1986-1987 SURVEY OF SELECTED FIRMS IN THE
                                                 FIHAL REPORT
                                               Prepared for the

                                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                          Office of Policy Aaaiysis
                                                March  31, 1988


   This report was prepared by ICF Incorporated for the Office of Policy
Analysis ^"U.3.  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  The survey was
conducted by lir.  Geoffrey Back, Mr. James Dickson, and Ms. Karen Doerschug.
The EFA Project Officer was Kr. Ron Benioff of the Office of Policy Analysis.

   We would like to acknowledge the cooperation of the firms that participated
in this voluntary survey and provided comments on the draft report.  The EPA
greatly appreciates their continued assistance.             *

   This report has undergone a limited review by the EPA.  Identification of
specific firms or technologies in the report does not constitute endorsement
or approval by the EPA.  Questions about the report, or suggestions on survey
topico and/or other firms to survey, should be addressed to:  Mr. Ron Benioff,
Office of Policy Analysis, (PM-220), U.S. Enviro imantal Protaction Agency, 401
K S.-reeC,  S.W., Washington, D.C. ,  2DA60, or to .Mr. Geoffrey G. .Back, ICF
Incorporate,.!, 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VirgL-iia, 22031.

                              TA3L2 CF

EXECUTIVE -3UJ-MARY ....................................... . ...........    iv

CHAPTER 1 .  INTRODUCTION ............................................   1-1

   1 . 1  Background ..................................... . ...... ......   1-1

   1.2  Methodology ........................... . ........ ...... .......   1-1

   1.3  Definitions .................................................   1-4

   1 . 4  Limitations .......................................... . ......   1-5

CHAPTER 2 .  INDUSTRY OPINIONS AND PREDICTIONS  ............ ..... ......   2-1

   2.1  T/7asta Volume Trends Were Mixed for 1985 through  1987  ........   2-2

   2.2  Traattaer.t of Solids and Sludges Still  Seen as
        Principal Growth Market .....................................   2-3

   2.3  I'.ost Commercial Firras Believe that an  Incineration
        Capacity Shortfall Will No Longer Exist Soon  ................   2-7

   2.4  flvzi.-i Offer Mixed Opinions ou Other Market Ef facts
        ... £ I.and ISans ................................................   2 - J
   2.5  Cleanup Business Seen To Be Growing for Many  Firms,
        ''•ut Cleanup Policies Will Decide Future  	    2-1?.

   2.6  :?nocial Survey Topics 	

   3.1  These  14 Firms Operated a Total of 83 Facilities
        in  1986 and  1987		.    3-1

   3.2  Firms  Surveyed Received 4.2  to 4.6 Million Wet
        Metric Tons  of Hazardous Waste in 1986 and 1987  	    3-3

   3.3  Reported Incineration  Capacity Has Increased
        by  98  Percent Since  1985*	    3-11

   3.4  Hazardous Waste  Prices Stabilized in  1986  and 1987 	    3-18



                              LIST  OF EXHIBITS
1-1     A Comparison List of Survey Participants Since the 1981
        Update Survey 	    1-3

3-1     Number of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities Operated
        in 1987 by All Firms 	•.	'.    3-2

3-2     Selected Acquisition Attempts Within the Commercial Hazardous
        Waste Management Industry  	    3-4

3-3     Volumes Received in 1985, 1986, and 1987 by All Firas	    3-5

3-4     Comparison of Hazardous Waste Management Prices Quoted by
        All" Firms in 1985, 1986, and 1987 	   3-19
                                   - iii -


   Tns purpose of this report is to communicate  information to the EPA as
supplied bj£_ the participating firms.  Analysis of  the  data has been limited
strictly--to interpreting responses and  to aggregating  the  data to avoid
discloseje"of- confidential information.  Follow-up interviews were conducted
whenever necessary to verify information, to request additional detail, or to
discuss discrepancies.

   The snail number of firms surveyed and the need to  maintain the
confidentiality of the responses received means  that no  specific information
on regional markets can be presented.   In addition, no statements can be made
about the entire, commercial hazardous waste management industry from'this
small sample.  However, the firms surveyed this  year are believed to operate
at least 70 percent of the com.  arcial facilities and control at least 40
p^rc^.nc of the revenue.

   Expectations are that commercial thermal treatment  capacity for hazardous
vajc.fcs vill be r.dequate to meet demand  by 1991 if  not  sooner.  Thermal
ti'D.'.t:jent capacity aruong the 14 firms surveyed this year increased by 98
percc-rit over the reported 1985  estiinata and is expected  to increase by 200 to
300 jiercenc by the end of this  decada.   This year, the majority opinion seams
to be tha,: incineration capacity shortfalls are  not real or, if they do exist,
will b-i s'uorr-li  id as more permits are issued between now and 1991.  Several
fi.rns iuf;ge;:c a surplus in incineration capacity now  exists cr will exist by
J.J91 or 19°2 av.d continue through the end of ths C3nf.ury if the permit
.-lypiic; clo.L.5 already  in or soon to entsr the pipeline  are  finalized fairly
quickly.  L'^vcci'i incineration  fircris report that their backlogs ara down  ""
.••.-•pr T. ;.i.b"j. / •'..•.! rh.it  thay are having trouble soaking  up  incr"1.'.sed capacity
     .L / '. r.  i Lfr.ce .
        p.d.-ints rsportid  sixteen rev  fixed-based incinerator unit project-;,
         s r.dio.d to  existing  facilities  and 'a'ready in the permitting
3'".^ '.j...;. = ,  ch^.c '.h<=y  expect will in.c':sar.e kiln capacity anywh'ire from 25 to 150
coccatic d3Tp=,nding upon the facility,   'ilis majority of tl'.o.c^ new or replacement
kilns had a thermal  capacity  of anywhere between 50 and 150 million Btu per
hour.  Significantly, about tan percent  of the fixed incinerator unit projects
were reported by firms r.:>t now in the  commercial hazardous waste incineratio..

   The nova to increase  incineration capacity has been a direct response to
the cumulative effects of several major  RCRA  regulations, including the
various land disposal restrictions.   Even so,  many of the commercial firms
report it is difficult to predict market res^anse to these regulations and
that frequently their predictions are  wrong.   Part of the problem, these firms
report, is what they feel to  be the  ever-changing rules and requirements under
which they and their clients  must operate, and the uncertainty attached to
future regulatory decisions.  Prime  examples  of the latter, they say, are how
hard EPA will push  for permanent  cleanups and the use of on-site treatment
technologies at Superfund sites,  and whether  more land disposal restriction
variances will be issued and  current variances extended.  Survey participants
                                     - iv-

      expect that future  land disposal restrictions and the move to more "permanent"
      remedies will  soon  require that most or all corrective action soils and debris
      be treatsci before land disposal.

         Thsss firms  also c.dnit; however,  that predicting trends and market response
      depends ultimately  on an ability to predict behavior, especially  the behavior
      of vasta --generators .   Tor example,  one must predict how quickly and strongly
      generat'>rs^ will invest resources in waste minimization.  Many of  the firms
      surveyed report that generators are taking significant steps to minimize  their
      waste volumes  senc  to off-site treatment/disposal facilities.  One must also
      predict the behavior of regulators  in enforcing the regulations and predict
      how and when  the current impasse in siting new hazardous waste management
      facilities will be  resolved.

         A total of  at; least 4.2 million wet metric tons (WMT) of hazardous wastes
      was received  for treatment: and/or disposal in 1986 by the 14 firms surveyed-.
      This volume was down 8 percent from the adjusted 1985 Survey total of 4.6
      million WMT  (1935 total volume was adjusted to exclude volumes for f i .THS  not
      participating  in the survey this year and to raflect corrected 1935 results
      providsd to  IGF) .   In 1987, these same firms received a tocal waste volume  of
      ai: lecst 4.6 million WIT, an increase of 6.5 percent over 1986.   Only the
      vgsce volume  incinerated did not experience a decline in volume in 1986  as
      compared to  19S3.   Respondents reported that their volumes  incinerated
      increased by  30.5 percent in 1986 over 1985 (adjustad) ,  Waste volumes  sent to
      clasp v7ell injection in 1986 experienced the largest dtcline  (-34  percent).
   Tli 3 de
}??£ v.io
th?. lai^e
r.r :;.cj:-i:it

Vaste vo.l
                 line across nest of the technologies in waste  volvnes handled in
                j. :;/ersad in 1987.  Again, the voluraa of vasCi incinerated experienced
                sc growth in volume (36 percent:) ovec tha rsportad total for the.
                year, but volumes sent to resource recovery  also  wonc up
                nt:ly (25 percent).  Waste volumes sant  Co landfills or wast.-.watsr
                 iv.cilities both rose by abo'ic 5 percent in  1937  versus 1935.   Vas^
                ane to comtaercial injection wells increased  by  less tli.m 1 porcant.
                uir.e managed in 19 ./ by technology for the 14 firas surveyed is shovn
                                                    1 0.4*'.
Total Volum* = 4.5 Million  WMT
                                7 2%
                                                              "oS lncimr?.tion

                                                              M Landfill /1
                                                              O Rasourca Recovery

                                                              D Deep Well Injection

                                                              O Chemical and Biological
                                                          54 2%
       (Note:  A total of 75 thousand WMT of waste  was  reported a stabilized and/or
       solidified in 1987 by  these firms and has been  counted in the volume
       landfilled estimate.)

   Market services listed by respondents this year as growing, static, or
declining business areas differed little from their listing for the 1985
Survey.   Once again, the incineration of solids and sludges was mentioned
consistently as a clear growth market for the commercial waste management
industry._. Close seconds in the growth market category were the various site
remediatioja/field services (remedial cleanups, UST cleanups, drum management,
mobile treatment, and lagoon closures), waste minimization consulting
services,  and various pretreatment technologies like sludge dewatering and
waste stabilization and solidification.  Their candidates for service markets
in decline were deep well injection, PCS liquids treatment and disposal
(peaking by 1990), treatment or disposal in surface impoundments, and land
treatment.  Most respondents predicted that the future of surface impoundments
or land treatment is "bleak" and that these technologies will be stringently
regulated ^.T: phased out.  Otherwise, opinions differed on nearly every other
market or service sector: secure landfills, fuels blending, chemical'and
biological wastewatar treatment, and solvent recycling.

   There was significant movement in service prices I i 1986 as reported by
these 14 firms.  Quoted pi'ess for some services in 1986 increased as much as
174 percent (oil recovery),  whila prices for other services decreased by 54
percsnr..  In 1987, prices a pear to have steadied for some services.  The
average nominal price incre.--.se for chemical and biological treatment, deep
well injection, transportation, and PCB incineration services rose less than 5
percent over their 1986 levels.  The average nominal price increases for other
waste v.aiiagsment services was somewhat greater:  10 to 48 percent for
larul.fi -Is; 13 to 34 percent for incineration; and 16 to 97 percent for
L'asourca recovery.

   Respondents were asked for their comments on a variety of special topics.
The majority of firns surveyed believe that most commercial waste manage :enc
finis do not yet have adequate capacity to perform the Toxicity Characteristic
Lcaxni rig Procedure and may not be able to develop adequate capacity  in time.
If the capacity of commercial laboratories to /srform  the test is considered,
however, th.;se firms believe any potential shortfall in testing capacity is
likely to be small.

   As to the presenc availability of liability insurance, raspondents noted
that, in general, the availability of liability insurance "is no longer a
problem if you have the money to pay for it."  When asked if they had heard of
commercial firms being apy -oached to operate fixed, initially dedicated,
treatment or disposal faci-ities at a generator's site, six out of the eleven
firms responding to this question had never heard of this type of service
arrangement.  Five firms, however, had heard about the idea and two  firms
reported they had held discussions with three generators though all  were
unsuccessful.  Still another firm reported a different twist on this  idea:
generators had inquired if the commercial operator would build and operate a
dedicated, off-site waste management facility that would not go commercial.



                                        CHAPTER 1

      1.1  BACKGROUND

         This is the seventh year the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
      sponsored a survey of business activity and trends for selected firms in the
      commercial hazardous waste management industry.   This survey examines calendar
      year 1986 and 1987 for 14 firms, and follows similar surveys completed
      annually since 1981.^

         Each survey is designed to keep EPA aware cs. industry's concerns and
      developments in the commercial hazardous waste management market.  For this
      year's survey, EPA was interested in these firms'  assessment of whether there
      are existing shortfalls in commercial hazardous waste management capacity,
      especially for thermal treatment.  The data collected through this survey are
      expected to prove useful to the EPA in evaluating possible impacts of RCRA

         Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the commercial industry
      survey was obtained this year.  The OHB information collection request form
      c.pnioval code for the survey is 2020-0017.
         The fir  : industry survey in 1930 was a census of as many commercial
      haza--dcMs -.«.sta management firms as could be identified from service
           c >•; l2s and other sources.   The subseqv Jnt update surveys of 1981 and
           1 Raview of Activity of Major Firms in the Commercial Hazardous Waste
      liana g-.' me nc Indus t,/:  1981 Update.  Environmental Protection Agency.  Prepared
      by Eooz, All n and Hamilton, Inc.  May 1932.

          Review of Activity of Major Firms in the Commercial Hazardous Waste
      Management Industry:  1982 Update.  Final Report.  Environmental Protection
      Agency.  Prepared by Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc.  August 1983.
                 of Activit.es of Firms in the Commercial Hazardous Waste Management
      Industry:  1983 Update.  Final Report.  Environmental Protection Agency.
      Prepared by Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc.  November 1984.

         Survey of Selected Firms in the Comnercial Hazardous Wasce Industry: 1984
      Update.  Final R.eport.  Prepared by ICF Incorporated.  September 1985.

         1985 Survey of Selected Firms in the Commercial Hazardous Waste Management
      Industry.  Final Report.  Prepared by ICF Incorporated.  November 1986.


1932, however, concentrated on interviewing just the top nine firms^ based on
industry data Collected during 1980.

   For th_ar"19~83 and 1984 update surveys, the list of interview candidates was
expanded to. include "major firms" on a technology-by-technology basis.  This
approach was  followed in developing the survey candidate list for  the  1985
Survey and again for this year's survey.  Exhibit 1-1 has been provided to
help track survey participants since 1981.

   Out of the 18 firms selected as candidates for the 1986-1987 Survey, the
following 14  firms agreed to participate and responded to all of the survey

   •    Chemical Waste Management;
   a    Browning-Ferris Industries/CECOS International;
   a    GSX Corporation;
   -    Rollins Environmental Services;
   r.    ENS CO, I ic. ;
   »    Snvirosafe, Inc.;
   a    U.S.  Pollution Control, Inc.;
   :i    Kavirite;
   •i    I'.oss  Incineration;
   »    l-'.iivij. iruaental Waste Resources;
        V.J.  L&tiiberton/Chemical R.-.sourcss, Inc.;
   •'.    Saf3ty-Kleen; and
    !    Syst.sch.                                                           .

Tvo jTir-^3, "International Technology  (IT) Corporation and DuPoat  Environmental
£-»r-/ic?.s  CC,ij), chose not to participate in the  1936-1987 survey.   U.S.
Ecrlogy, a participant in last year's survey, agreed to participate again this
year, but cv.ulri not complete the survey in ti^e  for inclusion  in  this  report.
All thr..-- f:.rras, therefore, are not represented  in  this year's  results &nd
h-.va bt-ja bcsckad out of the results for the 19-35 _Survev in  order  to isolato
tae true year-to-year volume and capacity trends.  McKesson Envirosystems,
also a participant in last year's survey, is still  included in  the survuy as
their operations were acquired by Safety-Kleen.

   Firms were interviewed by telephone  or provided written  responses
concerning four general topics:

        •     Wastes managed, by technology and type, in 1986 and
     ^ In  the  1981  and 1982  Update  Surveys,  these nine firms were:  Chemical
Waste Management, Browning-Ferris  Industries,  SCA Chemical Services, Rollins
Environmental  Services,  IT Corporation,  US  Ecology,  CECOS International,
Conversion Systems,  and Chem-Clear.


VH '.si
i i
5 s
ts a ,;:
3 £4 !>
M 3 k
t". t-4 ^,
° S 51
(-< »-< Tt.
*_1 *- ^
— *"* I»J
g e |
1 * L













Ji J










- -g
1 * ~>
S>r M - C
i o a
S fr -
1 a 3

« 3 I

Q •
SJ g
-2 § 1
U -H O
£ 2 >


m — <
" S g
l-t -« — 4
» 4h> >
1 V| 










si •
£ 5
--4 *J
1 2
*4 C
a c -4
a • o u
V .3 S &
§-H X "
* r *

c o 5

K -S »4 W "
^ A « *4
O « « 4 C U

;«i in

>s C
0 HO
S O -4
_2 « j; " i ""
"a « u ii S »5
S n c 5 "

> !
-1 ! i
C i4 J


o « — ' • c o
O O I ^4 • M
U 14 S MM
w ~> 5 *> « S

S fl i «


§ £ g
73 *°  "
u " ? «S S
S S o .5


i ""' o
U i .3
« a 3
J >, a to

5 J2 3 w to r>


M -*
1 -B
° 1
-u C ^2
M « *3 — 4
s j; jj 5
*| X -J W

«J >s U O4 4J
o i> « c
M « n *5 • cri E.
S fi i « M s &

1 c
M •
w tS ^ *•• *
2; ir • »; x
W A4 CE U tQ

- e
o S
... fl S

! i!-s

iS as «-»' «H 1i

fi fi s M n


- s


e "1
2, "
* i
0 C
14 ^
g* "-3

X  U
3 .U -J
i £ 2
s 1 s
— • "e
« i
S c

~ •< i
c ba -
"i "°

Ja O
«S3 14 S
* €
44 « •<
1 It
« o •
" 5
* -*J O
•S 5 «

3 *0 TS
•a « o
C C -H
•4-1 3 4J
-S • -2
14 ^ 3
14 » &
• « O
b. 20
C * *J
*« U -H

ca C v-
•H -ai

14 —*
o c
%4 C

•a a

0 W
> o
u *J
« *


S •
J 5
! !
3 **
c ^
™* -o
vi e
I ^
g •"
U •*
". ~
M "C
,-1 *
3 *
U -J
O 4
co 2
1 3
•-* 14
tl >
£ «5
° §
i— < n
o «
; ^

s s
U 14
a -4
J &
o a
*S c

* *
s ?
14 *}
•4 O

c *
u tn
^i *(




        u "ji. -Capacity, by technology, in 1986 and 1987;

        a *"  Prices char^sd, by technology and waste type, in 1986
             and 1987; and

        s    Views of the hazardous waste management market and
             significant business or regulatory trends.

Participants were provided with a list of questions prior to the interview and
were asked questions applicable only to their operations, or that were
consistent with established confidentiality agreements. - Responses
to each of tha questions were compiled and are presented in the aggregate to
avoid disclosure of any company's response, unless the information was already
available to the public (e.g., number of operating facilities).
   Con.sidara.ble tiiae is spent with each respondent explaining and defining
tsTJis used in the survey that readers also should ksep in inind when
interpreting the survey results.  For example, in the update surveys through
1982, commercial facilities were defined as those "engaged in the treatment
ar.d/or dir.po 'al of hazardous waste for a fee," but did "not include recovery
operations ... or storage and transfer stations."  This definition was changed,
suartir.g with the 1983 Up da t e S urvey . to include recovery operations and
^ranscar stations.  Also note that a firm does not have to be en^-ged solely
or principally in the treatment and/or disposal of hazardous wartas for a fee
to be considered commercial.  That is, a. facility that is dedic-.-ed mostly to
handling *. generator's own waste (from a single or several production plants),
but prcc zsstis some wastes from other generators for a fee, can be considered a
"ccnuorcial" facility for this survey.

   One of  the mora important terms used in the survey is "effective capacity"
(along with  the instructions given to firms on calculating and reporting
capacity information).  Initially, each firm was asked to calculate their
"effective capacity" firm-wid.;  (by technology or service offered) accounting
for such factors as downtine for repairs and maintenance or limits imposed by
on-site storage capacity or discharge permits.  Each firm was also able to
provide capacity estimates in the units they prefer to use, for example,
millions of  Btu per hour for a rotary kiln incinerator or gallons per day for
a chemical treatment facility.  As is discussed below, 1CF staff then worked
with each  firm to convert their estimates into a common unit of measure:
metric tons  per year.

   Several technologies/services are given special attention in developing  a
consistent definition of "effective capacity" due to the potential for

misinterpretation.  One such technology is secure landfills. ^  Different
conn. -.rcial__f iniis in the survey prefer to express landfill capacity solely in
teriis of the _air space volume remaining in the cell they are operating
currentl^'.;"" as, the number of years left of permitted air space for disposal
assuming current fill rates, or as the total volume of air space available
assuming they are able to develop and permit (in accordance with all state
and/or federal requirements) all of the land area they plan to commit to
landfilling operations.  Using each of these measures, however, generates a
very differ- at picture of available commercial landfill capacity.  The most
conservative estimate of available capacity would b». one base'd upon the
remaining air space in an active cell since there are no assurances that
additional cells would be permitted for construction and operation.
Alternatively, the total land area-based measure provides the best estimate of
potential capacity for the disposal of wastes and treatment residuals.

   To date, most of the landfill operators participating in the annual survey
have calculated landfill capacity estimates using the total land area measure.
As a result,  this measur : has been cho;en as the standard form for each firm
to report their < )omercidl landfill capacity, i.e., with some firms, IGF staff
must discuss converting a alternative c-ipacity measure to the selected total
land area measure.  ICF staff also convert the total land area-based capacity
e- rimaCes to a single remaining lifetime estimate (in years) assuming the
total curr at annual fill rat,: reported by these firms.

   1C? staff also had to disc-iss conversion methods in order to standardize a
response with EPA' s preferent.  that capacity numbers be reported in mass
throughput units (-see Appendi.: A for several conversion factors used).  For-
fixaisyls ,  incineration capacity estimates reported in millions of Btu per hour
vera eonve :tad to Metric tons per year units using factor.-, for the average Ltu
per pound of waste and number of operating hours per year.  Each respondent
was given the opportunity to choose conversion factors they believed to be
applicable to their operation.  Each firm, therefore, may have selected a
ditf-irant conversion factor.

   Appendix B lists several other terms and their definitions as used in the
report or as communicated to participants as guidance in developing their
responses .

   The purpose of this report is to communicate information to the EPA as
supplied by the participating firms.  Analysis of the data has been  limited
     -1  Another technology for which alternative capacity estimates were
debated included wastewater treatment where firms could express  capacity  as
either a hydraulic capacity, as a function of tank storage capacity,  or as a
function of permit discharge limits.  In  this case, firms were asked  to
standardize their response on the basis of hydraulic capacity.

strictly to interpreting responses and to aggregating the data to avoid
disclosure of" confidential inform?.cion.   As such,  the accuracy of the
informatioJi- presented is a. function of the respondent's understanding of the
questions asked, the accuracy of the data they choose to provide, and ICF's
interpreta"tio"n of their answers.  Follow-up interviews were conducted whenever
necessary to verify information, to request additional detail, or to discuss
discrepancies (e.g., waste volumes reported handled exceeded the reported
effective capacity).
   The small number of firms surveyed and the need to maintain the
confidentiality of Che responses received means that no specific information
on regional markets can be presented.  In addition, no statements can be made
about the entire commercial hazardous waste management industry from this
small sampla.  However, the firms surveyed this year are believed to operate
at least 70 percent of the commercial facilities and control at least 40
percent of the revenue.

   The detail of the responses received varied.  Some firms provided
consider ble detail in their responses while other firms did not.  As a
general oila, the least detailed response controlled the degree of detail
presented from responses to i..ny individual question.  Relative changes in the
survey results from year to year, therefore, may also reflect the quality of
responses received in any one year, although this variability cannot be

   Ensuring comparability with the results of earlier surveys is a prir.iry
concern for each new survey.  There were generally two sources of
comparability problems this year: (1) differences in the participants list
from 1985 to 1986-87, and (2) firms' modifying earlier survt-.y responses due to
reporting errors or miscalculations.  Of these two, the first had the greater
impact and raquirad adjustments to the analysis.  As noted earlier,  the
absence of IT Corporation and US Ecology (both members of the original 1981
"major" firms group) and DuPotit Envir -amenta! Cervices in this year's survey
was compensated for by not  including past estimates for their operations in
the results shown for the 1985 Survey.

   ICF attempts each year to improve the accuracy of the survey  results.  For
example, we have invesc^d more time  in providing specific guidi.nca  on defining
effective capacity, and in  reviewing capacity data and assumptions  in the
interview.  The result, we  believe,  is at least a better understanding of
participants' responses, if not a more accurate picture of available capacity
among these firms.  We also provided each participant with a  summary of his
1985 response on waste volumes and effective capacity by technology.  We
received "corrected" data for 1985 in two cases.  As a further  check, we
contacted each  firm to confirm or correct a  significant  (50 percent or more)
increase or decrease in their 1986-1987  results over 1985  for waste volumes,
capacity, or both.  Discrepancies betrween waste volumes reported received  and
capacity in 1986 or in 1987 were  also investigated and resolved.

   Users of -the survey reports are advised to use caution in interpreting the
results. 'Jthile every attempt has been made to ensure the data are reported
accurately ancl are reasonably consistent from year to year,  there is a
potential for" error and misinterpretation, especially with respect to the
capacity-related data.  Changes in definitions and assumptions over time as
well as in a respondent's efforts to provide accurate data must be considered.
   The remainder of the report is organized into two chapters.  Chapter 2 --
Industry Opinions and Predictions -- presents largely anecdotal information
supplied by survey respondents on such issues as permitting delays, the
reality of capacity shortfalls, siting difficulties, and the expected market
impacts of the RCRA land disposal restrictions.   Also covered are the views of
these coramcrcial firms on business trends in their industry including probabla
areas of market growth and decline.

   Chapter 3 -- Uaste Volumes, Capacity, and Prices -- highlights trends in
the waste volumes handled, capacity by technology, and prices among all the
fims surveyed, and compares reported results for 1986 and 1985 (adjusted) and
for 1937 and 1986.  Acquisitions and service expansions by these firms are
also discussed.



                                  CHAPTER 2

   Predicting future trends and market response to major market-shaping
legislation and regulations is even difficult for firms in the commercial
hazardous waste management industry.  Part of the problem, e\en given the
resources some of the firms commit to market research, is the absence of
reliable or usable data on waste volumes and types generated as has been noted
in several recent studies by OTA, GAO, and others.  Several efforts are now
underway to improve data content and collection through the regulatory system
thac may improve the value of these data for market research questions.

   Another part of the problem, these firms report, is what they feel to be
the ever-changing rules and requirements under which they and their clients
must operite, and the uncertainty attached to future regulatory decisions.
Prime exaaples of the latter, they say, are how hard EPA will push for the
permanent cleanups and the use of on-site treatment technologies at Superfund
sites, and whether more land disposal restriction extensions will be issued
and current extensions extended.  Anyone who could answer these questions with
a fair degree of certainty would settle some key variables in the strategic
planning equations of commercial hazardous vaste firms supplying either  (or
both) "live stream" waste management services or site remediation services.

   These I'.rms also admit, however, that ultimately the key to predicting
trends and market response is the ability to predict behavior, especially  the
behavior of wasts generators.  For example, one tiu.st predict how quickly  and
strongly generators will react to regulatory, economic, and liability
pressures towards investing resources in waste minimization.  Kany of the
fij..•..>? survt  ?d this year report that they can see direct  and. increasing
ev'i'enc-: of "asta minimisation by generators.  One must also predict the
behavior of regulators in how stringently they enforce the regulations  (e.g.,
pretreatiaent requiremercs for wastewacer discharges) and  predict how and whan
regulators, politicians,  interest groups, and the public  will resolve the
current impasse in siting new hazardous waste management  facilities.

   Against this backdrop then, this chapter summaries the opinions and
predictions of the firms surveyed as to market trends, regulatory concerns and
developments, and a variety of other issues.  The information provided  in  this
chapter is largely anecdotal and as stated by the firms interviewed.  Both
consensus and minority viewpoints have been presented to  the extent possible
without violating confidentiality arrangements.  The  topics covered in  this
chapter include:

        •    General changes in waste volumes and types between 1985
             and 1986 and 1986 and 1987, and changes  in the balance
             between on-site and off-site waste management;


        •    Observations on growth markets and factors  affecting
         __  -commercial firms'  ability to respond to market growth;

        »   -Commercial firms'  perceptions of the reality of
          -  rapacity shortfalls,  their plans to expand  capacity,
             and comments on the federal role in facility siting;

        •    Observations on the market effects of various land
             disposal restrictions;

        •    Handling of Superfund wastes and the market effects of
             the SARA amendments and RCRA Corrective Action
             regulations; and

        «    Viewpoints on several special topics,  including the
             capacity to perform the TCLP, the availability of
             liability insurance,  servicing small quantity
             generators, and the emergence of the "quasi-
             commercial" waste management industry.

2.1     VAST2 70LDKZ TRENDS SfERS MT^m FOR 1985 THRDDCT 1987

   The ability of firms to retain or expand their throughput was highly varied
for the period of 1985 to 1987.  Many firms were able to expand their
marketing efforts and attract additional wastes to new or existing facilities.
Voluntarily-imposed restrictions,  regulatory suspensions, and permit      ~
limitations, however, caused an ovarall decline of 22 percent for waste
volumes handled in 1986 as compared to 1985.  This decline was only partially
made up by the 13 percent increase in waste volume betveen 1986 and 1987.

   Eleven firats experienced increases in waste volumes received.  One firm
attributed its increased business to their participation in a rapidly growing
•market:  disposal of clean up wastes.  Six of the firms attributed their
growth to their ability to handle more of the available waste types because of
increases in capacity (by construction or acquisition).   Two fires attributed
their growth to better marketing,  including new sales offices to service a
widar geographic region.

   A common thread in the survey responses is that the amount of "clean"
wastes, especially easy to treat aqueous wastes and the higher Btu-content
liquids, has either declined overall or is less available because of
competition for these wastes.  Incineration firms increasingly emphasize the
need to be able to handle wastes with higher solids, but lower heat content.

   Several companies claim that generators of aqueous wastes, particularly  the
larger generators, are moving  increasingly to on-site pretreatment to reduce
the volume of waste sent off-site.  Other  trends noted were more in-house
solvent recovery, on-site incineration, waste minimization efforts, and waste
solidification.  Most of the firms believe that  the move to on-site treatment
will be lead by the larger generators who want to exercise greater control


over the destination of the waste and avoid potential liability.  Larger
companies are also believed to be able to treat their wastes at lower overall
costs.  Ortfe firm remarked, however, that generators are still not very
interested-"in waste delisting, and foresees that they will still need to use
off-site services to dispose of their waste solids and treatment residues.
Most firms expressed the belief that the smaller to mid-sized generators will
make greater use of off-site waste management services in the face of costly
regulatory requirements.

   Three firms suffered major declines in the volumes treated and disposed
because of voluntary limitations on the amount or type of waste they were
willing to accept.  One firm elected to stop accepting wastes containing any
concentration of F001-F005 wastes and also stopped accepting used oil
containing hazardous wastes.  Another firm has chosen to reserve all of its
available chemical treatment and a portion of its landfill capacity to service
its own needs for incinerator ash disposal and leachate/rainwater treatment.
A third suffered a contraction in the volume of wastes from remedial action
sites when it elected not to deeply discount its service prices.


   Market services lisced by respondents this year as growing, static, or
declining business areas differed little from their listing for the 1985
Suryjjv.  Once ag-.xin, the incineration of solids and sludges was mentioned
consiscencly as a clear growth market for the commercial waste management
industry.  Close seconds in the growth market category were the various site
remediation/field services  (remedial cleanups, UST cleanups, drum management,
nobile traacaenc, and lagoon closures), waste minimization consulting
services, and vs. :ious pretreatment technologies like sludge dewatering and
waste stibilization and solidification.  Several respondents also stated that,
in general, wasta treatment was a growth market, especially on-site waste
trearoteac.  Overall, these firms believe that commercial hazardous waste
management services will continue to grow at historical r.-.-ss (around 20
percent: per year) with higher growth rates expected for remediation/field
services.  Their candidates for service markets in decline were deep well
injection, PC3 liquids treatment and disposal (peaking by 1990), treatment or
disposal in surface impoundments, and land treatment.  Otherwise, opinions
differed on nearly every other market or service sector: secure landfills,
fuels blending, chemical and biological wastewater treatment, and solvent

   Growth Markets.  The off-site incineration of solids and sludges is
expected Co be the strongest growth market driven by site cleanups, the land
bans,  and the push by generators to reduce waste volumes and to control future
liability.  Some firms stated that the growth of the incineration market would
extend to even greater interest by generators towards building and operating
on-site captive incinerators.

   The generation of more sludge waste was also tied to several other growth
markets by respondents.  The stabilization and solidification of drummed
sludges and solids and on-site dewatering of sludges were two such markets.


Moderate  growth  in on-site wastewater treatment services,  especially on a
regional  or  local  scale,  was expected by soute fir-js ijoscly in response to
t!.£ht3ning categorical  pretraataent standards,  i'oc a LI  firms agreed with this
assessuenCj  however,  labeling aqueous treatment cervices  as a declining market
overall, -=prv?n what they view as little enforcement of the pretreatiaenc
standards,_although they expected their market share  to  increase.   Smelting
for the recovery of mixed metals from sludges was also mentioned as a likely
growth area.

   At le  "t  one  respondent mentioned the following services as among their
candidates for growth markets:  in-house solvent recovery for waste
minimization; tha  burning of waste fuels (moderate, growth) ; secure
Irndf.\llin^;  the incineration of ?CIi sludges and soils from waste site
cleanups; services to small quantity generators; a.nd  waste collection,
brokerage, and transfer in some regional markets.  As will be discussed below,
several oth-ar firms viewed some of these narksts as flac or in decline.

   Sj:.-;j: 1 c •'yrkR 13 .   There was no conaens'is among respondents as to the statj.c
rirkp.c areas.  One respondent believed fuels burning  fell into this category
predicting t'isc  voluiaes would stabilize and that thara would be a lot of
exciss capacity.   Another respondent labeled the vastewatar treatment market
.•is "at: boGt,  flat" because any growth due to local tightaning of pretreatment
standards would  be short-lived.

   .^^'.T.Li-r.'-~L?,.j':iJL1.c".-tlS-  Mo . t respondents continue to predict the decline of
.~ur.:..c.i ii-iyounc''isncj , land tre.it^ant, and daap wall iuj action demand and
               •:•' firms  are raore upbeat on tha fucvre  ct  uaep well injection,
             sd   -0.1 the belief that they err. deiacn.i :T~ta "no migration" cmd
       :8  cyi-.-rcc Vaj.  The trea'nnant and disposal .',•_:' 1JCJii  liqtju'ds is projected  '0
_,-,.'.: '--j 1 .TO rr.-.i docline rapidly thardaf-3r.  Of': -.-:!.?;;  Lolva^.t recovery,
r.jr '•ji.-.lly for halognr.atsd org?nic solvents, wa.-: li.--.:^d  by one respondent in
th••'..- c-.-.:.- ', i cj dua  t;o the impact <£ getieracors sub'Jt...'.cv.tiijg other solvents or
tr.i:.Li;', -;c..,;•: to  recover their solvents onrlta.  R-.alj blopcllng was also li  ;ad
I./ ' .:? ••:e..--'r)r.'Jr.Mt  i.n a decl Lnirg r.arkat ic\ tli'i  face, of  increasingly cora
r.c•..'.- ,•: .t .••^.julc.tior.s <"nd di:a to competition f'rcm  uhi IIC2_\ incineratora  tv>r
t',.d l.icn-^c-i v/ast3 liquids to support combustion of the  low-Btu waste solids
ci.d s iui. C'"^ •

   One fiv.i  was  particularly confident that the total liquids treatment market
has declined since 1985, even though this firm  had  increased  its market share
competitors  failed to get Part B permits or had to  closa tetaporarily.  This
firm believes that enforcement of pretreatment  standard.; under the Clean Water
Act could slow  the decline in the liquids treatment market by forcing more
small-  and medium-si : ?d generators to discontinue  discharging into sewers, but
does not  anticipate the rigorous enforcement needed tc  completely  offset any
general decline  in this market.

   Much as  was  the case in  the 1935  Survey, the future  of  commercial  sec  ce
landfills is viewed very differently by many  of these firms.  Some firms
believe that waste volumes  sent to landfills have  declined and will  decline
even further as  a  function  of waste  minimization  and the  effects  of  land
disposal  restrictions.  Some  firms have even  imposed commercial waste  volume


limits on their own landfills  to preserve air space  for  handling treatment
residvls (^.g., incinerator ash) from  their other facilities  (or from other
units  c ths_ .saiae facility) .   Some respondents  in this group also believe that
EPA vij.l Hot extend the CERCLA/RCKA soil and debris  variance from the land
disposal j restrictions and vill push successfully for on- site treatment at
Super fund -s ites (both opinions, however, were contestad  by other firms).

   Not all the firms believe the volume of waste landfilled at commercial
facilities will go down, however.  Their view is that site cleanup wastes will
still need to go to off -site landfills, and that waste stabilization and
solidification will prove acceptable to regulators as treatment for many
wastes leading to greater waste volumes sent to commercial landfills.

   Most agree, however, that landfills  will play and have begun to play a
Different role in the waste management  system.  Asked whether they see secure
Iraic.f lllj solely as "residual  repositories" , most respondents said yes,
partic-jij.rJ.y if waste stabiliz .cion and solidification is counted among the
c.reat  ;nt technologies.  Other firms did not agree that  secure landfills would
rolci  function as residual rapositories in the future believing that some
liazarc ous vastes will meet  the treatment standards without any treatment.

   Ab-'.l: -.y to .Respond to, K^r1 >t Ccoyth.  There  has been  little change also in
the factors respondents lint as limiting their  ability to respond to market
j;rovx.a  •- permitting delays, program authorization  " f lip - f lops " , regulatory
con-'itral-it-s ar.d uncertainties, public opposition to  siting or expanding
f -ici'.l It •*.?..:. .  Nr-.w wen-bars to tnia li 'C (provided by one or more respondents)
"=JH: <.'.i :~ M.cu.1 ier. In obtaining financing;  complications i .1 developing new
c--chi;olcs',i-js in the face of changing regulations; the C2RC..A program's unclear
sl;;r.--J..s en how often on-site trea!naent  technologies  will be selected as part
u_- the .'.i/-a remedy; regulacoTs' unwillingness  to act in  l-;ss tivn black and
v'.i:'.te slUi.itions; and the difficulty of predicting  or modeling market
        -- ^o the land disposal restrictions.
   7, -j ,rt: i ri'-\. ,fj were  .il.io  ci\-:r- \  .'-pec-'.fically if any short.iga of hazardous or
nonha;.c.r:Io'-i3 landfill  cap

solid "ar.te landfill  capacity.

   Fermi t*^Ln~  do lays  of 3 to 6  years or more were mentioned by many
respondents _*is  the  single greatest factor limiting their  ability  to  serve
growirg o.c ncv laarkets,   While  some were willing to acknowledge tha  technical
coi'ip] exity-oii?  the permitting process as a factor in the delays , most blamed
iiiadeuuats staca pernr t program resources, lack of state  and  federal agency
coordination,  differing state and federal interpretations of  the  same issue,
or high staff  turnover as the sources of the problem.  Opinion was  split on
vhether E?A or the  states were  slower in rssponding to permit applications, or
firms saw little difference between the two.  Several respondents felt the
lack of activity on their permit applications was & function  of  the  lower
paruitcing priority of their facilities relative to incinerators  and'
landfills, and because of a shift in priorities to monitor closing facilities.

   It: VPS also clsar, however,  that there have been improv -snts  on the
p-;r .ii.cu~.n3 front for  several firms.  Some firms have roar.ru i  the  draft permit
rc.ije in less  than  a  year-and-a-half from permit application; in  some cases,
i .\ lii;.-: than one year.   Several firms expected final permits  some rime in 1933
;-uc', one facility in < ir survey has received ics Part 3 permit. A  few firms
remarked that  the peivnitting process seams to unfold more smoothly for a new
'.utility <>s cppossd to changes  to an exiscing facility, provided  a new
J.-.oi '.icy can get  through the initial siting proc; ;s.

   rUi TOTvIe-r.t:; vsr-i also asked for their opinions on whether  tho  new rules foe
-ffi-r/i:'. : no Jif.'.c -miens  and transportable treatment "nits represented an
i -v:i:<..v<=' ae.it: in their  ability to respond to narke   :hange.3 ard growth.  In
^••5-..ir-'l, uc-t  fin-.s expressed a waic-and- aa att,   'a, although  several were
i:ova o.jTJ.cive  ii'ocut tha petTait modif icati;.n rule (>.•: fait  the  process had to
 ;...- b-vjrf.- b.:c.^^oe  it couldn't get a^.y wor^.a.  Tl:s p^^itatio.i r.f-jaua tu st = m
ir-.rx tVia s_onc'3ra  ch t implementation of ths ruD.es will not liva  up to their
prr :i3^' on prpsr.   in particular, se-reral firtns believe  tha:  F,?A and/or the
;'ui... -)-::'-"'i'.l st.-'.was vill not ba as flexible a^ the r>ale  "Lang-urge  S'j'.ns to imply,
,'..-.   L.'.i «>lict r.o ta tiora strvo.'  >nt.  Other firras beliove that  scstes will
c-->\' t.'..iu.i to label  .Cacilicy modii.'ica'cior.s n^sc'.fid  to raspor.d. tri market r.hsngas
aa ra.-.jor L:ouif Ications and, therefore, subject to the  full-blown permitting
p _• o c 3 . j s .
   ^,11  th  firms were also asked for their  p^-'ice on the possible roles of tha
f?diral g-jvei ;raent towards resolving the  prer, ,nt impasse on siting new
facilities.   'rfhile none of the firms appeared  to believe that much could be
done  until the  situation reached the crisis stage,  some firms did offer
suggestions.   Suggested roles for the  federal  government included: more
aggres  ive public education and outreach  programs;  strictly enforcing the
adequace capacity demonstration requirement under SARA; encouraging states to
concrol the siting process at the state level  and on the basis of technical
criteria only,  encouraging generators  to  open  up dedicated TSDFs to commercial
use;  and withdrawing RCRA program authorization in states that enact waste
import  bans.   Many firms expressed disappointment over what they view as the
very  limited success of state facility siting  commissions.

        r;.,ii.-Ho L0i'c:n SXIST scow
   As compared to the prsdictions  offered in the  1985 Survey on the quastiori
of capacity shortfalls,  there has  been  quite a turnaround in opinions among
the survey participants.  Respondents had been nearly unanimous in their views
oil a "chronic" and "severe"  shortfall in commercial incineration capacity,
especially fov waste solids  and  sludges.   This year,  the majority opinion
seens to ba that incineration capacity  shortfalls are not real or, if they do
exist, will be short-lived <'S more permits are issued, between now and 19S1.
Several firms even go so far as  to suggest a surplus  .' i incineration' capacity
now exists ("we hear no  generators complaining") ,  or  will exist by 1991 or
1992 and contiuua through the end  of  the century  if the permit applications
--1.---'.; ay iu or seen Co enter  t' a  pipeline are finalized fairly quickly.
L -iv^ra! inr.lna cation firms also  rtport  that their backlogs are down
appreciably and thac they are having  trouble soaking  up increased capacity
A L r c ct uy in place.

   Much of tha turnaround on the question of the  reality of the incineration
car.ac ''.ty sh^rtf^ll is attributed by survey respondents to thr^e trends.  The
fw.-r of 1 1: •>.•!<» r.rsnJs Is th-s continuing decline in PCS liquids incineration
frc=aivi3 uy' >: Lin capacity for E.GRA  wastes.  The second trcr.d is th-a entry of
           ;. ,  I'.-jht as^rsftntz kilns,  and industrial boilers into the thermal
          rti,. -if-sc rn-.r!cct.   'These  so-Celled "rscycla  kilr.s" and boilers filled
          -,r,:.;t  '.sal o.c  cn.p^.city that several rnrpotideiiis «ald was no where
          ovaji 'v ,;^d vc so r.ar.   In addition,  jeratovs of these recycle krlna
           co *.'i'-'jn th

disposal and the selection of BDAT for these wastes; (c) whether EPA will
continue to string out some of the variances frcra the land disposal
restrictions;, (d) how stringently cement and light aggregate kilns and
industrial, bo :.lers are regulated; and (e) how aggressively generators pursue
waste minimization.  In particular, respondents express considerable
uncertainty over what EPA will select as BDAT for the CERC1A/RCSA.soils  and
debris and for complex cyanide wastes if these are banned from  land disposal.
If incineration is the only or one of several BDAT options, some firms predict
a considerable rhortfall in incineration capacity.  Other firms feel that  a
move by EPA to scring out the effective dates of the land bans will have a
chilling effect on investment in new incineration capacity and might generate
a cap .-city shortfall.

   Several firms stressed that they have been able to detect clear evidence  of
gains in minimizing waste volumes by generators.  This evidence has come in
the form of handling even larger volumes of solid and sludge wastes and  or as
an overall decline in waste volumes shipped off-site for handling.  They
pret .ct that this trend will continue and may negate or softan  the impact  of
increases in the demand for incineration services when land ban extensions
expire: and che pace of waste sita cleanups accelerates.  The market effects  of
expiring land ban variances will, however, vary by region cf the country with
the VASC. Co<->.=;t and the Northeast likely to experience any capacity shortfalls
sooner than the Midwest, Gu3 ' Coast, and Southwest.

   Cn the possibility of capacity shortfalls for other technologies, survey
respondents had a variety of opinions.  Firms commenting on .the adequacy of
secure' landfill capacity believer! that enough capacity exists  for  the  next 10
t'i 15 yv ;rs.  Reservations "ere  (. .pressed by thes-j .tirras over  the  pace of  -
p •-. i~.i i t c • g for new cells and over the inability to site n=.w facilities.  Soma
.-:;-; u "• r.tic-ice also nencicned that  "--filet cr.rds" 5,n Lhair analysis  were  EPA's  or
.1 .laths' Decision on the status of municipal wasce incinerator  ash  and
-peer j leu in-contaminated soils from U3T cleanups as hazardous wastes,  and the
c-c-:: i  :oliit:y of land treatment  for oily sludges.  Other technologies/services
 ',>_...  na<-i c's subject to shortfalls in available coaa;erclj.l  capacity  on either
c. i'ciwiorivide or regional "basis wp-;?: solvent recovery, aqueous  wastewatar
trsatiient, and stabilization/solidification of drumra< d wastes.

   The specific expansion and acquisition plans mentioned by  respondents
mirrored their individual views  cf srowth markets  (see Section 2.2)  and
capacity shortfalls.  Factors notad by respondents  as significant in their
plans to expand included:

        •    Increasing demand for commercial waste  management
             services in general and  in  particular  off-site
             incineration services, especially  for  waste  solids and

        M    The expanding site  remediation  and UST cleanup markets;

        •    Soon-to-be-issued final  permits  for  several  of their


        .!    Decisions to enter new markets based upon  perceived
             profitability and/or declines in  their historical
         __  -service markets;

        zi~  _An interest in providing more rounded, full -spectrum
          -  -services; and

        „    Forestalling competitors'  "greenfields"  projects  or
             capitalizing on name recognition  and business  success
             in particular regions of the country.

Very few acquisition plans were noted by respondents; most  of  the service
changes would be brought about by expanding at existing sites,  although
several "graenfield" projects were also mentioned.  Growth  through
acquisitions vas noted as likely co be  significant, however,  in cases of non-
TSD permit -based service companies offering site remediation services,
asbestos abatement services, wasts minimization consulting,  and mobile  on-sita
    tment unics.
   Several survey respondent  not^d  that  their  efforts  would continue to
uxp-:id existing landfill capacity by opening  new cells  meeting R.C3A standards.
Ilirr- would flso be continuing of cores to  pace the raca  £.t vhich they co • juiae
t:hsir available air space.  A faw firms raported plans  to expand aqueou  and
crmiical t -«•".. -truant capacity by 50 to 100  nillion gallons per year fin- "i.da.
,"•'-;-,-:;.-••- 1 fl-i:; -ilnmi^d  to add ;:igni.rioaut  capacity for stabilizing druiEned
v-.3!;fi.; ju wol  as cor.siderabla dnm  r.nd tank  storage c-ppcity at all or rnosc
o: d;eli: fcxiscing siCe^s.  Other  s^wic^s  slated for axpansioa by some firxaj
r'.r.c L <:«J: colvor.t recovery, a variety of  ^ervic s for r-i;iaJ 1 quantity
\;.iiia .ic^rs,  .Tuclj blcsnding ar.d/or burning,  and  deep well injection.
   '"',e'ipo,:d.-j:itj :  ;rs asked  sevaral  questions  about the irnpact of land disposal
i?.s '.rictloas on  the future  of various  land  disposal technologies.   The^e
quo rJ.ons included:  how EPA should  approach possible land disposal
restrictions on  RC,7A and Superfund corrective action soils s.nd debris;, ths
future of land treatment and surfacs impoundments;  vhether the land disposal
bans had altered the timing for when permit/ would be pursued, and whether
many or f -r commercial  land disposal facilicies  will be able to neet .a "no
migration" standard.

   Reaction to whether  there has been market effects tied to the land disposal
bans outside of  the growth  of incineration  services, so far, has been mixed.
Three firms said they-have  seen no changes,  and  anticipate little or no effect
in the future.   Two of  the  firms believe  that the effects of the bans will
continued to be  delayed, either through a regulatory extension or by lack of
enforcement.  Five firms, however, had either altered their own plans (or had
seen generators  accelerate  their plans)  to  use or develop alternative
treatment technologies, especially stabilization of aqueous or inorganic
wastes and incineration of  solids  and sludges.  A few firms had reacted to the



land bans by imposing their own restrictions  on  the  waste  types  they would
r.ccept for landfill ing, some as a measure  to  conserve  space  for  disposal of
thair owr^waste treatment residues.

   Most ^respondents predicted that  the  future of surface  impoundments or land
treatment "Is ""bleak" and that these technologies will  be  stringently regulated
or phased out.  At the same time, however,  these firms had widely different
op'.nions about the used j.or using surface  impoundments and land  treatment to
manage hazardous wastes.  A few firms felt that  thera  will be a  continuing
need for and use of these technologies, but could not  agree  on which
technolosy would be the more likely to  survive.   Five  firms  Relieved that land
tr^atrsent was a viable or necessary technology that  will  survive, although
operators would face increased restrictions to manage  fewer  wastes.   One firm
expects that new surface impoundments will be constructed, but many more
respondents said that surface impoundments will  be replaced  by treatment in
   At present, fairly large volumes of RCRA and CERCLA corrective action soils
and debris are disposed of in  secure  landfills  with little or no pire treatment.
Survey participants expect, however,  that  future land disposal restrictions
and the sieve  to more "permanent" remedies  will  soon require that most or all
corrective ac.cion soils and debris be treated before land disposal.   If true,
L.or.~ rt'.spor.dancs believe  that  there is currently inadequate capacity to meet
t.h& ontxu'cti'.l r.sed to troac RC?A and  CERCLA correc" .ve action soils  and
          iG-'t cor.vpanlas are not confident  about correcting any near-tana
          ia  trs^i taunt capacity for soils  ?.r.d debris quickly.  One firm statad
          I;xru:i have and  ar=5 building, transport 'jls treatment units  to meet
          i or.) rfua need,  and several'-noted that on-sita treatment units will
          -.£-r=-vi solution to land disposal restrict' on.«?.   The firms  differed
          : oxi'-usL t Lons or  extensions should be allow jd baco.uss cf the potential
      ty  .;hor':f.'ill.  /. faw firms fael that thare should be extensions granted
      ^uirovsd" Ir.rvlfills  and that additional land dijpo^-al capacity should be
      .-..iii no he-i-.e]. e che potential volumes.   Oi:her firms fs;el tl-.at extensions
       u'ju be ^:;ri.-i.r.zf'.  f.ne firm stated  that r.^era should not Ie extensions
      • 1 r.wrjily c'.cc'U'o. of the  origin  of  wascoj.  Anotl.ir firm .statau that
      t*'  hra been coining  on line and  will  conn..nua to O.o so, but that adequate
      ty  will not be placed in^o operation unless and until the bans are
enforced  and  firms actually see the daniand.

   Even wif.h  required treatment of RCRA  and CERCLA con active action soils and
debris, a few firms still expect that the  impact on land disposal volumes will
be minor, however.  Several firms expect that more landfill capacity will be
permitted, espe'-.ially to  accommodate  disposal of high volume wastes for which
thare are no  alternative  technologies, or,  because the treatment residues will
still require disposal, expect that the  volume  of waste going to landfills
will actually rise.

   Only five  firms responded to the question of whether they operate a land
disposal  unit capable of  meeting the  "no migration" standard that will allow
them to continue disposing untreated  hazardous  wastes.  One firm stated only
that they meet the RCRA minimum technology requirements and would not answer


•whether it meets the no migration standard.  Three firms "believe that it will
be virtually impossible to file a petition that will be approved.  Only one
firm intends-to submit the application by the hammer deadlines.  Even so, the
firm belie-f.es the petition requirements are inappropriate, inasmuch as they
place tod high a reliance on a manipulable computer model, rather than any
development erf hard data.

        POLICIES Will. B£CE)2 TOTD2E

   Many of the survey participants also have divisions or groups that
specialize in site remediation and field services.  Although this aspect of
their business mix was not a subject for this survey, several questions were
asked that touched upon their participation in ar.d views of the site cleanup
market.  For example, respondents wera asked in they handled any Superfund
cleanup, non-Superfund cleanup, or RCRA corrective action cleanup wastes in
1986 or 1987.  About half of the firms surveyed did not handle Superfund
cleanup  -asces in either 1986 or 1987.  A handful of firms had handled
Superf-ind. cleanup wastes during 1986 and 1987, and about an equal number had
also handled wastes in both years from non-Superfund cleanups.  Only one firm
reported handling wastes from a RCHA corrective action site.  The majority of
firms reported that handling sits cleanup wastes had not caused delays in
handling vastas from their "live stream" customers, but two firms did rsport
uinor delays, especially for "third party" wastes received from brokers.

   Althov<|h only a few firms had "handled -wastes frtim cleanup sites in 1986 or
1987, more firms said they were planning to get into this business in the near
future.  Most firms said they expected the site cleanup business to experience
ii^nificar.t growth rates over the nsar-tsrn, a tread borne out by the recent
experiences of several fiTms that had handled cleanup wastes previously.  One
iiru r.->t?d that it had handled four times the volume of sits cleanup vastes  in
1937 -v«rsun 1986.  Another firm notad that -waste volv  js had increased 10 to
I'D ;-. V,T<- -.ac over th^.c sajie period, and still another firm reported steady
VLslo a  incenses each year since IS22.  Ths experience of other fims was nor
. j pcsitiva: thair cleanup waste volumes had increased, but at a race less
than lidd l-'ien predicted and &c lower profit margins.

   When askei- about the market effects of the SASA amendments, the survey
participants either had no cerement or stated that they had yet to detect any
effects.  die respondent insisted that the principal effect had been, to slow
down site cleanup work.  .Many respondents stated that they had anticipated
undertaking more on-site treatment projects by now, but had not seen much
movement in this direction and were  concerned about whether EPA would elect  to
pursue  on-site treatment remedies.  Several firms noted that the promise of
the Superfund cleanup program for them hinged upon how aggressively EPA would
pursue  permanent cleanups through the use of on-site treatment technologies
like transportable incinerators.

   More respondents were upbeat about the future  growth of the non-Superfund
site cleanup market.  They reported  considerable  activity by responsible
parties to clean up sites before that site might be  considered for inclusion


on the federal or a state's priority list.  Many firms also expected that the
RCRA corrective action market would be very big, "but were not sure of its
profitability-.  Several firms expected that this cleanup market would be
highly coiopeiitive and subject to lower profit margins.

   Survey participants were also asked about the market effects of EPA's Off-
Site Policy.  Only a few firms chose to comment and their opinions were very
negative.  Although no numbers were cited, these few respondents said that
this policy had resulted directly in delaying cleanups, in a considerable loss
of revenue, and generally in "mass confusion".


   Each year EPA includes a group of special interest topics in the commercial
industry survey.  In years past, survey participants wers asked for their
views on topics such as the waste oil regulations debate, arid for sevrval
y-3ars have been asked about the availability of liability insurance and
servicing small quantity generators.

   The list of special interest survey topics this year included the
following: (a) commercial waste management firms' capacity to perform tha
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), (b) the availability of
liability insurance, (c) servicing the small quantity generator market, and
(d) the emergence of the "quasi-commercial" waste management s rvices
indus try.

   .T.   Capacity to Perform the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure"

   The majority of firms survey .d believe that most commercial waste
management firms do not yet have adequate capacity and may not be able to
develop adequate a jacity in time.  Although'the lai-;er firms generally see
th-ias-elves as capable of either performing the test now or developing the
capacity to perform- the test fairly quickly, several firms expressed the
belief that "smaller" commercial firms may not be able to perform the test.
If the capacity of commercial laboratories to perform the test is considered,
however, these firms believe any potential shortfall in testing capacity is
likely to be small.  Several firms anticipate that imposing the TCLP will
extend the testing time and increase costs to generators.

   b.   Availability of Liability Insurance

   Respondents to this question noted that, in general, the availability of
liability insurance "is no longer a problenl if you have the money to pay for
it."  Six firms stated they now see more offerers of insurance to commercial
wp.ste management firms.  Another firm believes that there has been a
"relaxation in insurance for waste haulers", which have been able to qualify
for higher coverage limits, apparently at affordable rates.  Two firms stated
that they have not been able to obtain as much insurance as they need or want.
One has obtained only one-tenth the insurance it wants, and the other must


self-insura because it is unable to obtain the minimum insurance required by
the state and federal governments.

   c.   Servicing Small Quantity Generators

   Generators of between 100 to 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month --
 small quantity generators (SQGs)^ -- require much in the way of waste
management services and still only a few commercial firms in the survey said
they actively seek SGQ business directly.   Even so, it appeared that more
firms this year talked of their interest in looking at this "market than was
the case in the 1985 Survey.

   Firms participating in the SQG services market say it requires extensive
less-than-truckload transportation capabilities,  a strong quality control
program, a willingness to supply the additional racordkeeping services
required, effective logistical planning, and an awareness of the liabilities
that can be incurred, especially when an off-spec waste is received.  Firms
that can meet these demands and do so fairly inexpensively consider the SQG
market to be a major growth market and potentially quite 'ucrative.  Several
firms commented that they have been surprised by the unexpectedly high growth
rata of services to SQGs.

   Other firms either .landle no or only a "trickle" of SQG waste directly, or
do so only through waste brokers as they cannot supply the necessary service':
for a price SQGs can afford or they are scared of the potential liabilities.
Many firms, even those who do service SQGs, are also critical of the lack of
enforcement effort invested to date in SQG compliance.  The potential demand
will never be realized and commercial firms will remain unwilling to invest in
services to SQGs, they say, until cheaper disposal optic.' j are foreclosed to
EQGs.  Several firais also spoke of the need for more local storage and
transfer facilities to help handle SQG business since just the waste
transportation price is enough of a problem'for many smaller generators.

   d.   Euargence of the "Q-tasi-CoBeniercial* Waste ltanage»ent Indust.~y

   Press articles discussing waste management service firms that will come  in
and build, permit, and operate a fixed treatment/disposal  facility-3 for the
generator prompted EPA to inquire about the emergence of this "quasi-
commercial" waste management: industry.  In particular, EPA was interested in
unconfirmed reports that some of these service arrangements were being made
     ^  The  term  small  quantity generator is now officially reserved by  the
USEPA for generators  rf less than 100 kilograias of waste per month, but  has
been used here  to represent the 100-1000 kilogram per month generator as this
is the more  typical reference used by the commercial firms.

     ^ Not included in  this definition would be transportable or mobile  units
for on-site  treatment,  or  fixed, transportable, or mobile units built and
operated as  part  of & waste site cleanup.


with an eye towards opening the treatment/--'.isposal facility for at least
partial commercial operation at some later date.   A related development also
of interest -to EPA were reports that generators planning to build and operate
their own- -treatment/disposal facilities were willing to allow commercial
access to these facilities.

   Six out of the eleven firms responding to this question had never heard of
the idea of commercial firms operating fixed, initially dedicated, treatment
or disposal facilities at a generator's site.  Five firms, however, had heard
about the idea and two firms reported they had held discussions with three
generators though all were unsuccessful.  Still another firm'reported a
different twist on this idea: generators had inquired if the commercial
operator would build and operate a dedicated, off-site waste management
facility that would not go.commercial.

   Those firms that reported receiving inquiries from generators about
building and operating dedicated on-site fixed facilities said that generator :
had different objectives in pursuing the idea, including potential cost
savings, liability protection, and access to guaranteed capacity.  Most of
these negotiations had failed, they said, because generators were unwilling  co
pay enough to allow the commercial operator to make a good return on his
invesr. -nt.  One firm commented that they saw some potential in this idea for
the vary large waste generator that lacked the internal capabilities to
operate  the facility, but doubted there were many generators who fit this

   More firms, of course, had heard of generators willing to open up their orm
incinerators or chemical treatment facilities to other generators since
several state facility siting facilities have entertained this idea as a
solution for capacity shortfalls and siting woes.  These firms beliaved,
however, that few generators would do so or that the permitting hurdles would.
prove fatal to the idea.  They stressed that generators are more likely to run
their own show and that it nude no sense for- a generator to assume the
liability that made them discontinue using commercial facilities in the first
place.  Another firm noted that most mid-sized waste generators will find that
the economics favor using commercial service firms.  Even so, other firms did
nets that the profitability of commercial waste management services could
still be a sufficient lure for generators to enter the market.
   The next chapter discusses the quantitative results of the survey
concerning waste volumes received, capacity operated, and prices charged by
all firms in 1986 and 1987.  These results are also compared to results from
the 1985 Survey (as adjusted).


                                  CHAPTER 3

                     HASTE VOLUMES,  CAPACITY,  AED PRICES
   This chapter discusses results of the 1986-1987 survey concerning:  the
number of facilities operated by the 14 firms  and the services  offered;  recent
acquisitions; waste volumes received;  effective capacity and capacity
utilization; and service prices.  Unlike previous survey reports,  only
occasionally will distinctions be made in the  results between firms that have
participated since the first survey and firms  included more recently:   The
fourteen firms participating in the survey this year were:

   a    Browning-Ferris Industries/CECOS International;
   *    Chem-Clear;
   j    Chemical Waste Management;
   •    Envirosafe, Inc.;
   «    ENSCO, Inc.;
   •    Envirite;
   u    Environmental Waste Resources;
   •    GSX Corporation;
   a    Rollins Environmental Services;
   a    Ross Incineration;
   a    Saf ety-Kleen/'.cXesson Envirosyste^s ;
   H    Systech;
   a    U.S. Pollution Control, Inc.;  and
   n    W.J. Lamberton/Chemical Resources, Inc.

   Excluding transfer facilities,  the 14 firms surveyed operated 83 treatment
or disposal  ;acilities in 1986.  The distribution of waste management services
offared at these facilities is shown in Exhibit 3-1.  Significantly, these 14
firms report that more of their facilities now or soon will offer thermal
treatment services for hazardous wastes than they reported in 1985.  There was
also a drop in the number of landfill facilities, but this reflected a
correction of past errors.  Four firms opened or acquired a total of eight new
facilities in 1987.  Only two companies reported closing facilities in 1986 or
1987, although a few facilities were closed temporarily for some portion of
this period.

   Acquisition activity by these firms picked up in 1986 and 1987 as expect id.
In 1986, much of the acquisition activity involved GSX Corporation.  GSX
Corporation, and its parent corporation Genstar, were first acquired by Imasco
Ltd.  Imasco quickly elected to sell GSX Corporation, both the solid and
hazardous waste operations, to Laidlaw Transportation Ltd.  Later, GSX
Corporation acquired a liquid injection incinerator and a waste transfer
operation in the Southeast. For a while, Laidlaw contemplated selling the
hazardous waste operations of GSX, but, according to. recent reports, will


U *3
EM re
fc Cl-
g 2
- §S

3 0
S i

•*« •
*J —1
» "•
"J? *


•§ 3
§ s
9 u
1^ -3
« s
tj fc-J
•M M
L4 O

M « rs
O — «
Ll -H ft
^ ^ S

Z Ut *^


C4 1
»n N i-* -a- CN i i c* i i «-« t i
"" _ 1 1 1 I 1



•-« 1 II 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

rv A«Hic4ir4iiitir4i
i i i i i i i i


U * • U
>s. -^ O O L|
« > Ll fi 3
38 8 § ~ S
8 3 w 8-5
3 « -• -< a o
CQ 3 a • n •
4 *o c jJ « *J g
ceo c *J c 8
Q^H-M * C ** QJ2
J 3 a • o« ou
««e c o ^j. -? ^ *->
* •* C O 0 C "DlAJ C B
^) Ll U ^4 u Hs 0 «-J OO
n«^1> "> - ««4J 4J M
3 U* C n C *14«CC 3*
•i C w LI *j n v^^i c 2 J3 o 3
* OuS >^^c/l !> «M a > «w*^












-4 *J
LI a
**» lu
C °
•3 5
-H U
s 5
*o a
u -^

* *s
*J ^H
i 1
» o
o 53
•*J O

•s s.§
0 -H «
t) — 4 -*J
O — 3
c" ^i x -*j
0 M a
-i «M o x
*J O — «
U O 0
a Li C 1-4
*i « £ -t
5 "fi * S
3 *J cu
•o c
i-5 §
&• * *J a
X ^ fr C S

£ n" jj *J 3?
3 5 g S s
oS - - S
*j a n u
J o u
jo :> a
2 3 « « «
o 9 o « — »
•73 U -4 • P
C *> S1
O - -4 ti o
a, •> _, « «
3 5 13 *J a a
u -^ « o a ^J
J« "M -4 tf
j x u a -H o
L o -i -i a.
13 * *J — « u
4J O « ^ « O
« U ^ -» <« C
C ^ U «
to « 3 « M
-« « C *w « CM
« -o -a u
« 3 -J ti 3 1-H
•a — i « « -I
0 JJ £ 0
•J C O -u C
•3 1-1 H o »* «
-^-.^ ^ I
a(M[ at -at «


apparently keep this portion of the business.

   Exhibit 3-2 provides a list of selected acquisitions since 1983 by firms in
the commercial hazardous waste management industry.   Safety-Kleen's
acquisition of McKesson Envirosystems in 1987,  as noted in Chapter 1,
shortened .Che. list of survey candidates from eighteen to seventeen firms.
Additional acquisition  \ctivity not covered in this  list involved business
areas such as asbestos abatement services, consulting and engineering
services, and UST cleanup and other remediation/field services.  Most
observers predict service diversification and consolidation trends to continue
for the near future in the commercial hazardous waste management industry.

        HAZARDOUS WASTE IN 1986 AHD 1987

   A total of at least 4.2 million vet metric tons (WMT) of hazardous wastes
was received for treatment and/or disposal in 1986 by the 14 firms surveyed.
This volume was down S percent from the adjusted 1985 Survey total of 4.6
million WMT (1985 total volume was adjusted to exclude volumes for firms noc
participating this year and to reflect corrected 1985 results provided to
IGF).  In 1987, these same firms received a total waste volume of at least 4.5
million WMT, an increase of 6.5 percent over 1986.  While the total waste
volume handled by these commercial firms appears to be holding fairly steady,
several firms experienced significant increases or declines in volume received
over the 1936-1987 period.

   Total volumes received by technology and the percc.itag-i changes from  19-85
throv ,h 1987 are shown in Exhibit 3-3.°  As the table shows, only the waste
volute incinerated did not experience a decline in volume in 1986 as compare-l
to 1985.  R-' spondents reported that their volumes incinerated increased by
30.5 percent in 190 ^ over 1985 (adjusted).  Waste volumes sent to deep well
injection in 1986 experienced the largest decline (-34 percent).

   Over half of the firms reported that waste volumes received in 1986 went
down as compared to 1985.  The percent change in volumes received by
individual firms in 1986 versus 1985 covered a very broad range -- from  an
increase of as much as 73 percent to a decrease of 91 percent.  The average
change in volume was about -4 percent.  Reasons for the decline in volume
included permanent or temporary facility closures (due to regulatory or
enforcement action), regulatory limits on volumes received at certain
facilities, self-imposed restrictions on volumes received in order to conserve
land disposal capacity, and slowdowns in certain service markets  (e.g.,
wastewater treatment).  Firms reporting an increase in volume cited such
     °  Excluded from these results are the waste volumes sent to land
treatment or surface impoundments as there were numerous problems with the
results provided this year.  These results were not provided as any
observations based upon these data would have been unreliable and misleading.
Reported separately for the first time this year are the waste volumes
stabilized or solidified.


8 3
p >H
i 3
t M
S ^

*- -


222 52 S222222.2i222222.222.2<2 S
* g • g •* g • -5»

° £ | 3
• -3 -» 14 • •»
•ioiS" Jjxfr " ^ a S
7-s I ^ S »« SaiiiJ
U-*.AJ «2 i4-4 O blUM-4^J
•S-O 3 *M S">«3O3 0 3HCD
• 3 a *"-« ~'(S">4'o3S-«S'^S">wi
2 >* C u<*« *L««3^O *4^«* J4C
fl • » a "" 8 o o « -o i c - o c c ^ a
^^M«OO uu: a»ng(j4Hjiou^>bt u«
MC«uap«U b O «JU-4~H««4-
*™ t • • S *J O. » U u CX O
• •o o*4Cu> ego »* u
-me B w d S • e SB C.-E • •
«< c»co— .c-J*» c IT — • • u c —
l^*ri Al *JCO ~4vi4QQ4JJ>* 44*4 v4 u
•A3* O Xt G 9 —4 G ~i ^& & Q» ~1 •O>4^*«ri* A
&•• AOI^tJC^'P***^ 3*>*Pi*4***'1 ^
— .CO fc • «>0«.>vOOO«"- •iV»O-<>>



5 -
p. a
"> n
2 H

9 a
••5 £
• s
vO *•
co ._
jv n
r* ^
3 §
" 0
8 Q
« «

- -^







• CA







 i i

•-» »o r» o en
*H rs r*. «o r*.
O ^ •< cO CM

«-* CM"

00 ^ w3 ^ ^
w* en n (N «N

— < 9* .r v3  5 M
*J ^
•— ' * ^-* « ^j
* U •-( O 9
« • — ti 3
TJ C t-< 3
H -* T3 O ft
« o C a «
p3 C S o «
U HI _j as a












factors as growth in their site cleanup and lagoon closure business;  growth in
their wasta pretreatment and treatment services due to the land disposal
restrictions.;, the ban on disposing of bulk liquids in landfills; the
tightening- of Clean Water Act pretreatment standards;  growth in the waste
fuels marlcetj and an increase in tank closure and cleaning services.

   The decline in waste volumes handled by technology were all reversed in
1987.  Again, the volume of waste incinerated experienced the largest growth
in volume  (36 percent) over the reported total for the previous year.  Volumes
sent to resource recovery increased by 25 percent over the reported 1986
total.  In contrast to 1986, over half of the firms surveyed*reported an
increase in the total volume of waste handled in 1987 as compared to  the
previous year.  Again, the percent change in volume received in 1987'versus
1986 by each firm varied markedly -- from up 233 percent to a decline of 85
percent -- with an average of a 20 percent increase.

   Respondents were not asked this year to provide waste volume totals by
waste type.  Each firm was asked instead to list those waste types they do noo
accept either by choice or because of their permit conditions.  The majority
of firms surveyed do not accept dioxins, explosives, radioactive wastes,
infectious wastes, herbicides, pesticides, and gas cylinders.  Several firms
do accept PC3 wastes for treatment and/or disposal while others do not.

   Each of the following sections discuss the waste volume trends for each
technology in more detail.


   Wasta volumes reported as landfilled by the commercial hazardous waste
firras surveyed fell from 2,424 thousand WMT in 1985 (adjusted) to 2,366
thousand WMT in 1986 -- a decrease of about 2 percent.  This decline in vol1-. :i
was followed by an increase of 4.5 percent in 1987 over 1986 to a reported
total of 2,473 thousand WMT.  Survey participants reporting an increase in cr. :
volume of waste landfilled had seen greater volumes of site cleanup wastes, a
rise in waste stabilization and solidification, and/or more business due to
the closure of several competitors' facilities.  Waste volumes were down for
some firms reportedly due to declines in their remedial cleanup business
and/or self-imposed limits on the amount of commercial waste accepted for
disposal in order to save landfill capacity for their own treatment residua"1 s .
      2500 T
      2000 ••
      1500 ••
      1000 -•
       500 ••


    As shpwrt -in  the  exhibit below,  the volume of waste  incinerated by  firms  in
 the survey has  grown  rapidly.   From 1983  to 1987,  the  volume  of hazardous
 waste incinerated by  these firms has increased from  167  thousand WMT  to 476
 WMT.  This is an increase of some  185 percent.  From 1986  to  1987 alone, the
 volume of waste reported incinerated increased by  36 percent.  Volumes of
 waste incinerated were  reported as up in  1986 and  1987 for all the firms in
 the survey offering thermal treatment services.  The principal factors cited
 by respondents as driving up incineration demand were  the various land
 disposal restrictions and generators' growing preference for  total
 destruction.  Additional observations about incineration demand are discussed
 in Sections 2.1 and 2.2.
     500 T

    Chemical and Biological Treatment

    In 1986> the firms surveyed reported treating 958 thousand WMT of hazardous
 wastes, excluding wastes stabilized or solidified prior to land disposal -(see
 below).  THis" volume was down 15 percent from 1,131 thousand WMT treated in
 1985 (adjusted).  Waste volumes treated in 1987, however, increased by 6
 percent (to 1,011 thousand WMT) over the previous year, but this was still
 below the adjusted 1985 volume.  The performance of individual firms in this
 service sector was highly variable.  Four firms reported an increase in
 volumes treated while several others reported significant decreases due to
 self-imposed  business restrictions and loss of market share or overall
 declines in their regional markets.  These results mirrored respondents'
 expectations, discussed in Section 2.2, that the wastewater treatment market
 will likely remain flat at best or decline unless there is a significant
 investment:  in enforcing the Clean Water Act pretreatment requirements.
                        Chemical  end  Biological  Treatmam
K.vIT   50 0 •;•
                                                             101 1



   For thi-3. .survey, this service sector encompasses the recovery of spent
solvents-; oils, and metals from hazardous wastes, as well as the blending (but
not bumirtg) "of hazardous wastas as fuel (energy recovery).  In 1986,
respondents reported that waste volumes handled by resource recovery
operations dropped 17 percent, from 316 to 264 thousand WMT.  However, in
1987, resource recovery saw a resurgence in waste volumes handled, increasing
over 1986 levels by 25 percent to 330 thousand WMT.  Most of this increase was
attributed to growth in fuel blending activity to support the. demand for
hazardous wastes as fuels by cement kilns and industrial furnaces.  Smaller
volumes of halog^nated solvents were handled by recyclers in both 1986 and
                              Resource Racovery
     400 --

Cue* C.C.IQ. exjfi Sloiogicai Treatment
   Cue* C.C.I. exjf
   With th_a_ expectation that waste volumes received  for  chenical/biological
treatment will remain flat, several firms in  the  survey  have slowed their
growth in ^re'ataent capacity.  Reported  chemical/biological treatment capacity
did increase by 1 percent between  1986 and 1985  (from an adjusted total of
2,698 thousand WMT  to 2,879 thousand  WMT) , but increased less than one percent
in 1937.  This increase  in  capacity  coupled  with an eight percent decrease
overall  in volumes  treated  since 1985 resulted in capacity utilization
dropping from 42  percent in 1985 (adjusted)  to 35 percent in 1387.
                         Chemical  and  Biological Treatment
                          (Capacity  and  Capacity Utilization)


   Nine firms In the 1936-1987 Survey offer waste  solidification/stabilization
services-i however, only four firms provided capacity  data.   These four firms
had a. repotted capacity of 178 thousand WMT in  1986 and 291 thousand WMT in
1987 -- a 64 percent increase.  This was  the  next  largest one-year increase in
capacity behind the increase in incineration  capacity.   Capacity utilization
over this period declined from 37 percent in  1986  to  26 percent in 1987.
                          (Capacity and  Capacity Utilization)
                                 CAPACITY Si VOLUME

   There Tils-been little reported change in the resource recovery capacity
operaced-^y the firms participating in this year's survey since 1935.
Capacity utilization has fluctuated slightly over this period, but has also
remained fairly constant -- between 43 and 50 percent as shown in the exhibit
below.  Several firms expect thac resource recovery volumes and capacity will
rise over the next few years as generators look to minimize waste sent to land
disposal, however, a few firms expect there will be a drop in the commercial
solvent recovery business as more generators will recover thei-r own  solvents.
                              Hasourcu  Racovary
                        (Capacity and  Capacity Utl'.lzstlon)

            commercial landfill capacity operated by these firms has declined
each year since 1985, with the biggest drop occurring between 1986 and 1985
(16 percent), even though the volume landfilled has changed little since 1985.
Landfill capacity was estimated to be 30,673 thousand VJMT in 1987 as compared
to the adjusted total of 39,205 thousand WMT in 1985 (a drop of 22 percent).
There was a reported 7 percent decline in landfill capacity between 1987 and
1986 with volumes landfilled increasing by 5 percent over the same period.
Assuming a fill rate equal to the estimated 1987 waste volume landfilled
(2,473 thousand WtfT) , current landfill capacity would be expected to .last for
12 years.  This is down from the previous remaining lifetime estimate of 15 to
16 years.  Readers should remember that these estimates are based upon the
assumption that all land area each firm plans to commit to landfill operations
can be developed.  At any one time, however, the available landfill capacity
is much less as only a portion of a landfill site is permitted to receive
wastes .

   While landfills continue to fill up and with few facility expansions or nev
facilities permitted, the estimated loss of commercially available landfill
capacity reported this year is overstated.  Several firms  '.ndicated that  they
had withdraw, available landfill capacity from the "direct'1 disposal market  to
ensure capacity would be available to handle treatment residuals  from their
other  operations.
                        (Capacity  and  Ca aclty  Utilization)
     500CC T
     4COCC -•
     30000 ••
     20000 T
     10000 ••

   Dee-p Tfell Tiij action

   CommenrLal deep well injection capacity operated by  these firms declined
eight pescervt between 1985 and 1986, but rose  two percent between 1986 and
1987.  Total "affective capacity estimated for  1987  (1,118 thousand WMT) is now
only slightly less than the estimates for 1983 through  1985 (around 1,1190
thousand WMT) .   Ov-.r this same period, howaver, volumes received for deep well
injection declined by 42 percent as  several  facilities  were unable to accept
wastes.  Capacity utilization in 1986 and 1987, therefore, was estimated to be
around 25 percent, down from 35 percent in 1985.
                                      Wall  Injection
                          (Capacity and  Capacity  Utilization)


   Prices'jfor transporting, treating, or disposing of hazardous wastes can
vary substantially depending on the level of regional competition,  costs
incurred in handling the wastes, and the risk of handling the waste.   Prices
for a single waste stream vary with the composition of waste.  This
variability would make it difficult to present detailed price data even if
survey participants were willing to share that information.   Survey
participants will provide, however, price range data and/or information on
price tre .ds for some very general waste types across the majfir treatment and
disposal cechnologies.

   The price information provided in Exhibit 3-4, therefore, does not capture
region." 1 differences, quantity discounts, or waste scream variability, and
should 12 interpreted cautiously.  These are instead "typical" prices charged
for hazardous waste management services by all firms surveyed in 1985, 1986,
and 1987.  The price ranges shown in the exhibit were calculated as the
average of the low-end and high-end prices provided by individual firms.  Also
shown in Exhibit 3-4 are the expected price changes reported for 1988.  The
maximum prica range reported by these firms is not shown in the exhibit, but:
has been reported in the sections on each technology below  (i.e., the lo^
and/cr high end of any one firm's price range for a specific waste category
may fall out-ide the "average" price range).
   From 1984 through 1985 , respondents had reported price increases of 30 to
100 percent for land disposal services, and from 60 to 400 percent for
treatment services with incineration services garnering the highest price
increases.  The rate of price increase was also significant; in some cases,
prices increased by 50 percent every 4 to 6 months.  Among  these firms,
however, there was wid spread belief that the market had seen a one-shot pr:.;
jump and that prices would stabilize.

   The price information for 1986 and 1937 d-> not confirm across-the-board
stabilization in prices, except for  a few services.  There was significant
movement in service prices in 1986 as reported by these firms.  Quoted pric-.i
for some services in 1986 increased  as much as- 174 percent  (oil recovery),
while prices for other services decreased by 54 percent.  In 1987, prices
appear to have steadied for some services.  The average nominal price increase
for chemical and biological treatment, deep well injection,  transportation,
and PCS  incineration services rose less than 5 percent over their 1986 levels.
The average nominal price increases  for other waste management services was
much greater:  10 to 48 percent  for  landfill; 13 to 34 percent for
incineration; and 16 to 97 percent for resource recovery.

   Price trends for each waste management technology are  discussed further
below.   Prices for surface impoundments/land treatment and  waste
solidification/stabilization could not be included as the participating  firms
offering these services did not  provide price data.


• ^_ _
v rv
*~ tN
•O r*
r* o
9 •*•
«-t w
S 'c
" >i
n •"'<,
M ,H

W «
g -
C , <3
'i jC
^ «M
< o
s £
o ^
en o
5 B





i*O wi CD xo ts -r P- O-*
•X -s^ 	 •
so so c* m co n «H-*MM cr»»^
-a*j co *n o r> •« o> r-»*n
•^ ^v 	 •
«->-* ^tc4r-scn(or«. -4«
C*4 W"l 1 1 1 1 1 1 II
»H.-I (Mtntsponcn wi-*
11 •< «O O <-H (*5 O N -*
•n ^O C3 «-« N P4 CS •*


a <-4
T3 O
E t, " -S
5 "S -5
£ -0 -1 « O1
•a • — x
-4 -a p o a ^
JS 3 -H & -1 «
H -* -^ C a> O
9 • « 0 -1 B -0 -i
3 a « to 3 G
H *Q k O b4 i^ 4

3<^CMT3M C >4
§ -«- *j"5-< ~* H
f-4 iHnfll O*>-^ vca
-- -a • x --. o 383
4 C^40ft'-4«^ia OMO
MJ< 8 p_ -a ^ «u«
1*4 •&*3«omm 3O3
,03 ^^M-.nn 6-i<

-J *J

a o -H «
i •* a i
5*j ^ J
-44 -H a
C -4 W « «
-4 « U U
5 S 5 "3 •"
iJ ^ *4 o
n C U 0
« « C .C

a a
•-4 O

o *»•  « 6
XT •»•) O
o C ^
« h-t 4J
oj a
~t *>
« ^-t u
s 5 a
i P. S
« * a
* * M
A a HI

a 4
+J «Z
•9 n
CJ -4
*O V*
4 O
I »
g* A

* X
^ —
u ?r
•a «
-5 g
t O
c; «
'O M
!H «
r-l U
^H J
4 «l
U >
s 1 '
•B X
«o o
0 1-4
•—4 O
3 «M
—l H
« O
u u
DO a
g ^

^ *
£ 6

«l J3



   From 1234-to 1985, landfill prices  increased an average of 30 to 100
percent, --Fxprn 1985 to 1986, however,  landfill prices increased only 15
percent for ±>ulk disposal and fell almost 10 percent for drum disposal.
Typical bulk-disposal prices in 1986 ranged from an average of $86 to $154 per
ton (full price range: $70-$250/ton).   Prices for drum disposal ranged from an
average of $44 to $125 per drum (full price range: $40-$250/drum).  In 1987,
average prices for drum disposal jumped 48 percent to $64-$186 per drum (full
price range: $40-$330/drum).  Bulk disposal prices rose an additional 10
percent to $96-$165 per ton (full price range: $75-$250/ton) ..  Quoted prices
for waste solidification or stabilization services ranged from $70-$270 per
ton in 1986 and 1987.

   Competition was mentioned as the primary reason behind the drop in drum
disposal prices in 1986.  As in previous years, the reasons behind the
increase in landfill costs, and therefore prices, included:  more waste
solidified prior to disposal; increases in state waste taxe. a; costs for
corrective actions; and higher insurance costs. One additional factor
mentioned was the realization by landfill operators that permitted disposal
calls are not assured to La a replaceable commodity at existing sites through
che current permitting process.  If they can be replaced, it will only be so
at sigmficantly higher costs at some uncertain future time.  Operators will
increas  their prices, therefore, as a means to conserve valuable landfill
capacity for the future, especially if that airspace is needed to handle
residuals (e.g., ash or sludges) from the firm's own waste  treatment
(especially  incineration) operations.   Only tvo respondents reported their
expected change in landfill prices in 19.88;  one said that prices would remain.
constant while the other predicted an increase of 10 percent.

   Deep Y?cll Injection

   The average deep well injection price for toxic liquids  fell  54 percent  in
1936  (00.15  - $0.63 p.ir gallon) with shifts in both the low end  (up) and  the
high  end (down) of the quoted price range (full price range: $0.03-
$1.00/gal.).  The price per gallon for toxic liquids remained unchanged in
1937.  The price range for  oily wastewaters remained unchanged at  $0.08 -
$0.50 per gallon, and this was also the price range for the new waste  type
category added this year: aqueous organics.  One deep well  injection firm
expected that their prices  for toxic liquids would increase by 10  percent in


   In 1985,  nominal  incineration prices rose  for  all waste  categories  anywhere
from  60  to  400 percent.  In 1986, average incineration prices  increased for
one waste category  -- clean, high Btu-content  liquids  --  by 60 percent (full
price range: $0.15-$1.93/gal.).  This was surprising given that  these  wastes
are in  demand to help support  the combustion  of  the  lower Btu-content  solids
and sludges.  Equally surprising was the  drop  in prices  --  by 25 percent  or
more  •-  in  1986 for  low-Btu content liquids  (full price  range:  $0.83-
$5.84/gal.), toxic  liquids  (full price range:  $1.58-$5.84/gal.),  and PCS


solids (full price range: $0.30-$1.50/lb.),  with a significant drop in the
high end of the price range for each waste type.  The full price range quoted
for solids_ and sludges (non-PCB) in 1986 was $0.40 to §1.00 per pound, and
$2.50 to $4.75 per gallon for PCS liquids.

   In 1987-7 nominal incineration prices were mostly up except for PCB liquids
incineration given the decline in that business area.  The price to incinerate
toxic liquids registered the greatest increase (34 percent), however, the
average price charged was still lower than was estimated for 1985.  The full
1987 price range quoted for each waste category were: $0.12-$2.09 per gallon
of high-Btu content liquids; $0.83-$5.84 per gallon of Iow-Bt3i liquids; $1.67-
$7.91 per gallon for toxic, non-PCB liquids; $0.50-$1.25 per pound for sludges
and solids; $2.09-$3.75 per gallon for PCB liquids; and $0.50-$1.50 per pound
for PCB sludges and solids.  Firms providing incineration services expect that
incineration prices in 1988 will remain constant or drop slightly due to

   Chemical and Biological Treatment

   New waste type categories were used this year to characterize prices for
chemical and biological treatment services.   It is not possible, therefore, to
compare the price quotes for 1986 or 1987 with those for 1985.  As a result,
the price comparison covers changes between 1986 and 1987 only.

   Prices charged for chemical and biological treatment can vary considerably
depending on the cost of the unit processes involved and the h .zardous nature
o£ any remaining residue that must be managed.  The average price range quoted
for these services in 1986 and 1987 was anywhere from $0.25 to $3.50 per  -
gallon depending on the waste type treated or recovered (the more toxic and/or
reactive the waste the higher the price).   The full price range quoted for
aqueous inorganic liquids in 1986 was $0.14-$3.25 per gallon and $0.17-$3.25
per gallon in 1987.  In both 1986 arid 1987,  the full price range quoted for
inorganic solids and sludger was $0.30-$6.00 per gallon.  With volumes
received and capacity expected to remain flat, firms offering these services
predict price increases of only 10 percent in 1988.
   Resource Recovery

   New waste type categories were also used this year to characterize resource
recovery prices.  The new waste type categories were:  aqueous organlcs, non-
aqueous organics, and aqueous inorganics;  only the oils category was kept from
previous surveys.  From 1985 to 1986, the average prices for oil recovery rose
174 percent from $0.00 - $0.42 per gallon to $0.33 - 51.00 per gallon  (full
price range in 1986: $0.05-$2.25/gal.).  An additional average price increase
of 16 percent was reported in 1987.  The average price range for oils  in 1987
was $0.20 to $1.13 per gallon with a full price range of $0.20 to $2.58 per
gallon.  Respondents attribute this increase to the cost of the regulations
governing waste oil that came out in December 1985.

   The average price quoted for recovery of aqueous organics did not change
between 1986 and 1987 staying at $0.40 to $1.00 per gallon  (full price range:
$0.35-$l.25/gal.).  The average price range for -non-aqueous organics, however,


rose 97 perce-nt in 1987 over 1986 levels TO $0.38 to $2.44 per gallon (full
1986 price range: $0.25-$1.20/gallon;  full 1987 price range:  $0.35-
$3.67/gallon)..  No price information was reported for the recovery of aqueous
inorganic^.  i?o firm provided information on their 1988 price changes.


   Several of the 14 firms surveyed provide for transportation of hazardous
wastes to their facilities.  Transportation price data provided by these firms
indicate that, in 1986, average prices on a per ton-mile basis rose 10
percent, and, in 1987, increased another 5 percent.  These prices represent
full-truckload shipments; prices for less-than-truckload shipments would be
considerably higher.  The 1986 full price range quoted for transportation
services on a loaded -mile basis ($3,20-$3.78) rose five cents on the low end
and remained unchanged on th« high end in 1987.  Transportation prices in 1988
were not expected to rise significantly.  The participating firms mention
competition as the main factor behind fairly stable prices for transportation

                 APPSHDI2 A

              IN WEI iiETRIC TONS


                                 APPENDIX A

                              IN WET METRIC TONS
   The same assumptions and definitions used in tabulating the data for the
1980-1985 survey reports with one exception were also used for this survey.

   The estimates for volume presented in this report refer to the estimated
quantities of hazardous waste actually treated or disposed of by the
commercial hazardous waste management industry.  The estimates for effective
capacity refer to the practical maximum amount of hazardous waste which could
be treated at existing facilities without undertaking major capital
expenditures and considering routine downtime and other factors.  Since the
effective 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 that are important to the proper interpretation of the results.
Thase 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

       u    Volumes reported in cubic yards were converted into wet
            metric tons assuming that the waste has a density of
            0.90 metric tons/cubic yard.  This conversion factor was
            used survey assuming that no liquids are now landfilled
            and more wastes are stabilized before placement in

       *    Capacity reported in acres is reconverted to wet metric
            tons by assuming each acre has 430,000 cubic feet of
            available capacity and 12,100 MWT can be disposed of in
            each acre.  In general, four interrelated factors
            influence the capacity, as measured in wet metric 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 that 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
          'J~- -     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

The assumption of 12,100 MWT per acre is based on the advice of several landfill
operators rather than explicit assumptions about each of the parameters that
affect landfill capacity.




                                  APPE2TDIX B

                            BEI'TrriTICNS FOR SURVEY
Hazardous v.-.stes :
Biological treatment:
Chemical tr?.atment:
 o 1 j '-11 f i. :•?." 1 on/-tab P.1 latio
  op V'-ll "I.f.1 ection.:
Lard treat- irvt:
Wastes regulated as hazardous under the federal
and/or a state's RCRA program, plus PCS wastes.

The use of the metabolic processes of
microorganisms to break down organic hazardous
constituents into non-hazardous substances.

A group of processes utilizing neutralization,
precipitation, oxidation, and other
chamic lly-bas.'d techniques to treat or
immobilize hazardous constituents in a waste
stream.  Can occur in tanks or surface

The thermal destruction of a hazardous wasta  in
either a liquid injection unit, rotary kiln unit,
or a cament kiln (although the lattar is more
commonly refsrred to as energy recovery).

The reclamation, via s Taration and purification,
of usable substances from hazardous waste; and.
the xe-use of these substances (in this report,
resource recovery includes solvent and netals
rccovtjry, bu~ not energy recovery, which has  b
f.noluded um. jr incineration to avois disclcG.i;\'T)
confidencial inforiaaLion; future  surveys may
r-.xr?:nd this market servers car..?.jory to sepacv.::
cue these very different suLiaai.kacj) .

Tlifs contaimnent of hazardous waste in on-ground
or below-ground repositories that are lined T;lf.
layers of impermeable material.

The conversion of liquid hazardous constituenc~.
into immobile solid forms by chemical or
evaporative processes.

The disposal of high-concentration liquid  wastes
in otherwise unusable underground aquifers via
pressurized wells.

The placement of hazardous waste  on or  in  a
surface layer of soil  (to render  it non-hazardous
through biological decay).

\ ~
         Land D5.S-Qos?.l.  or Disposal:
         Capacity,  or Effactive
          AU .0.1 riLJLGilJJ;; 'ion:
The process of dewaterir.g hazardous wastes in a
surface impoundment by evaporation of the wacer
fraction of the wastes.

Includes all thermal and non-thermal treatment
technologies including stabilization/

Includes all other non-treatment  technologies
excapt storage and transportation.
Measured as (or converted to) the annual  mass
throughput of hazardous waste through  a  treatment
or disposal technology or system according to
practical operating; raaxiiauias for these systems
considering routine down time for repairs and
maintenance, discharge limits in various  permits,
electrical outages, and oche.r factors  as  defined
by the respondent.

The ratio of commercial voluiims processed by a
techno]ogy in that year to  effective capacity,
boch expressed in mass units, and represented . ;•.
a percantage.

The wastes originating from cleanup  -sctivitias   •.•.
hazardous v^-sta sites wher*. thasa aci:ivici2-j iv i
funded by Gup'irfund

                  :crc:rsz2A3iOH CAPACITY s&s IHCJSASZD BT 98 PSR.CEST  suica 1935
    •7 *3     Tj fTO""*1"'' *"•
    ,J * .j     J&*.*.. \J* ~_-L

       Commer'cji-al incineration capacity  operated by several of the firms surveyed
    increased by-98  percent  from 1985  to 1987.   As shown below,  total capacity in
    1985 was reported  to be  318  thousand VKT  and in 1987 has risen to an estimated
    631 thousand WMT.  Over  two-thirds of  the increase in capacity occurred in
    1987 with four firms increasing their  capacity in 1986 and three in 1987.
    Between 1985 and 1986, respondents raportsd increasing incineration capacity
    by 24 percent, and between 1987 and  1986  by nearly 60 percent.  Some of the
    increase in  capacity has been brought  about by de-bottlenecking existing
    capacity, but several  firms  expanded,  opened, or acquired incinerator units in
    1986 and/or  in 1987.   Even greater capacity increases -- anywhere from 200 to
    300 percent  -- are expected  between  1988  and 1991 (see Section 2.3).

       Incineration  capacity grew at a faster pace than the increase in waste
    volumes received for incineration ovar this period.  Estimated incineration
    capacity utilization was 85  percent  in 1985, rose ..slightly to 89 percent in
    1935, and stands at 75 percent in 1987.  A few firms reported that backlogs
    were down appreciably  at their facilities and thar. they were having trouble
    soaking up t.hair increased capacity.  Incineration capacity utilization for
    individual finas in 1987 ranged from 62 to 100 percent (average: 85 percent)
    as compared  to a range of  71 to 94 percent in 1986 (average: 86 percent).
                        (Capacity sntl  Capacity  Utilization)
        700 -

        600 -•

        500 -•

        400 -•

        300 ••

        200 ••

        100 ••

           0 4-
                            El CAPACITY m VCLUWE
°-'?>:cnt:'' uh!-'
          11.1 ' Prctection Agency y,