DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTE MANAGEMENT
DATA BASE SYSTEM
DPRA
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
200 Research Drive PO. Box 727 Manhattan, Kansas 66502
Telephone 913-539-3565 Cable: AGRI Telex 704314
-------
Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc.
200 Research Drive, P.O. Box 727, Manhattan, Kansas 66502
DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTE MANAGEMENT
DATA BASE SYSTEM
For
EPA Contract No. 68-01-6621
Work Assignment No. 171
To
Economic Analysis Branch
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
P. 627
August 1985
-------
CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WMDBS 1
A. Background and Purpose 2
B. System Implementation 3
C. Development of the WMDBS Data Base 5
D. Data Access Design 17
III. PROGRESS TO DATE 33
IV. FUTURE OPTIONS 34
APPENDIX — REFERENCES
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTE MANAGEMENT
DATA BASE SYSTEM
I. INTRODUCTION
This document presents an overview of the Waste Management Data Base System
(WMDBS) and provides the reader with a general introduction to this system.
As such, the discussion is of a nontechnical nature, concentrating on the
conceptual/design aspects of WMDBS as well as on the user's interface with
the system.
This document has three major sections in addition to this introduction.
The first section describes WMDBS and includes a discussion of (1) the
background and purpose of WMDBS, (2) the implementation of WMDBS, (3) the
development of WMDBS's data base, and (4) the data access design.
Additionally, example screens are included as well as a listing of data
which will be available.
The second major section outlines the progress on WMDBS to date and
discusses what still needs to be completed. The final section discusses
additional items and options which could be considered for addition to
WMDBS in the future.
II. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WMDBS
WMDBS may be conceptualized as consisting of three major parts: a data
base, a series of menus which allow the user to interface with this data
base and group of programs which run the menus and retrieve the data
requested by the user. This description will address the first two parts
of the system only, since a discussion of the third would of necessity be
-------
more technical than most readers of this document might desire. The
description begins with a discussion of the background and purpose of
WMDBS. This is followed by a brief, non-technical description of how the
system will be implemented and what the advantages and disadvantages are of
this method of implementation. The next section deals with WMDBS's data
base and its development. This description ends with a discussion of the
menus which will be used to allow the user to interface with this system.
This final subsection will include example screens illustrating how a user
might obtain information on landfills.
A. Background and Purpose
During the past seven years, numerous RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal
regulations have been researched, analyzed, proposed and promulgated. As a
result of these efforts, surveys (e.g., Mail, Site Visit, Burner) have been
conducted, statistics analyzed, costs have been estimated, and many reports
have been prepared. Unfortunately, the information from this vast and
growing data on hazardous waste facilities and the costs to regulate them
has not been available in a consolidated, up-to-date data base. Instead,
this information has often remained within the original reports which are
scattered throughout EPA and contractor files. Analysts, needing to
assemble data from these reports, must go back to the original documents,
printouts, and worksheets to extract the desired information on a
case-by-case basis. Analysts must also determine which of the
informational sources are the most applicable to their needs, and then try
to locate the desired reports, printouts or worksheets.
The intent of WMDBS is to provide a mechanism by which these data on
hazardous waste facilities can be conveniently stored and retrieved without
the inconvenience and possible confusion described in the preceding
paragraph. Thus, to construct the data base portion of WMDBS, recent
(i.e., within the last four years) reports and surveys on hazardous waste
facilities have been reviewed and relevant information extracted. These
-------
data have or will be entered into the WMDBS data base. This information
can be conveniently retrieved in a form useable to the Economic Analysis
Branch (EAB) for the analysis and development of policies and regulations.
Additionally, WMDBS is designed so that as new regulations are proposed and
new technologies develop, this information can be easily added to the
system.
B. System Implementation
WMDBS will be implemented on an IBM AT microcomputer using dBASE III. The
AT will provide adequate space to store the system's data base as well as
provide adequate speed for handling requests made by system users. dBASE
III is a sophisticated data base management system for microcomputers and
will provide the software necessary to store, retrieve, manipulate and
display information in a manner which will meet the needs of EAB.
WMDBS will be implemented as a menu-driven system providing a user friendly
interface with the system and the machine. The advantage of such an
interface is that the menus act as intermediaries between the user and data
base, thus, relieving the user from the burden of learning the data
retrieval language and understanding the structure of the data base. The
user simply has to respond to questions which define the type and amount of
information desired. The computer will then respond by executing the steps
necessary to retrieve and present the information requested. The menu
programs are written to respond to only those options specified on the
screen. This restriction of system response prevents new users from
accidentally entering a key or function which could damage the program or
data base, and keeps more familiar users from performing operations
prohibited for reasons of system security or integrity.
With a menu-driven system the user is limited to a predefined set of
operations, since only those options specified in the menu can be selected.
dBASE III, however, provides enough flexibility so that changes to the
-------
system can be easily integrated with already functioning operations. Thus,
most user perceived limitations of the menu system can be easily remedied,
allowing the system to grow as the use and demands of the system change.
Finally, a knowledgeable user can go around the menu system.
The WMDBS program is made up of several sub-programs called modules. Each
module performs a specific function within the overall system. At this
time, there are seven such modules: CONTROL, TECHNOLOGY, PROFILE1,
PROFILE2, COST1, COST2, and COSTS.
Except for CONTROL, each module is designed to only work when the user
chooses to look at one technology. Additional modules will have to be
added to handle the multiple technology comparison option. The specific
functions for the presently developed modules are as follows:
• CONTROL is the main controlling module of the program. Initially
it asks the user to" enter the type of comparison that is to be
performed.
i TECHNOLOGY presents the technology choices on the screen and
prompts the user to select the technology to be worked with.
• PROFILEl presents a list of all of the profile information from
which the user can select.
• PROFILE2 controls the presentation of profile information
selected in PROFILEl.
t COST1 displays the available cost information on the screen and
prompts the user to select what cost information they would like
to see.
-------
• COST2 prompts the user to select the display format for the cost
information.
• COSTS displays the cost information in a spreadsheet format
allows the user to perform some manipulations on the data.
C. Development of the WMDBS Data Base
Figure 2-1 illustrates the process of information extraction and storage
used for WMDBS. Hazardous waste laws and regulations are developed whose
effects must be assessed. Surveys and studies are in turn generated during
this assessment. These studies and surveys are examined and reviewed, and
relevant information is taken from them and entered into the data base
portion of WMDBS. We anticipate that as new reports and surveys are
conducted, new information will be added to the system and old information
will be updated or replaced.
There are three types of data in the data base portion of WMDBS — profile,
cost and auxiliary. Profile information includes data which serves to
describe hazardous waste facilities and technologies such as number of
units by technology, size distributions for each technology, facility
capacities, and waste quantities. A listing of the profile information
which has been collected to date is presented in Table 2-1. This listing
is organized by technology and the sources for these data are noted.
The cost information portion of the data base will contain cost estimates
for managing (i.e., storage, treatment and disposal) hazardous waste under
RCRA. The majority of these data can be organized by technology, within
technology by design type (e.g., unlined, double synthetic liner) and
within design type by size. Originally, these costs were going to be taken
directly from the cost/impact reports which have been written for each of
the technologies,and for the treatment and storage of hazardous waste.
However, we found, for example, that for each of the four major land
-------
Figure 2-1. Data collection and storage schematic for Waste Management Data Base System
Legal and
regulatory
Impetus
Universe of hazardous
waste management
Information sources
Data
collection
Haste Management
Data Base
PROFILE
INFORMATION
SOURCES
AUXILIARY
IHFORMATIOH
STORAGE
LAWS
AND
REGULATIONS
(1)
COST
INFORMATION
SOURCES
DATA
COLLECTION
(2)
COST
INFORMATION
STORAGE
PROFILE
INFORMATION
STORAGE
(3.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Proposed and promulgated pertinent laws and regulations.
Profile and cost data deemed aopronriate are extracted and collected from sources.
Source title and other bibliographic data.
Requlatory authority for creation of source information.
Assumptions used in source.
Cost information.
Profile information.
-------
Table 2-1. Profile information which has been collected for WMDBS
Technology
Data available
Source
CONTAINERS Number of facilities using technology, 1981
Number of storage facilities using technology, 1981
Number of TSD facilities using technology, 1981
Total quantity of hazardous waste stored using technology, 1981:
Bil gal
MMT
Average quantity of HW stored/facility, during 1981:
Bil gal
Thous MT
Average storage time (hours)
Average total gallons of HW stored/facility in containers
on any day, 1981
Average maximum gallons of HW stored/facility in containers
on any day, 1981
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
DISPOSAL Number of facilities using technology, 1981
SURFACE Number of disposal facilities using technology, 1981
IMPOUNDMENTS Number of TSD using technology, 1981
Total quantity of HW disposed of in technology, 1981:
Bil gal
MMT
Average quantity of HW disposed of per facility using
technology, 1981:
Bil gal
MMT
Total gallons of waste disposed of using technology, 1981
Total capacity, 1981
Estimated expansion capacity, 1981
Total number of- units
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
GENERATORS Number of HW generators
Number of generators by 2-digit SIC
Number of generators by 3-digit SIC
Number of generators by waste type
Number of generators by EPA region
Total gallons of HW generated, 1981
Amount of total generated HW which was recycled off-site
by another firm, 1981
Amount of total HW which is recycled on-site, 1981
Amount of total HW which is recycled off-site by same firm
Total gallons of HW shipped off-site in 1981
Percent of total HW shipped off-site which is sent to firms
owned by others
Average total gallons of HW at a generation facility in 1981
Average optimum size of a waste shipment (gal)
Amount of HW accumulated in tanks
Amount of HW accumulated in containers
Amount of HW accumulated in other types of storage
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Number of facilities
Number of facilities by EPA Region
Total quantity of waste generated
Number of facilities exceeding storage criteria
Number of facilities subject to volume based regulatory
criteria
Quantity of industrial used oil generated in 1983 by SIC
(million gallons)
Number of facilities exceeding capacity requirements
by SIC
Biennial Report, 1985
Biennial Report, 1985
Biennial Report, 1985
Waste Oil, 1984
Waste Oil, 1984
Waste Oil, 1984
Waste Oil, 1984
Continued . . .
-------
Table 2-1 (Continued)
Page 2
Technology
Data available
Source
INCINERATORS Number of facilities, with technology, 1981
Number of treatment facilities using technology, 1981
Number of TSD using technology, 1981
Total quantity of HU treated using technology, 1981:
311 gal
M11 MT
Average quantity of HU processed/facility using technology, 1981:
311 gal
M11 MT
Median facility capacity (thous. MT/yr)
No. of commercial facilities with technology by EPA Region
Total no. of commercial facility with technology, 1980
Vol. of HW processed by comm. off-site facilities using
technology by EPA Region
Total volume of HU processed by commercial off-site facility
using technology, 1980
Engineering & construction time requirements for a median
facility
Total quantity of all wastes burned, 1981
Avg. heat value of HU burned in 1981 (Btu/T)
Avg. hourly feed rate of HW to incinerator (lbs/nr)
Avg. total gal. of HU residual produced/facility, 1981
Avg. % of HU residuals shipped off-site/facility
Avg. day/year incinerator operated (8 hrs/day)
Avg. normal min. & max. combustion chamber temp.
Avg. normal min. & max. combustion chamber residence time
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Boor Allen, 1980
Booz Allen, 1980
Booz Allen, 1980
Booz Allen, 1980
Booz Allen, 1980
Booz Allen, 1980
Booz Allen, 1980
Booz Allen, 1980
Booz Allen, 1980
Booz Allen, 1980
Booz Allen, 1980
Booz Allen, 1980
Booz Allen, 1980
Booz Allen, 1980
INJECTION
WELLS
Number of facilities using technology, 1981
Number disposal facilities using technology, 1981
Number of TSD using technology, 1981
Total quantity of HU disposed of in technology, 1981:
Bil gal
Mil MT
Avg. quantity/facility of HU disposed of in technology, 1981:
Bil gal
Mil MT
Total number of units
Total gal. of waste disposed of in technology, 1981
Total capacity, 1981
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
LANDFILLS
Number of facilities using technology, 1981
Number of disposal facility using technology, 1981
Number of TSD facility using technology, 1981
Total quantity of HU disposed of using technology, 1981:
811 gal
M11 MT
Avg. amount HU disposed per facility using technology, 1981:
B11 gal
M11 MT
Number of units by size group
No. of units affected, by the regulation, by design type
Number of unites affected by the regulation
Number of units needing counter pumping
Total number of units in U.S.
No. of commercial facilities with this technology by EPA region
Total-number of commercial facilities with this technology in
the U.S., 1980
8
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
OPRA 4 EPA, 1984
DPRA, 1984
EPA, 1982
EPA, 1982
EPA, 1982
Booz Allen, 1980
Booz Allen, 1980
Continued . . .
-------
Table 2-1 (Continued)
Page 3
Technology
Data available
Source
LANDFILLS
(Con'd)
Plume size (acres/unit) for units needing counterpumping
Average size (acres/unit) for units needing counterpumping
Engineering & construction time requirements for a secure
landfill (years)
Vol. of HW processed by offsite commercial facility in 1980 by
EPA Region (TMT)
Total volume of HW processed at off-site commercial
facilities using this technology, 1980
Number of units
Average size/unit (avg. overall units in U.S.)
EPA, 1982
EPA, 1982
Booz Allen, 1980
Booz Allen, 1980
Booz Allen, 1980
Mail Survey
EPA, 1982
LAND
TREATMENT
Number of facilities using technology, 1981
Number of disposal facilities using technology, 1981
Number of TSD using technology, 1981
Total quantity HW disposed of using technology, 1981:
Bil gal
MMT
Avg. quantity of HW disposed of/ unit using technology, 1981:
Bil gal
MMT
Number of units by size
Number of units needing corrective action
Number of units affected by regulation
Number of commercial facilities offering this HW service by
EPA region
Total number of commercial facilities offering this HW
service in the U.S., 1980
Number of land treatment units
Engineering 4 construction time requirements
Average acreage of units needing counterpumping
Average plume size of units needing counterpumping
Total volume of HW processed by commercial facilities
(off-site) using this technology, 1980
Volume of hazardous waste processed by commercial
facilities (off-site) by EPA region
Total capacity for treatment, 1981
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Ma.il Survey
EPA, 1982
EPA, 1982
EPA, 1982
EPA, 1982
Booz Allen, 1980
EPA, 1982 & Mail Survey
Booz Allen, 1980
EPA, 1982
EPA, 1982
Booz Allen, 1980
Booz Allen, 1980
Mail Survey
OTHER
DISPOSAL
METHODS
Number of facilities with this technology,- 1981
Number of disposal using this technology, 1981
Number of TSD using this technology, 1981
Total quantity of HW disposed of in this technology, 1981:
Bil gal
MMT
Average quantity of HW disposed of/facility using this
technology, 1981:
Mil gal
MMT
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
OTHER
STORAGE
METHODS
Number of facilities using technology, 1981
Number of storage facilities using technology, 1981
Number of TSD using technology, 1981
Total quantity of HW stored in technology, 1981:
Stored
Bil gal
MMT
Avg. quantity of HW. stored/facility stored in technology, 1981:
BJ1 gal
MMT
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Continued . .
-------
Table 2-1 (Continued)
Page 4
Technology
Data available
Source
OTHER
TREATMENT
METHODS
Number of facilities using process, 1981
Number of TRT facilities using process, 1981
Number of TSD facilities using process, 1981
Total quantity of HW processed:
B11 gal
MMT
Average quantity assessed per facility:
811 gal
MMT
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
STORAGE Number of facilities with technology, 1981
SURFACE Number of storage facilities using technology, 1981
IMPOUNDMENTS Number of TSD facilities using technology, 1981
Total quantity HW handled by technology, 1981:
Bil gal
MMT
Average quantity HW handled by technology/facility:
Bil gal
MMT
Total gallons of waste handled by technology, 1981
Total capacity for technology, 1981 (gal)
Total expansion capacity, 1981 (gal)
Total number of units, 1981
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
STORAGE
TANKS
Number of facilities using technology, 1981
Number of storage facilities using technology, 1981
Number of TSD facilities using technology, 1981
Total quantity of hazardous waste stored using technology, 1981:
Bil gal
MMT
Average quantity of HW stored/facility, 1981:
Bil gal
Thous MT
Average number of HW storage tanks/facility, 1981
Total gallons of hazardous waste stored in, 1981
Average storage time (hours)
Average number of lined tanks/facility
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
SURFACE Number units by size group
IMPOUNDMENTS Number of affected units
Number of units
Average size
Number of units needing corrective action
Avg. acreage of unit needing corrective action
Plume size for unit needing corrective action
DPRA & EPA, 1984
OPRA & EPA, 1984
EPA, 1984
EPA, 1984
EPA, 1984
EPA, 1984
EPA, 1984
TANKS
Number of facilities by types and sizes of tanks
ICF, 1985
TREATMENT Number of facilities with this technology, 1981
SURFACE Number of facilities using technology, 1981
IMPOUNDMENTS Number TSD using technology, 1981
Total quantity of HW processed, 1981:
Bil gal
MMT
Avg. quantity of HW processed/facility, 1981:
Bil gal
MMT
Estimated total gallons of waste processed, 1981
10
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mall Survey
Continued . .
-------
Table 2-1 (Continued)
Page 5
Technology
Data available
Source
TREATMENT
SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS
(Con'd)
Total capacity, 1981 (gal)
Average capacity per facility, 1981 (gal)
Total number of units
Total expansion capacity, 1981 (gal)
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
TREATMENT
TANKS
Number of facilities with this technology, 1981
Number of treatment facilities using this technology, 1981
Number of TSD facilities using this technology, 1981
Quantity of waste handled in this manner:
B11 gal
MMT
Average quantity handled in this manner/facility:
Bil gal
MMT
Average number of units per facility
Total gallons of HW treated, 1981 (exclude wastewater
treatment)
Total capacity of treatment tanks, 1981 (excluding
wastewater treatment)
Average time hazardous waste is treated in tanks (hours)
Average number of lined tanks at facility
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
TSD
FACILITIES
Number of facilities
Number of facilities by SIC
Number of facilities by waste group
Number of facilities by EPA Region
Number of facilities by ownership type
Number of facilities by 3-digit SIC
Number of facilities, by groundwater contamination method
Number of facilities in seismic area
Number of facilities on a floodplain
Number of facilities by method of covering closure costs
Number of facilities by method of covering post-closure
costs
Number of facilities by ownership type
Amount of total waste handled by ownership type
Amount of managed waste that was hazardous
Amount of HW that was received from off-site facilities
Amount of HW that was received from small quantity
generators
Quantity of the waste handled by ownership type:
Mil gal
MMT
Quantity of HW received from off-site, 1981
Quantity of waste handled by waste code, 1981
Average number of up gradient wells per facility
Total quantity of waste managed in 1981 (gal.)
Total HW management capacity, 1981 (.gal)
Mail Survey
Biennial Report, 1985
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Biennial Report, 1985
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
WASTE
PILES
Number of facilities with technology, 1981
Number of storage facilities using this technology, 1981
Number of TSD using this technology, 1981
11
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Continued . .
-------
Table 2-1 (Continued)
Page 6
Technology
Data available
Source
WASTE
PILES
(Con'd)
Total quantity of HW stored using this technology, 1981:
Bil gal
MMT
Average quantity HW stored/facility using this
technology, 1981:
Bil gal
MMT
Number of units by size
Total number of units affected by design type
(Amended Part 265)
Total number of units
Number of units affected by regulation
Number of units needing counterpumping
Average acreage of a unit needing counterpumping
Plume size for an average unit needing counterpumping
Average total quantity stored (yd3)/facility
Average max. quantity stored (yd3)/facility
Average quantity removed at one time (yd3)/facility
DPRA, 1984
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
OPRA, 1984 & EPA, 1982
OPRA, 1984
DPRA, 1984
EPA, 1982
EPA, 1982
EPA, 1982
EPA, 1982
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
Mail Survey
12
-------
disposal technologies, several cost/impact reports have been written and
the costs from these reports are difficult to compare because of (1)
changes in RCRA in the interim between reports and (2) differences in
assumptions between reports. Additionally, the models used to develop the
costs have become more sophisticated as the costing of RCRA regulations has
become better understood, again making comparisons with previous cost
estimates difficult. Consequently, cost models recently developed by
Pope-Reid Associates will be used to generate most of the costs in this
portion of the data base. The technologies whose costs will be generated
in this fashion include landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, and
land treatment. The costs for other technologies (containers, tanks,
injection wells, and incinerators) treatment and storage will be taken from
reports as they are completed and then approved by EAB. Costs will be
adjusted, using appropriate indices, so that they reflect the same year to
allow inter-technology comparisons.
In addition to profile and cost information for the different disposal
technologies, such data will also be included for special classes of waste
generators and handlers, including small quantity generators and waste oil
generators, handlers and recyclers. Information will also be included on
hazardous waste generators as a group as well as on treatment, storage and
disposal facilities (TSD's). Pope-Reid Associates is currently working on
an Integrated Facility Cost Model which will allow the analyst to look at
the costs at a TSD facility which uses more than a disposal unit and/or
technology. Results of this model will be included in WMDBS for common TSD
facility configurations generated from information in the Mail Survey.
Each piece of profile and cost information in WMDBS will be referenced so
that the user will be able to find out the source of the data requested.
Consequently, the auxiliary portion of WMDBS's data base will include a
complete bibliographic reference for each of the sources. A regulatory
summary will also be included for those reports (i.e., cost reports)
needing such summaries to allow the user to conveniently obtain this
13
-------
information. Additionally, when appropriate a topical listing of
assumptions and corresponding page numbers will be included for certain
reports.
In terms of the computer programming for the data base portion of WMDBS,
programs have only been developed to date for profile and cost information.
The profile information is contained in a data base called Profile, which
contains seven fields:
• TITLE contains the text which is displayed on the screen.
• SOURCE contains the source of the information.
• T is used to mark a title line.
• N is the number of lines needed to display a particular profile
item.
• SELECTED is used to mark the information that the user has
selected to see.
• TECH is the technology for which the information applies.
A complete description of these fields is shown in Table 2-2.
The cost information is contained in a data base called Cost, which
contains 17 fields:
• FORM used to identify special lines for formatting output.
• TECHNOLOGY identifies the technology.
• SIZE identifies the unit size of the technology.
• DESIGN identifies the design type.
• Tl used to identify special lines for formatting output.
• T2 used to identify special lines for formatting output.
t TITLE displays the cost information title.
• F1-F15 contains various cost information.
A complete description of these fields is shown in Table 2-3.
14
-------
Table 2-2. Description of the seven fields making up the
profile portion of the WMDBS data base
Field
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TOTAL
Field name
TITLE
SOURCE
T
N
PAGE
SELECTED
TECH
Type
Character
Character
Character
Numeric
Numeric
Character
Character
Width
75
10
1
2
3
1
_2
94
15
-------
Table 2-3. Description of the seventeen fields making up the
cost portion of the WMDBS data base
Field
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
TOTAL
Field name
FORM
TECHNOLOGY
SIZE
DESIGN
Tl
T2
TITLE
Fl
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F10
Fll
F12
F13
F14
F15
Type
Character
Character
Character
Character
Numeric
Numeri c
Character
Character
Character
Character
Character
Character
Character
Character
Character
Character
Character
Character
Character
Character
Character
Character
Width
1
7
9
9
2
2
28
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
_9
193
16
-------
D. Data Access Design
This section describes and explains the screens which serve as the user
interface with WMDBS. As previously indicated, WMDBS has been designed as
a menu-driven system. Consequently, this section will walk the reader
through the series of menus and screens which will be available to the user
to access WMDBS.
Figure 2-2 shows the entrance screen to WMDBS. As can be seen, the user
has four choices:
(1) look at information from only one technology
(2) compare two or more technologies
(3) examine the information for all technologies, or
(4) exit the system.
The user simply enters the number of the option desired. To facilitate
presentation, we will assume that the user chooses to look at only one
technology and we will follow the screens through under this assumption.
(If the user had chosen either Option 2 or 3, the screens would be similar
to those which will be shown below for one technology except that the
displays will focus on a technology comparison rather than a presentation
of data for only one technology.)
The screen shown in Figure 2-3 will appear after the user has chosen to
examine one technology; it lists those technologies for which WMDBS has
information. At this point in WMDBS's development, there are 17 choices.
Some of these choices (e.g., generators, TSD's) are technically not
"technologies," but rather represent facilities which may use one or more
of the listed hazardous waste technologies. Later data additions for waste
oil, small quantity generators, and integrated facilities may necessitate a
renaming of this listing.
Once a technology has been selected, the system allows the user to choose
whether profile or cost information will be examined by displaying the
17
-------
Figure 2-2. The entrance screen to the Waste Management
Data Base System
Welcome to the Waste Management Data Base System
Select one of the following options:
1. One technology
2. Technology comparison
3. All technologies
4. Exit system
Enter your selection (1-4):
18
-------
Figure 2-3. Screen allowing choice of technology
Waste Management Data Base System Technology Choices
Select one of the following technologies
1. Containers 10. Other treatment methods
2. Disposal surface impoundments 11. Storage surface impoundments
3. Generators 12. Storage tanks
4. Incinerators 13. Surface impoundments
5. Injection well 14. Treatment surface impoundments
6. Landfills 15. Treatment tanks
7. Land treatment 16. TSD's
8. Other disposal methods 17. Waste piles
9. Other storage methods
Enter your selection (1-17):
19
-------
following menu at the bottom of the technology screen (see Figure 2-4):
Select (C)ost or (P)rofile information. The user enters either a "C" or a
"P."
Assume for purposes of illustration that the user has chosen landfills as
the technology and profile information as the data type of interest. The
screen shown in Figure 2-5 would next appear. The banner indicates the
information type (profile) requested as well as the technology (landfills).
Four types of profile information automatically appear under the banner:
• the number of facilities in the U.S. for the technology chosen
• the amount of unused capacity in 1981 for the technology
• the quantity of waste managed in 1981 by the technology, and
• the total capacity for the technology in 1981.
Beneath this information is a listing of the other profile information
which is available for landfills. This same format is followed no matter
which technology is chosen by the user. The only difference would be the
numbers appearing for the four automatically appearing data items and the
types of information which would appear in the listing of "other" available
profile information.
To choose from the "other" available profile information, the user must
place an "X" next to the data desired as is shown in Figure 2-6. In this
case, the user has chosen to look at:
• total quantity of hazardous waste disposed of using technology,
1981, and
• average amount of hazardous waste disposed of per facility using
technology, 1981.
Figure 2-7 shows the information which would then appear on the screen for
this request. Once,all the requested information has appeared, the main
20
-------
Figure 2-4. Technology screen with Cost/Profile
Information Menu shown
Waste Management Data Base System Technology Choices
Select one of the following technologies
1. Containers 10. Other treatment methods
2. Disposal surface impoundments 11. Storage surface impoundments
3. Generators 12. Storage tanks
4. Incinerators 13. Surface impoundments
5. Injection well 14. Treatment surface impoundments
6. Landfills 15. Treatment tanks
7. Land treatment 16. TSD's
8. Other disposal methods 17. Waste piles
9. Other storage methods
Enter your selection (1-17): 6
Select (C)ost or (P)rofile Information
21
-------
Figure 2-5. Example screen showing the format for selecting
profile information after a technology has been chosen
Waste Management Data Base System
Profile Information
Technology: Landfill
The number of facilities, 1981: 199
Quantity of waste managed, 1981: 7,553,910 metric tons
Unused capacity, 1981: 177,015,148 metric tons
Total capacity, 1981: 251,636,566 metric tons
Source: Mail Survey
Total quantity of HW disposed of using technology, 1981
Average amount HW disposed per facility using technology, 1981
Number of units by size group
Number of units affected, by the regulation, by design type
Number of units affected by the regulation
Number of units needing counter pumping
Total number of units in U.S.
Number of commercial facilities with this technology by EPA region
Total number of commercial facilities with this tech. in the U.S., 1980
Plume size (acres/unit) for units needing counterpumping
Avg. size (acres/unit) for units needing counterpumping
Enter an 'X1 by the desired information:
22
-------
Figure 2-6. Example illustrating procedure
for choosing profile information
Waste Management Data Base System
Profile Information
Technology: Landfill
The number of facilities, 1981: 199
Quantity of waste managed, 1981: 7,553,910 metric tons
Unused capacity, 1981: 177,015,148 metric tons
Total capacity, 1981: 251,636,566 metric tons
Source: Mail Survey
Total quantity of HW disposed of using technology, 1981
Average amount HW disposed per facility using technology, 1981
Number of units by size group
Number of units affected, by the regulation, by design type
Number of units affected by the regulation
Number of units needing counter pumping
Total number of units in U.S.
Number of commercial facilities with this technology by EPA region
Total number of commercial facilities with this tech. in the U.S., 1980
Plume size (acres/unit) for units needing counterpumping
Avg. size (acres/unit) for units needing counterpumping
Enter an 'X' by the desired information:
23
-------
Figure 2-7. Requested profile information
Waste Management Data Base System
Profile Information
Technology: Landfill
Total quantity of HW disposed of using technology, 1981
.81 Billion Gallons, or
3 Million Metric Tons
Source: Mail Survey
Average amount HW disposed per facility using technology, 1981
15 Thousand Metric Tons
4.1 Million Gallons
Source: Mail Survey
24
-------
screen (Figure 2-1) will then appear. The user can then make further
selections or exit the system.
To illustrate what cost information is available to the user, we will now
assume that the user has chosen to look at landfill cost information.
Because cost information is available for both commercial and non-
commercial facilities, the user will have to specify which landfill type is
of interest. For this example, we will assume that the user has chosen
noncommercial landfills. Figure 2-8 shows the screen which would appear
once these decisions have been made. This screen would be the same for all
technologies for which RCRA costs have been estimated. As can be seen, a
series of costs are listed (first year, closure, annual, post clpsure).
Beneath this listing is a menu which allows the user to choose those costs
of interest. If the user is interested in-seeing all of the listed first
year, closure, annual or post closure costs, either F, A, C, or P is typed.
If the user is interested in only the totals for these costs, a "T" would
be typed. To obtain specific costs, an I (individual costs) would be typed
in; and the user would then place an X next to those costs of interest.
Once the cost selection has been made, the user will then be asked to
decide on the display format (Figure 2-9). There are two choices:
(1) view the costs for all design types for a specified size
(hereafter referred to as Display Option 1), or
(2) view the costs for all standard sizes I/ for a specified design
type (hereafter referred to as Display Option 2).
If the user chooses to view all design types (Display Option 1), he will be
asked to choose a specific size. If the alternate display is chosen, the
user must choose a specific design type.
\J These are the sizes which are commonly used in regulatory cost studies
for each of the technologies.
25
-------
Figure 2-8. Replica of screen if cost information
is selected by the user
Waste Management Data Base System
Profile Information
Technology: Landfill
First Year
Containment costs
G.W.M. well construction
Other capital costs
Initial G.W. testing
Initial reckeeping and adm costs
Total
Closure Costs
Closure of last cell
Other capital costs
G.W.M.
Recordkeeping
Total
F)irst Year
TJotal Costs
A)nnual Costs
I individual Costs
Annual Costs
Cell cover costs
Containment system cost
0 and M costs
G.W. monitoring
Record keeping
Total
Post Closure Costs
Equipment replacement
G.W. monitoring
Inspection
Recordkeeping
Total
C)losure Costs
PJost Closure Costs
Enter Selection:
26
-------
Figure 2-9. Screen allowing the user to choose the cost
information display format
Waste Management Data Base System
Profile Information
Technology: Landfill
Select the Display Format
1. By design type within size
2. By size within a design type
Enter your selection (1, 2):
27
-------
Figure 2-10 shows the case where first year costs are displayed according
to Display Option 2. The costs for all standard sizes are shown where a
single synthetic liner (SSL) is chosen as the specified design type.
Figure 2-11 shows the alternate display option with 2,000 MT/year chosen as
the specified size.
The overall format shown in Figures 2-10 and 2-11 will be followed no
matter which technology and costs are examined. Note that a menu appears
at the bottom of the screen. The options are:
• Left, Right, Up or Down — These options allow the user to roll
the screen. They are needed because the space on the screen is
limited and not all of the data can be shown at once.
0 Change — This option allows the user to change the specified
design type or size. Figure 2-12 shows the situation where the
user has selected "Change" and now must decide on a new design
type.
§ By — This option allows the display type to be changed between
Display Option 1 (view the costs for all design types for a
specified size) and Display Option 2 (view the costs for all
standard sizes for a specified design type).
• Info ~ This option allows the user to return to the screen
(Figure 2-8) listing all the available cost information, so that
other costs can be viewed.
• National — This option causes national costs to be calculated
for the displayed costs. Figure 2-13 shows the case where
national first-year costs are calculated.
t Cost Conv. ~ This option allows the cost units to be changed
from thousands of dollars per year to dollars per metric ton, or
vice versa.
28
-------
Figure 2-10. First year costs displayed showing the costs for all standard
sizes when single synthetic liner (SSL) has been chosen as the
specified design type
Waste
In 84 Dollars Cost
Dollars in Thousands
Sizes (MT)
# of Facilities
First Year
Containment Costs
G.W.M. Well Construction
Other Capital Costs
Initial G.W. Testing
Initial Rec and Adm
Costs
Total
Management
Information
Data Base
System
for Landfills
Design Type: SSL
500
N.A.*
19.6
63.1
176.8
5.0
12.7
414.8
2000
N.A.
51.2
85.5
315.9
5.0
12.7
708.6
6000
N.A.
109.
108.
500.
5.
12.
1113.
7
8
3
0
7
8
15000
N.A.
1,021.
133.
734.
5.
12.
1654.
3
0
1
0
7
7
35000
N.A.
372.
160.
1046.
5.
12.
2423.
5
1
5
0
7
6
L)eft R)ight U)p D)qwn C)hange B)y I)nfo N)ational Z)Cost Conv
FJunction Q)uit
SELECT ONE
* N.A. = Not available at this time.
29
-------
Figure 2-11. First year costs displayed showing costs for all design
types when 2000 MT/year has been chosen as the specified size
Waste Management Data Base System
In 84 Dollars Cost Information for Landfills
Dollars/Metric Ton Size: 2000
Design Type UL SSL
# of Facilities 8 5
First Year
Containment Costs 4.1 25.6
6.W.M. Well Construction 0.0 42.8
Other Capital Costs 145.5 158.0
Initial 6.W. Testing 0.0 2.5
Initial Rec and Adm Costs 0.0 6.4
Total 197.1 1482.8
L)eft R)ight U)p D)own C)hange B)y I)nfo N)ational Z)Cost Conv
FJunction Q)uit
SELECT ONE
30
-------
Figure 2-12. Screen illustrating the use of the "Change" option
In 84 Dollars
Dollars in Thousand
Waste Management Data Base System
Cost Information for Landfills
Design Type: SSL
Sizes (MT)
# of Facilities
First Year
Containment Costs
G.W.M. Well Construction
Other Capital Costs
Initial G.W. Testing
Initial Rec and Adm
Costs
Total
500
N.A.*
19.6
63.1
176.8
5.0
12.7
414.8
2000
N.A.
51.2
85.5
315.9
5.0
12.7
708.6
6000
N.A.
109.7
108.8
500.3
5.0
12.7
1113.8
15000
N.A.
1,021.3
133.0
734.1
5.0
12.7
1654.7
35000
N.A.
372.5
160.1
1046.5
5.0
12.7
2423.6
UL SSL SCL DL(S*C) DSL*C
SELECT DESIGN
* N.A. = Not available at this time.
31
-------
Figure 2-13. Screen illustrating the use of the "National" option
In 84 Dollars
Dollars in Thousand
Waste Management Data Base System
Cost Information for Landfills
Design Type: SSL
Sizes (MT)
# of Facilities
500
N.A.*
2000
N.A.
6000
N.A.
15000
N.A.
35000
N.A.
First Year
Containment Costs
6.W.M. Well Construction
Other Capital Costs
Initial 6.W. Testing
Initial Rec and Adm
Costs
Total
National First Year Costs
19.6
63.1
176.8
5.0
12.7
414.8
N.A.
51.2
85.5
315.9
5.0
12.7
708.6
N.A.
109.7
108.8
500.3
5.0
12.7
1113.8
N.A.
1,021.3
133.0
734.1
5.0
12.7
1654.7
N.A.
372.5
160.1
1046.5
5.0
12.7
2423.6
N.A.
L)eft R)ight U)p D)own C)hange B)y I)nfo Q)uit N)ational
ZJCost Conv F)unction
SELECT ONE
* N.A. = Not available at this time.
32
-------
• Function ~ This option allows the manipulation of the shown cost
information. This portion of WMDBS has as yet not been
completed, but the user will be able to:
subtract one column of numbers from another to find the cost
differential between two different sizes or design types,
calculate total net present value of the costs (the user
will specify the discount rate and the inflation rate; a
facility life of 20 years will be assumed), or
calculate annual revenue requirements (the user will specify
the same things as for net present value, as well as the
real rate of return on invested capital, excluding
inflation)
• Quit ~ This option allows the user to return to the main screen
(Figure 2-2).
One other option which the user has which does not appear in the menu is to
specify a "non-standard size," i.e., a size other than those which
automatically appear in the cost displays. The user, in the case of an
Option 2 display, would just roll the screen until the column after the
largest standard size appears. The size heading will initially read zero.
The user will cursor up to the heading and enter a size. The cost
information for that size will then automatically appear on the screen.
III. PROGRESS TO DATE
To date, over 15 reports or surveys have been reviewed and data have been
extracted from them. \j These references are listed in the Appendix. A
\J Note some of these reports explain the models PRA will be developing
and the cost generation equations; consequently, the data from these
will likely not be entered directly into WMDBS.
33
-------
large number of other reports and documents have been examined, but were
determined inappropriate for WMDBS at this time. We anticipate that the
WMDBS data base will be continuously updated and expanded as new reports
and surveys appear. Some of those we hope to include in the near future
are: the Commercial Facilities survey, the Subtitle D survey, the
incinerator RIA reports, waste oil cost work, and the small quantity
generator RIA.
Approximately half of the collected profile data have actually been entered
into the data base itself. No cost information has as yet been entered,
since Pope-Reid Associates (PRA) is in the process of developing cost
equations which will be used to directly generate the costs for many of the
technologies. Once these equations are available, they will be entered
into the system. We presently have costs for the standard landfill and
surface impoundment sizes, but we have opted to wait until the equations
are ready to enter this information, because it is possible we may need
only to use the cost equations if their calculation times are not too slow.
This would save storage space. Cost information for technologies not yet
covered by the PRA models will be entered as it becomes available.
Most of the screens for examining one technology have been developed.
Those which have not been developed are those dealing with the function
option (subtraction, NPV, ARR and annualized costs). All of the developed
screens are operational and can access the data base for requested
information. We will shortly develop the function screens and those
screens where two or more technologies are examined.
IV. FUTURE OPTIONS
WMDBS should not be viewed as a static and fixed system. We have attempted
to design it so that it can be easily updated, expanded or changed. We
anticipate that as new studies and surveys are conducted, these will be
added to the system. , Additionally, information areas which have as yet not
34
-------
been considered for the data base could be included. One of these areas is
risk assessment and estimation, since information is needed in the
assessment of regulatory options. Having this information readily
available to the EAB staff would likely be very useful.
As the EAB staff uses WMDBS, new ways of using and combining the profile
and cost information will likely become apparent. Given the flexibility of
the system, it can be readily changed to perform these new uses.
Additionally as EAB needs change, it is anticipated that WMDBS will be
altered and expanded to meet these needs.
35
-------
APPENDIX
REFERENCES
-------
REFERENCES
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. 1983 (August). Review of Activities of Major
Firms in the Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Industry: 1982
Update.For the Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. and Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc. 1980
(December). Hazardous Waste Generation and Commercial Hazardous Waste
Management Capacity. For the Office of Planning and Evaluation and
the Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
(SW-894).
Dietz, S., M. Emmet, R. DiGaetano, D. Tuttle and C. Vincent. 1984 (April).
National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators and Treatment, Storage
and Disposal Facilities Regulated Under RCRA in 1981.Westat, Inc.
For the Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
DPRA, Inc. 1985 (August). National Summary Biennial Report on 1983
Hazardous Waste Generation, Treatment/Storage and Disposal"
Activities^Prepared for Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
DPRA, Inc. 1984 (June). Supporting Documents for the Regulatory Analysis
of Amendments to Parts 26,.264 and 265 Land Disposal Regulations.
Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. 1984 (October). Characterization of Industrial
Used Oil Generators. Prepared for Office of Solid Waste, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. 1984 (September). Composition and Management of
Used Oil Generated in the United States. Prepared for Office of Solid
Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1984 (February). Stochastic Model of Corrective
Action Costs at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities. Prepared for
Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ICF, Inc. 1985 (March). Estimated Costs of Compliance with Proposed RCRA
Regulations for Hazardous Waste Storage, Treatment, and Accumulation
Tank Facilities.Prepared for Economic Analysis Branch, Office of
Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ICF, Inc. 1984 (March). The Risk-Cost Analysis Model Phase III Report.
For the Office of Solid Waste, Economic Analysis Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
ICF Inc. and Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1983 (September). Economic Analysis
of a Proposal to Modify Groundwater Monitoring Requirements (Draft
Report). Office of Solid Waste, Environmental Protection Agency.
Pope-Reid Associates, Inc. 1984 (October). Guidance Document for
Estimating Closure and Post-Closure Costs, Volume I - Unit Costs.
Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Pope-Reid Associates, Inc. 1984 (February). User's Manual for the Waste
Pile Computer Cost Model and the Stochastic Waste Pile Costing Model.
Prepared for Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Pope-Reid Associates, Inc. 1983 (October). Average and Maximum
Engineering Cost Estimates for Closure. Office of Planning and
Resource Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Pope-Reid Associates, Inc. 1982 (April). Hazardous Waste Landfill Design
Costs and Performance Modeling. Office of Solid Waste, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Snyder, Michael K. 1981 (October). Overview Cost Analysis of Land
Treatment Disposal Option. Midwest Research Institute. For
Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984 (August). Liner Location Risk
Analysis Model. Office of Solid,Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982 (August). Supporting Document
for the Regulatory Analysis of the Part 264 Land Disposal Regulations
(Pocket Report). Vols. I, II and III.Office of Solid Waste, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Westat, Inc. 1982 (September). National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Generators and Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities Regulated
Under RCRA in 1981TMail survey questionnaires prepared for Office of
Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
------- |