United States Office of Solid Watte May 1982
Environmental Protection and Emergency Response SW • 894.1
Agency
Solid Waste
Review of Activities
of Major Firms
in the Commercial
Hazardous Waste
Management Industry:
1981 Update
-------
An environmental protection publication (SW-894.1) in the solid waste management
series. Identification of specific firms in this report does not constitute
endorsement or approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does it
necessarily imply that these facilities have received Interim Status. Editing
and technical content of this report were the responsibilities of the contractor.
Questions concerning this report should be addressed to: Curtis Haymore; Office
of Management, Information, and Analysis (WII-562); Office of Solid Waste; U.S. EPA;
401 M St. S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20460.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared by Booz, Allen and Hamilton Inc.
for the Office of Policy Analysis. The effort was managed by
Patrick McCann under the overall direction of Alan Farkas. The
EPA project officer, from the Office of Policy Analysis, was
Sam Napolitano. Review assistance was provided by members of the
Office of Solid Waste staff, especially Lawrence Buc, Curtis
Haymore, Kent Anderson and Ken Schuster.
We would like to acknowledge the cooperation of the nine
firms that participated in this survey and provided useful
comments on the draft report. Helpful suggestions were also
provided by the National Solid Wastes Management Association.
-------
REVIEW OF ACTIVITIES OF MAJOR FIRMS
in the
COMMERCIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
1981 Update
This publication (SW-894.1) was prepared by
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. for the Office of Planning
and Evaluation and the Office of Solid Waste.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1982
-------
REVIEW OF ACTIVITIES OF MAJOR FIRMS IN THE
COMMERCIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY: 1981 UPDATE
In the spring of 1980, a survey of commercial hazardous
waste management facilities was conducted to support the
development of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
initial hazardous waste regulatory policies. Because of
significant changes at many commercial hazardous waste
management facilities, EPA decided to update the survey. The
update focuses on the largest firms in this small and fairly
concentrated industry.
Telephone interviews were conducted with nine of the
largest commercial waste management firms to determine the
changes in their operations from 1980 to 1981. The firms were
selected based on information obtained during the 1980 survey.
Included in the survey were:
Chemical Waste Management
Browning-Ferris Industries
SCA Chemical Services
Rollins Environmental Services
IT Corporation
US Ecology
CECOS International
Conversion Systems
Chem-Clear.
Because of the small number of firms included in the survey,
data is presented on a national basis only to avoid disclosure
of confidential information. Seven of the nine firms supplied
all of the required information for the survey. For the two
firms that supplied only partial information, state and local
governmental agencies were able to supply the missing data.
Only those facilities actively treating or disposing of
hazardous waste for a fee are included in this study. Excluded
are other facilities owned by these firms, such as transfer
stations, brokering operations or facilities not currently
accepting hazardous waste for treatment or disposal. The
assumptions used to convert reported measures of volume and
capacity into wet metric tons are the same as those used for
the 1980 report and are shown in the appendix.
The remainder of this report presents the findings of the
survey and discusses the changes reported by these firms in:
Industry structure
Volumes received
Permitted capacity
Prices.
-1-
-------
1. THE NINE FIRMS REPORTED SUBSTANTIAL GROWTH FROM 1980 TO
1981 IN BOTH NUMBER OF FACILITIES OPERATED AND REVENUES
In 1980 the nine firms included in this study operated 36
of the total identified 127 facilities treating and disposing
of hazardous wastes commercially. In 1981 these same firms
operated 46 facilities, an increase of 10. As shown in
Exhibit 1, all but three were the result of acquisitions.
Chemical Waste Management and SCA Services were particularly
active in making acquisitions. Chem-Clear was the only company
surveyed to open totally new facilities in 1981.
None of the firms reported that any of their facilities
were completely closed during 1981, but several facilities had
certain portions of their operations, such as landfill or
landfarming operations, closed due to public opposition or
compliance problems. However, the capacity represented by
these operations was relatively modest. Some other facilities
required major capital expenditures to comply with Federal or
state regulatory requirements but were able to remain open.
Hazardous waste related revenues also grew substantially
for these nine firms. Many reported 20 to 30 percent growth in
revenues from 1980 to 1981. Most of this growth was attributed
to the increase in the number of facilities operated but price
increases and a growth in site cleanup services also
contributed to the increase.
Based on the survey conducted in 1980, these nine firms
accounted for about half of the revenues of the industry. In
1981 their share probably increased to over 60 percent
according to several industry representatives but no accurate
estimate can be made without more information on the revenues
of the remainder of the industry.
2. THE OVERALL VOLUME OF WASTE TREATED AND DISPOSED BY THE
NINE FIRMS IN 1981 WAS ABOUT THE SAME AS IN 1980
The nine firms included in the study managed 3.7 million
wet metric tons (WMT) in 1980 or about 51 percent of the total
treated and disposed at commercial facilities. In 1981 the
amount managed was 3.6 million WMT. The reduction in
volumesmanaged off site was more significant than these numbers
suggest because the nine firms added 10 facilities from 1980 to
*Hazardous Waste Generation and Commercial Hazardous
Waste Management Capacity, Environmental Protection Agency,
SW-894, December 1980.
_2 _
-------
0)
cu
JJ
•H
cn
cu
(0 M
rH -H
>i O O
rH -rl C
cu -a
rl C -
o m o
S H Cn
•rH u
H (U -H
(0 rH J5
« U U
cn
6
• H
4-J
• H
W
•H
3
D1
U
•H
>
rH
fl
•g-e
CO
CO
cu
u
cn
-H
(0
rH
S
0 id
' >H
K) cu
w G
O -H
rH U
8-S
•H
P > C
T3 r) C
c cu cu -
H W Cu CU 01
0 3
CO H » ,fl C
id co (d id
•p 3 ft o
c o id r-i
cu oJ JH 3
e o rt >
CO
CO
cu
•H
rH
•P
CO
rd
c
C
H
T3 0) rH
C -P -H
H JJ 4-1
a) -a
tn c
3
X!
H O
O (0 CO
>< CO S
u to m
CU
a
o
O
i
K
cu
X!
•a
cu
o
(0
<
o
w
•K
-3-
-------
1981. The industry's decline in volumes was attributed to a
number of factors:
Recession. Waste generation is directly related to
industrial production. As the economy became
depressed in 1981/ the amount of waste generated by
industry declined. Furthermore, many of the
industries hardest hit by the recession, such as the
auto, steel and the metal fabricating industries, are
also major users of commercial treatment and disposal.
Waste reduction. Many generators have responded to
price increases with various methods of reducing the
amount of hazardous waste they generate. Many waste
reducing options that were only economically marginal
in 1979 were clearly economic in 1981 after some
off-site management prices had almost doubled. Now
that prices have increased sharply, generators are
more careful to segregate hazardous from non-hazardous
waste for disposal. Other generators have been able
to reduce their waste generation by raw material
substitutions.
Selected shifts from off-site to on-site management.
Many of the large chemical companies have reduced
their reliance on off-site facilities substantially
over the past several years and are striving for
100 percent internal management. These firms cite
liability protection, control over production pro-
cesses and price of off-site service as the principal
reasons for the shift.
Waste Delisting. Some of the major generating
industries were successful in delisting some large
volume waste streams such as certain paint sludges and
certain pickle liquor sludges.
Acting against these forces were factors which tended to
increase off-site volumes, such as the effectiveness of the
manifest system, a clearer definnition of what is considered a
hazardous waste, and site cleanups. However, the clear
direction in volumes for the industry in 1981 was a decline.
The types of wastes accepted by facilities also did not
change much from 1980 to 1981. Although some wastes are re-
stricted by permit at certain facilities, the types of wastes
that can be accepted at landfills cannot be generalized. The
accept/reject decision by the facility operator usually depends
on tests performed prior to accepting the waste stream for
treatment or disposal.
-------
The changes in volumes as well as the factors influencing
these changes are discussed below for each of the major
categories of treatment and disposal. A summary by waste
management option is shown in Exhibit 2.
(1) Landfill
In 1981 as in 1980, landfills were used to dispose of
a wide spectrum of organic and inorganic wastes. The
quantity of waste disposed at licensed landfills is highly
concentrated among the nine firms surveyed. In 1980 these
nine firms accounted for 81 percent of all volumes received
at hazardous waste landfills. In 1981 their share probably
increased because of acquisition. Nevertheless, overall
volumes received by these firms still declined by 10
percent. On an individual firm basis the trend varied. A
few firms reported very substantial reductions, especially
at particular landfills, while other firms reported modest
increases in volumes.
In addition to the recession and waste reduction by
generators, several additional factors caused the decline
in landfill volumes. Some firms reported up to a 50 per-
cent drop in business at certain sites when the ban on
landfilling of liquids went into effect in November 1981.
In addition, two New York landfills were closed during
certain months of 1981 while new permits were being
negotiated.
(2) Land Treatment/Solar Evaporation
Land treatment and solar evaporation continues to be
an economic method of dewatering liquid organic wastes and
disposing of biodegradable organic sludges. The nine firms
surveyed accounted for about 56 percent of all waste
managed by this method in 1980. Overall, firms reported a
decline in volumes of about 6 percent, but volume changes
varied geographically. The types of wastes received for
land treatment and solar evaporation in 1981 was very
similar to that received in 1980.
(3) Incineration
The largest firms in the industry do not account for a
large portion of incineration volumes. In 1980 the nine
firms included in this survey accounted for only 21 percent
of wastes incinerated at commercial facilities. Although
the largest firms do not dominate incineration in
general,these firms do dominate rotary kiln incineration.
Rotary kiln incinerators are able to burn solids and
sludges as well as liquid wastes. Rollins and SCA own four
of the five commercial rotary kilns.
-5-
-------
•
CO
•H
fn
5-1
O
•n
n)
s
a)
C
•r-l
2
W
o
b
CO CO
en C
i ^s
i— 1 O
C_|
k '
rr-i
^
C U
tO -H
CN !-4
0 +J
M CO 0)
H CT» S
«H
H 4J
K C OJ
X -H S
M
•a -o
0) C
> (0
•H CO
CP 3
0 O
Q) JC
os S
>*H W '
CO
a)
§
i-H
o
>
<4-t
0
c
o
CO
•H
M
(0
CL
s
R
O
U
C S4
•HOW
" P
(U fi
Cn w -H
C 0) &n
id 6
/5 3 a)
U rH C
O -H
* > 3
>,
n n
S rH
•o C oo
a) -H en
> fe rH
.,-1
0) 0) C
O C H
22
^
CQ W
T3 M CO
PL, rH
>r^
i
pa co
•o C oo
0) -H en
> fa rH
•H
0) rH C
U rH H
(S *
4J
4-4 O
o en
id
CO t*» rH
en CN r- T* vo
H ™
CN o in v M "i en
oo o oo i1 co r- vo
H n m ^ vo
CN m
en r* oo vo •* 93 CN
Cn f» Cn "S1 i -H
0) H 4J
\ I 0) O
_p jj > 0)
C (fl O -n
BC « 0 C
O !H 1-1
Id 4-> rH
r-l 0) Id rH 0) H
r-« H i-4 Id U «
•H -P (U U M »
>M C -H 3 H
•a t3 -H 6 o 04 id
C C U S W 4> ±>
13 S c J3 aj « P
n3 >-} W CJ OS Q fr>
•
(0
IU
o
•H
)-l
0)
(Q
H
id
(0
a
V)
•H
•a
M
o
jj
c
(!)
4?
id
Q)
M
4->
en
c
•H
>-l
(U
IM
14-1
O
o
(0
rH
id
w
CD
•H
4J
•H
rH
•H
O
id
<»-i
(U
Ul
|
•+*
M
O
«M
>1
rH
§
•a
1
M
0)
>
O
O
0)
M
0)
U
V4
3
O
to
2
*
•
U
M
C
s
rH
1
X
01
0)
rH
rH
eC
*
N
«
• •
0)
O
V4
fl
o
01
-6-
-------
From 1980 to 1981/ substantial changes occurred in the
incineration market both in the volumes and types of wastes
received. The nine firms reported a drop-off of about
6 percent in incineration volumes from 1980 to 1981. In
addition to the general factors cited above, several
additional factors caused incineration volumes to decline:
Major generators of incinerable wastes such as
chemical companies or pharmaceutical companies
are burning more wastes in boilers and relying
more on on-site incineration.
Cement kilns and light aggregate manufacturers
are now accepting substantial amounts of blended
waste solvents as fuel supplements. For example,
one light aggregate manufacturer meets 100
percent of its fuel needs with blended solvents
at several of its plants . The manufacturer now
accepts more than 2 million gallons of waste
liquids per year as a substitute for fuel.
In addition to the general decline in volumes sent to
off-site incinerators, operators also report that the waste
mix is changing. Wastes sent to commercial incinerators
are more difficult to handle and have lower Btu content.
(4) Chemical Treatment
The nine firms accounted for 23 percent of all
chemical treatment volumes in 1980. Chemical treatment
includes a host of unit processes for biological, chemical,
and physical treatment of wastes. Although it is difficult
to generalize across all of these processes, the volumes
managed at individual facilities in 1981 tended to be about
equal to 1980 volumes. However, due primarily to the
addition of several new facilities in 1981, the volumes
managed by these nine firms by various treatment
technologies increased 35 percent. According to facility
operators, in 1981 wastes were more concentrated and had a
higher solids content than wastes in 1980.
(5) Resource Recovery
The nine firms included in this study accounted for
only 20 percent of resource recovery volumes in 1980.
However, the 1980 survey included only those recovery
facilities owned by firms who also offered treatment or
disposal services. Resource recovery is primarily the
recovery of solvents and fuels blending operations and
these types of services have historically been provided by
small firms often operating only a single site. Facilities
operated by the nine firms did not experience any
-7-
-------
significant change in volumes or types of wastes received
from 1980 to 1981.
(6) Deep Well Injection
In 1980 the nine firms accounted for 60 percent of
deep well injection volumes. For 1981, no change in
volumes deep well injected was reported. In 1981 as in
1980, approximately 475 thousand wet metric tons or about
125 million gallons were injected at facilities operated by
the nine firms. Deep well injection continues to be used
to dispose of large quantities of aqueous wastes.
3. FROM 1980 TO 1981 MANY OF THE NINE FIRMS WERE ABLE TO
EXPAND PERMITTED CAPACITY SUBSTANTIALLY BY ACQUIRING
EXISTING SITES AND ADDING ACREAGE TO EXISTING LANDFILLS
The vast majority of additions to capacity for the nine
firms came from acquiring sites owned by others in 1980 and by
permitting adjacent acreage at existing landfills. Permitted
capacity includes landfills for which state permits have been
granted. Although the increase in capacity for these firms is
substantial, the additions do not do much to alleviate the
regional capacity shortfalls present in 1980. Acquisitions are
simply transfers of ownership and the new acreage permitted is
principally in regions that already had substantial capacity.
Changes in capacity and capacity utilization reported for each
of the major treatment and disposal options are discussed below
and are summarized in Exhibits 3 and 4.
(1) Landfill
The nine firms included in this study controlled the
vast majority of permitted landfill capacity in 1980,
accounting for 93 percent of all permitted capacity. In
1981 these firms were able to increase permitted lifetime
capacity by 46 percent from 25.7 million tons to
37.4 million tons. By increasing capacity, these firms
were able to increase the lifetime remaining from 11.8 to
19 years for their landfills assuming current level of
utilization continues. Although this is a substantial
increase, much of it represents either acreage that was
owned by one of the nine firms in 1980 but was not
permitted, or permitted capacity owned by other firms. It
should be understood that the measure of capacity used in
the 1980 survey included only acreage permitted at that
time. It did not include any estimate of the potential for
permitting adjacent, acreage at existing landfills.
-8-
-------
C M
•H O CO
1*4 t€
rtl tj
0^ 5>i *H
52 fo
IQ "fl
60 0)
id c
Qj-rH
* id 2
0
c «
H*. i
>,o B
4* -H
M S tt)
an c
o is
- 9
>,S 1
•r1 H
"88*
* * c»
&H.5
o 9
c
H CO
li_i B
MH B
>1 O R
+J V -r<
•H O PM
U 00
3 * r-l
1*3
4J
i
ft
MH Id
O C
4) 3S
O4
>,
t-i V
4J
CO
r
+ 1
CM O CN
r> o o
« .f H
r-* H
CO
CN r» «M
r» ^ o
** 1 «"
m H
CN
Sr- o
m r*
vo v vo
« ^
r» CN
«H
C
0
•H
jj
id
rH
a
id
0)
M
•^ id
4) i
B O
••H ui
** —
CO JJ
t! c
•H CO C
H S 0
^ 5 •*
id -u
H <0 Id
rH rH M
•rH 5 D
<4-l C
tJ -O -rl
id § C
r3 J H
00 O O
_J
^•1
+
in rH in
O ^ o>
en m o
rH H
in H in
o *t &
rH o vo
* % *
m H ^r
•P * §
C >l -rH
BrJ 4J
4) U
> 4)
id- o •!->
co o e
rH CO -rH
•P rH
rH
H 4) rH
id u co
0 | 3
e o a
(U 01 d)
6 S S
o
-iH
CO
id
CO
01
id
s
o
CO
CO
o
••H
g
Ij
CO
n>
>
•
co
CO
4J
-•H
CO
t^
s
c
"O
§
CO
CD
*J
•rH
co
Oi
C
•H
HJ
CO
•H
X
CD
4J
Id
C
0
•H
CO
C
0) (0
-0 -H
3 X
rH CO
O
C -U
H id
*
0>
u
it
+^
o»
c
-H
H
4)
in
IM
0
0
CO
id
ca
4)
•H
4J
•rH
rH
•rH
u
id
<4-l
a>
CO
o
JS
4J
rH
o
<44
>1
f 1
c
o
TJ
4)
3
rH
o
fl
•H
ca
•H
>1
M
>
o
o
41
M
0)
u
rH
3
O
ca
4)
a;
«
N
8
0)
o
k
3
O
en
-9-
-------
fa
o
•fl
s
0)
c
•H
2
O
oo
at
•O >t
C -P
id-H
u
o a)
oo a
at al
0
X -P
H C C
O 0)
•H O
-P H
id V
N &
-P
D
I?
-H
U
id
a
id
o
M-l
o
c
o
H
id
I
c
o
H
-p
id
N
H
rH rH
•H 00
•P O\
D rH
>t C
•p -H
•H
O
id
a
id
0
c
o
4*
id
N
•H O
rH 00
•H Ot
41 rH
D
C
-P
,^j
•^
0
id
o
0)
-p -p
n c
R> a)
3 g
0)
o «
c
rH
*•' rH
00
a at
ti _j
d
0) -P
>i id
o
•
at
rH
a
0)
g^
^"n
(P fl)
IM g
•H 3
rH rH
"" i
(D
HO
id oo
a) at
>i«-i
oo
rH
rH
rH
rH
•H
(M
•o
id
•J
dP dP
O 00
CM r^
dP dP
rH C*l
CM 00
id
rH
0
n
v^
•P
C C
0) O C
g-H O
*» *» -H
Id Ri -U
0) H id
HO H
-pa -H
CO) O
id c
1-3 H
dP dP dP
\O -9 CO
m CM <»
•
dP dP dP
o» •* <*>
^r CM ^
C
41 O
C >1 -r4
0) H -P
g 0)
Of O fl
» 0 C
VI 0) M
f OS
rH
rH (U rH
id O Q)
O H S
-H 3
g o a
0)010)
x: o) Q)
O OS Q
-10-
-------
During 1981 several of the nine firms were successful
in permitting additional acreage, thus substantially
increasing the capacity of their landfills. In addition,
some of the largest firms made acquisitions of existing
landfill sites such as Chemical Waste Management's purchase
of the GROWS landfill, SCA's purchase of Adams Sanitary
Landfill, and Conversion Systems purchase of the WesCon
site in Idaho.
Although capacity controlled by these firms increased
46 percent, the potential regional capacity shortfalls
reported in 1980 have not been diminished significantly.
Much of the capacity additions were transfers of ownership
and expansions at existing sites in -regions with the
greatest capacity to begin with. Many of the firms
surveyed continue to pursue new landfill sites but report
that public opposition remains as intense as in the past.
(2) Land Treatment/Solar Evaporation
The largest firms in the industry control over half of
commercial land treatment/solar evaporation capacity. In
1980 the nine firms accounted for 59 percent of capacity.
These firms reported a modest decline of 3 percent from
1980 to 1981 in capacity due to closure of operations at
one site. As was reported in 1980, most land treatment/
solar evaporation facilities were not operating at full
capacity and operators did not have future plans for
expansion. In 1981 capacity utilization did not change
significantly. Since these facilities are still operating
well below capacity no major expansions are planned.
(3) incineration
The firms included in this study controlled only 15
percent of incineration capacity in 1980. In spite of some
fairly aggressive expansion plans reported in 1980, no
significant incineration capacity was added by these firms
in 1981. Some of the plans for incineration have been
postponed until the outlook for incineration improves.
Capacity utilization for these nine firms dropped from 83
to 78 percent from 1980 to 1981. Although no additions
were made during 1981, several major additions have
occurred in 1982. Chemical Waste Management has started to
operate the incinerator ship Vulcanus out of the Gulf Coast
for PCB incineration and SCA has purchased and upgraded the
Hyon incinerator in Chicago.
The outlook for future additions to incineration
capacity is uncertain. The inroads made by cement kilns
and light aggregate manufacturers as well as the increased
use of industrial boilers for waste disposal have made the
-11-
-------
liquids market more competitive and operators report that
more stringent regulation of landfills may be required to
make incineration more cost competitive.
(4) Chemical Treatment
The largest firms do not dominate the field of
chemical treatment services. The firms included in this
study controlled only 28 percent of chemical treatment
capacity in 1980, but they reported an 18 percent increase
in 1981 in their capacity. This was largely due to the
addition of several new facilities by Chem-Clear. The nine
firms reported that they continue to pursue expansion plans
for treatment facilities and expect several new facilities
to begin operation in 1982. Capacity utilization increased
from 49 to 56 percent from 1980 to 1981, although some
facilities reported drops in capacity utilization.
(5) Resource Recovery
Capacity utilization at most recovery facilities
remained low in 1981, according to operators. Therefore no
new capacity was added by the nine firms surveyed.
Furthermore, none had plans for adding any new capacity.
(6) Deep Well Injection
Approximately 24 percent of all deep well injection
capacity was controlled by the nine firms. No additions to
capacity were reported by these firms, although some modest
additions to capacity are planned for the future.
4. ON AVERAGE, PRICES INCREASED 10 TO 15 PERCENT FOR HAZARDOUS
WASTE SERVICES FROM 1980 TO 1981, A MUCH SLOWER RATE THAN
THE PREVIOUS YEAR
Prices for treating or disposing of hazardous wastes can
vary substantially depending the level of regional competition,
the cost of treating or disposing of the waste, and the risk of
handling the waste.
During 1979 and 1980 prices for hazardous waste management
services increased sharply. At certain facilities prices
increased over 50 percent. During 1981 this rate of increase
declined and prices held fairly constant throughout the second
half of the year. Typical prices charged for treatment,
disposal and transportation of hazardous waste for 1980 and
1981 are shown in Exhibit 5. The trends in prices for each
waste management option are discussed below.
-12-
-------
(Q
14-4 CO Q)
CN
C
&•*
o
•H
-P
01
S
x.
01
u
•H
£
O
g
0
<4-4
0
01
S^
^
01
-P
tn
id
&
o
01
£r
rH
CO
H
O
CO
rH
rH
00
rH
O
CO
rH
01
4-1
CO
id
J5
.p
a
e
01
en
n)
c
1
O
^J1 CO
CM CO
1 1
co m
vo m
rH tO-
to-
CO
vo m
rH in
to- to-
i i
o ^r
CN <*
rH tO-
to-
w
•o
rH
id
CP
in o
m -p
\^ v^
o m
LO f-~
to- to-
1 1
m o
ro in
to- to-
§
•a
•
H
m
cn
in
m G
\ o
to- +J
s^
in o
ro in
to- to-
i i
m o
to- to-
ll H
M 0
Q CO
•-I
H
14-4
TJ
3
^
CM
to-
1
in
to-
«^4
(N
to-
1
in
to-
^
rH
m
tn
CT*
O
*
to-
1
(N
0
to-
*
•H
id
X^
en
0
•
to-
CM
0
to-
rH
H
<
4J
G
01
1
id
0)
i-i
-P
Tl
3
i
^
cn
•a
"3
•H
H
C!
•H
4J
id
o
ftj
c
0
•H
-P
id
01
C
-H
U
G
H
n
in t- H
co cn
_i CM t^
^ to- to-
rn l 1
rH ro in
— • in cn
to- to- m
to-
r^ r~ o
n ro vo
CM CM VO
to- to- to-
1 l 1
m n o
in in co
to- to- ro
to-
^ t
rH rH
id • id
cn rH Cn
O cn O
CM \ O
• 0 •
A
cn
3 -H
4-> £ cn
CQ rrj
CO » -H
.G t5 CO 3
Cn -H 13 Cr*
•H 3 -H -H
X! ff H H
•H O
rH
CM CTi
cn r-~
to- to-
1 1
rH vO
CM VD
to- to-
co
cn CM
r- in
to- to-
i l
vo ro
H in
to- to-
. rH
H id
id Cn
&^ ^s»
*s^ CO
in o
CO •
• ro
to- to-
1 1
co in
O CM
• •
to- to-
•
. 1-1
rH -P
01 tn
g id
W >1
01 > o
G id -H
-H 01 X
rH A 0
id 4-1
1^ ^
rH cn >i
Id 01 rH
X. t3 X!
tn -H Cn
•a c -H
-H (3 fi
O >i
< 0
i
4->
fl3
01
4J
H
U 4-1
•H C
g 01
01 g
O
^1
vo
CM
to-
1
vO
^D
to-
rH
rH
CM
to-
|
0
in
to-
rH
id
Cri
0
o
•
rH
to-
1
in
CM
•
to-
•
1-1
id
X^
o
00
•
ck
rH
to-
H
rH
<
1^1
J_J
01
o
u
01
M
01
U
3
O
cn
&
^
O vO
'tf CN
to- to-
1 1
VO CM
rH ro
tO- rH
to-
O VO
•5* CM
to- to-
1 1
vO CM
H ro
to- H
to-
• H
H id 01
id Cn H
Cn "\, -in
\ o g
m o
rH • C
' i-t O
to- to- 4-1
1 1 X
vo o in
O m rH
• • •
to- to- to-
•
• H
rH HJ
id Cn
Cn\
\ O
in o
rH «
• 1-1
to- to-
i i
vo o
o m
to- to-
co
i-i
co 01
H -P
01 id
•P 5
id
2 01
01 tn
•P C
CO -H
id M
Z
0
rH '*
•H O
O £-1
G
0
•H
C 4-1
o id
rH -H 4-1
H 4-> i^
01 O O
3d) ft
•n CO
ft C G
01 -H (d
Q IH
•
CM
CO
rH
IP.
0
r^l
id
2
A
01
h
-O
§
O
CO
cn
1-1
M-4
0
^S|
g
C
•rH
•o
0)
4-1
0
3
T3
O
O
01
H
01
to
01
•H
M
01
4-1
H
i-l
^
•H
•a
c
01
ft
ft
id
01
4J
g
•H
T3
••2
o
co
01
•o
01
id
tn
C
o
-P
o
M
4-1
01
g
o
-p
c
•H
CO
G
3
•o
§
CO
C
O
1-1
rH
&*
4-1
H
01
G
O
U
o
-p
•o
0)
w
CO
o
4->
U
id
fa
CM I
•
cn
01
-P
cn
id
^
O
Cn
G
•H
^i
(d
04
3
0
G
01
^4
id
cn
01
3
4-1
O
id
14-4
3
C
id
g
01
-P
(d
cn
01
Cn
Cn
id
4-1
C"
-H
rH
-a
$
cn
C
H
•H
^J
01
Q)
o
01
g
0
w
•o
o
I
rH
•H
33
13
C
0)
N
O
01
o
3
O
-13-
-------
(1) Landfill
The prices charged for landfilling hazardous wastes
generally increased about 25 to 40 percent from 1980 to
1981. This was the highest reported increase for any
treatment or disposal option. However, considerable
regional variation does exist. Landfill prices are usually
based on whether the material is received in drums or bulk
and whether solidification is required prior to
landfilling. Drum disposal prices typically ranged from
$35 to $50 per 55 gallon drum in 1981. Solidification may
add $10 and up to drum disposal costs depending on the
volume increase after solidification. The price charged to
dispose of bulk waste ranged from $50 to $75 per ton.
(2) Land Treatment/Solar Evaporation, Deep Well Injection
Operators reported virtually no price increase for
land treatment/solar evaporation and deep well injection.
These options remain among the lowest cost methods of
disposing of liquid wastes but they are limited to certain
regions of the country. Commercial deep well services are
available only in the Midwest and Gulf Coast. Land
treatment/solar evaporation is concentrated in the Gulf
Coast and West Coast due to the climate requirements.
(3) Incineration
Incineration prices were relatively stable from 1980
to 1981 as shown in Exhibit 5. Prices charged for
incineration are determined by a number of factors:
Regional competition
Physical state (liquids vs. solids/sludge)
Degree of halogenation
Btu content
Drum vs. bulk
Ash content .
Because of these factors/ prices for incineration vary
tremendously but generally fall into three categories.
At the low end of the spectrum, waste generators
are often paid $.05 per gallon and up for high
Btu waste liquids, such as relatively clean spent
solvents, that can be used as a fuel supplement
in cement kilns and light aggregate manufacturing.
For waste liquids that cannot be used as fuel,
generators may pay from $.20 to $.90 per gallon
for disposal.
-14-
-------
For solids and sludges received in drums, prices
are considerably higher due to handling
problems. Currently only a handful of
incinerators in the country have the capability
to handle drums. Typical prices may range from
$1.50 to $3.00 per gallon of waste disposed.
(4) Chemical Treatment and Resource Recovery
Prices charged for chemical treatment and resource
recovery also vary considerably depending on the unit
processes used to treat the waste. However, in general,
prices for both waste management options increased 10 to
25 percent from 1980 to 1981. This was the result of
higher operating costs for treatment facilities and higher
residual disposal costs.
-15-
-------
APPENDIX
The same assumptions and definitions used in tabulating the
data for the 1980 report were also used for this update.
The estimates for volumes presented in this report refer to
the estimated quantities of hazardous wastes actually treated
or disposed of by the hazardous waste management industry. The
estimates for capacity refer to the estimated maximum amount of
hazardous waste which could be treated at existing facilities
without undertaking major capital expenditures. Since the
actual capacity of a facility often depends on the types of
wastes being treated or disposed, the current mix of hazardous
waste is assumed in defining capacity. Several additional
assumptions were made during the course of this analysis which
are important to the proper interpretation of the results.
These assumptions are necessary to convert data to a consistent
basis, wet metric tons (WMT), when conversion factor estimates
were not available:
Volumes reported in gallons are transformed into wet
metric tons assuming that the waste has the density of
water at 8.34 pounds/gallon or 0.00378 metric tons/
gallon. This conversion assumption is also used by
several firms in the industry.
Volumes reported in cubic yards are converted into wet
metric tons assuming that the waste has the density of
water at 62.4 pounds/cubic foot or 0.76 metric tons/
cubic yard. Here the density was suggested by several
landfill operators to make the necessary conversion.1
Volumes reported to be disposed in landfills are
assumed to be bulk material unless specific
distribution between drums and bulk was stated.
Capacity reported in acres is converted to wet metric
tons by assuming each acre has 430,000 cubic feet of
available capacity and 12,100 WMT can be disposed of
in each acre. In general, four interrelated factors
influence the capacity, as measured in wet metric
Isome other industry participants suggested using a
higher conversion factor (up to 0.90 metric tons/cubic yard or
up to 18 percent higher than the conversion factor applied) .
However, because landfills currently handle such a wide variety
of waste types, the more universally accepted estimate of 0.76
is applied.
-16-
-------
tons, that can be disposed of per acre:
The overall size of the landfill. This defines
how much can be utilized for disposal and how
much must be used as buffer. The smaller the
landfill/ the greater the proportion of acreage
which must be used as buffer.
The size of the trenches. A typical trench may
have surface dimensions of 100 by 200 feet and
have an average depth of 30 feet.
The percentage utilization within a trench. The
percentage of the trench utilized for hazardous
waste disposal depends on the materials being
disposed and the spacing practices of the
operator.
The density of the material. There is
significant variability depending on the actual
wastes being disposed.
The assumption of 12,100 WMT per acre is based on the
advice of several landfill operators rather than
explicit assumptions about each of the parameters that
affect landfill capacity.
-17-
------- |