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. ------- |