulton County 

Atrazine Metolachlor Cyanazine Alachlor 

49 ppb 17 ppb 3.6 ppb 7 ppb 

Non-functional facility well 

Unknown 

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 rep

d Eleven of 17 wells sampled were contaminated with herbicide chemicals. The highest concentrations analyzed were in samples from 

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 

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.
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 106

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 107

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 108

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 109

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 110

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

Figure 2b: The Suboptimal Level of Cleanup

$

$

Percent Cleanup

Marginal

Benefit of

Cleanup

Marginal Cost

of Cleanup

Percent Cleanup

Marginal

Benefit of

Cleanup

Marginal Cost

of Cleanup

100%

P1 100%

P*

P2

1

2 4 5

1 7

3 6

3

4

2
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 111

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 112

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 113

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 114

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 Frequency Distribution b Weighted Average Costc

Range Point 

Estimate 

Low Cost High Cost Low Cost High Cost 

$1 to $19,999 $13,800 25% 10% $3,450 $1,380

$20,000 to $99,999 $82,800 35% 25% $28,980 $20,700

$100,000 to $249,999 $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

TOTAL—Calculated 

(Rounded) 

100% 100% $210,105 

($210,000) 

$320,505

($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 115

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 116

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 117

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 118

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 119

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 120

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 121

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

dermatitis, sensitization), diarrhea, dizziness, dyspnea, eye irritation, gastrointestinal irritation, mucous membrane irritation, muscular weakness, nausea, nephritis, ocular damage, postnatal dshock, sweating, vomiting, death due to central nervous system depression, circulatory or respir

atrazine triazine abdominal pain, adrenal function impairment, adrenal degeneration, anemia, anorexia, brain ed

dilation, central nervous system abnormalities, convulsions, dermatitis, diarrhea, erythema, eye 

exopthalmia, corneal opacity, iritis, growth retardation, hematocrit depression, hemoglobin dephemorrhage, mutagenesis, nausea, ovarian hemorrhage, paralysis, prenatal damage, respiratory pneumonia, bronchitis, bradypnea, dyspnea, hyperpnea, salivation, spasms, spleen hemorrhagefunction 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, card(bradycardia/tachycardia, heart block), cholinesterase inhibition, central nervous system impairconvulsions, cyanosis, dermatitis, diarrhea, dizziness/vertigo, electroencephalograph abnormali(miosis/mydriasis, pain, pressure, tearing, dark or blurred vision, cataracts), gastrointestinal dis

burn, cramps), hallucinations, headache, hyperglycemia, hypertension, hyperthermia, incontinedamage, muscle atrophy and twitching, nausea, pallor, paresis, parethesias, psychosis, renal dam(apnea, rales, ronchi, wheezing, pulmonary edema), salivation, shock, somnolence, sweating, v

due to respiratory failure. 

cyanazine triazine abdominal pain, adrenal degeneration, adrenal function impairment, anemia, dermal sensitizatio

irritation, hepatic degeneration, myocardial degeneration, mucous membrane irritation, nausea, 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, card

(bradycardia/tachycardia, heart block), cholinesterase inhibition, central nervous system impairconvulsions, cyanosis, dermatitis, diarrhea, dizziness/vertigo, electroencephalograph abnormali

(miosis/mydriasis, pain, pressure, tearing, dark or blurred vision, cataracts), gastrointestinal disheartburn, cramps), hallucinations, headache, hyperglycemia, hypertension, hyperthermia, incodamage, muscle atrophy and twitching, nausea, pallor, paresis, parethesias, psychosis, renal dam

(apnea, rales, ronchi, wheezing, pulmonary edema), salivation, shock, somnolence, sweating, v

due to respiratory failure. 

metolachlor acetanilides abdominal distress, anemia, ataxia, brown blood, cancer, chills, collapse, convulsions, cyanosis

dermatitis, sensitization), diarrhea, dizziness, dyspnea, eye irritation, gastrointestinal irritation, mucous membrane irritation, muscular weakness, nausea, nephritis, prenatal damage, shock, swto central nervous system depression, circulatory, or respiratory failure. 

metribuzin triazine abdominal pain, adrenal function impaired, anemia, dermatitis, diarrhea, eye irritation, mucous 

thiamine and riboflavin function disturbed, vomiting. (Bioaccumulates in fat of animals and hu

Source: Cunningham and Hallenbeck, 1984.
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 122 

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 123 

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 124 

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 125 

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 126 

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 127 

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) 592-

2783. 

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 128 

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 129 

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 130 

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 131 

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 132 

Paulson, Donald. 1992 (August 19). Personal communication. Ciba-Geigy, NC. (919) 632-

2174. 

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 133 

 

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 134 

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 135 

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 136 

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 137 

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

1 (1 ) n

n

pdv ijn

ij d

CC

CC

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

pdv

ij

ann

ij CC

r r

r CC ∗⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

+ ∗ − + = − [1 ] [1 (1 ) ] 20

.

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 138 

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 139 

Table B.1 (Continued). Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide 

Containment Standards for New Structures, Agricultural Refillers (2005$) 

Year a

Compliance Cost Item b

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 

Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor 

Small-Small 1160 1160 1210 1160 1160 1160 1160 1210 1160 1160

Medium-Small 1540 1540 1660 1540 1540 1540 1540 1660 1540 1540

Large-Small/Large c 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

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 140 

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$) 

Year a

Compliance Cost Item b

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 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. 
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 141 

Table B.3. Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide Containment 

Standards for New Structures, Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Applicators 

Year a

Compliance Cost Item b

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

Containment Pads - Outdoor Scenario 1 c

Small-Small 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 2 c

Small-Small 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

Containment Pads - Indoor Scenario 1 d

Small-Small 6860 740 740 740 740 780 740 740

Medium-Small 18730 1100 1100 1100 1100 1150 1100 1100

Large-Small/Large 50570 1490 1490 1490 1490 1560 1490 1490

Containment Pads - Indoor Scenario 2 d

Small-Small 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

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.3 (Continued). Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide 

Containment Standards for New Structures, Agricultural Refillers and 

Commercial Applicators 

Year a

Compliance Cost Item b

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 

Containment Pads - Outdoor Scenario 1 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

Containment Pads - Indoor Scenario 1 d

Small-Small 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 2 d

Small-Small 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

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 143 

Table B.4. Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide Containment 

Standards for Existing Structures, Small-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 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

Initial 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

Overhead & Maintenance 0 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.4 (Continued). Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide 

Containment Standards for Existing Structures, Small-Small Facilities

Year a

Compliance Cost Item b

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

Overhead & Maintenance 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Intermittent 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overhead & Maintenance 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Intermittent 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 40 0 0

REFILLERS AND APPLICATORS 

Containment Pads - Outdoor (Scenarios 1&2) 

Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overhead & Maintenance 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Intermittent 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 30 0 0

Container Anchoring (Plastic and Steel) 

Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overhead & Maintenance 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 145 

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 30 30 30 30

Intermittent 0 0 0 0 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

Intermittent 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 0

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 0 110 0 0

REFILLERS AND APPLICATORS 

Containment Pads - Outdoor (Scenarios 1& 2) 

Capital 2560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Initial 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overhead & Maintenance 0 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Intermittent 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0

Container Anchoring (Plastic and Steel) 

Initial 580 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overhead & Maintenance 0 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.5 (Continued). Non-Discounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Pesticide 

Containment Standards for Existing Structures, Medium-Small Facilities 

Year a

Compliance Cost Item b

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

Overhead & Maintenance 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Intermittent 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 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Intermittent 0 0 110 0 0 0 0 110 0 0

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS 

Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor 

Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overhead & Maintenance 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Intermittent 0 0 110 0 0 0 0 110 0 0

REFILLERS AND APPLICATORS 

Containment Pads - Outdoor (Scenarios 1& 2) 

Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overhead & Maintenance 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Intermittent 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 60 0 0

Container Anchoring (Plastic and Steel) 

Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overhead & Maintenance 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 147 

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 30 30 30 30

Intermittent 0 0 0 0 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

Intermittent 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0

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 0 140 0 0

REFILLERS AND APPLICATORS 

Containment Pads - Outdoor (Scenarios 1&2) 

Capital 4870 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Initial 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overhead & Maintenance 0 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Intermittent 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0

Container Anchoring (Plastic and Steel) 

Initial 580 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overhead & Maintenance 0 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 

Table B.6 (Continued). 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

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

Overhead & Maintenance 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Intermittent 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 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Intermittent 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS 

Secondary Containment - Bulk Liquid/Outdoor 

Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overhead & Maintenance 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Intermittent 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 140 0 0

REFILLERS AND APPLICATORS 

Containment Pads - Outdoor (Scenarios 1& 2) 

Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overhead & Maintenance 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Intermittent 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 70 0 0

Container Anchoring (Plastic and Steel) 

Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overhead & Maintenance 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 149 

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 

modules. 

1982 MI Dept. Ag. regs. p. 5 

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 

or discharges. 

1984 OH Pesticide Law 

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 150 

State Standard Comment Source 

TOPIC: Appurtenances 

Critical: Protected against damage. 

CO Constructed, installed, maintained to prevent discharge of 

liq. pesticide; resistant to corrosion, puncture, cracking. 

1994 Regs., p. 7 

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 

drains in secondary containment. 

Telcon Doug Hudson 304 558 2209 

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. 

Admin. Code Ag./Trade & Consumer 

Protection, p. 9 

TOPIC: Inspection 

Critical: Monthly 

CO Visually inspected at least once a week. 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 151 

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 

means to observe leaks, reconcile pesticide contents 

weekly. 

Rules/regs. p. 10/12 

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 

prior to permit; biennial or more frequent as determined at 

time of permit. 

Telcon Brad Barvan 605 773 3724 

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 

work shift, end of day. 

Telcon Larry Lejeune 504 925 3763 

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 152 

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 

area. 

Title 61 Legislative rules p. 3 

WI Discharges at storage facility promptly recovered. Admin. Code Ag./Trade & Consumer 

Protection, p. 697 

TOPIC: Liquid Bulk 

Critical: 100% of Largest Container 

CO 110% indoor 1994 Regs p. 4 

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 

TOPIC: Dry Bulk 

Critical: Protected from precipitation; 6” curb 2’ away 

MO Pesticides stored inside/surface water runoff diverted 

away from storage/individual catchment basins. 

1992 Dept. of Nat. Rscs. rules p. 83 

NE None. 
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 153 

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 

rain. Concrete/impervious floor/pallets on raised platform.

1992 D. Ag. p. 34 

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 

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). 

1992 MDA p. 6 

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 

largest container/application system operated within and 

prevent spillage into unprotected area. Minimum capacity 

250 gals. 

1992 Pesticide Rules p. 44 
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 154 

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 155 

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 156 

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 157 

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 

State 

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 

Louisiana 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 

Wisconsin Yes Yes 1989 

Massachusetts a Yes Yes TBD 

North Carolina a 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 158 

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 159 

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 160 

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 161 

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 162 

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 163 

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 Option 2 Option 3 

Costs 

General Requirements for 

Containment Structures a

361,223 365,442 

Secondary Containment for 

Stationary Liquid Bulk 

Containers 

6,247,546 18,823,259 

Secondary Containment for 

Stationary Dry Bulk Containers 

679,907 1,332,786 

Secondary Containment for 

Pesticide Dispensing Areas b

5,668,247 14,049,479 

Recordkeeping Requirements 

Regulatory Option 1 

is no change in the 

containment 

requirements, with no 

additional cost. 

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 164 

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 165 

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 c

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 hydrostatic head. Asphalt and earthen material prohibited. 

Same. 

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 standard. 

Sealants §165.146a3 

Sealants can be used to achieve hydraulic conductivity standard. 

Delete tests and five-year replacement coFacility may voluntarily choose sealants tightness. 

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 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 

valves; cleanup no later than end of day of spill. 

Same. 
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 166 

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 hydstandard. 

Liquid Capacity §165.148a 

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

Delete reference to interim period. Retaipercent 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. Deletelevated tanks. Retain requirement to anflotation. 

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 co

prevent water in or under the pesticide. Ehigh curb that extends at least 2 feet beyocontainer. 

Pad Capacity §165.152a 

1,000 gallons or 100 percent of largest container. 750 gal or 100 percent of largest containe

Pad Design §165.152b 

Intercept spills, base sloped toward liquid-tight sump; 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. 

Same. 

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 

structures to meet critical standards; 3 yeto 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 reconhydraulic conductivity. Retain monthly irecordkeeping for inspection and non-sta
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 167 
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 168 

Appendix G. Estimated Number of Affected Facilities 

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

1992 American Business Information’s Lists of 9.3 Million Businesses a

1992 Census of 

Wholesale Trade 

Farm Supply Dealers 

(SIC 5191.02) 

Fertilizer Dealers 

(SIC 5191.14) 

Agchem Dealers 

(SIC 5191.02 + 

5191.14) 

Farm Supply 

(SIC 5191) b

State 

State 

Reg. 

(Y/N) # Estab. % Total # Estab. % Total # Estab. % Total # Estab. % Total 

# of 

Est

by 

Ex

Alabama N 215 3.69% 178 1.71% 393 2.42% 303 1.73% Alaska N 1 0.02% 1 0.01% 2 0.01% 9 0.05% Arizona N 24 0.41% 72 0.69% 96 0.59% 181 1.04% Arkansas N 148 2.54% 148 1.42% 296 1.82% 349 2.00% California N 32 0.55% 283 2.72% 315 1.94% 1129 6.46% Colorado Y 58 1.00% 183 1.76% 241 1.48% 200 1.14% Connecticut N 6 0.10% 47 0.45% 53 0.33% 57 0.33% Delaware N 7 0.12% 22 0.21% 29 0.18% 37 0.21% DC N 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.01% Florida N 164 2.81% 339 3.26% 503 3.10% 665 3.81% Georgia N 240 4.12% 287 2.76% 527 3.25% 510 2.92% Hawaii N 0 0.00% 26 0.25% 26 0.16% 50 0.29% Idaho N 57 0.98% 147 1.41% 204 1.26% 203 1.16% Illinois Y 347 5.96% 909 8.73% 1,256 7.74% 1033 5.91% Indiana Y 188 3.23% 547 5.26% 735 4.53% 627 3.59% Iowa Y 291 4.99% 575 5.53% 866 5.33% 953 5.46% Kansas Y 158 2.71% 450 4.32% 608 3.75% 304 1.74% 1Kentucky Y 300 5.15% 195 1.87% 495 3.05% 421 2.41% Louisiana Y 148 2.54% 139 1.34% 287 1.77% 284 1.63% Maine N 20 0.34% 21 0.20% 41 0.25% 47 0.27% Maryland N 53 0.91% 107 1.03% 160 0.99% 141 0.81% Massachusetts P 13 0.22% 50 0.48% 63 0.39% 108 0.62% Michigan Y 158 2.71% 253 2.43% 411 2.53% 365 2.09% 
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 169 

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

1992 American Business Information’s Lists of 9.3 Million Businesses a

1992 Census of 

Wholesale Trade 

Farm Supply Dealers 

(SIC 5191.02) 

Fertilizer Dealers 

(SIC 5191.14) 

Agchem Dealers 

(SIC 5191.02 + 

5191.14) 

Farm Supply 

(SIC 5191) b

State 

State 

Reg. 

(Y/N) # Estab. % Total # Estab. % Total # Estab. % Total # Estab. % Total 

# of 

Est

by 

Ex

Minnesota Y 177 3.04% 500 4.80% 677 4.17% 674 3.86% 1Mississippi N 201 3.45% 167 1.60% 368 2.27% 257 1.47% Missouri Y 250 4.29% 563 5.41% 813 5.01% 707 4.05% Montana N 62 1.06% 91 0.87% 153 0.94% 146 0.84% Nebraska Y 155 2.66% 339 3.26% 494 3.04% 529 3.03% Nevada N 9 0.15% 10 0.10% 19 0.12% 45 0.26% New Hampshire Y 6 0.10% 15 0.14% 21 0.13% 23 0.13% New Jersey N 19 0.33% 59 0.57% 78 0.48% 220 1.26% New Mexico N 20 0.34% 49 0.47% 69 0.43% 88 0.50% New York N 124 2.13% 147 1.41% 271 1.67% 642 3.68% North Carolina P 265 4.55% 412 3.96% 677 4.17% 553 3.17% North Dakota Y 69 1.18% 252 2.42% 321 1.98% 161 0.92% Ohio Y 222 3.81% 382 3.67% 604 3.72% 558 3.19% Oklahoma N 131 2.25% 232 2.23% 363 2.24% 293 1.68% Oregon N 52 0.89% 123 1.18% 175 1.08% 269 1.54% Pennsylvania N 103 1.77% 155 1.49% 258 1.59% 471 2.70% Rhode Island N 1 0.02% 5 0.05% 6 0.04% 23 0.13% South Carolina N 126 2.16% 141 1.35% 267 1.64% 214 1.23% South Dakota Y 56 0.96% 147 1.41% 203 1.25% 204 1.17% Tennessee N 232 3.98% 194 1.86% 426 2.62% 356 2.04% Texas N 379 6.50% 652 6.27% 1,031 6.35% 1,339 7.67% 1Utah N 39 0.67% 30 0.29% 69 0.43% 84 0.48% Vermont Y 23 0.39% 20 0.19% 43 0.26% 51 0.29% Virginia N 172 2.95% 212 2.04% 384 2.37% 322 1.84% Washington Y 80 1.37% 205 1.97% 285 1.76% 406 2.32% West Virginia Y 40 0.69% 20 0.19% 60 0.37% 87 0.50% 
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 170 

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

1992 American Business Information’s Lists of 9.3 Million Businesses a

1992 Census of 

Wholesale Trade 

Farm Supply Dealers 

(SIC 5191.02) 

Fertilizer Dealers 

(SIC 5191.14) 

Agchem Dealers 

(SIC 5191.02 + 

5191.14) 

Farm Supply 

(SIC 5191) b

State 

State 

Reg. 

(Y/N) # Estab. % Total # Estab. % Total # Estab. % Total # Estab. % Total 

# of 

Est

by 

Ex

Wisconsin Y 169 2.90% 278 2.67% 447 2.75% 715 4.09% Wyoming N 17 0.29% 28 0.27% 45 0.28% 55 0.31% Totals 5,827 100% 10,407 100% 16,234 100% 17,469 100% 

Totals may not add due to rounding. Y = State regulations as of 2002. P = Pending proposed regulations. State Reg. indicates whether or 

containment regulations. * The estimated number of agricultural pesticide refillers is from the proposed EPA containment rule RIA, which 

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 

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, agricu

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 Busined 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 

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 

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 inclu

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 

restricted pesticides. 

o Berven, SD Department of Agriculture; estimate likely includes industrial and other non-ag dealers, so is adjusted downward for state totap Foster, TN Department of Agriculture; estimate reflects 75% of 300 Restricted Use Pesticide dealers as agricultural; remaining 25% non-aq Renchie, Texas Department of Agriculture. r Frank, WV Department of Agriculture; estimate reflects Registered Use Pesticide dealers. 
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 171 

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

Secondary 

Containment e

Roofed or Indoo

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 With Without With f Withou

Alabama N 393 10% 39 35 14 21 11 2Alaska N 2 10% 0 0 0 0 0 Arizona N 96 10% 10 9 4 5 3 Arkansas N 350 11% j 40 36 14 22 11 2California N 315 25% 79 71 28 43 21 5Colorado Y 241 25% 60 54 54* 0 16 3Connecticut N 53 10% 5 5 2 3 2 Delaware N 29 10% 3 3 1 2 1 D.C. N 0 10% 0 0 0 0 0 Florida N 503 10% 50 45 18 27 14 3Georgia N 527 10% 53 47 19 28 14 3Hawaii N 26 10% 3 2 1 1 1 Idaho N 204 10% 20 18 7 11 5 1Illinois Y 1,256 100% k 1,250 1,125 1,125* 0 338 78Indiana Y 500 50% l 250 225 225* 0 68 15Iowa Y 866 92% m 800 720 m 720* 0 216 50Kansas** Y 608 26% n 157 141 141* 0 42 9Kentucky Y 495 25% 124 111 111* 0 33 7Louisiana** Y 287 25% 72 65 65* 0 19 4Maine N 41 10% 4 4 2 2 1 Maryland N 160 10% 16 14 6 8 4 1Massachusetts P 63 10% 6 6 2 3 2 Michigan Y 411 73% o 300 270 270* 0 81 18Minnesota Y 677 75% p 505 455 455* 0 136 31Mississippi N 438 5% q 23 21 8 13 6 1Missouri Y 813 9% r 75 68 68* 0 20 4
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 172 

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

Secondary 

Containment e

Roofed or Indoo

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 With Without With f Withou

Montana N 153 34% s 53 47 19 28 14 3Nebraska Y 700 50% 350 315 315* 0 95 22Nevada N 19 10% 2 2 1 1 1 New Hampshire Y 21 10% 2 2 2* 0 1 New Jersey N 78 10% 8 7 3 4 2 New Mexico N 69 10% 7 6 2 4 2 New York N 271 25% 68 61 24 37 18 4North Carolina P 677 10% 68 61 24 37 18 4North Dakota** Y 321 30% t 96 86 86* 0 26 6Ohio Y 660 44% u 292 263 263* 0 79 18Oklahoma N 370 14% v 50 45 18 27 14 3Oregon N 175 10% 18 16 6 10 5 1Pennsylvania N 216 25% 54 49 20 29 15 3Rhode Island N 6 10% 1 1 0 1 0 South Carolina N 267 10% 27 24 10 14 7 1South Dakota Y 300 40% w 120 108 108* 0 65 w 4Tennessee N 225 3% x 6 5 2 3 2 Texas N 1,500 10% y 150 135 54 81 41 9Utah N 69 10% 7 6 2 4 2 Vermont Y 43 16% z 7 6 6* 0 2 Virginia N 384 10% 38 35 14 21 11 2Washington Y 285 25% 71 64 64* 0 19 4West Virginia Y 140 2% aa 3 3 3* 0 1 
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 173 

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

Secondary 

Containment e

Roofed or Indoo

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 With Without With f Withou

Wisconsin Y 447 35% ab 154 139 139* 0 7 ab 13Wyoming N 45 10% 5 4 2 2 1 Totals 16,795 5,601 5,040 4,548 491 1,510 3,53States w/ regs States w/o regs

9,071 7,724

4,688 

913

4,220 

820

4,220 

328 

0 

 491

1,264 

246

2,95

57

Totals may not add due to rounding. Y = State regulations. P = Pending regulations. * Secondary containment standards required by state 

regulations do not specify standards for pads. *** The estimates of compliance and the number of agricultural chemical dealers are based on containment rule RIA. For the final rule the estimates of compliance were updated based on discussions with State agencies and a review o

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 d Based on the estimate in the proposed EPA containment rule RIA that 90% of all bulk facilities store in undivided quantities greater than 5e Assumes 100% of facilities in states regulating bulk storage (>250 gallons) have secondary containment units. In unregulated states, 40% 

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 

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; otherw

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. Adjusten 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

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 apu 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 174 

w Berven, SD Department of Agriculture; at least 150 facilities, of which 80% are dealers. 60% of bulk storage facilities are indoors. x 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 3
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 175 

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

Number of Affected Facilities 

Item 

SmallSmall 

Facility 

MediumSmall 

Facility 

LargeSmall 

Facility 

Large 

Facility Total 

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers a

Outdoor Liquid Bulk Storage: 

Secondary containment + containment pad 

Number of affected facilities 

270 46 5 3 324 b

Containment pad only 

Number of affected facilities 

200 34 4 2 240 b

Outdoor Liquid and Dry Bulk Storage: 

Secondary containment + containment pad 

Number of affected facilities 

n/a 17 6 6 28 c

Indoor Liquid Bulk Storage: 

Secondary containment + containment pad 

Number of affected facilities 

116 20 2 1 139 b

Containment pad only 

Number of affected facilities 

86 15 2 1 103 b

Outdoor Non-bulk Storage: 

Small containment pad only 

Number of affected facilities 

561 n/a n/a n/a 561 d

Independent Aerial Applicators e

Outdoor Liquid Bulk Storage: 

Secondary containment + large containment pad 

Number of affected facilities 

6 9 1 n/a 16 f

Large containment pad only 

Number of affected facilities 

n/a 7 3 n/a 10 f

Independent Ground Applicators e

Outdoor Liquid Bulk Storage: 

Secondary containment + medium containment pad 

Number of affected facilities 

n/a n/a 5 n/a 5 f

Medium containment pad only 

Number of affected facilities 

n/a n/a 3 n/a 3 f

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 176 

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 177 

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 

Monthly inspection/records of inspection and maintenance 1,602 62 

Secondary Containment - Bulk Dry Containers 

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 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 178 

Table G.4. Number of Bulk Pesticide Containment Facilities Affected by EPA’s 

Containment Regulations to Retrofit Existing Containment Structures (Continued) 

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)]. 

b 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 179 

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 

TOTAL, Year 3 d

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 

5,600 

2,739 

850 

548 

1,653 

1,644 

0 

149 

2,230 

483 

10,300 

6,163 

1,096 

548 

2,356 

3,013 

0 

264 

3,953 

856 

18,250 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

 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.
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 180 

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 

Rinsate/precipitation 

pumping 

Rinsate/precipitation offsite b

Monthly inspection/ 

recordkeeping c

28/hr 

28/hr 

62-151/trip 

28/hr 

668 

39 

372 

77 

950 

116 

373 

103 

1,361 

218 

1,056 

128 

Total O&M, Years 4-20 d 1,160 1,540 2,760 

Intermittent (every 5 years) costs 

Repair cracks/gaps/seams 

Contractor’s fees + 

contingency 

2.84/ft 

20% intermittent 

costs 

41 

8 

96 

19 

 109 

22 

Total intermittent, Years 

8,13, and 18 d

 50 120 130 

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 181 

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 

Concrete pad b

Berm c

Rinsate/precipitation tank d

Portable pump and hose 

Pipes and fixtures 

Contractor’s fees 

Contingency 

TOTAL, Year 3 e

---- 

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 

2,170 

--- 

876 

589 

411 

38 

469 

117 

2,500 

--- 

1,124 

1,301 

411 

57 

709 

177 

3,780 a

 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. 
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 182 

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 

Monthly inspection/ 

recordkeeping b

28/hr 

28/hr 

668 

77 

950 

103 

1,361 

128 

Total O&M, Years 4-20 a 740 1,050 1,490 

Intermittent (every 5 years) costs 

Repair cracks/gaps/seams 

Contractor’s fees + 

contingency 

2.84/ft 

20% intermittent 

costs 

41 

8 

96 

19 

110 

22 

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 183 

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

Capital Costs 

Storage of Dry Bulk 

Pesticide ($/Facility) 

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 

TOTAL, Year 3 d

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 

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 184 

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 

668 

103 

77 

Total O&M, Years 4-20 850 

Intermittent (every 5 years) 

costs

 

Repair cracks/gaps/seams 

Contractor’s fees and contingency 

2.84/ft 

20% of 

intermittent costs

 82 

16 

Total intermittent, Years 8, 13 and 18 c 100 

a

 Costs inflated from 1992 to 2005 using the CPI-U “All Items” (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005).

b

 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. 
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 185 

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 

30% of direct costs 

5% of direct 

costs+fees 

2,876 

548 

274 

589 

1,286 

279 

8,902 

822 

411 

1,657 

3,538 

767 

20,955 

1,233 

411 

2,356 

7,486 

1,622 

Total, Scenario 1, Year 3 e 5,850 16,100 34,060 

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 

548/each 

30% of direct costs 

5% of direct 

costs+fees 

2,876 

548 

274 

589 

548 

1,450 

314 

9,972 

822 

411 

1,657 

548 

4,023 

872 

20,955 

1,233 

411 

2,356 

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 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

$/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 

Rinsate storage tank b

Concrete ramp 

Contractor’s fees 

Contingency 

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 

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 

4,000 

342 

685 

1,508 

327 

12,174 

 

589 

959 

4,117 

892 

28,899 

1,301 

6,848 

11,114 

2,408 

Total, Scenario 1, Year 3 c 6,860 18,730 50,570 
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 187 

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 

411/each 

342-1301/each 2/ 

30% of direct 

costs, 

excluding transport 

and disposal 

5% of direct 

costs+fees 

5,684 

411 

342 

1,931 

418 

16,558 

411 

589 

5,267 

1,141 

37,732 

411 

1,301 

11,833 

2,564 

Total, Scenario 2, Year 3 c 8,790 23,970 53,840 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

 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. 
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 188 

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 

150.1/trip 

28/hr 

668 

154 

265 

103 

1,027 

154 

905 

128 

1,361 

591 

3,017 

128 

Total O&M, Years 4–20 1,190 2,210 5,100 

Intermittent (every 5 years) costs b

Repair cracks/gaps/seams 

Contractor’s fees and 

contingency 

2.84/ft 

20% of 

intermittent costs 

34 

7 

41 

8 

55 

11 

Total Intermittent, Years 8, 13, and 18 40 50 70 

INDOOR CONTAINMENT PADS 

Operating and management (O&M) costs 

Spill cleanup 

Monthly 

inspection/recordkeeping 

28/hr 

28/hr 

668 

77 

1,027 

77 

1,361 

128 

Total O&M, Years 4–20 740 1,100 1,490 

Intermittent (every 5 years) costs b

Repair cracks/gaps/seams 

Contractor’s fees and 

contingency 

2.74/ft 

20% of 

intermittent costs 

34 

7 

41 

8 

55 

11 

Total Intermittent, Years 8, 13, and 18 40 50 70 

a

 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. 
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 189 

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

Large-Small 10,000 18250 2790 130

Commercial Ground Applicatorse 

Small-Small na na na na 

Medium-Small na na na na 

Large-Small 10,000 10,300 1550 120

a

 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.
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 190 

Table H.11. Capital, Initial, O&M and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with Containment Regulations by 

Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Aerial and Ground Applicators to Retrofit EXISTIContainment Structures, 2005$ a

Agricultural refillers (refilling 

establishments) 

Costs of compliance 

by facility size (in $) 

Critical standards retrofitting cost element for 

existing secondary containment structures Type of cost b Unit cost ($/unit) 

Number of 

Facilities 

Affected c

SmallSmall Medium- Small 

LargeSmall, 

Large

Num

o

Faci

Affe

Secondary containment for stationary bulk liquid containers f1. Seal floor drain/discharge outlet Initial (Year 3) Labor 54.78/hr 55 55 55 Grout 11.41/cu ft 11 11 11 Portable pump and hose 548/each 548 548 548 Contractor's fees 15% of direct costs 92 92 92 Contingency 

5% of direct costs and fees 35 35 35 

Total d 333 740 740 740 8 2. Repair all cracks/gaps/seams 

Initial and 

intermittent 

(Years 3, 8, 13, 

and 18) 

Rout crack(s); clean, grout & tamper 2.84/ft 34 93 113 Contractor's fees 15% of direct costs 5 14 17 Contingency 

5% of direct costs and fees 2 5 7 

Total d 295 40 110 140 0 3. Monthly inspection/records of inspection and maintenance e

O&M 

(Years 4-20) 28/hr 1,602 30 30 30 6
7/13/2006 DRAFT Containment EA, page 191 

Table H.11. Capital, Initial, O&M and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with Containment Regulations 

Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Aerial and Ground Applicators to Retrofit EXIS

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 Type of cost b Unit cost ($/unit) 

Number of 

Facilities 

Affected c

SmallSmall Medium- Small 

LargeSmall, 

Large

Num

o

Faci

Affe

Secondary containment for stationary dry bulk containers f1. Repair all cracks/gaps/seams (one container) 

Initial and 

intermittent 

(Years 3, 8, 13, 

and 18) 

Rout crack(s); clean, grout & tamper 2.84/ft ---- 83 83 Contractor's fees 15% of direct costs ---- 13 13 Contingency 

5% of direct costs and fees ---- 5 5 

Total d 15 ---- 100 100 0 2. Monthly inspection/records of inspection and maintenance e

O&M 

(Years 4-20) 24/hr 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 ye

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 

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 Containment EA, page 192

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

Estimated 

Number of 

Facilities 

Affected 

Cost by Size of Containment 

Pad ($) c 

Critical Standards 

Retrofitting Cost 

Element For 

Containment Pads 

Agchem 

refillers a

Indep. 

Apps a Type of Cost b Unit Cost ($/Unit)

Small 

Pad 

(15'x30') 

Medium 

Pad 

(25'x50')

Large 

Pad 

(60'x50')

1. Seal drain 263 7 Initial (Year 3) d

 

Labor 54.78/hr 55 55 55

Grout 11.41/cu ft 11 11 11

Contractor's fees 15% direct costs 10 10 10

Contingency 

5% of direct costs 

and fees 4 4 4

Total 80 80 80

2. Add sump 343 11 Capital (Year 3) d

 

Cut concrete for sump 4.95/ft 70 79 79

Demolish concrete - sump 

area 5.66/sq ft 68 90 90

Sump construction: 

 Excavation 5.14/cu yd 5 9 10

 Gravel 15.28/cu yd 14 16 18

 Reinforced concrete 268/cu yd 128 163 193

 Steel edge (frame) 11.58/ft 70 93 93

 Grate 6.76/sq ft 15 28 28

Additional berm: 

 Rough concrete/bond 

agent 4.10/sq ft 352 582 885

 Concrete forms 2.74/ft 235 389 592

 Reinforcement bars 3.02/ft 663

 Concrete forms 1.78-3.02/sq ft 153 254 653

Grout 1.24/ft 103 177 264

Contractor's fees 30% direct costs 364 564 1,070

Contingency 

5% of direct costs 

and fees 79 122 232

Total 1,660 2,560 4,870

3. Repair 

cracks/gaps/seams 185 0 

Rout crack(s); clean, grout 2.84/ft 29 48 56

Contractor's fees 

Initial and 

intermittent (Years 

3, 8, 13 and 18) d 15% direct costs 4 7 8

Contingency 

5% of direct costs 

and fees 2 3 3

Total 30 60 70

4. Monthly inspection/ 

Records of inspection 

and maintenance e 

1445 57 O&M (Years 4-20) d 28/hr 30 30 30
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 193

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. 

b

 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.
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 194

Table H.13. Capital, Initial, O&M and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with Containment Regulations b

Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Aerial and Ground Applicators to Retrofit EXISTContainers, 2005$ e

Potential Number of Facilities 

Affected a

Incremental Cos

by Capacity of 

Contain

Full Standards Retrofitting Cost Element 

for Bulk Containers in Existing Secondary 

Containment Structures 

Agchem 

refillers 

Commercial 

applicators 

Type of 

cost Unit Cost ($/Unit) 

SmallSmall Medium -Small 

Bulk Liquid Containers, Plastic 1. Anchor containers 174 2

Initial 

(Year 3) d

Move container, labor for drilling in anchors, alter plumbing 479/container 479 479 Contractor's fees 15% direct costs 72 72 Contingency 

5% of direct costs 

and fees 28 28 

Total b 580 580 2. Monthly inspection/records of inspection and maintenance 3,725 38

O&M 

(Years 4-

20) d 28/hr 30 30 

Bulk Liquid Containers, Steel 1. Anchor containers 194 2

Initial 

(Year 3) d

Move tank, labor for drilling in anchors, alter plumbing 479/container 479 479 Contractor's fees 15% direct costs 72 72 Contingency 

5% of direct costs 

and fees 28 28 

Total b 580 580 2. Monthly inspection/records of inspection and maintenance c 401 4

O&M 

(Years 4-

20) d 28/hr 30 30 

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 p

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 i

more than one bulk container will incur multiples of this cost. Rounded to nearest $10. 
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 195

Table H.13. Capital, Initial, O&M and Intermittent Costs of Compliance with Containment Regulations b

Facility Size for Agricultural Refillers and Commercial Aerial and Ground Applicators to Retrofit EXISTContainers, 2005$ e 

d The cost analysis is conducted for a 20-year period, beginning with the year the regulations become effective. Pesticide bulk storage 

secondary containment structures must have them brought into compliance by the compliance date, which is at the end of the third year the regulations. Thus, it is assumed that existing containment structures are modified by the end of Year 3, with the facility in complia

Year 4. Capital costs therefore are incurred at the end of year 3 and operating and maintenance costs are incurred in years 4-20. Intermto 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 196

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 

 

Impacted 

facilities a

Facility-Level 

Annualized Costs 

($/facility) 

Annual CostRevenue Ratio 

(%) 

AGRICULTURAL REFILLER b

Outdoor Liquid Bulk Storage 

(A) Both secondary containment and pad 

Small c 321 2,680 0.14

Small-Small 270 2,544 0.34

Medium-Small 46 3,133 0.05

Large-Small 5 5,983 0.03

Large 3 5,983 0.003

(B) Containment pad only 

Small 238 1,358 0.07

Small-Small 200 1,335 0.18

Medium-Small 34 1,335 0.02

Large-Small 4 2,838 0.01

Large 2 2,838 0.002

Outdoor Dry Bulk Storage 

(A) Both secondary containment and pad 

Small 23 4,858 0.05

Small-Small 0 n/a na

Medium-Small 17 4,483 0.07

Large-Small 6 5,983 0.03

Large 6 5,983 0.003

Indoor Liquid Bulk Storage 

(A) Both secondary containment and pad 

Small 138 1,780 0.10

Small-Small 116 1,715 0.23

Medium-Small 20 1,988 0.03

Large-Small 2 3,405 0.02

Large 1 3,405 0.002

(B) Containment pad only 

Small 102 1,130 0.06

Small-Small 86 1,112 0.15

Medium-Small 15 1,112 0.02

Large-Small 2 2,303 0.01

Large 1 2,303 0.001

Nonbulk Activities 

(A) Containment pad only 

Small 561 1,335 0.18

Small-Small 561 1,335 0.18

Medium-Small n/a na na

Large-Small n/a na na

Large n/a na na
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 197

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) 

 

Impacted 

facilities 

Facility-Level 

Annualized Costs 

($/facility) 

Annual CostRevenue Ratio 

(%) 

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS d

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 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 

 Impacted facilities a

Facility-Level 

Annualized Costs 

Annual CostRevenue Ratio 

 ($/facility) (%) 

AGRICULTURAL REFILLER b

Outdoor Liquid Bulk Storage 

(A) Both secondary containment and pad 

Small c 321 2,628 0.14

Small-Small 270 2,487 0.33

Medium-Small 46 3,101 0.05

Large-Small 5 5,988 0.03

Large 3 5,988 0.003

(B) Containment pad only 

Small 238 1,340 0.07

Small-Small 200 1,316 0.18

Medium-Small 34 1,316 0.02

Large-Small 4 2,878 0.01

Large 2 2,878 0.002

Outdoor Dry Bulk Storage 

(A) Both secondary containment and pad 

Small 23 4,826 0.05

Small-Small n/a n/a n/a

Medium-Small 17 4,439 0.07

Large-Small 6 5,988 0.03

Large 6 5,988 0.003

Indoor Liquid Bulk Storage 

(A) Both secondary containment and pad 

Small 138 1,763 0.10

Small-Small 116 1,701 0.23

Medium-Small 20 1,951 0.03

Large-Small 2 3,462 0.02

Large 1 3,462 0.002

(B) Containment pad only 

Small 102 1,178 0.06

Small-Small 86 1,158 0.15

Medium-Small 15 1,158 0.02

Large-Small 2 2,505 0.01

Large 1 2,505 0.001

Nonbulk Activities 

(A) Containment pad only 

Small 561 1,316 0.18

Small-Small 561 1,316 0.18

Medium-Small n/a na na

Large-Small n/a na na

Large n/a na na
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 199

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) 

 Impacted facilities 

Facility-Level 

Annualized Costs 

Annual CostRevenue Ratio 

 ($/facility) (%) 

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS d

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

Large-Small e 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

Large-Small e 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 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 

 Impacted facilities by Cost Type: a

 

Capital Initial O&M Intermittent

Maximum 

Facility-Level 

Annualized 

Costs 

($/facility) b

Annual 

CostRevenue 

Ratio (%) 

AGRICULTURAL REFILLER c

Bulk Liquid Storage 

Small d 0 330 1588 292 74 0.004

Small-Small 0 277 1335 246 73 0.010

Medium-Small 0 47 228 42 83 0.001

Large-Small 0 5 24 4 87 0.000

Large 0 3 15 3 87 0.000

Bulk Dry Storage 

Small 0 0 66 14 37 0.000

Small-Small n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Medium-Small 0 0 60 13 n/a 0.001

Large-Small 0 0 6 1 37 0.0002

Large 0 0 4 1 37 0.00002

Containment Pads 

Small 339 260 1432 183 142 0.008

Small-Small 285 219 1204 154 132 0.018

Medium-Small 49 37 206 26 189 0.003

Large-Small 5 4 22 3 329 0.002

Large 3 2 13 2 329 0.0002

Bulk Liquid Container 

Small 0 365 4089 0 58 0.003

Small-Small 0 307 3439 0 58 0.008

Medium-Small 0 53 588 0 58 0.001

Large-Small 0 6 62 0 58 0.0003

Large 0 4 38 0 58 0.00003

Aggregate Facility Impacts e 

Small 279 0.015

Small-Small 263 0.035

Medium-Small 367 0.006

Large-Small 510 0.002

Large 510 0.0003

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS f

Bulk Liquid Storage 

Small 0 8 62 0 79 0.03

Small-Small 0 3 24 0 73 0.08

Medium-Small 0 4 35 0 83 0.02

Large-Small 0 0 3 0 87 0.01
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 201

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)

 Impacted facilities by Cost Type: 

 

Capital Initial O&M Intermittent

Maximum 

Facility-Level 

Annualized 

Costs 

($/facility) 

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 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 

 Impacted facilities by Cost Type: a

 Capital Initial O&M Intermittent 

Maximum 

Facility-Level 

Annualized Costs 

($/facility) b

Annual CostRevenue Ratio 

(%)

AGRICULTURAL REFILLER c

Bulk Liquid Storage 

Small d 0 330 1,588 292 80 0.004

Small-Small 0 277 1,335 246 79 0.011

Medium-Small 0 47 228 42 87 0.001

Large-Small 0 5 24 4 90 0.000

Large 0 3 15 3 90 0.000

Bulk Dry Storage 

Small 0 0 66 14 32 0.000

Small-Small n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Medium-Small 0 0 60 13 32 0.001

Large-Small 0 0 6 1 32 0.0002

Large 0 0 4 1 32 0.00002

Containment Pads 

Small 339 260 1,432 183 162 0.009

Small-Small 285 219 1,204 154 150 0.020

Medium-Small 49 37 206 26 218 0.003

Large-Small 5 4 22 3 386 0.002

Large 3 2 13 2 386 0.0002

Bulk Liquid Container 

Small 0 365 4,089 0 62 0.003

Small-Small 0 307 3,439 0 63 0.008

Medium-Small 0 53 588 0 63 0.001

Large-Small 0 6 62 0 63 0.0003

Large 0 3 38 0 63 0.00004

Aggregate Facility Impacts e 

Small 309 0.017

Small-Small 292 0.039

Medium-Small 400 0.006

Large-Small 571 0.003

Large 571 0.0003

COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS f

Bulk Liquid Storage 

Small 0 8 62 0 84 0.03

Small-Small 0 3 24 0 79 0.08

Medium-Small 0 4 35 0 87 0.02

Large-Small 0 0 3 0 90 0.01

Containment Pads 

Small 11 7 57 0 200 0.07

Small-Small 4 3 22 0 150 0.16

Medium-Small 6 4 32 0 218 0.06

Large-Small 1 0 3 0 386 0.05
7/13/2006 Containment EA, page 203

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 

Facility-Level 

Annualized Costs 

($/facility)

Annual CostRevenue Ratio 

(%)

Bulk Liquid Container 

Small 0 4 42 0 63 0.02

Small-Small 0 2 17 0 63 0.07

Medium-Small 0 2 24 0 63 0.02

Large-Small 0 0 2 0 63 0.01

Aggregate Facility Impacts 

Small 347 0.12

Small-Small 292 0.31

Medium-Small 368 0.10

Large-Small 539 0.07 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.