-------
3-20
Landfill
From 1984 -to 1985, landfill prices increased an average o£ 30 to 100
percent. -jFxpm 1985 to 1986, however, landfill prices increased only 15
percent for .bulk 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 taxo..;; costs for
corrective actions; and higher insurance costs. One additional factor
nentioned was the realization by landfill operators that permitted disposal
calls are not assured to ue a replaceable commodity at existing sites through
che current permitting process. If they can be replaced, it will only be so
at significantly 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 1988; one said that prices would remain
constant while the other predicted an increase of 10 percent.
Deep Yfell Injection
The average deep well injection price for toxic liquids fell 54 percent in
1936 (CO. 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
1987, 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
1988.
Incineration
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
-------
3-21
solids (full price range: $0.30-$!.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-; 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 low-Bt^i 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
competition.
Chemical and Biological Treatment
New waste type categories were used this year to characteriz« 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
of 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 and 1987, the full price range quoted for
inorganic solids and sludge.; was $0.30-$6.00 per gallon. With volumes
leceiv'id and capacity expected to remain flat, firms offering these services
predict price increases of only 10 percent in 1988.
r
Resource Recovery
New waste type categories were also used this year to characterize resource
recovery prices. The new waste type categories were: aqueous organics, 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 - $1.00 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,
-------
3-22
rose 97 percent 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 reporred for the recovery of aqueous
iriorganioL._ No firm provided information on their 1988 price changes.
Transportation
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 mil* basis ($3.20-53.78) rose five cents on the low end
and remained unchanged on the high end in 1987. Transportation prices in 1988
were noc expected to rise significantly. The participating firms mention
competition as the main factor behind fairly stable prices for transportation
services.
-------
APPSHDI2 A
CONVERSION FACTORS FOR RErORTIHG WASTE VOLUWI
IN VET IffiTRIC TONS
-------
A-l
APPENDIX A
CONVERSION FACTORS FOR REPORTING WASTE VOUJME
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.
These assumptions are necessary to convert data to a consistent basis, wet
metric tons (WMT), when conversion factor estimates were not available:
* Volumes reported in gallons are transformed into wet
metric tons assuming that the waste has the density of
water at 8.34 pounds/gallon or 0.00378 metric
tons/gallon.
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 sui'^ey assuming that no liquids are now landfilled
and more wastes are stabilized before placement in
landfills.
M 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.
-------
A-2
-- "-•- 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 Che operator.
The density of the material. There is significant
variability depending on the actual wastes being
disposed.
*
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.
-------
AT2ESDIX Ji
ESFIHITIONS TOll
-------
B-l
AT'PEHDIX B
CEI'lTflTICNS TG8. SURVEY
Hazardous v.-.stes:
Biological treatment:
Chemical, traatment:
*;•"- ?. f j O7'.:
:>U Oif L zi.-l.o-n/qtabL1 iiatio
T)eBQ V'-ll ir.i action:
Lard treat- *nt:
Wastes regulated as hazardous ur.der the federal
and/or a state's RCRA program, plus PCB 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-ban>'d techniques to treat or
immobilize hazardous constituents in a waste
stream. Can occur iri tanks or surface
impoundments.
The thermal destruction of a hazardous wasta in
either a. liquid injection unit, rotary kiln unit,
or a csment kiln (although the lattar is more
conmonly refsrred to as energy recovery).
The reclamation, via s oaration and purification,
of usable substances from hazardous waste; and
the r-e-use of these substances (in this report,
resource recovery includes solvent and netals
raeovcjry, bu~ not energy recovery, which has b -
included uni ^r incineration to avois disclcs.ia^
ccnfidfincial inforinauion; futv.re surveys may
t-.xr.flnd this market sc r.-ciis cac.e^ory to sepac-'C>.
cut: these very different suLuaika ca) .
111° containment of hazardous waste in on-ground
or below-ground repositories that are lined vlf.
layers of impermeable material.
The conversion of liquid hazardous constituent-.
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).
-------
B-2
Solar evn.'OQr_?,;ii_Qn:
Treatic-'.nt:
Land Qiaoosr.'i. or Disposal:
Capacity, or Effactive
Capacity:
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/
solidification.
Includes all other non-treatment technologies
except storage and transportation.
Measured as (or converted to) the annual mass
throughput of hazardous waste through a treatmarxc
or disposal technology or system according to
practical operating maxiiauias for these systems
considering routine down time for repairs and
maintenance, discharge limits in various permits,
electrical outages, and ocher factors as defined
by the respondent.
The ratio of commercial volumes processed by a
technology in that year to effective capacity,
both expressed in mass units, and represented . •••
& percantage.
The wastes originating from cleanup ---tctivitias ; •.
hazardous v.-vjte sites wher^. thasa ac':iviLio-j iv ;
funded by Supsrfund monies.
-------
2-10
land bans by irrtposing 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 owruwaste treatment residues.
Hose 4raspondsnts 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
opinions about the need j.or using surfac? impoundments and land treatment to
manage hazardous wastes. A few firms felt that thers will be a continuing
need for and use of these technologies, but could not agree on which
technology would be the more likely to survive. Five firms Relieved that land
tr^atrnent 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 thac surface impoundments will be replaced by treatment in
Ac present, fairly large volumes of RCRA and CERCIA corrective action soils
and debris are disposed of in secure landfills with little or no pvetreatment.
Survey participants expect, however, that future land disposal restrictions
and the move to more "permanent" remedies will soon require that most or all
corrective aocion soils and debris be treated before land disposal. If true,
i.:or~ rtiST'onrtiiiics believe that there is currently inadequate capacity to meet
the y<-.t-.c.i'cti'l r.sed to trsac RC2A and GERCLA correc" .ve action soils and
ur.br1' i. I lest eor.ipanlas are not: confident about correcting any near-tarm
.,r;.r".:"j.Ll i.i trs.itatint capacity for soils and debris quickly. One firm stated
i.'.c,c .u-ay Fxru.; have arid are building, transport bla treatment units to meet
iil>.- C";\c.~ \ or.) rfui iiee'i, and several noted that on-sita treatment units will
l:e. the lor.£-i-'jr-i solution to land disposal restrict' ons. Tbe firms differed
.1,1 %'i ;*.-., >c oxi:u4 r. i.ons or axtansions should be allowed because cf the potential
':.;pacicv .;hortfnil. A fftw firms fael that there should be extensions granted
I; c ".Approved" Ir.r.vifills and thac additional land dijpo^al capacity should be
i;~j-il'i.'.^J. \-.u hriiule clie potantial volumes. Oi;her finns fsel 'cl'.at excrjnsions
^i.cu ..i nut be ^::^.'',t -.''•. f-ne firm stated thi'.t r.^.ara should not Le exf.casions
gi--n %>i uicr-jiy b'.u:'u.-« of the origin of wascc.-.. Anoth-r firm statsd that
<'ap^-_ity h-~s been coining on line and will continue to do so, but that adequate
capacity will not be placed in^o operation unless and until the bans are
enforced arid firms actually see the demand.
Even wich 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, especially to accommodate disposal of high volume wastes for which
there 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
-------
2-11
•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 sv.bmit the application by the hammer deadlines. Even so, the
firm believes the petition requirements are inappropriate, inasmuch as they
place tod. high a reliance on a. manipulable computer model, rather than any
development of hard data.
2.5 CLZ&HU? EUSXHESS SEES TO BE GSDHCTG TOR MANY .ITEMS, BUT CLEANUP
POLICIES WLLL DECIDE TUTDBE
*
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 vere
asked that touched -upon their participation in ar.d views of the site cleanup
mar leat. For example, respondents were 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 -as ess in either 1986 or 1987. A handful of firms had handled
Superf'oul 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 RCRA corrective action site. The majority of
firms reported that handling sita cleanup wastes had not caused delays in
handling wastes from their "live stream" custoiaers, but two firms did rsport
uinor delays, especially for "third party" wastes received from brokers.
A.lthov^h only a few firms had "handled wastes from cleanup sites in 1986 or
1937, more firsts said they were planning to get inco this business in the near
future. Most firms said they expected the site cleanup business to experience
.significant growth rates over the near-tern, a tread borne out by the recent
experiences of several firms that had handled cleanup wastes previously. One
fi.-u r.ot?d that it had handled four tines the volume of sits cleanup vastes in
1937 -v-srsun 19S6. Another firm notad that waste volv ^s had increased 10 to
.'0 f.\r.z -ac over th.'.t saje period, and still another firm reported steady
volo e iiicr arises each year since 1S'32. Tha experience of other firms was not
. 3 positive: thair cleanup waste volumes had increased, but at a rate less
than hid l-itn predicted and &T. lower profit margins.
When askeu about the market effects of the SARA amendments, the survey
participants either had no comment 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 wer« 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
-------
2-12
on the federal or a state's priority list. Many firns also expected that the
RCRA corrective action market would be very big, but were r.ot sure of its
profir.abili.sy-. Several firms expected that this cleanup market would be
highly compel:itive and subject to lower profit margins.
Survey participants were also asked about the market effects of EPA's Off-
Sita 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".
2.6 SPECIAL SURVEY TOPICS
Each year EPA includes a group of special interest topics in the commercial
industry survey. In years past, survey participants wera asked for their
views on topics such as the waste oil regulations debate, and for sevrval
y^ars have been asked about the availability of liability insurance and
servicing staall 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
industry.
.1. Capacity to Perfora the Toxicity Character is C;tc Leaching Procedure
(raj?)
The majority of firms survey .d believe that most commercial wasta
management firms do not yet have adequate capacity and may not be able to
davelop adequate a pacity in time. Although" the lai j;er firms generally see
th^aselves as capable of either performing the tasc now or developing the
capacity to perform- the test fairly quickly, several firms expressed tha
belief that "smaller" commercial firms may not be able to perform the test.
If the capacity of comaercial 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 problem1 if you have the money to pay for
it." Six firms stated they now see more offerers of insurance to commercial
waste 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
-------
2-13
self-insure because it is unable to obtain the minimum insurance required by
the state and federal governments.
c. Servicing Snail 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 recordkeeping 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
rate of services to SQGs.
Other firms either .iandle 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 Co
SQGs. Several firas 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. Suargence of the "Q-iasi-Cowaercial" Waste Management Indust.-y
Press articles discussing waste management service firms that will come in
and build, permit, and operate a fixed treatment/disposal facility3 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 cf 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 a waste site cleanup.
-------
2-14
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 ovm-_tareatnnenc/disposal facilities were willing to allow commercial
access to these facilities.
Six out of the eleven firms responding to this question had never hen.rd 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
1 lives'. -:nt. One firm commented that they saw some potential in this idea for
the very large waste generator that lacked the internal capabilities to
operate the facility, but doubted there were many generators who fit this
description.
More firms, of course, had heard of generators willing to open up their ovn
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 believed,
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 evn show and that it made 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
j"~" UASTE VOLUMES, CAPACITY, AKD 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.;
t. ENSCO, Inc. ;
x Envirite;
u Environmental Waste Resources;
M GSX Corporation;
a Rollins Environmental Services;
9 Ross Incineration;
a Saf ety-Kleen/'.cKesson Envirosystsrs;
H Systech;
« U.S. Pollution Control, Inc.; and
n W.J. Lamberton/Chemical Resources, Inc.
3.1 THESE 14 FI221S OPERATED A TOTAL OF 83 FACILITIES TS 1935 ASD 1987
Excluding transfer facilities, the 14 firms surveyed operated 83 treatment
or disposal :acilities in 1986. The distribution of waste management services
offered at these facilities is shown in Exhibit 3-1. Significantly, these 14
firms report that more of their facilities nov 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 ;-d.
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
-------
3-2
w
w
>-4
H
H*
_1
1—4
32
Cu «
S*
u -v
r -.
61
B :M
3 »
3S
<*
W -H
t- i
C1 'O
35
w
O >-l
2 Q
aw
t-.
SI
o o
a
a
g
U
<0
t-J
tj
J
*-«
2;
4J
£
li
<•_
4
•2 S
«j jj
o *
— « M
VI *4 *
— H *4
•a -< '
3 -3"
o u
« «
4J
0 C
II
s 4
* *
Sfi
. &
u t
n >
3 O
0 0
5*
C
O
•*•< «
*J ^J
u -^
V *
•n 3
S
^.
0
•*
+1
«
>
<•
c
u
c
•q
*J *J
c c
5 »
§ 5
c; u
^ ^
. S
'J -1
c
*M U
ki O
A
•~-4
C
M
O -« «
U «4 f-<
"q O i
"~ _ l i l i i
-
*• -
-
o M)-*(nii-*ti«-iiOJi
«-i i ii it i i
eo lllllllCSI
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
r- cn*Hicslir4itiit(Ni
i i t i t i i i
so r««^-«'-*crir^r4*oM»^
OJ •-»
•I V
* « *
U 9 • U
^ -r ° y hj
« > K C 3
-U * 1- D M O
C n * on
« -* w « - «
a *j « 1-4 w
« a -* *~< pi O
«0 3 « « w
s -a § ^ 3^8
JM2 I . §S 36
t»*C 2 o -^^35 -*s.
«^co o c -ai *j c c
*J M U -- M M fli-1 O O
M H « 4J -. CU« -H *J
5^SS 1 5 S 5 I 1 3S
«4W CUO fl » X 0 S ^ §
a c w K *j « a^^i c i- J o «
o-^Oo^c oL)xt=55oft4j
«-4CUU»^-«Ow|*J M*
fja-^i*-^u-^s««i^*j
O U X >-4Vi > «M a •? o tO --7
J3h WSOZC-GflOCX-'
O 03 OWJXWUJtjWp3l»JW33
OJ
M9
tH
•n
r.
(H
a
1
o
3
«J
U
<9
*o
T3
C
fl
a
0
4J
U
a
3
ts
•O
i-
n
O M
« O
c
U 9
C -*
^ E
• 4
•3 «
«-4 9
O ^
M &»
• *4
JJ ^H
J §
- 0
•t -J
4J
-4 9
(j 3
3 -O
U >s
O M)
*J 0
« ^
S §
C X
—i O
u 0
•* x .
5-° ^
5 S.?
0 -< «
1 3 3 n
o ^ y
I:?i
*3 O •— «
0 O 0
•*n 0 J3 -H
1°* §
&• « jJ B)
x^ &= :
> - "* ^
U •) *J A* £
35 i g .
•v4 O
o M a n u
*J « « -4 U O
*J O 9 *-l « U
«i « 3 « a
-4 « C *M 9 U.
« -o -a u
« 3 ^ h 3 M
-O —I « « -4
o *J j; y
n C o *J c
< »-» H 0 •-• «
u
3
«( J9| U| TPl W
-------
3-3
apparently keep this portion of the business.
Exhibit 3_-2 provides a list of selected acquisitions sines 1983 by firms in
the commercial hazardous waste management industry. Safety-Kleen's
acquisition of McKesson Envirosysterns in 1987, as noted in Chapter 1,
shortened .the. list of survey candidates from eighteen to seventeen firms.
Additional acquisition -ictivity 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 servic-e diversification and consolidation trends to continue
for the near future in the commercial hazardous waste management industry.
3.2 FTHMS SURVEYED RECEIVED 4.2 TO 4.5 MILLION WET METRIC TONS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE IN 1986 AND 1987
A total of at least 4.2 million wet metric tons (WMT) of hazardous wasta.3
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 (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 4.6
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 1986-1987 period.
Total volumes received by technology and the percr.itag-i changes from 19-85
thror ,h 1987 are shown in Exhibit 3-3.° As the table shows, only the waste
voluiuj incinerated did not experience a decline in volume in 1986 as compars-l
co 1985. Respondents reported that their volumes incinerated increased by
30.5 percent in 19!3i over 1985 (adjusted). Waste volumes sent to deap 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.
-------
3-4
CO-Hr3£lAL
TH*
g 3
H a
z 5
B S
M ^ A
m wo
i^ £ ~J
5 t CO
X *C r<
2 3
*-« CO
H 5
= a
Q* -C
O fO
**" si
a
u
03
_ .
3
*
A
0
3
M
C
H
E
u.
|
fc4
&
^
a •a "a
222 52 52^2222222222222222 5
ouuvunuuuuouuuauoouuuouoa
Wffl«JMO^w^oawlww5rawmiiSwiow^J
ojojdooa j « m ooiA«a'acocoa)a?a3coa3coa>coa>coeo
II
o > •& «
ho a
« SB ** >
« -4 « *^ il
• -3 *> bi • <•
^J 4 fl i4 O ^
« « 8 0 -J U - 0-0
CUC.*>« CtQ O ttOSQ*
« :? il c« « o o « o » a o
•X.ZAU fi «*acC
• "* "~2 ° c * "S^ijj
t3*Q 4 LIU3 O>13O9 O Skif:^
39 *"-i 'S(i3'i3"oi»-«5a»"> a
%*^« »^ ^j* c ocHt*^*2Goflo*j:c
^x««o6 u^~ at^au^-iMOu^Q* u m
• U 0 T3
-** . "• -• • ^4 C fi
mm 9 m m * o o «
3« JIC0MU ••« id
"?" '•^o-23'c "• -S ti
*i> XC**»CO «J 0 J K
t . • 0 -u O. » O u C I O
•25^ 0^31^*0 JJ «tp.o*-^ai e
• "•*" IS^si^S'SSli^i So3S«S5 £
ill Ii^-=iiittl^2^ll"s^t *
1^113585^3^. • " u iSt^x^tiulS
«ww5*3zo3£ii=i*Soo«SJjiSS«c«j3«S =
-------
3-5
a „
r- S
X
*J
c
%4
0
o
o
•4
n
•3 ^
ti 5
8. U
S
o.
2 §
-------
3-6
factors as growth in their site cleanup and lagoon closure business; growth in
their wasta pretreatment and treatment services due to the land disposal
restriction^.;, the ban on disposing of bulk liquids in landfills; the
tightening__of Clean Water Act pretreatment standards; growth in the waste
fuels marRetj 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, heroicides, pesticides, and gas cylinders. Several firms
do accept PC3 wastes for treatment and/or disposal while otherj do not.
Each of the following sections discuss the waste volume trends for each
technology in more detail.
Landfills
Waste volumes reported as landfilled by the commercial hazardous waste
finas 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-. • -.
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 wasta stabilization and solidification, and/or more business due to
the closure of several competitors' facilities. Waste volumes were down for
some finas 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?.
Landfills
2500 T
2000 ••
KMT
1500 ••
1000 ••
500 ••
2424
2245
2366
2473
1983
1984
1985
Year
1986
1987
-------
3-7
Incineration
As shown -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.
Incineration
K.VIT
500 T
400 -f
300 -i
200 +
100 -f
476
269
222
167
1983
1984
1985
Year
1986
1987
-------
3-8
Chemical and Biological Treatment
In 1986.7- 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 incriase 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 Watsr Act pratreataent requirements.
Chemical and Biological Treatment
120C
1000 j,"1
1074
1131
:<;viT GOO •;•
4CO
200 -
958
101 1
1983
1984
1985
Year
1986
1987
-------
3-9
Solldlf Icatlon/S tabilizaticn
SsveraP-firms reported wasta volumes stabilized or solidified separately
from their chemical treatment or landfilled volumes for the first time this
year. Nine respondents in the survey are known to offer these services, but
only four provided volume data for 1986 and 1987. In 1986, these four firms
reported solidifying and/or stabilizing a total of 66 thousand WMT of wastes.
TV :ir reported 1987 volume for this technology rose 13 percent as compared to
1936 -- to 75 thousand WHT. These volumes are not shown separately-in Exhibit
3-3 as these firms preferred to count these volumes only once under their
volum-3 landfilled. IGF assumes that the other firms offering these services,
but who did not report these volumes separately, also included any waste
volume solidified or stabilized in their landfill volume total.
Solidification/Stabilization
75
66
20
10 --
0 •*-
198S
1987
Year
-------
3-10
co Tieeovery
For th±a. .survey, this service sector encompasses the recovery of spent
solvents-,- oils, and metals from hazardous wastes, as well as the blending (but
not burning) "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 19&6 and
1987.
Resource Recovery
400
; 0 0
100 -•
330
242
234
1983
1984
1985
Year
1986
1987
-------
3-11
The vo'l-cme of waste reported handled at commercial deep veil injection
facilitie-s in the survey decreased by 34 percent -- to 271 thousand. WMT --
over the period of 1935 through 1987. The exhibit below also shows that dnep
well injection volumes have declined steadily since 1983 for the firms
participating in this annual survey. Some of the decline can be attributed to
the temporary closures of a few of the deep well Injection facilities during
at least a portion of this two-year period. Most respondents expected furtha :
declines in volumes sent to commercial deep well injection facilities,
although several firms expected to recover some of their lost market share.
Deep Well Injection
800 -
473
412
273
1983
1984
1985
Year
1986
1987
-------
3-12
UTCTSZ2ATIOH CAPACITY B&3 IHC12ASZD B7 98 PSRCEET SliTCS 1935
Commercl-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 raportsd to ha 318 thousand WMT and in 1987 has risen to an estimated
631 thousand tfMT. Over cwo-thirds of the increase in capacity occurred in
1987 with four firms increasing their capacity in 1986 and three in 1987.
Between 1985 and 1936, respondents raportsd increasing incineration capacity
by 24 percent, and between 1987 ar.d 1986 by nearly 60 percent. Some of the
increase in capacity has been brought about by de-bottlenecking existing
capacity, but several firas 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 paca than the increase in waste
volumes received for incineration ovar this period. Estimated incineration
capacity utilization was 85 percent in 1985, rose .;lightly to 89 percent in
193S, and stands at 75 percent in 1987. A few firms reported that backlogs
wars down appreciably at their facilities and that they were having trouble
soaking \rp their increased capacity. Incineration capacity utilization for
individual finas in IS 87 ranged from 62 to 100 percent (average: 85 percent) .
as compared to a range of 71 to 94 percent in 1986 (average: 86 percent).
Incineration
(Capacity end Capacity Utilization)
KMT
700 -•
600 -•
500 -•
400 ••
300 ••
200 ••
100 ••
0 --
631
287
293
318
1983
1984
1985
Year
1986
1987
El CAPACITY M VCLUME
-------