View:
Download DOC
Download PDF
Download XLS

QuickLinks -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2005

Registration No. 333-126193

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

Amendment No. 1
to
FORM S-4
REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

CLEAN HARBORS, INC.
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Massachusetts
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)		   4953
(Primary Standard Industrial
Classification Code Number)		   04-2997780
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification Number)

1501 Washington Street
Braintree, Massachusetts 02184-7535
(781) 849-1800
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including
area code, of Registrant's principal executive offices)
See inside front cover for information regarding Registrant Guarantors.

C. Michael Malm, Esq.
Davis, Malm & D'Agostine, P.C.
One Boston Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Telephone: (617) 367-2500
Telecopy: (617) 523-6215
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number,
including area code, of agent for service of process)

        Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: As soon as practicable after this Registration Statement becomes effective.

        If the securities being registered on this Form are being offered in connection with the formation of a holding company and there is compliance with General Instruction G, check the following box. o

        If this Form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. o

        If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. o

        The Registrant hereby amends this Registration Statement on such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective date until the Registrant shall file a further amendment which specifically states that this Registration Statement shall thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 or until this Registration Statement shall become effective on such date as the Securities and Exchange Commission, acting pursuant to said Section 8(a), may determine.


Registrant Guarantors

Exact name of Registrant Guarantor as specified in its charter
   Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization
   Primary Standard Industrial Classification Code Numbers
   I.R.S. Employer Identification Number
Altair Disposal Services, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295310
Baton Rouge Disposal, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295315
Bridgeport Disposal, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295319
CH International Holdings, Inc.   Delaware   4953   47-0942135
Clean Harbors Andover, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295323
Clean Harbors Antioch, LLC   Delaware   4953   02-0646441
Clean Harbors Aragonite, LLC   Delaware   4953   02-0646449
Clean Harbors Arizona, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295308
Clean Harbors Baton Rouge,LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295309
Clean Harbors BDT, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295313
Clean Harbors Buttonwillow, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295316
Clean Harbors Chattanooga, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295318
Clean Harbors Coffeyville, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295320
Clean Harbors Colfax, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295321
Clean Harbors Deer Park, L.P.   Delaware   4953   48-1263743
Clean Harbors Deer Trail, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295327
Clean Harbors Disposal Services, Inc.   Delaware   4953   04-3667165
Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.   Massachusetts   4953   04-2698999
Clean Harbors Financial Services Company   Massachusetts   4953   56-2287928
Clean Harbors Florida, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295283
Clean Harbors Grassy Mountain, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295286
Clean Harbors Kansas, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295290
Clean Harbors Kingston Facility Corporation   Massachusetts   4953   04-3074299
Clean Harbors LaPorte, L.P.   Delaware   4953   48-1263744
Clean Harbors Laurel, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295292
Clean Harbors Lone Mountain, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295299
Clean Harbors Lone Star Corp.   Delaware   4953   06-1655334
Clean Harbors Los Angeles, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295303
Clean Harbors (Mexico), Inc.   Delaware   4953   56-2294684
Clean Harbors of Baltimore, Inc.   Pennsylvania   4953   23-2091580
Clean Harbors of Braintree, Inc.   Massachusetts   4953   04-2507498
Clean Harbors of Connecticut, Inc.   Connecticut   4953   06-1025746
Clean Harbors of Natick, Inc.   Massachusetts   4953   04-2481234
Clean Harbors of Texas, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295311
Clean Harbors Pecatonica, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295314
Clean Harbors Plaquemine, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295280
Clean Harbors PPM, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295269
Clean Harbors Reidsville, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295199
Clean Harbors San Jose, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295202
Clean Harbors Services, Inc.   Massachusetts   4953   06-1287127
Clean Harbors Tennessee, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295205
Clean Harbors Westmorland, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295208
Clean Harbors White Castle, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295210
Crowley Disposal, LLC   Delaware   4953   06-1655356
Disposal Properties, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295213
GSX Disposal, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295215
Harbor Industrial Services Texas, L.P.   Delaware   4953   48-1263745
Harbor Management Consultants, Inc.   Massachusetts   4953   04-3460746
Hilliard Disposal, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295217
             

Murphy's Waste Oil Service, Inc.   Massachusetts   4953   04-2490849
Northeast Casualty Real Property, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295229
Roebuck Disposal, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295219
Sawyer Disposal Services, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295224
Service Chemical, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295322
Spring Grove Resource Recovery, Inc.   Delaware   4953   76-0313183
Tulsa Disposal, LLC   Delaware   4953   56-2295227

        The address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of the principal executive office of each Registrant Guarantor listed above is the same as those of the Registrant, Clean Harbors, Inc.

The information in this prospectus is not complete and may be changed. We may not sell these securities until the registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to these securities is effective. This prospectus is not an offer to sell these securities and it is not soliciting an offer to buy these securities in any jurisdiction where the offer or sale is not permitted.

Subject to Completion, dated August 31, 2005

PROSPECTUS

$150,000,000

LOGO

Clean Harbors, Inc.

111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012

        We are offering to exchange 111/4% senior secured notes due 2012 that we have registered under the Securities Act of 1933 for all of our outstanding 111/4% senior secured notes due 2012. We refer to these registered notes as the "new notes" and all outstanding 111/4% senior secured notes due 2012 as the "old notes." The old notes are, and the new notes will be, jointly and severally guaranteed on a senior secured second-lien basis by substantially all of our existing and future domestic restricted subsidiaries, and such guarantees are securities which are being offered along with the new notes by this prospectus.

        See "Risk Factors" beginning on page 15 to read about factors you should consider in connection with the exchange offer.

        If you are a broker-dealer that receives new notes for your own account as a result of market-making or other trading activities, you must acknowledge that you will deliver a prospectus in connection with any resale of the new notes. The letter of transmittal accompanying this prospectus states that by so acknowledging and by delivering a prospectus, you will not be deemed to admit that you are an "underwriter" within the meaning of the Securities Act. You may use this prospectus, as we may amend or supplement it in the future, for your resales of new notes. We will make this prospectus available to any broker-dealer for use in connection with any such resale for a period beginning when new notes are first issued in the exchange offer and ending on the 180th day after the completion of the exchange offer.

        Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission has approved or disapproved of the new notes or determined if this prospectus is truthful or complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.

The date of this prospectus is                        , 2005.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

        You should rely only on the information contained or incorporated by reference in this prospectus. See "Where You Can Find Additional Information." We have not authorized any other person to provide you with different or additional information. If anyone provides you with different or additional information, you should not rely on it. The information contained or incorporated by reference in this prospectus is accurate only as of the date on the front cover of this prospectus or the date of the document incorporated by reference. Our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may have changed since those respective dates. We are not making an offer to sell the new notes in any jurisdiction where the offer or sale is not permitted.

 
   Page
SUMMARY   1
RISK FACTORS   15
DISCLOSURE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS   24
INDUSTRY AND MARKET DATA   25
USE OF PROCEEDS   26
CAPITALIZATION   26
SELECTED HISTORICAL CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA   27
MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS   32
CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES   75
BUSINESS   77
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS   102
MANAGEMENT   113
CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS   117
DESCRIPTION OF REVOLVING CREDIT AND SYNTHETIC LETTER OF CREDIT FACILITIES   118
THE EXCHANGE OFFER   120
DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW NOTES   130
UNITED STATES FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSIDERATIONS   179
PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION   182
LEGAL MATTERS   183
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM   183
EXCHANGE AGENT   183
WHERE YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION   184
INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS   F-1

i


SUMMARY

        This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in this prospectus, is not complete and does not contain all of the information that may be important to you. We urge you to read this entire prospectus carefully, including the "Risk Factors" section and our consolidated financial statements and related notes. In this prospectus, unless the context requires otherwise, "we," "our," "us," "Clean Harbors" or "the Company" refers to Clean Harbors, Inc. and its subsidiaries, and "notes" refers to the old notes and new notes, collectively.

The Company

        We are one of the largest providers of environmental services and the largest operator of non-nuclear hazardous waste treatment facilities in North America based on 2003 industry reports. We service approximately 55% of North America's commercial hazardous incineration volume, 17% of North America's hazardous landfill volume, and are the industry leader in total hazardous waste disposal facilities. We provide our services and solutions to a diversified industry base with over 45,000 customers, including more than 175 Fortune 500 companies, in the United States, Canada, Mexico and Puerto Rico. We perform environmental services through a network of more than 100 service locations, and we operate five incineration facilities, nine commercial landfills, seven wastewater treatment operations, and 20 transportation, storage and disposal facilities, or TSDFs, as well as five PCB management facilities and two oil and used oil products recycling facilities. We can provide low-cost solutions to our customers due to our large scale, industry knowledge, recent cost-cutting and productivity-enhancing initiatives, and ability to internalize our waste streams.

        The wastes that we handle include materials that are classified as "hazardous" because of their unique properties, as well as other materials subject to federal and state environmental regulation. We provide final treatment and disposal services designed to manage hazardous and non-hazardous wastes, which cannot be economically recycled or reused. We transport, treat and dispose of industrial wastes for commercial and industrial customers, health care providers, educational and research organizations, other environmental services companies and governmental entities.

        Clean Harbors, Inc. was incorporated in Massachusetts in 1980 and has grown through a combination of strategic acquisitions and internal growth. The most significant of such acquisitions was our acquisition in September 2002 of substantially all of the assets of the Chemical Services Division, or CSD, of Safety-Kleen Corp., or Safety-Kleen. Our revenues increased from $350.1 million in 2002 to $611.0 million in 2003 primarily as a result of that acquisition.

Our Services

        We provide a wide range of environmental services and manage our business as two major segments: Technical Services and Site Services.

        Technical Services—(69% of 2004 revenue). These services involve the transport, treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes, and include physical treatment, resource recovery, fuels blending, incineration, landfill disposal, wastewater treatment, lab chemical disposal, explosives management, and CleanPack® and Apollo Onsite Services. Our CleanPack® services include the collection, logistics management, specialized packaging, transportation and disposal of laboratory chemicals and household hazardous wastes. Our Apollo Onsite Services provide outsourced environmental programs management at customer sites. Our technical services are provided through a network of service centers from which a fleet of trucks or railcars is dispatched to pick up customers' wastes either on a pre-determined schedule or on-demand and to deliver such wastes to permitted facilities, which are usually owned by us. Our service centers can also dispatch chemists to a customer location for the collection of chemical waste for disposal.

1


        Site Services—(31% of 2004 revenue). These services provide customers with highly skilled experts who utilize specialty equipment and resources to perform services at any chosen location. Under the Site Services umbrella, our Field Service crews and equipment are dispatched on a planned or emergency basis, and perform services such as confined space entry for tank cleaning, site decontamination, large remediation projects, selective demolition, spill cleanup, railcar cleaning, product recovery and transfer, scarifying and media-blasting and vacuum services. Additional services include used oil and oil products recycling, as well as PCB management and disposal.

        Also, as part of Site Services, Industrial Services crews focus on industrial cleaning and maintenance projects. Our Industrial Services manage hazardous, non-hazardous, wet and dry materials and specialize in chemical cleaning, hydro blasting, liquid/dry vacuuming, sodium bicarbonate blasting, line cleaning, boiler cleanouts, and steam cleaning of our customers' process equipment and systems, as well as video inspection. Additionally, specialized project work such as dewatering, and on-site material processing utilizing thermal treatment units are also performed on customers' sites. We market these services through our internal sales organizations and, in many instances, delivery of services in one area supports or leads to business in our other service lines or segments.

Our Industry

        According to industry reports, the hazardous waste disposal market in North America is in excess of $2.0 billion. We also service the much larger industrial maintenance market. The $2.0 billion estimate does not include the industrial maintenance market, except to the extent that the costs of disposal of hazardous wastes generated as a result of industrial maintenance are included.

        There are substantial barriers to entry into the hazardous waste management industry including high regulatory compliance costs and expertise, availability and cost of financial assurance, the arduous federal, state, provincial and local permitting processes for new disposal facilities, and the requirement for an extensive asset network, operating knowledge and major capital expenditures to purchase or construct new disposal facilities. As a result, no new hazardous waste incinerators or hazardous waste landfills have commenced commercial operations in North America in the last decade. We believe that industry fundamentals are improving. Capacity has been reduced in recent years causing stabilization of pricing, and new regulatory requirements have increased in-house disposal costs and outsourcing. Furthermore, customers are using fewer providers for their hazardous waste treatment and disposal needs as they seek to limit their outside vendors and the number of facilities in which their hazardous waste materials are disposed.

        The hazardous waste management industry was "created" in 1976 with the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA. RCRA requires waste generators to distinguish between "hazardous" and "non-hazardous" wastes, and to treat, store and dispose of hazardous waste in accordance with specific regulations. This new regulatory environment, combined with strong economic growth, increased corporate concern surrounding environmental liabilities, and early-stage industry dynamics contributed to growth in the industry. The largest generators of hazardous waste materials are companies in the chemical, petrochemical, primary metals, paper, furniture, aerospace and pharmaceutical industries. Hazardous waste types processed or transported include flammables, combustibles and other organics, acids and caustics, cyanides and sulfides, solids and sludges, industrial wastewaters, items containing PCBs (such as utility transformers), and medical waste.

        In the mid to late 1990s, the hazardous waste management industry was characterized by overcapacity, minimal regulatory advances and pricing pressure. However, since 2001, over one-third of all North American commercial incineration capacity has been eliminated, and we believe that competition has been reduced through consolidation and that new regulations have increased the overall barriers to entry. Underscoring these trends, we believe that the number of major industry participants in the North American hazardous waste sector has declined from over 20 in the early 1990s to only five major participants today. Since the mid 1990s, approximately 500,000 tons of incineration

2


capacity has been eliminated as eight major incinerators were deactivated, substantially increasing average capacity utilization. Additionally, new Maximum Achievable Control Technologies, or MACT, standards have been implemented, which we believe have increased and will continue to increase compliance costs and drive increased outsourcing of incineration as customers with captive (i.e., in-house and non-commercial) incinerators increasingly choose to outsource rather than make the substantial investment in their facilities which would be required to achieve compliance.

        The environmental services industry today includes a broad range of services including the following:

        The collection and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes are subject to local, state, provincial and federal requirements and regulations, which regulate health, safety, the environment, zoning and land-use. Included in these regulations is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, or CERCLA, of the United States. CERCLA holds generators and transporters of hazardous substances, as well as past and present owners and operators of sites where there has been a hazardous release, strictly, jointly and severally liable for environmental cleanup costs resulting from the release or threatened release. Canadian companies are regulated under similar regulations, but the responsibility and liability associated with the waste passes from the generator to the transporter or receiver of the waste, in contrast to provisions of CERCLA.

Corporate Information

        We are a publicly traded company listed on The Nasdaq National Market under the symbol "CLHB." Our corporate offices are located at 1501 Washington Street, Braintree, MA 02184-7535, Attention: Executive Offices (telephone (781) 849-1800 ext. 4454). Our website address is www.cleanharbors.com. The information contained or incorporated in our website is not part of this prospectus.

3



The Exchange Offer


Background
 
On June 30, 2004, we completed a private placement of the old notes. In connection with that private placement, we entered into a registration rights agreement with Credit Suisse First Boston and Goldman Sachs & Co., the initial purchasers of the old notes, in which we agreed to deliver this prospectus to you and to make an exchange offer.

The Exchange Offer
 
We are offering to exchange up to $150.0 million aggregate principal amount of our new notes which have been registered under the Securities Act for up to $150.0 million aggregate principal amount of our old notes. You may tender old notes only in integral multiples of $1,000 principal amount.

Resale of New Notes
 
Based on interpretive letters of the SEC staff to third parties, we believe that you may resell and transfer the new notes issued pursuant to the exchange offer in exchange for old notes without compliance with the registration and prospectus delivery provisions of the Securities Act, if:

 
 
•
 
you are acquiring the new notes in the ordinary course of your business for investment purposes,

 
 
•
 
you have no arrangement or understanding with any person to participate in the distribution of the new notes, and

 
 
•
 
you are not our affiliate as defined under Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

 
 
If you fail to satisfy any of these conditions, you must comply with the registration and prospectus delivery requirements of the Securities Act in connection with a resale of the new notes.

 
 
Broker-dealers that acquired old notes directly from us, but not as a result of market-making activities or other trading activities, must comply with the registration and prospectus delivery requirements of the Securities Act in connection with a resale of the new notes.

 
 
Each broker-dealer that receives new notes for its own account pursuant to the exchange offer in exchange for old notes that it acquired as a result of market-making or other trading activities must deliver a prospectus in connection with any resale of the new notes and provide us with a signed acknowledgement of this obligation.

Transfer Restrictions
 
The new notes have been registered under the Securities Act and generally will be freely transferable. We do not intend to list the notes on any securities exchange.
         

4


Limited Market
 
The new notes will be new securities for which there is currently no market. Although the initial purchasers of the old notes have informed us that they intend to make a market in the new notes, they are not obligated to do so and may discontinue market-making at any time without notice. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that a liquid market for the new notes will exist, develop or be maintained.

Consequences If You Do Not Exchange Your Old Notes
 
Old notes that are not tendered in the exchange offer or are not accepted for exchange will continue to bear legends restricting their transfer. You will not be able to offer or sell the old notes unless:

 
 
•
 
an exemption from the requirements of the Securities Act is available to you,

 
 
•
 
we register the resale of old notes under the Securities Act, or

 
 
•
 
the transaction requires neither an exemption from nor registration under the requirements of the Securities Act.

 
 
After the completion of the exchange offer, we will no longer have an obligation to register the old notes, except in limited circumstances.

Expiration Date
 
12:00 midnight, New; York City time, on            , 2005 unless we extend the exchange offer.

Conditions to the Exchange Offer
 
The exchange offer is subject to limited, customary conditions, which we may waive.

Procedures for Tendering Old Notes
 
If you wish to accept the exchange offer, you must deliver to the exchange agent:

 
 
•
 
either a completed and signed letter of transmittal or, for old notes tendered electronically, an agent's message from The Depository Trust Company, which we refer to as DTC, stating that the tendering participant agrees to be bound by the letter of transmittal and the terms of the exchange offer,

 
 
•
 
your old notes, either by tendering them in physical form or by timely confirmation of book-entry transfer through DTC, and

 
 
•
 
all other documents required by the letter of transmittal.

 
 
These actions must be completed before the expiration of the exchange offer.
         

5


 
 
If you hold old notes through DTC, you must comply with its standard procedures for electronic tenders, by which you will agree to be bound by the letter of transmittal.

 
 
By signing, or by agreeing to be bound by the letter of transmittal, you will be representing to us that:

 
 
•
 
you will be acquiring the new notes in the ordinary course of your business,

 
 
•
 
you have no arrangement or understanding with any person to participate in the distribution of the new notes, and

 
 
•
 
you are not our affiliate as defined under Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

 
 
See "The Exchange Offer—Procedures for Tendering."

Guaranteed Delivery Procedures for Tendering Old Notes
 
If you cannot meet the expiration deadline or you cannot deliver your old notes, the letter of transmittal or any other documentation to comply with the applicable procedures under DTC standard operating procedures for electronic tenders in a timely fashion, you may tender your notes according to the guaranteed delivery procedures set forth under "The Exchange Offer—Guaranteed Delivery Procedures."

Special Procedures for Beneficial Holders
 
If you beneficially own old notes which are registered in the name of a broker, dealer, commercial bank, trust company or other nominee and you wish to tender in the exchange offer, you should contact that registered holder promptly and instruct that person to tender on your behalf. If you wish to tender in the exchange offer on your own behalf, you must, prior to completing and executing the letter of transmittal and delivering your old notes, either arrange to have the old notes registered in your name or obtain a properly completed bond power from the registered holder. The transfer of registered ownership may take considerable time.

Withdrawal Rights
 
You may withdraw your tender of old notes at any time before the exchange offer expires.

Tax Consequences
 
The exchange pursuant to the exchange offer will not be a taxable event for U.S. federal income tax purposes. See "United States Federal Income Tax Considerations."

Use of Proceeds
 
We will not receive any proceeds from the exchange or the issuance of new notes in connection with the exchange offer.

Exchange Agent
 
U.S. Bank National Association is serving as exchange agent in connection with the exchange offer. The address and telephone number of the exchange agent are set forth under "The Exchange Offer—Exchange Agent."

6

Summary Description of the New Notes

        The form and terms of the new notes are substantially identical to the form and terms of the old notes, except that:

        The new notes will evidence the same debt as the old notes and will rank equally with the old notes. The same indenture will govern both the old notes and the new notes. We refer to the old notes and the new notes together as the "notes."


Issuer
 
Clean Harbors, Inc.

New Notes Offered
 
$150,000,000 aggregate principal amount of 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012.

Maturity Date
 
July 15, 2012.

Interest Payments
 
Interest will be payable semi-annually in arrears on January 15 and July 15 of each year, commencing January 15, 2006.

Guarantees
 
The new notes will be jointly and severally guaranteed on a senior secured second-lien basis by substantially all of our existing and future domestic restricted subsidiaries. The notes will not, however, be guaranteed by our foreign subsidiaries.

Ranking
 
The new notes will be our senior obligations, secured on a second-priority lien basis, and will rank equally with our existing and future senior obligations and rank senior to all of our future subordinated indebtedness. The notes and guarantees will be effectively junior to the obligations under our revolving credit and letter of credit facilities to the extent of the value of the assets securing that debt. Our revolving credit facility allows us to borrow and have issued and outstanding letters of credit up to an aggregate of $30.0 million, and our letter of credit facility allows us to have issued and outstanding up to $90.0 million of additional letters of credit. In addition, the indenture under which the old notes are outstanding and the new notes will be issued would allow us to incur additional indebtedness secured by a first lien on our assets without any specific amount limitation provided that at the time of such incurrence our "Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio" (as defined in the indenture) is greater than 2.25 to 1.0. See "Description of the Notes—Certain Covenants—Limitation on Incurrence of Additional Indebtedness."
         

7


 
 
As of June 30, 2005, we and our guarantor subsidiaries had $155.2 million of outstanding indebtedness (exclusive of $90.4 million of outstanding letters of credit), and the new notes and the guarantees would have ranked effectively junior in right of payment to $5.2 million of our obligations (inclusive of capital lease obligations but exclusive of our reimbursement obligations under such outstanding letters of credit). As of June 30, 2005, our non-guarantor subsidiaries had approximately $51.4 million of total liabilities (excluding intercompany liabilities). The new notes and the guarantees would have ranked effectively junior in right of payment to those obligations of our non-guarantor subsidiaries.

Security
 
The new notes and the guarantees will be secured by a second-priority lien on all of the assets that secure our letter of credit facility on a first-priority basis; provided that such assets do not include assets located or held outside the United States, assets of our foreign subsidiaries, any capital stock, notes, instruments, other equity interests and other securities of any of our subsidiaries, accounts receivable, and certain other excluded collateral as provided in the indenture that governs the notes. As of June 30, 2005, the book value of the assets which secure the notes was $324.3 million.

 
 
The proceeds of any collateral shall be used first to repay all outstanding obligations under our letter of credit facility and other permitted first-lien obligations until such facility and obligations are paid in full. Any remaining proceeds shall be used to repay outstanding notes.

Optional Redemption
 
We may redeem any of the notes at any time on or after July 15, 2008, in whole or in part, in cash, at the redemption prices described in this prospectus, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption.

 
 
At any time prior to July 15, 2007, we may redeem up to 35% of the aggregate principal amount of the notes issued under the indenture with the net proceeds of certain equity offerings at a redemption price equal to 111.250% of the principal amount of the notes plus accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption. We may make that redemption only if, after the redemption, at least 65% of the aggregate principal amount of notes issued under the indenture remains outstanding.

Change of Control
 
If we experience a Change of Control (as defined under "Description of the Notes—Repurchase at the Option of Holders"), we will be required to make an offer to repurchase the notes at a price equal to 101% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the date of repurchase. However, we may not then be able to finance such a repurchase of the notes either through available cash or new financing and our current revolving credit and letter of credit facilities prohibit us from repurchasing any of the notes unless the lenders thereunder consent.
         

8


Excess Cash Flow
 
Within 120 days of June 30th of each year (beginning June 30, 2005), we must use a portion of our excess cash flow, to the extent such portion is not either used to prepay, repay, redeem or purchase any of our "First-Lien Obligations," (as defined in "Description of the Notes"), to offer holders of the notes the opportunity to sell us a pro rata portion of their notes at a purchase price in cash equal to 104% of their principal amount, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the date of purchase. See "Description of the Notes—Excess Cash Flow."

Certain Covenants
 
The indenture governing the notes restricts our ability and the ability of our restricted subsidiaries to, among other things:

 
 
•
 
incur or guarantee additional indebtedness (including, for this purpose, reimbursement obligations under letters of credit) or issue preferred stock;

 
 
•
 
pay dividends or make other distributions to our stockholders;

 
 
•
 
purchase or redeem capital stock or subordinated indebtedness;

 
 
•
 
make investments;

 
 
•
 
create liens;

 
 
•
 
incur restrictions on the ability of our restricted subsidiaries to pay dividends or make other payments to us;

 
 
•
 
sell assets, including capital stock of our subsidiaries;

 
 
•
 
consolidate or merge with or into other companies or transfer all or substantially all of our assets; and

 
 
•
 
engage in transactions with affiliates.

 
 
These covenants will be subject to a number of important qualifications and exceptions. See "Description of the Notes—Certain Covenants."

Risk Factors

        Before you tender your old notes, you should be aware that there are various risks involved in an investment in the notes, including those we describe below under "Risk Factors." You should consider carefully these risk factors together with all of the other information included or referred to in this prospectus before you decide to tender your old notes in this exchange offer.

Summary Historical Consolidated Financial Data

        The following summary consolidated financial information should be reviewed in conjunction with "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," "Selected Historical Consolidated Financial Data" and our financial statements and the notes thereto included elsewhere in this prospectus.

        The summary historical income statement data set forth below for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2003 and 2004 and the summary historical balance sheet data at December 31, 2003 and 2004 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. The summary historical balance sheet data set forth below as of December 31, 2002 have

9


been derived from the audited consolidated financial statements not included in this prospectus. The summary historical income statement data set forth below for the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2005 and the summary historical balance sheet data as of June 30, 2005 have been derived from our unaudited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. The summary historical balance sheet data as of June 30, 2004 has been derived from unaudited consolidated financial statements not included in this prospectus.

 
   For the
Six Months Ended
June 30,
   For the Year Ended December 31,
  
 
    
   (Restated)(1)
2003
   (Restated)(1)
2002(2)
  
 
   2005
   2004
   2004
  
 
   (in thousands)

    
    
  
Income Statement Data:                                
Revenues   $ 338,876   $ 304,388   $ 643,219   $ 610,969   $ 350,133  
Cost of revenues     244,981     223,302     464,838     453,461     252,469  
Selling, general and administrative expenses     49,669     50,998     104,509     108,430     61,518  
Accretion of environmental liabilities(3)     5,250     5,207     10,394     11,114     1,199  
Depreciation and amortization     14,354     11,661     24,094     26,482     15,508  
Restructuring     —     —     —     (124 )   750  
Other acquisition costs     —     —     —     —     5,406  
   
 
 
 
 
 
Income from operations     24,622     13,220     39,384     11,606     13,283  
Other income (expense)(4)     510     (1,104 )   (1,345 )   (94 )   129  
(Loss) on refinancings(5)     —     (7,099 )   (7,099 )   —     (24,658 )
Interest (expense), net     (11,907 )   (10,801 )   (22,297 )   (23,724 )   (13,414 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle     13,225     (5,784 )   8,643     (12,212 )   (24,660 )
Provision for income taxes(6)     1,013     3,526     6,043     5,322     3,787  
   
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle     12,212     (9,310 )   2,600     (17,534 )   (28,447 )
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle     —     —     —     66     —  
   
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss)   $ 12,212   $ (9,310 ) $ 2,600   $ (17,600 ) $ (28,447 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
Other Financial Data:                                
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(7)     2.0x     —     1.2x     —     —  
Adjusted EBITDA(8)   $ 44,226   $ 31,230   $ 74,744   $ 50,744   $ 36,170  
Ratio of Adjusted EBITDA to interest expense     3.7x     2.9x     3.4x     2.1x     2.7x  
Capital expenditures(9)   $ 7,872   $ 12,887   $ 26,570   $ 34,832   $ 12,460  
 
    
    
   At December 31,
 
   At June 30,
 
    
   (Restated)(1)
2003
   (Restated)(1)
2002
 
   2005
   2004
   2004
 
   (in thousands)
Balance Sheet Data:                              
Working capital   $ 64,972   $ 30,820   $ 50,696   $ (19,575 ) $ 23,537
Goodwill     19,032     19,032     19,032     19,032     19,032
Total assets     503,770     471,041     504,702     540,159     559,690
Long-term obligations (including current portion)(10)     153,414     153,384     153,129     187,119     174,350
Redeemable preferred stock     —     —     —     15,631     13,543
Stockholders' equity (deficit)     26,362     (3,030 )   11,038     7,696     20,420

No cash dividends have been declared on our common stock.

(1)
We restated our financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, in order to correct errors related to estimated self-insured workers' compensation and motor vehicle liability claims. We concluded that our previous methodology for estimating our self-insured workers'

10

 
   2003
   2002
  
Net income (loss) as previously reported   $ (17,345 ) $ (28,191 )
Restatement adjustment to cost of revenues     (255 )   (256 )
   
 
 
Net income (loss) as restated   $ (17,600 ) $ (28,447 )
   
 
 

        The adjustments for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 did not change the amount of income tax expense previously recorded for those periods. For the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, the impact on other accrued expenses resulting from the correction of our self-insured liabilities was as follows (in thousands):

 
   2003
   2002
Other accrued expenses as previously reported   $ 32,240   $ 33,863
Restatement adjustment     1,617     1,362
   
 
Other accrued expenses as restated   $ 33,857   $ 35,225
   
 

        At December 31, 2003 and 2002, the impact of this restatement on accumulated deficit was as follows (in thousands):

 
   2003
   2002
  
Accumulated deficit as previously reported   $ (60,921 ) $ (43,576 )
Restatement adjustment     (1,617 )   (1,362 )
   
 
 
Accumulated deficit as restated   $ (62,538 ) $ (44,938 )
   
 
 

        The adjustments had no effect on net cash provided by operating activities.

(2)
Effective as of September 7, 2002, we acquired the assets of the Chemical Services Division of Safety-Kleen Corp. Amounts recorded for the year ended December 31, 2002, for revenues, cost of revenues, selling general and administrative expenses, accretion of environmental liabilities, depreciation and amortization, restructuring, other acquisition costs, other income, loss on refinancings, interest expense, provision for income taxes, working capital, total assets, long-term obligations, redeemable preferred stock and stockholders' equity were either significantly impacted by or resulted from the acquisition. See "Acquisition" and "Results of Operations" in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations."

(3)
Effective January 1, 2003, we adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 143. Accretion of environmental liabilities for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, and the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, were due primarily to the implementation as of January 1, 2003 of SFAS No. 143 and accretion of the discount for the remedial liabilities assumed as part of the CSD assets acquired. Accretion of environmental liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2002, related to the accretion of the discount for the remedial liabilities assumed in the acquisition of the CSD assets. See "Environmental Liabilities" in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations."

11

(4)
As further discussed in "Redemption of Series C Preferred Stock" in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," we had outstanding prior to June 30, 2004, 25,000 shares of Series C Convertible Preferred Stock which consisted of two components, namely, the Host Contract and an Embedded Derivative which reflected the right of the holders of the Series C Preferred Stock to convert into our common stock on the terms set forth in the Series C Preferred Stock. The value of the Embedded Derivative was periodically marked to market which resulted in the inclusion of gains (losses) as a component of other income (expense) of $(1.6) million for the six months ended June 30, 2004, and $(1.6) million, $(0.4) million and $0.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

(5)
As further discussed in "The 2004 Refinancing" and "Redemption of Series C Preferred Stock" in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," we repaid on June 30, 2004 our then outstanding debt, redeemed our then outstanding Series C Preferred Stock and settled the Embedded Derivative liability associated with our Series C Preferred Stock. For the year ended December 31, 2004, we recorded refinancing expenses, net of $7.1 million relating to these activities.

(6)
The fiscal year 2002 provision for income taxes included a $1.1 million charge to provide a valuation allowance for all net deferred tax assets. The fiscal years 2001 and 2000 provision for (benefit from) income taxes include benefits of $1.3 million and $2.4 million, respectively, relating to the partial reversal of a valuation allowance for deferred taxes previously recorded.

(7)
For purposes of calculating the earnings to fixed charges, earnings consist of income (loss) from operations before income taxes less capitalized interest plus amortization of such capitalized interest plus fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense, including capitalized interest, preferred stock dividends, amortization of debt issuance costs and a portion of the operating lease rental expense deemed to be representative of the interest factor. During the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the six months ended June 30, 2004, earnings were not sufficient to cover fixed charges and the deficiency for such periods was $12.212 million, $24.660 million, and $5.784 million, respectively.

(8)
For all periods presented, "Adjusted EBITDA" consists of net income (loss) plus accretion of environmental liabilities, depreciation and amortization, net interest expense, provision for (benefit from) income taxes, non-recurring severance charges, other non-recurring refinancing-related expenses, change in value of embedded derivative associated with our previously outstanding Series C Preferred Stock (which we redeemed June 30, 2004), and gain (loss) on sale of fixed assets. Such definition of "Adjusted EBITDA" is the same as the definition of "EBITDA" used in our current credit agreement and indenture for covenant compliance purposes. See below for a reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA to both net income (loss) and net cash provided by operating activities for the specified periods. Our management considers Adjusted EBITDA to be a measurement of performance which provides useful information to both management and investors. Adjusted EBITDA should not be considered an alternative to net income or loss or other measurements under GAAP. Because Adjusted EBITDA is not calculated identically by all companies, our measurements of Adjusted EBITDA may not be comparable to similarly titled measures reported by other companies.

12

        The following is a reconciliation of net income (loss) to Adjusted EBITDA for the following periods (in thousands):

 
   Six Months Ended June 30,
   Year Ended December 31,
  
 
    
   (Restated)
2003
   (Restated)
2002
  
 
   2005
   2004
   2004
  
Net income (loss)   $ 12,212   $ (9,310 ) $ 2,600   $ (17,600 ) $ (28,447 )
Accretion of environmental liabilities     5,250     5,207     10,394     11,114     1,199  
Depreciation and amortization     14,354     11,661     24,094     26,482     15,508  
Restructuring costs     —     —     —     (124 )   750  
Other acquisition costs     —     —     —     —     5,406  
Loss on refinancings     —     7,099     7,099     —     24,658  
Interest expense, net     11,907     10,801     22,297     23,724     13,414  
Provision for income taxes     1,013     3,526     6,043     5,322     3,787  
Non-recurring severance charges     —     16     25     1,089     —  
Other non-recurring refinancing-related expenses     —     1,126     1,326     —     —  
Change in value of embedded derivative     —     1,590     1,590     379     (129 )
Other income     (564 )   —     —     —     —  
(Gain) on sale of fixed assets     54     (486 )   (724 )   292     24  
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle     —     —     —     66     —  
   
 
 
 
 
 
Adjusted EBITDA   $ 44,226   $ 31,230   $ 74,744   $ 50,744   $ 36,170  
   
 
 
 
 
 
(9)
Capital expenditures include costs in connection with bringing our incinerators into compliance with the new MACT standards as follows: $4.3 million, $18.9 million and $2.3 million during the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002, respectively.

(10)
Long-term obligations (including current portion) include borrowings under our current and former revolving credit facilities.

13

        The following reconciles Adjusted EBITDA to net cash provided by operating activities for the following periods (in thousands):

 
   Six Months Ended
June 30,
   Year Ended December 31,
  
 
    
   (Restated)
2003
   (Restated)
2002
  
 
   2005
   2004
   2004
  
Adjusted EBITDA   $ 44,226   $ 31,230   $ 74,744   $ 50,744   $ 36,170  
Interest expense     (11,907 )   (10,801 )   (22,297 )   (23,724 )   (13,414 )
Provision for income taxes     (1,013 )   (3,526 )   (6,043 )   (5,322 )   (3,787 )
Allowance for doubtful accounts     (372 )   479     1,232     2,439     842  
Amortization of deferred financing costs     739     1,558     2,294     2,467     899  
Amortization of debt discount     83     —     77     —     388  
Deferred income taxes     —     —     381     (620 )   1,676  
(Gain) loss on sale of fixed assets     54     (486 )   (724 )   292     24  
Other income     510     —     —     —     —  
Other non-recurring refinancing-related expenses and other     —     (1,142 )   (1,351 )   —     —  
Stock options expensed     47     —     35     29     166  
Foreign currency loss (gain) on intercompany transactions     (404 )   (600 )   (88 )   996     —  
Changes in assets and liabilities, net of acquisition                                
Accounts receivable     (1,465 )   259     (6,058 )   20,265     (9,679 )
Unbilled accounts receivable     (1,567 )   1,159     4,429     4,539     (9,695 )
Deferred costs     952     (54 )   538     (838 )   (4,433 )
Prepaid expenses     2,928     (1,477 )   (4,781 )   14     (5,277 )
Accounts payable     (5,399 )   (945 )   9,249     2,923     12,201  
Closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities     (11,311 )   (5,715 )   (13,030 )   (8,268 )   (817 )
Deferred revenue     (4,273 )   699     (1,086 )   (2,121 )   8,693  
Accrued disposal costs     (164 )   464     910     (72 )   (5,060 )
Income taxes payable     (2,970 )   2,510     (734 )   685     1,214  
Other, net     340     1,418     14,763     (5,571 )   (4,462 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
Net cash provided by operating activities   $ 9,034   $ 15,030   $ 52,460   $ 38,857   $ 5,649  
   
 
 
 
 
 

14


RISK FACTORS

        Before you tender your old notes, you should be aware that there are various risks involved in an investment in the notes, including those we describe below. You should consider carefully these risk factors together with all of the information included or referred to in this prospectus before you decide to tender your old notes in this exchange offer.

Risks Related to the Exchange Offer and the Notes

        Old notes which you do not tender or we do not accept will, following the exchange offer, continue to be restricted securities. You may not offer or sell untendered old notes except pursuant to an exemption from, or in a transaction not subject to, the Securities Act and applicable state securities laws. We will issue new notes in exchange for your old notes pursuant to the exchange offer only if you satisfy the procedures and conditions described elsewhere in this prospectus. These procedures and conditions include timely receipt by the exchange agent of the old notes and of a properly completed and duly executed letter of transmittal.

        Because we anticipate that most holders of old notes will elect to exchange their old notes, the market for any old notes remaining after the completion of the exchange offer will likely be adversely affected. Any old note tendered and exchanged in the exchange offer will reduce the aggregate principal amount of the old notes outstanding. Following the exchange offer, if you did not tender your old notes, you generally will not have any further registration rights and your old notes will continue to be subject to transfer restrictions. Accordingly, you may not be able to sell your old notes.

        There has been no public market for the old notes. Despite our registration of the issuance of the new notes that we are offering in the exchange offer:

        If any of the new notes are traded after their initial issuance, they may trade at a discount from their principal amount, depending upon prevailing interest rates, the market for similar securities and other factors, including general economic conditions, our financial condition, performance and prospects and prospects for companies in our industry generally. In addition, the liquidity of the trading market in the new notes and the market prices quoted for the new notes may be adversely affected by changes in the overall market for high-yield securities.

        The initial purchasers of the old notes are not obligated to make a market in the new notes and any such market-making may be discontinued at any time at the sole discretion of the initial purchasers. As a result, an active trading market may never develop for the new notes.

        As of June 30, 2005, we had $155.2 million of outstanding indebtedness and $90.4 million of outstanding letters of credit. Our substantial level of indebtedness and outstanding letters of credit may:

15

        If we are unable to generate sufficient cash flow from operations in the future to service our debt and fee obligations, we may be required to refinance all or a portion of our existing debt, including the notes, and letter of credit facilities, or to obtain additional financing and facilities. However, we may not be able to obtain any such refinancing or additional facilities on favorable terms or at all.

        Although the agreements governing our revolving credit and letter of credit facilities and the indenture governing the notes contain restrictions on the incurrence of additional indebtedness (including, for this purpose, reimbursement obligations under letters of credit), these restrictions are subject to a number of qualifications and exceptions, and the indebtedness incurred in compliance with these restrictions could be substantial. In particular, as of June 30, 2005, we had available under our revolving credit facility up to an additional $28.8 million for purposes of future borrowings and letters of credit and under our letter of credit facility an ability to have issued up to $0.8 million of additional letters of credit. In addition to such amounts, the indenture governing the notes also allows us to borrow significant amounts of money from other sources. Also, these restrictions do not prevent us from incurring obligations (such as operating lease obligations) that do not constitute "indebtedness" as defined in the relevant agreements. If we add new debt or other obligations, the related risks that we now face could increase.

        During the year ended December 31, 2004, we incurred aggregate expenses of $24.0 million for interest on our outstanding indebtedness and fee obligations relating to our outstanding letters of credit, and we now anticipate that we will incur aggregate expenses of approximately $24.0 million for these purposes during the year ending December 31, 2005. For the six months ended June 30, 2005, we incurred aggregate expenses of $12.0 million for these purposes. Our ability to make scheduled payments of principal or interest with respect to our indebtedness, including the notes, and fee obligations with respect to our letters of credit, will depend on our ability to generate cash and on our future financial results. Our ability to generate cash depends on, among other things, the demand for our services, which is subject to market conditions in the environmental services industry, the occurrence of events requiring major remedial projects, changes in government environmental regulation, general economic conditions, and financial, competitive, regulatory and other factors affecting our operations, many of which are beyond our control. We may not be able to generate sufficient cash flow or to borrow sufficient amounts under our revolving credit facility or otherwise to enable us to pay our indebtedness, including the notes, pay the fee obligations respecting letters of credit, or fund our other liquidity needs.

16

        The notes are secured by a second lien on substantially all of our domestic personal assets (other than accounts receivable) and most of our domestic real property assets. The collateral that secures the notes on a second-lien basis also secures on a first-lien basis our reimbursement obligations under our letter of credit facility. The commitment amounts under our letter of credit facility could be increased in the future and additional notes could be issued under the indenture governing the new notes offered hereby. Your rights to the collateral would be diluted by any increase in the indebtedness secured by this collateral.

        In the event of a bankruptcy, liquidation, dissolution, reorganization or similar proceeding against us or any of our domestic subsidiary guarantors, the assets that are pledged for the benefit of the other indebtedness and reimbursement obligations on a first-lien basis must be used to pay such obligations in full before making any payments on the notes. In addition, to the extent that any other indebtedness has a second lien in the collateral, the value of the assets comprising the collateral will have to be shared on a pari passu basis with such other indebtedness in the event of a bankruptcy, liquidation, dissolution, reorganization or similar proceeding against us or any of our domestic subsidiary guarantors. In addition, we have not prepared an appraisal of the collateral in connection with the issuance of the notes. By its nature, some of this collateral is illiquid and may have no readily ascertainable value. Accordingly, all the collateral may not be able to be sold and there may not be sufficient funds available to repay the notes in full.

        Bankruptcy law could prevent the trustee from repossessing and disposing of the collateral upon the occurrence of an event of default under the notes if a bankruptcy proceeding is commenced by or against us before the trustee repossesses and disposes of the collateral. Under the bankruptcy law, secured creditors such as the holders of the notes are prohibited from repossessing their collateral from a debtor in a bankruptcy case, or from disposing of collateral repossessed from such debtor, without bankruptcy court approval. Moreover, bankruptcy law permits the debtor to continue to retain and to use the collateral (and the proceeds, products, rents or profits of such collateral) so long as the secured creditor is given "adequate protection." The meaning of the term "adequate protection" may vary according to circumstances, but it is intended in general to protect the value of the secured creditor's interest in the collateral. The court may find "adequate protection" if the debtor pays cash or grants additional security for any diminution in the value of the collateral as a result of the stay of repossession or disposition or any use of the collateral during the pendency of the bankruptcy case. In view of the lack of a precise definition of the term "adequate protection" and the broad discretionary powers of a bankruptcy court, it is impossible to predict how long payments under the notes could be delayed following commencement of a bankruptcy case, whether or when the trustee could repossess or dispose of the collateral or whether or to what extent holders of the notes would be compensated for any delay in payment or loss of value of the collateral through the requirement of "adequate protection."

        In addition, the trustee may need to evaluate the impact of the potential liabilities before determining to foreclose on the secured property because lenders that hold a security interest in real property may be held liable under environmental laws for the costs of remediating or preventing release or threatened release of hazardous substances at the secured property. In this regard, the trustee may decline to foreclose on the collateral or exercise remedies available if it does not receive indemnification to its satisfaction from the holders of the notes. Finally, the trustee's ability to foreclose on the collateral on your behalf may be subject to lack of perfection, the consent of third parties, prior liens and practical problems associated with the realization of the trustee's security interest in the collateral.

17


        Substantially all of our domestic subsidiaries are guarantors of the notes, but our foreign subsidiaries are not guarantors. You will not have any claim as a creditor against our subsidiaries that are not guarantors of the notes. Accordingly, all obligations of our non-guarantor subsidiaries will have to be satisfied before any of the assets of such subsidiaries would be available for distribution, upon a liquidation or otherwise, to us or a guarantor of the notes. As of June 30, 2005, our non-guarantor subsidiaries had approximately $51.4 million of total liabilities (excluding intercompany liabilities). Our non-guarantor subsidiaries generated approximately 17.1% of our consolidated revenues and approximately 22.6% of our Adjusted EBITDA for the 12 months ended June 30, 2005, and held approximately 16.1% of our consolidated assets as of June 30, 2005. Furthermore, in the event of a bankruptcy or similar proceeding relating to us or the guarantors, our and their existing and future environmental liabilities may effectively rank senior in right of payment to the notes and the guarantees under certain federal and state bankruptcy and environmental laws.

        The agreements governing our revolving credit and letter of credit facilities and the indenture relating to the notes limit, among other things, our ability and the ability of our restricted subsidiaries to:

        If we fail to comply with these covenants, we would be in default under the agreements governing our senior credit facilities, other debt and the indenture, and the principal and accrued interest on the notes and our other outstanding indebtedness may become due and payable. See "Description of Revolving Credit and Synthetic Letter of Credit Facilities" and "Description of the Notes—Certain Covenants." In addition, our revolving credit and letter of credit facilities contain, and our future indebtedness agreements may contain, additional affirmative and negative covenants which are generally more restrictive than those contained in the indenture.

        As a result of these covenants, we may not be able to respond to changes in business and economic conditions and to obtain additional financing, if needed, and we may be prevented from engaging in transactions that might otherwise be beneficial to us. Our revolving credit facility requires, and our future credit facilities may require, us to maintain specified financial ratios and satisfy certain financial condition tests. Our ability to meet these financial ratios and tests can be affected by events beyond our control, and we may not be able to meet those tests. The breach of any of these covenants

18

could result in a default under our revolving credit facility. Upon the occurrence of an event of default under our revolving credit facility or future credit facilities, the lenders could elect to declare all amounts outstanding under such credit facilities, including accrued interest or other obligations, to be immediately due and payable. If amounts outstanding under such credit facilities were to be accelerated, our assets may not be sufficient to repay in full that indebtedness and our other indebtedness, including the notes.

        The instruments governing certain of our indebtedness, including the indenture and our revolving credit and letter of credit facilities, contain cross-default provisions. Under these provisions, a default under one instrument governing our indebtedness may constitute a default under our other instruments of indebtedness that contain cross default provisions, which could result in the related indebtedness and the indebtedness issued under other instruments becoming immediately due and payable. In such event, we would need to raise funds from alternative sources, which funds may not be available to us on favorable terms, on a timely basis or at all. Alternatively, such a default could require us to sell our assets and otherwise curtail operations to pay our creditors.

        Under the U.S. federal bankruptcy laws and comparable provisions of state fraudulent conveyance laws, a court could void obligations under the guarantees by our subsidiaries, subordinate those obligations to other obligations of the guarantors or require you to repay any payments made pursuant to the guarantees, if:

The measure of insolvency for these purposes will depend upon the law of the jurisdiction being applied. Generally, however, a company will be considered insolvent if:

Moreover, regardless of solvency, a court might void the guarantees, or subordinate the guarantees, if it determined that the transaction was made with intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors.

        Each guarantee by our subsidiaries contains a provision intended to limit the guarantor's liability to the maximum amount that it could incur without causing the incurrence of obligations under its guarantee to be a fraudulent transfer. This provision, however, may not be effective to protect the guarantees by our subsidiaries from attack under fraudulent transfer law. If one or more of the guarantees is voided or subordinated, we may not, after providing for all prior claims, be able to pay the notes in full.

19


        The indenture requires that certain subsidiaries must guarantee the notes in the future. These considerations will also apply to any such new guarantees.

        The indenture provides that, upon the occurrence of a change of control (as defined in the indenture), we will be required to offer to purchase all outstanding notes at 101% of their principal amount plus accrued and unpaid interest to the date of repurchase. However, upon such a change of control, we may not have sufficient funds available to repurchase all of the notes tendered pursuant to this requirement. In addition, we are prohibited by our revolving credit and letter of credit facilities from repurchasing any of the notes unless the lenders thereunder consent. Our failure to repurchase the notes would be a default under the indenture, which would, in turn, be a default under our revolving credit facility and, potentially, other debt. If any debt were to be accelerated, we may be unable to repay these amounts and make the required repurchase of the notes. See "Description of the Notes—Repurchase at the Option of Holders."

Risks Related to Our Business

        Since the acquisition of the CSD assets effective September 7, 2002, we have focused upon integrating the operations acquired into our previous disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting. Prior to our acquisition of the CSD assets in 2002, Safety-Kleen had publicly disclosed that it historically had material deficiencies in many of its financial systems, processes and related internal controls. Due to the deficiencies in these systems and our belief that we would be able to utilize our own systems in order to improve the operations of the former CSD, we decided to integrate the United States operations of the former CSD into our business and financial reporting systems effective as of the acquisition date. As anticipated, we have experienced certain systems and efficiency issues in connection with the integration. We have made significant progress in integrating the CSD into our business and financial reporting systems and believe that all major systems for operations are substantially integrated and efficiently operating as of December 31, 2004. During the integration process, we identified the need for various enhancements to address needs that are unique to the CSD business and to improve system efficiencies. However, the significant increase in transaction volume, as well as the significant increase in the number of new users for our systems has increased the risk of human error or mistake during the integration period. Likewise, the acquisition and integration of a business much larger in size and scope of operations has increased the risk that conditions may have been introduced that the design of our systems of control has not anticipated. Our decision to integrate the operations of the former CSD into our business and financial reporting systems, combined with the replacement of the business model of the former CSD with our business model, has also prevented us from being able to calculate meaningful changes in revenue due to volume, price or mix until after the first anniversary of the acquisition.

        As part of our acquisition of the assets of the CSD effective September 7, 2002, we assumed certain environmental liabilities of the CSD which were valued as of December 31, 2004, at approximately $184.5 million. We calculate certain of these liabilities on a present value basis in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (which takes into consideration both the amount of such liabilities and the timing when it is projected that we will be required to pay such liabilities). We anticipate such liabilities will be payable over many years and that cash flows generated from our operations will generally be sufficient to fund the payment of such liabilities when required. However, events not now anticipated (such as future changes in environmental laws and regulations or

20

their enforcement) could require that such payments be made earlier or in greater amounts than now anticipated, which could adversely affect our cash flow and financial condition.

        As of December 31, 2004, we did not maintain effective controls over the completeness and accuracy of our self-insured workers' compensation and motor vehicle liability reserves. Specifically, we did not have effective controls over estimating and monitoring self-insured workers' compensation and motor vehicle reserves. This control deficiency resulted in the restatement of our consolidated financial statements for the years ending December 31, 2003 and 2002, the restatement of the quarterly data for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2003, as well as a fourth quarter audit adjustment in our 2004 financial statements. Additionally, this control deficiency could have resulted in a misstatement of workers' compensation and motor vehicle liability reserves that would have resulted in a material misstatement to annual or interim financial statements that would not be prevented or detected. Our management therefore determined that this control deficiency constituted a "material weakness" in our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004. Accordingly, the reports in Amendment No. 1 to our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 by both our management and by PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, the independent registered public accounting firm which has audited our financial statements, concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was not "effective" as of December 31, 2004.

        In order to remediate the control weakness in our internal control over financial reporting described above, we are now using an actuarial-based method for estimating our reserves for self-insured workers' compensation and motor vehicle liability reserves. Although we believe that utilization of this actuarial-based method satisfactorily remediates our internal controls over estimating and monitoring self-insured workers' compensation and motor vehicle reserves, we might find other material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting in future periods. To the extent that any significant or material weaknesses exist in our internal control over financial reporting, such weaknesses may adversely affect our ability to provide timely and reliable financial information necessary for the conduct of our business and satisfaction of our reporting obligations under federal securities laws.

        We are required to carry significant amounts of insurance, to occasionally post bid and performance bonds, and to provide substantial amounts of financial assurances to governmental agencies for potential closure and post-closure care of our licensed hazardous waste treatment facilities should those facilities cease operation. Our total estimated closure and post-closure costs requiring financial assurance by regulators as of June 30, 2005 was $279.3 million. We have placed most of the required financial assurance for closure through a qualified insurance company, Steadfast Insurance Company (a unit of Zurich Insurance N.A.). We were required to and have posted letters of credit of approximately $73.5 million with Steadfast Insurance Company in order to obtain the insurance policies. The term of our current insurance policy from Steadfast Insurance Company will expire in September 2006, and our ability to continue conducting our operations could be adversely affected if we should become unable to obtain sufficient insurance, surety bonds and financial assurances at reasonable cost to meet our business and regulatory requirements in the future. The availability of insurance may be influenced by developments within the insurance industry itself, as well as the insurers' or sureties' assessment of their risk of loss with us.

21

        Our future operating results may be affected by such factors as our ability to: utilize our facilities and workforce profitably in the face of intense price competition; maintain or increase market share in an industry which has experienced significant downsizing and consolidating; realize benefits from cost reduction programs; generate incremental volumes of waste to be handled through our facilities from existing and acquired sales offices and service centers; obtain sufficient volumes of waste at prices which produce revenue sufficient to offset the operating costs of the facilities; minimize downtime and disruptions of operations; and develop the site services business. In particular, economic downturns or recessionary conditions in North America, and increased outsourcing by North American manufacturers to plants located in countries with lower wage costs and less stringent environmental regulations, have adversely affected and may in the future adversely affect the demand for our services. The hazardous and industrial waste management business is also cyclical to the extent that it is dependent upon a stream of waste from cyclical industries such as the chemical and petrochemical, primary metals, paper, furniture and aerospace industries. If those cyclical industries slow significantly, the business that we receive from those industries is likely to slow.

        Our operations may be affected by the commencement and completion of major site remedial projects; cleanup of major spills or other events; seasonal fluctuations due to weather and budgetary cycles influencing the timing of customers' spending for remedial activities; the timing of regulatory decisions relating to hazardous waste management projects; changes in regulations governing the management of hazardous waste; secular changes in the waste processing industry towards waste minimization and the propensity for delays in the remedial market; suspension of governmental permits; and fines and penalties for noncompliance with the myriad of regulations governing our diverse operations. As a result of these factors, our revenue and income could vary significantly from quarter to quarter, and past financial performance for certain quarters may not be a reliable indicator of future performance for comparable quarters in subsequent years.

        Our operations may be affected by seasonal fluctuations due to weather and budgetary cycles influencing the timing of customers' spending for remedial activities. Typically during the first quarter of each calendar year there is less demand for environmental remediation due to weather related reasons, particularly in the northern and midwestern U.S. and Canada, and increased possibility of unplanned weather related plant shutdowns. This seasonality in our business makes it harder for us to manage our business and for investors to evaluate our financial performance.

        Our operations and those of others in the environmental industry are subject to extensive federal, state, provincial and local environmental requirements in both the United States and Canada. While increasing environmental regulation often presents new business opportunities for us, it likewise often results in increased operating and compliance costs. Efforts to conduct our operations in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including environmental rules and regulations, require programs to promote compliance, such as training employees and customers, purchasing health and safety equipment, and in some cases hiring outside consultants and lawyers. Even with these programs, we and other companies in the environmental services industry are routinely faced with governmental enforcement proceedings which can result in fines or other sanctions and require expenditures for remedial work on waste management facilities and contaminated sites. Certain of these laws impose strict and, under certain circumstances, joint and several, liability for cleanup of releases of regulated materials, and also liability for related natural resource damages.

22

        From time to time, we have paid fines or penalties in governmental environmental enforcement proceedings, usually involving our waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Although none of these fines or penalties that we have paid in the past has had a material adverse effect upon us, we might in the future be required to make substantial expenditures as a result of governmental proceedings, which would have a negative impact on our earnings. Furthermore, regulators have the power to suspend or revoke permits or licenses needed for operation of our plants, equipment, and vehicles based on, among other factors, our compliance record, and customers may decide not to use a particular disposal facility or do business with us because of concerns about our compliance record. Suspension or revocation of permits or licenses would impact our operations and could have a material adverse impact on financial results. Although we have never had any of our facilities' operating permits revoked, suspended or non-renewed involuntarily, it is possible that such an event could occur in the future.

        In the past, practices have resulted in releases at and from certain of our facilities, which may require investigation and, in some cases, remediation. We are currently conducting remedial activities at certain of our sites. While, based on available information, we do not believe these remedial activities will result in a material adverse effect upon our operations or financial condition, these activities or the discovery of previously unknown conditions could result in material costs.

        In 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, promulgated Interim Standards of the Hazardous Waste Combustor Maximum Achievable Control Technology under the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments. These standards established new emissions limits and operational controls on all new and existing incinerators, cement kilns and light-weight aggregate kilns that burn hazardous waste-derived fuels. We have spent approximately $25.5 million since September 7, 2002 in order to bring our Kimball, Nebraska, Deer Park, Texas and Aragonite, Utah incineration facilities into compliance with the HWC MACT regulations. Future environmental regulations could cause us to make significant additional capital expenditures and adversely affect our results of operations and cash flow.

        When we include the expansion airspace in our calculations of available airspace, we adjust our landfill liabilities to the present value of projected costs for cell closure, and landfill closure and post-closure. It is possible that any of our estimates or assumptions could ultimately turn out to be significantly different from actual results. In some cases we may be unsuccessful in obtaining an expansion permit or we may determine that an expansion permit that we previously thought was probable has become unlikely. To the extent that such estimates, or the assumptions used to make those estimates, prove to be significantly different than actual results, or our belief that we will receive an expansion permit changes adversely in a significant manner, the landfill assets, including the assets incurred in the pursuit of the expansion, may be subject to impairment testing, and lower prospective profitability may result due to increased interest accretion and depreciation or asset impairments related to the removal of previously included expansion airspace. In addition, if our assumptions concerning the expansion airspace should prove inaccurate, certain of our cash expenditures for closure of landfills could be accelerated and adversely affect our results of operations and cash flow.

        We participate in a highly volatile industry with multiple competitors, several of which have taken large write-offs and asset write-downs, operated under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and undergone major restructuring during the past several years. Periodically, we review long-lived assets for impairment. At the end of each of 2004, 2003 and 2002, we determined based on this review that no asset write-downs were required; however, if conditions in the industry were to deteriorate significantly, we could determine that certain of our assets were impaired and we would then be required to write-off all or a portion of our costs for such assets. Any such significant write-offs would adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

23


 DISCLOSURE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

        This prospectus includes "forward-looking statements," as defined by federal securities laws, with respect to our financial condition, results of operations and business and our expectations or beliefs concerning future events. Words such as, but not limited to, "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "estimate," "intend," "plan," "targets," "likely," "will," "would," "could" and similar expressions or phrases identify forward-looking statements.

        All forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. Many risks and uncertainties are inherent in the environmental services industry. Others are more specific to our operations. The occurrence of the events described, and the achievement of the expected results, depend on many events, some or all of which are not predictable or within our control. Actual results may differ materially from expected results.

        Factors that may cause actual results to differ from expected results include, among others:


        All future written and verbal forward-looking statements attributable to us or any person acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. We undertake no obligation, and specifically decline any obligation, to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking events discussed in this prospectus might not occur.

        See the section of this prospectus entitled "Risk Factors" for a more complete discussion of these risks and uncertainties and for other risks and uncertainties. These factors and the other risk factors described in this prospectus are not necessarily all of the important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any of our forward-looking statements, and other

24


unknown or unpredictable factors also could harm our results. Consequently, actual results or developments anticipated by us may not be realized and, even if substantially realized, they may not have the expected consequences to, or effects on, us. Given these uncertainties, prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements.


INDUSTRY AND MARKET DATA

        We obtained the market and certain other data used in this prospectus from our own research, surveys or studies conducted by third parties and industry or general publications, such as EI Digest, and other publicly available sources. Industry and general publications and surveys generally state that they have obtained information from sources believed to be reliable, but do not guarantee the accuracy and completeness of such information. Although we have not independently verified the market data and related information contained in this prospectus, we believe such data and information is accurate as of the date of this prospectus or the respective earlier dates specified in this prospectus for certain of such information.

25


USE OF PROCEEDS

        We will not receive any proceeds from the exchange offer. In consideration for issuing the new notes, we will receive old notes from you in like principal amount. The old notes surrendered in exchange for the new notes will be retired and canceled and cannot be reissued. Accordingly, issuance of the new notes will not result in any change in our indebtedness.


CAPITALIZATION

        Our consolidated cash and cash equivalents, long-term debt (including current portion), and capitalization data as of June 30, 2005 are derived from our consolidated balance sheet as of that date included in our historical financial statements and the notes thereto contained elsewhere in this prospectus. This data should be read in conjunction with "Selected Historical Consolidated Financial Data," "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and our historical financial statements and the notes thereto contained elsewhere in this prospectus.

 
   As of June 30, 2005
  
 
   (dollars in thousands)

  
Cash and cash equivalents   $ 50,248  
   
 
Long-term debt, including current portion:        
  Revolving credit facility(1)   $ 0  
  Capital lease obligations     5,210  
  Notes, net of discount     148,204  
   
 
Total long-term debt, including current portion(2)     153,414  

Stockholders' equity:
 
 
 
 
  Series B convertible preferred stock; Authorized 156,416 shares; issued and outstanding 70,000 shares (liquidation preference of $3.5 million)     1  
  Common stock, $.01 par value;
Authorized 40,000,000 and 20,000,000 shares, respectively; issued and outstanding 15,364,211 and 14,327,224 shares, respectively		     154  
  Additional paid-in capital     66,008  
  Accumulated other comprehensive income     7,925  
  Accumulated deficit     (47,726 )
   
 
Total stockholders' equity     26,362  
   
 
Total capitalization   $ 179,776  
   
 
(1)
Our revolving credit facilities allow us to borrow or obtain letters of credit for an aggregate of up to $30.0 million. See "Description of Revolving Credit and Synthetic Letter of Credit Facilities." As of June 30, 2005, we had no borrowings and $1.2 million of letters of credit outstanding under our revolving credit facility, and approximately $28.8 million available to borrow.

(2)
Long-term debt excludes $90.4 million of letters of credit outstanding on June 30, 2005.

26


SELECTED HISTORICAL CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA

        The following selected consolidated financial data should be reviewed in conjunction with "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and our historical financial statements and the notes thereto included elsewhere in this prospectus.

        The selected historical income statement data set forth below for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 and the selected historical balance sheet data as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. The selected historical income statement data set forth below for the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the selected historical balance sheet data set forth below as of December 31, 2000, 2001 and 2002 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements not included in this prospectus. The selected historical income statement data set forth below for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 and the selected historical balance sheet data as of June 30, 2005 have been derived from our unaudited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. The selected historical balance sheet data as of June 30, 2004 has been derived from our unaudited consolidated financial statements not included in this prospectus.

 
   For the Six Months
Ended June 30,
   For the Year Ended December 31,
  
 
    
   (Restated)(1)
2003
   (Restated)(1)
2002(2)
   (Restated)(1)
2001
   (Restated)(1)
2000
  
 
   2005
   2004
   2004
  
 
   (in thousands)

  
Income Statement Data:                                            
Revenues   $ 338,876   $ 304,388   $ 643,219   $ 610,969   $ 350,133   $ 251,601   $ 233,466  
Cost of revenues     244,981     223,302     464,838     453,461     252,469     178,348     165,804  
Selling, general and administrative expenses     49,669     50,998     104,509     108,430     61,518     43,727     41,610  
Accretion of environmental liabilities(3)     5,250     5,207     10,394     11,114     1,199     —     —  
Depreciation and amortization     14,354     11,661     24,094     26,482     15,508     11,113     10,656  
Restructuring     —     —     —     (124 )   750     —     —  
Other acquisition costs     —     —     —     —     5,406     —     —  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income from operations     24,622     13,220     39,384     11,606     13,283     18,413     15,396  
Other income (expense)(4)     510     (1,104 )   (1,345 )   (94 )   129     —     —  
(Loss) on refinancings(5)     —     (7,099 )   (7,099 )   —     (24,658 )   —     —  
Interest (expense), net     (11,907 )   (10,801 )   (22,297 )   (23,724 )   (13,414 )   (10,724 )   (9,795 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle     13,225     (5,784 )   8,643     (12,212 )   (24,660 )   7,689     5,601  
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes(6)     1,013     3,526     6,043     5,322     3,787     2,412     (2,016 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle     12,212     (9,310 )   2,600     (17,534 )   (28,447 )   5,277     7,617  
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle     140     11,616     —     66     —     —     —  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss)   $ 12,072   $ (20,926 ) $ 2,600   $ (17,600 ) $ (28,447 ) $ 5,277   $ 7,617  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Other Financial Data:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(7).     2.0 x   —     1.2 x   —     —     1.6 x   1.5 x
Adjusted EBITDA(8)   $ 44,226   $ 31,230   $ 74,744   $ 50,744   $ 36,170   $ 29,466   $ 25,982  

27

 
    
    
   At December 31,
 
   At June 30,
 
    
   (Restated)(1)
2003
   (Restated)(1)
2002
   (Restated)(1)
2001
   (Restated)(1)
2000
 
   2005
   2004
   2004
 
   (in thousands)
Balance Sheet Data:                                          
Working capital   $ 64,972   $ 30,820   $ 50,696   $ (19,575 ) $ 23,537   $ 9,423   $ 15,578
Goodwill     19,032     19,032     19,032     19,032     19,032     19,032     19,799
Total assets     503,770     471,041     504,702     540,159     559,690     156,958     149,568
Long-term obligations (including current portion)(9)     153,414     153,384     153,129     187,119     174,350     53,224     67,727
Redeemable preferred stock     —     —     —     15,631     13,543     —     —
Stockholders' equity (deficit)     26,362     (3,030 )   11,038     7,696     20,420     48,463     40,792

No cash dividends have been declared on our common stock.

(1)
We restated our financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, and financial information for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999, in order to correct errors related to estimated self-insured workers' compensation and motor vehicle liability claims. We concluded that our previous methodology for estimating our self-insured workers' compensation and motor vehicle insurance claims resulted in an understatement of our self-insured liabilities because negative trends inherent in these types of liabilities were not considered in calculating the self-insured liability. The new methodology involves using an actuarial-based method versus the specific reserve method previously used. For the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000, the impact of the restatements resulting from correcting our self-insured liabilities on net income (loss) was as follows (in thousands):

 
   2003
   2002
   2001
   2000
Net income (loss) as previously reported   $ (17,345 ) $ (28,191 ) $ 5,540   $ 7,118
Restatement adjustment to cost of revenues     (255 )   (256 )   (263 )   499
   
 
 
 
Net income (loss) as restated   $ (17,600 ) $ (28,447 ) $ 5,277   $ 7,617
   
 
 
 

        The adjustments for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000 did not change the amount of income tax expense previously recorded for those periods. For the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, the impact on other accrued expenses resulting from the correction of our self-insured liabilities was as follows (in thousands):

 
   2003
   2002
Other accrued expenses as previously reported   $ 32,240   $ 33,863
Restatement adjustment     1,617     1,362
   
 
Other accrued expenses as restated   $ 33,857   $ 35,225
   
 

        At December 31, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000 and 1999, the impact of this restatement on accumulated deficit was as follows (in thousands):

 
   2003
   2002
   2001
   2000
   1999
  
Accumulated deficit as previously reported   $ (60,921 ) $ (43,576 ) $ (15,385 ) $ (20,477 ) $ (27,147 )
Restatement adjustment     (1,617 )   (1,362 )   (1,106 )   (843 )   (1,342 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
Accumulated deficit as restated   $ (62,538 ) $ (44,938 ) $ (16,491 ) $ (21,320 ) $ (28,489 )
   
 
 
 
 
 

The adjustments had no effect on net cash provided by operating activities.

(2)
Effective as of September 7, 2002, we acquired the assets of the Chemical Services Division of Safety-Kleen Corp. Amounts recorded for the year ended December 31, 2002, for revenues, cost of revenues, selling general and administrative expenses, accretion of environmental liabilities, depreciation and amortization, restructuring, other acquisition costs, other income, loss on

28

(3)
Effective January 1, 2003, we adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 143. Accretion of environmental liabilities for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, and the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, were due primarily to the implementation as of January 1, 2003 of SFAS No. 143 and accretion of the discount for the remedial liabilities assumed as part of the CSD assets acquired. Accretion of environmental liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2002, related to the accretion of the discount for the remedial liabilities assumed in the acquisition of the CSD assets. See "Environmental Liabilities" in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations."

(4)
As further discussed in "Redemption of Series C Preferred Stock" in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," we had outstanding prior to June 30, 2004, 25,000 shares of Series C Convertible Preferred Stock which consisted of two components, namely, the Host Contract and an Embedded Derivative which reflected the right of the holders of the Series C Preferred Stock to convert into our common stock on the terms set forth in the Series C Preferred Stock. The value of the Embedded Derivative was periodically marked to market which resulted in the inclusion of gains (losses) as a component of other income (expense) of $(1.6) million for the six months ended June 30, 2004, and $(1.6) million, $(0.4) million and $0.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

(5)
As further discussed in "The 2004 Refinancing" and "Redemption of Series C Preferred Stock" in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," we repaid on June 30, 2004 our then outstanding debt, redeemed our then outstanding Series C Preferred Stock and settled the Embedded Derivative liability associated with our Series C Preferred Stock. For the year ended December 31, 2004, we recorded refinancing expenses, net, of $7.1 million relating to these activities.

(6)
The fiscal year 2002 provision for income taxes included a $1.1 million charge to provide a valuation allowance for all net deferred tax assets. The fiscal years 2001 and 2000 provision for (benefit from) income taxes include benefits of $1.3 million and $2.4 million, respectively, relating to the partial reversal of a valuation allowance for deferred taxes previously recorded.

(7)
For purposes of calculating the earnings to fixed charges, earnings consist of income (loss) from operations before income taxes less capitalized interest plus amortization of such capitalized interest plus fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense, including capitalized interest, preferred stock dividends, amortization of debt issuance costs and a portion of the operating lease rental expense deemed to be representative of the interest factor. During the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the six months ended June 30, 2004, earnings were not sufficient to cover fixed charges and the deficiency for such periods was $12.212 million, $24.660 million and $5.784 million, respectively.

(8)
For all periods presented, "Adjusted EBITDA" consists of net income (loss) plus accretion of environmental liabilities, depreciation and amortization, net interest expense, provision for (benefit from) income taxes, non-recurring severance charges, other non-recurring refinancing-related expenses, change in value of embedded derivative associated with our previously outstanding Series C Preferred Stock (which we redeemed June 30, 2004), and gain (loss) on sale of fixed assets. Such definition of "Adjusted EBITDA" is the same as the definition of "EBITDA" used in our current credit agreement and indenture for covenant compliance purposes. See below for a reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA to both net income (loss) and net cash provided by operating activities for the specified periods. Our management considers Adjusted EBITDA to be a

29

        The following is a reconciliation of net income (loss) to Adjusted EBITDA for the following periods (in thousands):

 
   Six Months
Ended June 30,
   Year Ended December 31,
  
 
    
   (Restated)
2003
   (Restated)
2002
   (Restated)
2001
   (Restated)
2000
  
 
   2005
   2004
   2004
  
Net income (loss)   $ 12,212   $ (9,310 ) $ 2,600   $ (17,600 ) $ (28,447 ) $ 5,277   $ 7,617  
Accretion of environmental liabilities     5,250     5,207     10,394     11,114     1,199     —     —  
Depreciation and amortization     14,354     11,661     24,094     26,482     15,508     11,113     10,656  
Restructuring costs     —     —     —     (124 )   750     —     —  
Other acquisition costs     —     —     —     —     5,406     —     —  
Loss on refinancings     —     7,099     7,099     —     24,658     —     —  
Interest expense, net     11,907     10,801     22,297     23,724     13,414     10,724     9,795  
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes     1,013     3,526     6,043     5,322     3,787     2,412     (2,016 )
Non-recurring severance charges     —     16     25     1,089     —     —     —  
Other non-recurring refinancing-related expenses     —     1,126     1,326     —     —     —     —  
Change in value of embedded derivative     —     1,590     1,590     379     (129 )   —     —  
Other income     (564 )   —     —     —     —     —     —  
(Gain) on sale of fixed assets     54     (486 )   (724 )   292     24     (60 )   (70 )
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle     —     —     —     66     —     —     —  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Adjusted EBITDA   $ 44,226   $ 31,230   $ 74,744   $ 50,744   $ 36,170   $ 29,466   $ 25,982  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(9)
Capital expenditures include costs in connection with bringing our incinerators into compliance with the new MACT standards as follows: $4.3 million, $18.9 million and $2.3 million during the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002, respectively.

(10)
Long-term obligations (including current portion) include borrowings under our current and former revolving credit facilities.

30

        The following reconciles Adjusted EBITDA to net cash provided by operating activities for the following periods ended (in thousands):

 
   Six Months
Ended June 30,
   Year Ended December 31,
  
 
    
   (Restated)
2003
   (Restated)
2002
   (Restated)
2001
   (Restated)
2000
  
 
   2005
   2004
   2004
  
Adjusted EBITDA   $ 44,226   $ 31,230   $ 74,744   $ 50,744   $ 36,170   $ 29,466   $ 25,982  
Interest expense     (11,907 )   (10,801 )   (22,297 )   (23,724 )   (13,414 )   (10,724 )   (9,795 )
(Provision for) benefit from income taxes     (1,013 )   (3,526 )   (6,043 )   (5,322 )   (3,787 )   (2,412 )   2,016  
Allowance for doubtful accounts     (372 )   479     1,232     2,439     842     587     684  
Amortization of deferred financing costs     739     1,558     2,294     2,467     899     636     345  
Amortization of debt discount     83     —     77     —     388     238     —  
Deferred income taxes     —     —     381     (620 )   1,676     1,347     (2,400 )
(Gain) loss on sale of fixed assets     54     (486 )   (724 )   292     24     (60 )   (70 )
Other income     510     —     —     —     —     —     —  
Other non-recurring refinancing-related expenses and other     —     (1,142 )   (1,351 )   —     —     —     —  
Stock options expensed     47     —     35     29     166     —     —  
Foreign currency loss (gain) on intercompany transactions     (404 )   (600 )   (88 )   996     —     —     —  
Changes in assets and liabilities, net of acquisition                                            
Accounts receivable     (1,465 )   259     (6,058 )   20,265     (9,679 )   451     (5,774 )
Unbilled accounts receivable     (1,567 )   1,159     4,429     4,539     (9,695 )   (382 )   1,669  
Deferred costs     952     (54 )   538     (838 )   (4,433 )   (130 )   (14 )
Prepaid expenses     2,928     (1,477 )   (4,781 )   14     (5,277 )   (399 )   (469 )
Accounts payable     (5,399 )   (945 )   9,249     2,923     12,201     120     374  
Closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities     (11,311 )   (5,715 )   (13,030 )   (8,268 )   (817 )   (115 )   (38 )
Deferred revenue     (4,273 )   699     (1,086 )   (2,121 )   8,693     1,496     154  
Accrued disposal costs     (164 )   464     910     (72 )   (5,060 )   1,285     748  
Income taxes payable     (2,970 )   2,510     (734 )   685     1,214     288     80  
Other, net     340     1,418     14,763     (5,571 )   (4,462 )   2,940     77  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net cash provided by operating activities   $ 9,034   $ 15,030   $ 52,460   $ 38,857   $ 5,649   $ 24,632   $ 13,569  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

31


MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

        You should read the following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations with "Selected Historical Consolidated Financial Data" and our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus. This discussion contains forward-looking statements and involves numerous risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, those described in the "Risk Factors" section of this prospectus. Our actual results may differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. See the section entitled "Disclosure Regarding Forward-Looking Statements" in this prospectus.

Overview

        We provide a wide range of environmental services and solutions to a diversified customer base in the United States, Puerto Rico, Mexico and Canada. We seek to be recognized by customers as the premier supplier of a broad range of value-added environmental services based upon quality, responsiveness, customer service, information technologies, breadth of product offerings and cost effectiveness.

        Effective September 7, 2002, we purchased from Safety-Kleen Services, Inc. and certain of its domestic subsidiaries substantially all of the assets of the Chemical Services Division (the "CSD") of Safety-Kleen Corp. That acquisition broadened our disposal capabilities, geographic reach and significantly expanded our network of hazardous waste disposal facilities. Following the acquisition, we became one of the largest providers of environmental services and the largest operator of hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities in North America. We believe that the acquisition of hazardous waste facilities in new geographic areas has allowed and will continue to allow us to expand our service area and has resulted and will continue to result in significant cost savings by allowing us to treat and dispose of hazardous waste internally for which we previously paid third parties and to eliminate redundant selling, general and administrative expenses and inefficient transportation costs.

        We believe that significant synergies can be achieved by further integrating the former CSD operations into our business. Since the effective date of the acquisition, we have reduced and plan to continue to reduce expenses by use of common information management systems to minimize disposal costs outside the integrated network of facilities by sending waste to the disposal facilities that we now own. We also have eliminated and plan to continue to eliminate duplicate costs relating to overlapping operations on a geographic basis. Although much of the integration of operations and reduction of the combined entities' overlapping costs has been completed, this process is still ongoing.

        In addition, as part of the acquisition, we assumed certain environmental liabilities valued in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States and a plan to settle obligations that was established at the time of the acquisition (and adjusted to reflect information gathered under the plan through the first anniversary of the acquisition relating to the nature and extent of environmental liabilities that existed as of the acquisition date) of approximately $184.5 million. We now anticipate such liabilities will be payable over many years and that cash flows generated from operations will be sufficient to fund the payment of such liabilities when required. However, events not now anticipated (such as future changes in environmental laws and regulations) could require that such payments be made earlier or in greater amounts than now anticipated.

Acquisition

        Effective September 7, 2002, we purchased from Safety-Kleen Services, Inc. (the "Seller") and certain of the Seller's domestic subsidiaries substantially all of the assets of the Chemical Services Division (the "CSD") of Safety-Kleen Corp. ("Safety-Kleen"). The CSD acquisition is included in our

32


results of operations since the acquisition date. The sale included the operating assets of certain of the Seller's subsidiaries in the United States and the stock of five of the Seller's subsidiaries in Canada.

        The assets of the CSD (including the assets of the CSD Canadian Subsidiaries) which we acquired consist primarily of 44 hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities including, among others, 22 transportation, storage or disposal facilities (six of which have since been closed by us), six wastewater treatment facilities (one of which has since been closed by us), nine commercial landfills and four incineration facilities. Such facilities are located in 30 states, Puerto Rico, six Canadian provinces and Mexico. The most significant of such facilities include landfills in Buttonwillow, California with approximately 10.0 million cubic yards of remaining capacity, in Lambton, Ontario with approximately 8.9 million cubic yards of remaining capacity, which is the largest of the total of three hazardous waste landfills in Canada, and in Waynoka, Oklahoma with approximately 1.5 million cubic yards of remaining capacity; and incinerators in Deer Park, Texas which is the largest hazardous waste incineration facility in the United States, and in Aragonite, Utah. Additional significant facilities are the incinerators in Mercier, Quebec and Lambton, Ontario.

        The primary reasons for the acquisition of the CSD assets were to broaden our disposal capabilities and geographic reach, particularly in the West Coast and Southwest regions of the United States, in Canada and in Mexico, and to significantly expand our network of hazardous waste disposal facilities. In addition, we believed that the acquisition of the CSD's hazardous waste facilities in new geographic areas would allow us to expand our site and industrial services which in turn could increase the utilization and profitability of the facilities. Finally, we believed that the acquisition would result in significant cost savings by allowing us to treat hazardous waste internally, for which we previously paid third parties to dispose of hazardous waste because we lacked the facilities required to dispose of the waste internally.

        In accordance with the Acquisition Agreement between the Seller and us dated February 22, 2002, as amended through September 6, 2002, we purchased the assets of the CSD for $26.6 million in net cash, and incurred direct costs related to the transaction of $9.7 million for a total purchase price of $36.3 million. In addition, we assumed with the transaction certain environmental liabilities valued at $184.5 million.

        We have allocated the total purchase price for the CSD assets based upon the estimated fair value of each asset acquired and each liability assumed. The following table shows the final allocation of the

33


purchase price and direct costs incurred among the assets acquired, liabilities assumed, and liabilities accrued relating to the CSD assets acquired (in thousands):

 
   Acquired Assets and
Liabilities as Revised
December 31, 2003
  
Current assets   $ 101,604  
Property, plant and equipment     100,804  
Intangible assets     72,659  
Deferred taxes     5,670  
Other assets     1,888  
Current closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities     (9,076 )
Other current liabilities     (54,749 )
Closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities, long-term     (175,473 )
Other long-term liabilities     (7,000 )
   
 
Cost of CSD assets acquired   $ 36,327  
   
 
Cash purchase price   $ 26,580  
Estimated transaction costs     9,747  
   
 
Cost of CSD assets acquired   $ 36,327  
   
 

        We had the fixed and intangible assets appraised in order to determine the fair values of the property, plant, equipment and intangible assets, which were acquired as part of the assets of the CSD. Intangible assets recorded at $72.6 million consist of $68.2 million of permits and $4.4 million of customer profile databases. The valuation for intangible assets was based on discounted cash flows from operations of the acquired facilities to which those permits and customer profile databases relate. We concluded that the intangible assets acquired have finite lives and will amortize these assets over their estimated useful lives. As the fair value of the assets acquired from the CSD is higher than the purchase price paid, we reduced the recorded value of the fixed assets and intangible assets as of the acquisition date by $302.5 million in order to record the assets at cost as required by generally accepted accounting principles in the United States after adjusting for changes in estimates. We allocated $12.7 million of the purchase price to properties held for sale as discussed in Note 6 to our audited consolidated financial statements for the three years ended December 31, 2004 included elsewhere in this prospectus.

        In connection with the acquisition of the CSD assets, we recorded integration liabilities of $11.9 million (after giving effect to subsequent net changes in estimates) which consisted primarily of lease costs, severance, environmental closure and other exit costs to close duplicative facilities and functions. Groups of employees severed and to be severed consist primarily of duplicative selling, general and administrative personnel and personnel at offices which were closed. The following table

34


summarizes the purchase accounting liabilities recorded in connection with the acquisition of the CSD assets (dollars in thousands):

 
   Severance
   Facilities
    
    
  
 
   Number of
Employees
   Liability
   Number of
Facilities
   Liability
   Other
Liability
   Total
Liability
  
Original reserve established   461   $ 9,076   12   $ 3,604   $ 528   $ 13,208  
Net change in estimate   —     —   —     (59 )   (206 )   (265 )
Utilized through December 31, 2002   (238 )   (4,300 ) (2 )   (15 )   (92 )   (4,407 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Balance December 31, 2002   223     4,776   10     3,530     230     8,536  
Net change in estimate   93     (228 ) (1 )   (205 )   77     (356 )
Interest accretion   —     —   —     416     —     416  
Utilized year ended December 31, 2003   (264 )   (3,872 ) —     (810 )   (307 )   (4,989 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Balance December 31, 2003   52     676   9     2,931     —     3,607  
Net change in estimate   (41 )   (246 ) —     (423 )   —     (669 )
Interest accretion   —     —   —     221     —     221  
Utilized year ended December 31, 2004   (6 )   (402 ) (1 )   (1,021 )   —     (1,423 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Balance December 31, 2004   5   $ 28   8   $ 1,708   $ —   $ 1,736  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

        The balance of purchase accounting liabilities at December 31, 2004 of $1.7 million consists almost entirely of long-term closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

        The preparation of our financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosures of contingent liabilities. The following are the areas that we believe require the greatest amount of judgments or estimates in the preparation of the financial statements: revenue allowance, deferred revenue, allowance for doubtful accounts, accounting for landfills, testing assets for impairment, environmental liabilities, insurance expense, legal matters, and provision for income taxes. Our management discusses each of these critical accounting estimates with the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors prior to each release of our annual financial statements.

        Revenue Allowance.    We respond to emergencies that pose an immediate threat to public health or the environment and must take action in the field as events unfold. Historically, once the emergency is contained, customers may withhold payment and attempt to renegotiate amounts invoiced. Credits issued in subsequent periods can differ materially from the revenue allowance provided. We establish a revenue allowance to cover the estimated amounts of revenue that may need to be credited to customers' accounts in future periods. The allowance is established based on experience and, when available, based on specific information relating to jobs performed.

        Deferred Revenue.    In accordance with customary practice in the environmental services industry, we normally submit a bill for services shortly after waste is collected from a customer location and prior to completion of the waste disposal process. We recognize revenue for waste disposal services only when the waste is placed into a landfill, incinerated, treated in a wastewater treatment facility or shipped to a third party for disposal. The amount of deferred revenue stated on our balance sheet as of June 30, 2005 was $17.7 million. Because a large quantity of waste is on hand and in transit at the end of any month, waste from various sources is mixed subsequent to receipt, waste is received in various size containers, and the amount of waste per container can vary significantly, the calculation of deferred revenue requires the use of significant estimates such as of the average revenue charged for a type of waste and of the average waste volume contained within various size containers.

35


        Allowance for Doubtful Accounts.    We establish an allowance for doubtful accounts to cover accounts receivable that may not be collectible. In establishing the allowance for doubtful accounts, we analyze the collectibility of accounts that are large or past due. In addition, we consider historical bad debts and current economic trends in evaluating the allowance for doubtful accounts. Accounts receivable written off in subsequent periods can differ materially from the allowance for doubtful accounts provided.

        Accounting for Landfills.    We utilize the life cycle method of accounting for landfill costs and the units of consumption method to amortize landfill construction and asset retirement costs and record closure and post-closure obligations over the estimated remaining useful life of a landfill. Under this method, we include future estimated construction and asset retirement costs, as well as costs incurred to date, in the amortization base. Additionally, we include probable expansion airspace that has yet to be permitted costs in the calculation of the total remaining useful life of the landfill. This accounting method requires us to make estimates and assumptions, as described below. Any changes in our estimates will impact our income from operations prospectively from the date the changes are made.

        Landfill Assets—We assess the total cost to develop each landfill site to its capacity based on highly probable airspace. This includes certain projected landfill costs that are uncertain because they are dependent on future events. The total cost to develop a site to its final capacity includes amounts previously expended and capitalized, net of accumulated airspace amortization, and projections of future purchase and development costs and construction costs.

        Closure and Post-Closure Costs—The costs for closure and post-closure obligations at landfills we own or operate are estimated based on our interpretations of current requirements and proposed or anticipated regulatory changes. The estimates for landfill cell closure, final closure and post-closure costs also consider when the costs would actually be paid and factor in inflation and discount rates. The possibility of changing legal and regulatory requirements and the forward-looking nature of these types of costs make any estimation or assumption uncertain.

        Available Airspace—Our engineers and accountants determine the useful life of our landfills by estimating the available airspace. This is done by using surveys and other methods to calculate, based on height restrictions and other factors, how much airspace is left to fill and how much waste can be disposed of at a landfill before it has reached its final capacity.

        Expansion Airspace—We apply a comprehensive set of criteria for evaluating the probability of obtaining a permit for future expansion airspace at existing sites, which provides management a sufficient basis to evaluate the likelihood of success of unpermitted expansions. These criteria are as follows:

36

        These criteria are initially evaluated by our field-based engineers, accountants, managers and others to identify potential obstacles to obtaining the permits. However, our policy provides that, based on the facts and circumstances of a specific landfill, inclusion of unpermitted airspace may still be allowed even if these criteria are not met. In these circumstances, inclusion must be approved through a landfill-specific process that includes approval of our Chief Financial Officer and a review by the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors. When we include the expansion airspace in our calculations of available airspace, we also include the projected costs for final capping, and closure and post-closure of the expansion in the amortization basis of the landfill.

        It is possible that any of our estimates or assumptions could ultimately turn out to be significantly different from actual results. In some cases we may be unsuccessful in obtaining an expansion permit or we may determine that an expansion permit that we previously thought was probable has become unlikely. To the extent that such estimates, or the assumptions used to make those estimates, prove to be significantly different than actual results or our belief that we will receive an expansion permit changes adversely in a significant manner, the costs of the landfill, including the costs incurred in the pursuit of the expansion, may be subject to impairment testing, as described below, and lower prospective profitability may be experienced due to increased interest accretion and depreciation or asset impairments related to the removal of previously included expansion airspace.

        Testing Assets for Impairment.    Testing assets for impairment requires projecting current earnings and cash flows into future periods based on expected trends. In addition, testing assets for impairment requires that judgments be made regarding reporting units and asset groupings. Starting in 2002, goodwill was tested for impairment based on estimated future discounted cash flows. Other assets are tested for impairment based on estimated undiscounted cash flows. Estimating future cash flows requires making projections that can differ materially from actual results.

        Environmental Liabilities.    As more fully discussed under "Business—Environmental Regulation" elsewhere in this prospectus, our waste management facilities are continuously regulated by federal, state, provincial and local laws enacted to regulate discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise protect the environment. In addition, in connection with our acquisition of the assets of the CSD in September 2002, we agreed to assume certain environmental liabilities of the CSD as part of the purchase price for the CSD assets. As of June 30, 2005, we had recorded discounted remedial liabilities of $148.7 million. We also estimate that it is "reasonably possible" as that term is defined in SFAS No. 5 ("more than remote but less than likely"), that the amount of such remedial liabilities could be up to $22.0 million greater than such $148.7 million.

        Remedial liabilities are inherently difficult to estimate. Estimating remedial liabilities requires that the existing environmental contamination be understood. There is a risk that the actual quantities of contaminates differ from the results of the site investigation, and there is a risk that contaminants exist that have not been identified by the site investigation. In addition, the amount of remedial liabilities recorded is dependent on the remedial method selected. There is a risk that funds will be expended on a remedial solution that is not successful, which could result in the additional incremental costs of an alternative solution. Such estimates, which are subject to change, are subsequently revised if and when additional information becomes available.

37


        In addition, we must estimate the timing of payments for environmental liabilities years into the future. Because most of our environmental liabilities are discounted to reflect the respective dates on which we expect to make environmental expenditures, significant acceleration in the timing of payments could result in material charges to earnings. Net reductions in our estimates of environmental liabilities resulted in increases to our reported results of operations of $3.3 million, $0.3 million, and $7.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2004, and 2003, and the six months ended June 30, 2005, respectively.

        Insurance Expense.    It is our policy to retain a significant portion of certain expected losses related primarily to workers' compensation, health insurance, comprehensive general and vehicle liability. Accruals are established for incurred losses based on information that is known at the time. Recording health insurance expense requires that estimates be made of the cost of health benefits to be provided in future periods. Actual expenditures required in future periods can differ materially from accruals established based on estimates. As described under "Selected Historical Consolidated Financial Data," we restated our financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, and financial information for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999, in order to correct errors relating to the methodology we had established for estimating our workers' compensation and motor vehicle liability claims. The effect of the restatement was to increase cost of revenues by $0.3 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002.

        Legal Matters.    As described in "Legal Proceedings" elsewhere in this prospectus, we are subject to legal proceedings which relate to the acquisition of the CSD assets or which have arisen in the ordinary course of business. Accruals are established for legal matters when, in our opinion, it is probable that a liability exists and the liability can be reasonably estimated. As of June 30, 2005, we had reserves of $34.1 million (substantially all of which we had established as part of the purchase price for the CSD assets) relating to our potential liabilities in connection with such legal proceedings which were then pending or anticipated. We also estimate that it is "reasonably possible" as that term is defined in SFAS No. 5 (more than remote but less than likely), that the amount of such total liabilities could be up to $3.0 million greater than such $34.1 million. Because all of our reasonably possible additional losses relating to legal proceedings liabilities relate to remedial liabilities, the reasonably possible additional losses for legal liabilities are reflected in the tables of reasonably possible additional losses under the heading "Environmental Liabilities" below. Estimates of the cost to settle disputes are adjusted as facts emerge. Actual expenses incurred in future periods can differ materially from accruals established. Substantially all of our legal proceedings liabilities are environmental liabilities and, as such, are included in the tables of changes to remedial liabilities disclosed as part of this Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations below.

        Provision for Income Taxes.    We are required to estimate the provision for income taxes, including the current tax expense together with assessing temporary differences resulting from differing treatments of assets and liabilities for tax and financial accounting purposes. These differences together with net operating loss carryforwards and tax credits are recorded as deferred tax assets or liabilities on the balance sheet. An assessment must then be made of the likelihood that the deferred tax assets will be recovered from future taxable income. To the extent that we determine that it is more likely than not that the deferred asset will not be utilized, a valuation allowance is established. Taxable income in future periods significantly above or below that now projected will cause adjustments to the valuation allowance that could materially decrease or increase future income tax expense.

        We attempt to make realistic estimates in providing allowances for assets and recording liabilities. Because estimates are made in good faith, our experience has been that overestimates in one area are often offset by underestimates in other areas. We believe that in the future it is probable that an unexpected event (such as the sudden bankruptcy of a significant customer or supplier that was previously believed to be a large and stable company) could materially affect our results of operations

38


of a future period; however, due to our risk management programs, we believe that such an event would not be material to our financial condition.

Results of Operations

        Our operations are managed as two segments: Technical Services and Site Services.

        Technical Services include treatment and disposal of industrial wastes via incineration, landfill or wastewater treatment; collection and transporting of all containerized and bulk waste; categorization, specialized repackaging, treatment and disposal of laboratory chemicals and household hazardous wastes, which are referred to as CleanPack® services; and the Apollo Onsite Services, which customize environmental programs at customer sites. This is accomplished through a network of service centers where a fleet of trucks, rail or other transport is dispatched to pick up customers' waste either on a pre-determined schedule or on demand, and then to deliver waste to a permitted facility. From the service centers, chemists can also be dispatched to a customer location for the collection of chemical waste for disposal.

        Site Services provide highly skilled experts utilizing specialty equipment and resources to perform services, such as industrial maintenance, surface remediation, groundwater restoration, site and facility decontamination, emergency response, site remediation, PCB disposal and oil disposal at the customer's site or another location. These services are dispatched on a scheduled or emergency basis. We also offer outsourcing services for customer environmental management programs and provide analytical testing services, information management and personnel training services.

        The operations not managed through our two operating segments are presented herein as "Corporate Items." Corporate item revenues consist of two different operations where the revenues are insignificant and represents approximately one-tenth of one percent of our total revenues. Corporate item cost of revenues represents certain central services that are not allocated to the segments for internal reporting purposes. Corporate item selling, general and administrative expenses include typical corporate items such as legal, accounting and other items of a general corporate nature that are not allocated to our two segments.

        The following table sets forth for the periods indicated certain operating data associated with our results of operations. This table and subsequent discussions should be read in conjunction with

39

"Selected Historical Consolidated Financial Data" and our financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.

 
   Six Months Ended
June 30,
   Year Ended December 31,
  
 
    
   (Restated)
2003
   (Restated)
2002
   (Restated)
2001
   (Restated)
2000
  
 
   2005
   2004
   2004
  
Revenues   100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %
Cost of revenues:                              
  Disposal costs to third parties   4.3   3.9   4.0   4.8   7.0   9.2   10.9  
  Other cost of revenues   68.0   69.5   68.3   69.4   65.1   61.7   60.1  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Total cost of revenues   72.3   73.4   72.3   74.2   72.1   70.9   71.0  
Selling, general and administrative expenses   14.7   16.8   16.2   17.8   17.7   17.4   17.8  
Accretion of environmental liabilities   1.5   1.7   1.6   1.8   0.3   —   —  
Depreciation and amortization   4.2   3.8   3.8   4.3   4.4   4.4   4.6  
Restructuring   —   —   —   —   0.2   —   —  
Other acquisition costs   —   —   —   —   1.5   —   —  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income from operations   7.3   4.3   6.1   1.9   3.8   7.3   6.6  
Other income (expense)   0.1   (0.4 ) (0.2 ) —   —   —   —  
(Loss) on refinancings   —   (2.3 ) (1.1 ) —   (7.0 ) —   —  
Interest expense, net   (3.5 ) (3.5 ) (3.5 ) (3.9 ) (3.8 ) (4.2 ) (4.2 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle   3.9   (1.9 ) 1.3   (2.0 ) (7.0 ) 3.1   2.4  
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes   0.3   1.2   0.9   0.9   1.1   1.0   (0.9 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle   3.6   (3.1 ) 0.4   (2.9 ) (8.1 ) 2.1   3.3  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle   —   —   —   —   —   —   —  
Net income (loss)   3.6 % (3.1 )% 0.4 % (2.9 )% (8.1 )% 2.1 % 3.3 %
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

        Performance of our segments is evaluated on several factors of which the primary financial measure is Adjusted EBITDA. The following table sets forth certain operating data associated with our results of operations and summarizes Adjusted EBITDA contribution by operating segment for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 and each of the three years ended December 31, 2004. See footnote (8) to the "Selected Historical Consolidated Financial Data" elsewhere in this prospectus for a description of the calculation of Adjusted EBITDA and a reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA to net income (loss) and net cash provided by operating activities. We consider the Adjusted EBITDA contribution from each operating segment to include revenue attributable to each segment less operating expenses, which include cost of revenues and selling, general and administrative expenses. Revenue attributable to each segment is generally external or direct revenue from third party customers. Certain income or expenses of a non-recurring or unusual nature are not included in the operating segment Adjusted EBITDA contribution. This table and subsequent discussions should be read in conjunction with "Selected Historical Consolidated Financial Data" and the financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus, in particular Note 23, "Segment Reporting" to our audited

40

financial statements for the three years ended December 31, 2004 and Note 16, "Segment Reporting" to our unaudited financial statements for the six months ended June 30, 2005.

 
   Six Months Ended June 30,
   Years ended December 31,
  
 
    
   (Restated)
2003(1)
   (Restated)
2002(1)
  
 
   2005
   2004
   2004
  
 
   (in thousands)

  
Revenue:                                
  Technical Services   $ 224,807   $ 215,678   $ 444,617   $ 422,777   $ 220,085  
  Site Services     113,591     88,502     198,609     187,742     128,873  
  Corporate Items     478     208     (7 )   450     1,175  
   
 
 
 
 
 
    Total     338,876     304,388     643,219     610,969     350,133  
   
 
 
 
 
 
Cost of Revenues:                                
  Technical Services     154,086     146,399     297,926     290,882     144,730  
  Site Services     88,804     72,164     159,042     148,196     101,773  
  Corporate Items     2,091     4,739     7,870     14,383     5,966  
   
 
 
 
 
 
    Total     244,981     223,302     464,838     453,461     252,469  
   
 
 
 
 
 
Selling, General & Administrative Expenses:                                
  Technical Services     24,654     23,045     48,748     48,585     26,627  
  Site Services     10,744     8,604     18,449     16,999     11,734  
  Corporate Items     14,271     18,207     36,440     41,472     23,157  
   
 
 
 
 
 
    Total     49,669     49,856     103,637     107,056     61,518  
   
 
 
 
 
 
Adjusted EBITDA:                                
  Technical Services     46,067     46,234     97,943     83,310     48,728  
  Site Services     14,043     7,734     21,118     22,547     15,366  
  Corporate Items     (15,884 )   (22,738 )   (44,317 )   (55,113 )   (27,924 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
    Total(2)   $ 44,226   $ 31,230   $ 74,744   $ 50,744   $ 36,170  
   
 
 
 
 
 
(1)
Certain reclassifications have been made to conform to the current period presentation.

(2)
See "Selected Historical Consolidated Financial Data" for a discussion of Adjusted EBITDA.

Six Months ended June 30, 2005 versus the Six Months ended June 30, 2004

        Total revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2005 increased $34.5 million to $338.9 million from $304.4 million for the comparable period in 2004. Technical Services revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2005 increased $9.1 million to $224.8 million from $215.7 million for the comparable period in 2004. The primary increases in Technical Services revenues consisted of a favorable price variance of waste processed through our facilities of $8.3 million, $3.9 million due to a strengthening in the Canadian dollar, a $4.6 million increase in CleanPack® and transportation base revenues, and a $0.9 million increase in the recycling and reclamation revenues. Partially offsetting these increases was a decrease in revenues of $10.4 million due to an unfavorable volume variance of waste processed through our facilities. The favorable price variance and the unfavorable volume variance of waste processed through our facilities were both due to lower levels of project revenues that tend to have lower gross margins for the six months ended June 30, 2005 as compared to the same period of the prior year. Site Services revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2005 increased $25.1 million to $113.6 million from $88.5 million for the comparable period in 2004. Site Services performed two large emergency response jobs during the six months ended June 30, 2005, which accounted for 11.3% of its revenues for that period. There was no comparable job performed in the six months ended June 30, 2004. Excluding these two large jobs, revenue increased $12.3 million, or 13.8%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 as a result of growth initiatives

41

in Canada and the Western United States and an improving economy. Corporate revenues for the period increased $0.3 million from $0.2 million to $0.5 million.

        Total cost of revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2005 increased $21.7 million to $245.0 million compared to $223.3 million for the comparable period in 2004. Technical Services cost of revenue increased $7.7 million to $154.1 million from $146.4 million for the comparable period in 2004. Cost of Revenues for the Technical Services increased by approximately $1.8 million due to the strengthening of the Canadian dollar, costs associated with increased revenues including $1.9 million increase in employee labor costs, $1.5 million increase in materials and supplies costs, $0.7 million in outside disposal and $2.6 million in increased fuel, utility and other processing costs. These increases were partially offset by reduced outside transportation costs of approximately $1.3 million. Site Services cost of revenue increased $16.6 million to $88.8 million from $72.2 million for the comparable period in 2004. The increase in cost of revenues for Site Services was attributable to costs related to two major emergency responses in comparison to the same period in 2004 and the opening of additional service locations. As a percentage of revenues, combined cost of revenues in 2005 decreased 1.1% to 72.3% from 73.4% for the comparable period in 2004. This improvement resulted primarily due to our internalization of transportation initiatives, offset by increased outside disposal costs in Site Services. Corporate Items cost of revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2005 decreased $2.6 million to $2.1 million from $4.7 million for the comparable period in 2004. The decrease in Corporate Items cost of revenue was primarily due to changes in estimates of environmental liabilities which resulted in a benefit of $1.9 million recorded in the first quarter of 2005, reduced insurance claims as well as system enhancements that now result in substantially all waste fees being billed to our customers.

        Selling, general and administrative expenses for the six months ended June 30, 2005 decreased $0.2 million to $49.7 million from $49.9 million for the comparable period in 2004. Technical Services selling, general and administrative costs increased $1.7 million to $24.7 million from $23.0 million for the comparable period in 2004 primarily due to a $0.6 million increase in salary and employee benefit costs, a $0.6 million increase in contract and temporary labor, $0.2 million increase in sales commissions, $0.3 million change in estimate of environmental liabilities. Site Services selling, general and administrative expenses for the six months ended June 30, 2005 increased $2.1 million to $10.7 million from $8.6 million for the comparable period in 2004. The increases were related to increased headcount in new locations, increased incentive compensation due to emergency response projects, and increased sales related expenses. Corporate Items selling, general and administrative expenses for the six months ended June 30, 2005 decreased $3.9 million to $14.3 million from $18.2 million for the comparable period in 2004 due to changes in estimates of environmental liabilities of $4.2 million, lower bonus accruals of $1.4 million offset by an increase in professional fees of $1.7 million. The overall benefit to selling, general and administrative expenses related to changes in estimates of environmental liabilities was $5.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and $0.8 million for the comparable period in 2004.

        The combined Adjusted EBITDA contribution by segments for the six months ended June 30, 2005 increased $13.0 million to $44.2 million from $31.2 million for the comparable period in 2004. The contribution of Technical Services decreased $0.2 million. Site Services contribution improved $6.3 million and Corporate Items cost increased $6.9 million. The combined Adjusted EBITDA contribution is comprised of revenues of $338.9 million and $304.4 million, net of cost of revenues of

42

$245.0 million and $223.3 million and selling, general and administrative expenses of $49.7 million and $49.9 million for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

        Accretion of environmental liabilities for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 was similar at $5.2 million and $5.2 million, respectively.

        Depreciation and amortization expense for the six months ended June 30, 2005 increased $2.7 million to $14.4 million from $11.7 million for the comparable period in 2004. The increase was primarily due to additions to fixed assets related to purchase accounting adjustments in late 2004, additions incurred in 2004 at our Deer Park incineration facility in order to comply with the Interim Standards of the Hazardous Waste Combustor Maximum Achievable Control Technology (the "HWC MACT") rule and an increase in amortization related to cell construction at our landfill sites.

        For the six-months ended June 30, 2005, other income of $0.5 million consisted almost entirely of a gain relating to the settlement of an insurance claim.

        As described in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2004, we issued Series C Preferred Stock for $25.0 million in September 2002. The Series C Preferred Stock was recorded on our financial statements as though it consisted of two components, namely (i) non-convertible redeemable preferred stock with a 6.0% annual dividend, and (ii) an embedded derivative (the "Embedded Derivative") which reflected the right of the holders of the Series C Preferred Stock to convert the Series C Preferred Stock into our common stock. On June 30, 2004, we redeemed the Series C Preferred Stock and settled the Embedded Derivative liability. Just prior to the settlement, we valued the Embedded Derivative using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The Black-Scholes model determines the value of an option primarily by considering the strike price of the option, the market value of the stock and the volatility of the stock price. The strike price of the Embedded Derivative was $8.00. For the six month period ended June 30, 2004, we recorded other expense related to the Embedded Derivative of $1.6 million primarily because of the market price increase of our common stock that occurred during that period.

        As further discussed below under "The 2004 Refinancing," we previously had outstanding a $100.0 million three-year revolving credit facility (the "Revolving Credit Facility"), $115.0 million of three-year non-amortizing term loans (the "Senior Loans"), $40.0 million of five-year non-amortizing subordinated loans (the "Subordinated Loans"), Series C Convertible Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value (the "Series C Preferred Stock") and the related embedded derivative (the "Embedded Derivative") which reflected the right of the holders of the Series C Preferred Stock to convert into our common stock on the terms set forth in the Series C Preferred Stock. On June 30, 2004, we repaid the Revolving Credit Facility, the Senior Loans and the Subordinated Loans, redeemed the Series C Convertible Preferred Stock and settled the related Embedded Derivative liability. We recorded a loss on refinancing of $7.1 million during the three-month period ended June 30, 2004. Such loss consisted of the write-off of deferred financing costs of $5.3 million, prepayment penalties of $3.1 million and other expenses of $0.3 million. These expenses were partially offset by the gain on the settlement of the Embedded Derivative of $1.6 million.

43

        Interest expense, net of interest income, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 increased $1.1 million to $11.9 million from $10.8 million for the comparable period in 2004. The increase was primarily due to $1.3 million of interest that was capitalized, effectively reducing net interest expense in 2004, relating to a capital project to comply with air emission standards at our Deer Park incineration facility, which was partially offset by a $0.2 million decrease in the risk management letter of credit fees for the six months ended June 30, 2005, as compared to the same period in 2004.

        Income tax expense for the six months ended June 30, 2005 decreased $2.5 million to $1.0 million from $3.5 million for the comparable period in 2004. Income tax expense for the six months ended June 30, 2005 consisted primarily of Canadian taxes of $0.8 million, federal alternative minimum tax of $0.1 million, and state income tax expense of approximately $0.1 million. Income tax expense for the six months ended June 30, 2004 consisted primarily of Canadian taxes of $3.4 million, state income tax expense of approximately $0.2 million, partially offset by a federal tax benefit of $0.1 million related to the 2000 alternative minimum tax carryback refund. The decrease in Canadian tax expense was the result of a decrease in net income of our Canadian operations, which is primarily attributable to increased interest expense of our Canadian operations. We had approximately $45.2 million of net operating loss carryforwards at December 31, 2004. During the six month period ended June 30, 2005, there were no significant changes to the year end net operating loss carryforward, primarily due to book income being offset by tax deductions for non-qualified stock options and other timing differences.

        As more fully described below under "Redemption of Series C Preferred Stock," we redeemed 25,000 shares of Series C Preferred Stock on June 30, 2004. For the six-month period ended June 30, 2005, redemption of Series C Redeemable Preferred Stock and dividends and accretion on preferred stocks consisted of dividends on our Series B Convertible Preferred Stock of $140 thousand.

        For the six-month period ended June 30, 2004, redemption of Series C Redeemable Preferred Stock and dividends and accretion on preferred stocks consisted of the following: redemption of the Series C Redeemable Preferred Stock of $9.9 million, dividends on preferred stocks of $1.0 million, and amortization of preferred stock discount and issuance costs of $0.7 million.

Year ended December 31, 2004 versus Year ended December 31, 2003

        Total revenues for 2004 increased $32.2 million or 5.3% to $643.2 million for 2004 from $611.0 for 2003. Technical Services revenues for 2004 increased $21.8 million or 5.2% to $444.6 million for 2004 from $422.8 million for 2003. Waste volume variances added $36.4 million in revenue comparing from 2003 to 2004. Of this amount, $31.0 million is attributed to Technical Services customers and $5.4 million relates to Site Services customers. 2004 pricing variance decreased $24.2 million from 2003 to 2004. $20.7 million relates to Technical Services accounts and $3.6 million relates to Site Services accounts. Additionally, the increases in Technical Services revenues resulted from improved CleanPack volumes of $3.4 million and increased transportation revenues of $3.4 million. Site Services revenues for 2004 increased $10.9 million or 5.8% to $198.6 million for 2004 from $187.7 million for 2003. We performed a large emergency response job in the year ended December 31, 2003, which accounted for 11.0% of Site Services revenues for that period. In the year ended December 31, 2004, several large emergency response jobs accounted for 5.5% of revenue. Excluding these large jobs, revenue increased $20.6 million, or 12.4%, for the year ended December 31, 2004 compared to the year ended

44

December 31, 2003 as a result of growth initiatives in Gulf and Western United States, increased volumes of large industrial services projects, significant improvements in oil and PCB recycling divisions related to commodity sales and an improving economy. Changes in foreign exchange rates positively impacted consolidated sales by approximately $5.9 million.

        There are many factors which have impacted, and continue to impact, our revenues. These factors include: economic conditions; integration of operations of the former CSD; competitive industry pricing; continued efforts by generators of hazardous waste to reduce the amount of hazardous waste they produce; significant consolidation among treatment and disposal companies; industry-wide overcapacity; and direct shipment by generators of waste to the ultimate treatment or disposal location. We believe that inflation did not have any significant effect on revenues during the three years ended December 31, 2004.

        Total cost of revenues for 2004 increased $11.3 million or 2.5% to $464.8 million compared to $453.5 million for 2003. Technical Services costs of revenues increased $7.0 million or 2.4% to $297.9 million from $290.9 million in 2003. Site Services cost of revenue increased $10.8 million or 7.3% to $159.0 million from $148.2 million in 2003. Corporate Items cost of revenues decreased $6.5 million to $7.9 million from $14.4 million in 2003. Technical Services cost of revenue as a percent of revenue decreased 1.8% from 68.8% in 2003 to 67.0% in 2004. Increased costs associated with increased revenues for Technical Services includes processing costs of $3.7 million and subcontracted services of $1.2 million. Other significant cost variances include reduction in equipment rentals of $0.9 million, outside disposal costs reduced by $2.9 million and increase in equipment repairs of $3.0 million. Foreign exchange translation related to cost of revenues totaled $2.7 million. Site Services cost of revenue as a percent of revenue increased 1.2% to 80.1% in 2004 from 78.9% in 2003. This increase was attributable to increased non-event revenue of $4.1 million, startup costs of new Site Services locations and margin erosion due to increased competitive factors. The decrease in cost of revenue for Corporate departments was due to reduced costs at our discontinued waste handling facilities. As a percentage of revenues, combined cost of revenues in 2004 decreased 1.9% to 72.3% from 74.2% in 2003.

        We believe that our ability to manage operating costs is an important in our ability to remain price competitive. We continue upgrade the quality and efficiency of our waste treatment services through the development of new technology, continued modifications and upgrades at our facilities, and implementation of strategic sourcing initiatives. We plan to continue to focus on achieving cost savings relating to purchased goods and services through the strategic sourcing initiative. No assurance can be given that our efforts to manage future operating expenses will be successful.

        Selling, general and administrative expenses in 2004 decreased $3.9 million to $104.5 million from $108.4 million for 2003. Technical Services selling, general and administrative expenses increased $0.1 million to $48.7 million from $48.6 million for 2003. Site Services selling, general and administrative expenses increased by $1.4 million to $18.4 million from $17.0 million in 2003. Increases for Site Services were related to allocations from sales and administrative support. Corporate Items selling, general and administrative expenses for 2004 decreased $5.1 million to $36.4 million from $41.5 million in 2003. The decrease was due to reduced currency exchange expense of $1.8 million, decreases in headcount resulting in savings of $3.9 million, decreased professional fees of $2.8 million, a decrease in the expense for doubtful accounts of $1.3 million due to the fact that 2003 included an increase in the reserve of approximately $1.6 million, a $3.0 million reduction in employee benefits due to lower headcount and benefit plan changes as well as overall improved controls over expenses. These expense reductions were offset by higher bonus accruals (an increase of $7.6 million mainly for sales

45

and management incentive bonuses) and expenses associated with the refinancing of our capital structure in June 2004 as well as $1.4 million in expenses related to Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 compliance.

        Accretion of environmental liabilities for 2004 and 2003 was similar at $10.4 million and $11.1 million, respectively.

        Depreciation and amortization expense of $24.1 million for 2004 decreased from $26.5 million for 2003 due to changes in estimates in landfill lives and changes in estimates in useful lives of certain assets of $3.5 million, which was offset by an increase in amortization and depreciation due to capital additions. The impact of the changes in estimate on dilutive loss per share for the year ended December 31, 2004 was a decrease in the loss of $0.25 per common share.

        As more fully described below under "Redemption of Series C Preferred Stock," we issued 25,000 shares of Series C Convertible Preferred Stock ("Series C Preferred Stock") for $25.0 million in September 2002. The Series C Preferred Stock was recorded on our financial statements as though it consisted of two components, namely (i) non-convertible redeemable preferred stock with a 6.0% annual dividend (the "Host Contract"), and (ii) an embedded derivative (the "Embedded Derivative") which reflected the right of the holders of the Series C Preferred Stock to convert the Series C Preferred Stock into our common stock. On June 30, 2004, we redeemed the Series C Preferred Stock and settled the Embedded Derivative liability. Just prior to the settlement, we valued the Embedded Derivative using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The Black-Scholes model determines the value of an option primarily by considering the strike price of the option, the market value of the stock and the volatility of the stock price. The strike price of the Embedded Derivative was $8.00. The settlement of the Embedded Derivative liability on June 30, 2004 will result in no additional other income (expense) being recorded in future periods related to the Embedded Derivative. For the year ended December 31, 2004, we recorded other expense related to the Embedded Derivative of $1.6 million primarily because of the market price increase of our common stock that occurred during the first half of 2004. For the year ended December 31, 2003, we recorded other expense of $0.4 million for the change in the fair value of the Embedded Derivative because the market price decline of our common stock that occurred during 2003, partially offset by the decrease of the strike price on the embedded derivative from $10.50 to $8.00 that occurred because both (i) the Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA for the year ended December 31, 2003 was less than $115 million and (ii) the average trading price for our common stock for the month of December 2003 was less than $27.50. Partially offsetting the expense on the Embedded Derivative during the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 were, respectively, a net gain and net loss on the disposal of fixed assets of $0.3 million and $0.3 million.

        As further discussed below in "The 2004 Refinancing," we previously had outstanding a $100.0 million three-year revolving credit facility (the "Revolving Credit Facility"), $115.0 million of three-year non-amortizing term loans (the "Senior Loans"), $40.0 million of five-year non-amortizing subordinated loans (the "Subordinated Loans"), the Series C Preferred Stock, and the related Embedded Derivative which reflected the right of the holders of the Series C Preferred Stock to convert into our common stock on the terms set forth in the Series C Preferred Stock. On June 30, 2004, we repaid the Revolving Credit Facility, the Senior Loans and the Subordinated Loans, redeemed

46

the Series C Preferred Stock, and settled the related Embedded Derivative liability. We recorded losses associated with our debt refinancing of $7.1 million during the period ended June 30, 2004. Such expenses consisted of write-off of deferred financing costs of $5.3 million, prepayment penalties of $3.1 million and other expenses of $0.3 million. These expenses were partially offset by the gain on the settlement of the Embedded Derivative of $1.6 million.

        Interest expense, net of interest income for 2004, decreased $1.4 million to $22.3 million from $23.7 million for 2003. The decrease in interest expense was primarily due to $1.9 million of capitalized interest relating to a capital project to comply with air emission standards at our Deer Park incineration facility, which was partially offset by reduced interest income on our restricted cash balances and a slight increase in interest expense on capital leases for 2004 as compared to 2003.

        Based on current interest rates and the balance of loans outstanding at June 30, 2005, we estimate that interest expense for 2005 will be between $23.0 million and $24.0 million.

        Income tax expense in 2004 increased $0.7 million to $6.0 million from $5.3 million for 2003. Income tax expense for 2004 consists primarily of Canadian taxes of $6.1 million including withholding taxes of $1.1 million and a net Federal and state income tax benefits of $74 thousand. Income tax expense for 2003 consisted primarily of current tax expense relating to the Canadian operations of $5.7 million and $0.2 million of current state income tax expense due primarily to the profitable operations of certain of our subsidiaries. The 2003 current tax expense was partially offset by foreign deferred tax benefit of $0.6 million.

        The provision for income taxes in relation to income before provision for income taxes and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle was driven primarily by the profitability of our Canadian operations and the losses experienced in our U.S. operations.

        On June 30, 2004, we refinanced our then outstanding debt. As a part of the refinancing, one of our Canadian subsidiaries made a $91.7 million (U.S.) investment in the preferred stock of one of our domestic subsidiaries and issued, in partial payment for such investment, a promissory note for $89.4 million (U.S) payable to one of our domestic subsidiaries. The interest rate on such promissory note is 11.0% per annum. The effect of this transaction was to increase interest income of a U.S. subsidiary and to increase interest expense of a foreign subsidiary. For the year ended December 31, 2005, the full year effect of this transaction will be reflected in our statement of operations.

        SFAS No. 109, "Accounting for Income Taxes," requires that a valuation allowance be established when, based on an evaluation of verifiable evidence, there is a likelihood that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. We continually review the adequacy of the valuation allowance for deferred taxes. As discussed previously under the heading "Acquisition," Safety-Kleen was unable to provide historical audited statements of operations and cash flows for the CSD, and we have reported net losses from our U.S. operations since the acquisition. Accordingly, as part of the review of the valuation allowance for deferred taxes for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, we determined that we lack sufficient verified historical taxable income to demonstrate that we will be able to utilize the net operating loss ("NOL") carryforwards and other deferred tax assets for the U.S. entities. Accordingly, no tax benefit has been recorded relating to the loss before provision for income taxes and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle for the U.S. entities for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003. The actual realization of the net operating loss carryforwards and other deferred tax assets will depend on our having future taxable income of the appropriate character prior to their expiration. Should we demonstrate the ability to generate future taxable income to utilize the NOL carryforwards and other deferred tax assets, a portion, or all of the valuation allowance would be

47


reduced. Up to $35.3 million of this valuation allowance reduction could be recorded as a tax benefit on the statement of operations and up to $4.4 million could reduce the basis of assets acquired from the Sellers. At December 31, 2004, we had regular net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $45.2 million that begin to expire starting in 2012.

        The combined Adjusted EBITDA contribution by segments for 2004 increased $24.0 million or 47.3% to $74.7 million from $50.7 million in 2003. The increase from Technical Services was $14.6 million. For Site Services, Adjusted EBITDA decreased $1.4 million and was offset by an increase in Corporate Items of $10.8 million. The combined Adjusted EBITDA contribution was based on total revenues of $643.2 million and $611.0 million, net of cost of revenues of $464.8 million and $453.5 million and selling, general and administrative expenses of $103.6 million and $107.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

Year ended December 31, 2003 versus Year ended December 31, 2002

        Total revenues for 2003 increased $260.9 million or 74.5% to $611.0 million for 2003 from $350.1 for 2002. Technical Services revenues for 2003 increased $202.7 million or 92.1% to $422.8 million for 2003 from $220.1 million for 2002. The increases in Technical Services revenues were due to the acquisition of the CSD assets from Safety-Kleen effective on September 7, 2002. Site Services revenues for 2003 increased $58.8 million or 45.6% to $187.7 million for 2003 from $128.8 million for 2002. We performed one large Site Services job in the year ended December 31, 2003, which accounted for 11.0% of Site Services revenues for that period. We performed one emergency services job in the year ended December 31, 2002. The job performed in 2002 related to the events of September 11, 2001 and was much lower in revenue compared to the job performed in 2003. Other than the events discussed, the increases in total revenues, Technical Services revenues, and Site Services revenues were due to the acquisition of the CSD from Safety-Kleen.

        Our decision to integrate the operations of the former CSD into our business and financial reporting systems, combined with the replacement of the business model of the former CSD with our business model, prevented us from being able to calculate meaningful changes in revenue due to volume, price or mix.

        Total cost of revenues for 2003 increased $201.0 million or 79.6% to $453.5 million compared to $252.5 million for 2002. Technical Services costs of revenues increased $146.2 million or 101.0% to $290.9 million from $144.7 million in 2002. Site Services cost of revenue increased $46.4 million or 45.6% to $148.2 million from $101.8 million in 2002. The change in cost of revenues in total and for Technical Services was primarily a result of the CSD acquisition. The cost of Site Service revenue increased because of the CSD acquisition and a large emergency response project in 2003 compared to 2002. As a percentage of revenues, combined cost of revenues in 2003 increased 2.1% to 74.2% from 72.1% for 2002. One of the largest components of cost of revenues is the cost of disposal paid to third parties. Disposal costs paid to third parties in 2003 as a percentage of revenues decreased 2.2% to 4.8% from 7.0% for comparable period in 2002. This decrease in disposal expense was due to our internalizing waste disposal subsequent to the acquisition that we sent to third parties prior to the acquisition. Other cost of revenues as a percentage of revenues increased 4.4% to 69.4% from 65.1% for comparable period in 2002, primarily as a result of reduced facility utilization reflecting the level of waste processed which was due to the general economic environment and the fixed cost nature of the facilities.

48

        Selling, general and administrative expenses in 2003 increased $46.9 million or 76.3% to $108.4 million from $61.5 million for 2002. The increase was primarily due to increased costs associated with our expanded business resulting from the acquisition of the CSD assets in September 2002. The overall increase reflects a full year of combined operations in 2003, instead of only approximately 16 weeks of activity in 2002 which occurred after the acquisition plus costs incurred in 2002 prior to the acquisition in order to have the required infrastructure in place as of the acquisition date. The change in selling, general and administrative expenses by segment was primarily a result of the CSD acquisition. Of the $46.9 million increase, nearly two-thirds, or $29,789 was for payroll and payroll taxes. Other significant increases were for professional fees of $5.4 million, telephone expenses of $2.3 million, $1.7 million to increase the allowance for doubtful accounts, and $1.6 million for employee benefits.

        Accretion of environmental liabilities for 2003 was $11.1 million which was due primarily to the implementation as of January 1, 2003 of SFAS No. 143 and accretion of the discount for the remedial liabilities assumed as part of the CSD assets acquired. Accretion of environmental liabilities for 2002 was $1.2 million and related to the accretion of the discount for the remedial liabilities assumed in the acquisition of the CSD assets.

        Depreciation and amortization expense for 2003 increased $11.0 million to $26.5 million from $15.5 million for 2002. The increase was primarily due to depreciation and amortization relating to assets acquired as part of the CSD acquisition.

        For the year ended December 31, 2002, we recorded a restructuring charge of $0.8 million related to the acquisition. The restructuring charge consisted of $0.3 million for severance for individuals who were our employees prior to the acquisition, and $0.5 million of costs associated with our decision to close sales offices and parts of facilities that we operated prior to the acquisition and that became duplicative.

        Other acquisition costs were $5.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2002. The primary components of these costs were outside consultant services and expenses related to integration planning and execution following the acquisition.

        As more fully discussed below under "Redemption of Series C Preferred Stock," we issued 25,000 shares of Series C Convertible Preferred Stock ("Series C Preferred Stock") for $25.0 million in September 2002. The Series C Preferred Stock was recorded on our financial statements as though it consisted of two components, namely (i) a non-convertible redeemable preferred stock (the "Host Contract") which matured in September 2009, and (ii) an "Embedded Derivative" which reflected the right of the holders of the Series C Preferred Stock to convert into our common stock. Generally accepted accounting principles in the United States require that the value of a derivative be marked to market. For the year ended December 31, 2003, we valued the Embedded Derivative using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The Black-Scholes model determines the value of an option primarily by considering the strike price of the option, the market value of the stock and volatility of the stock. The

49

strike price of the Embedded Derivative was $8.00 at December 31, 2003. For the year ended December 31, 2003, we recorded other expense of $0.4 million for the change in the fair value of the Embedded Derivative because of the market price decline of our common stock which occurred during the year, partially offset by the decrease of the strike price on the Embedded Derivative from $10.50 to $8.00 that occurred because both (i) the Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA for the year ended December 31, 2003 was less than $115 million and (ii) the average trading price for our common stock for the month of December 2003 was less than $27.50. We recorded other (expense) income due to the change in the value of the Embedded Derivative of $(0.4) million and $0.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. As more fully discussed above under "Other Income (Expense)" for the Year ended December 31, 2004 versus Year ended December 31, 2003, we redeemed all of the Series C Preferred Stock and settled the related Embedded Derivative liability on June 30, 2004.

        Prior to the refinancing of our debt in September 2002, we had outstanding $35.0 million of 16% Senior Subordinated Notes (the "Subordinated Notes") and $9.6 million of 10.75% economic development revenue bonds (the "Bonds"). Under the terms of the Subordinated Notes and the Bonds, we were obligated to refinance all of the debt in order to complete the purchase of the CSD assets. The total cost of the extinguishment of that debt in 2002 was $24.7 million and consisted of (1) a "Make Whole Amount" for the Subordinated Notes of $17.0 million, (2) the defeasance costs on the Bonds of $3.1 million, and (3) the write-off of deferred financing costs on both the Subordinated Notes and the Bonds of approximately $4.6 million, of which $2.4 million represented a write-off of the then unamortized debt issue discount based on the fair market value of warrants issued in connection with the Subordinated Notes on April 30, 2001. As described under "Litigation Involving Former Holders of Subordinated Notes" in "Legal Proceedings" elsewhere in this prospectus, we have initiated litigation against the former holders of the Subordinated Notes seeking to recover the "Make Whole Amount" as an unenforceable penalty under Massachusetts case law.

        Interest expense, net of interest income for 2003, increased $10.3 million or 76.9% to $23.7 million from $13.4 million for 2002. The increase in interest expense was primarily due to higher average balances owed during 2003 as compared to 2002, which resulted from our acquisition of the CSD assets.

        Income tax expense in 2003 increased $1.5 million to $5.3 million from $3.8 million for 2002. Income tax expense for 2003 consisted primarily of current tax expense relating to the Canadian operations of $5.7 million and $0.2 million of current state income tax expense due primarily to the profitable operations of certain of our subsidiaries. The 2003 current tax expense was partially offset by foreign deferred tax benefit of $0.6 million. Income tax expense for 2002 consisted of current tax expense relating to the Canadian operations of $2.1 million and $0.6 million of current state income tax expense due primarily to the profitable operations of certain of our subsidiaries and $1.6 million of deferred tax expense. The 2002 current tax expense was partially offset by a $0.6 million federal tax benefit that was primarily due to favorable resolution of a federal alternative minimum tax net operating loss carryback claim.

        SFAS No. 109, "Accounting for Income Taxes," requires that a valuation allowance be established when, based on an evaluation of verifiable evidence, there is a likelihood that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. We continually review the adequacy of the valuation allowance for deferred taxes. As discussed previously under the heading "Acquisition," Safety-Kleen was

50


unable to provide historical audited statements of operations and cash flows for the CSD, and we have reported net losses from our U.S. operations since the acquisition. Accordingly, as part of our review of the valuation allowance for deferred taxes for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2003, we determined we lacked sufficient verified historical taxable income to demonstrate that we will be able to utilize the net operating loss ("NOL") carryforwards and other deferred tax assets for the U.S. entities. Accordingly, no tax benefit has been recorded relating to the loss before provision for income taxes and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle for the U.S. entities for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002. The actual realization of the net operating loss carryforwards and other deferred tax assets will depend on our having future taxable income of the appropriate character prior to their expiration. Should we demonstrate the ability to generate future taxable income to utilize the NOL carryforwards and other deferred tax assets, a portion, or all of the valuation allowance would be reduced. Up to $28.4 million of this valuation allowance reduction could be recorded as a tax benefit on the Statement of Operations and up to $4.4 million could reduce the basis of assets acquired from the Sellers. At December 31, 2003, we had regular net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $60.4 million that begin to expire starting in 2012.

        The combined Adjusted EBITDA contribution by segments for 2003 increased $14.6 million or 40.3% to $50.7 million from $36.2 million in 2002. The increase from Technical Services was $34.6 million, which was complemented by an increase in Site Service Adjusted EBITDA of $7.1 million and offset by a decrease in Corporate Items cost of $27.5 million. The combined Adjusted EBITDA contribution was based on total revenues of $611.0 million and $350.1 million, net of cost of revenues of $453.5 million and $252.5 million and selling, general and administrative expenses of $107.1 million and $61.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. In 2003 selling, general and administrative expenses included $1.1 million of non-recurring severance charges that a majority of our lenders agreed to include as restructuring charges under the definition of "Consolidated Net Income" in our then financing agreements, as amended, and such $1.1 million thus is included in Adjusted EBITDA contribution for 2003.

Environmental Liabilities

        Our environmental liabilities consist of closure and post-closure liabilities at both our landfill and non-landfill sites, and remedial liabilities to investigate, alleviate or eliminate the effects of a release (or threat of a release) of hazardous substances into the environment and may also include corrective action under RCRA. A discussion of our closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities follows.

        Effective January 1, 2003, we adopted SFAS No. 143, "Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations." SFAS No. 143 requires companies to record the fair value of a liability for an asset retirement obligation in the period in which it is incurred. When a liability is initially recorded, the entity capitalizes a cost by increasing the carrying amount of the related long-lived asset. Over time, the liability is accreted to its present value each period using the entity's credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate, and the capitalized cost is depreciated over the useful life of the related asset. Upon settlement of the liability, an entity either settles the obligation for its recorded amount or incurs a gain or loss upon settlement. SFAS No. 143 requires upon initial application that companies reflect in their balance sheet: (1) liabilities for any existing asset retirement obligations adjusted for cumulative accretion to the date of adoption of the Statement, (2) asset retirement costs capitalized as an increase to the carrying amount of the associated long-lived asset, and (3) accumulated depreciation on that capitalized cost adjusted for accumulated depreciation to the date of adoption of the Statement. The cumulative effect of initially applying SFAS No. 143 in the year ended December 31, 2003 was recorded as a change in

51

accounting principle which requires that a cumulative effect adjustment be recorded in the statement of operations.

        The principal changes from our implementation of SFAS No. 143 were: (1) a reduction in accrued landfill closure and post-closure obligations due to discounting the accruals at our then credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate of 14.0% as required under SFAS No. 143, instead of discounting the accruals at the risk-free interest rate of 4.9% used under purchase accounting at December 31, 2002, (2) a reduction in accrued financial assurance for closure and post-closure care of the facilities which is now expensed in the period incurred under SFAS No. 143, and (3) reductions in the closure and post-closure obligations due to discounting at the credit-adjusted risk-free rate previously undiscounted accrued cell closure costs. These reductions were partly offset by new closure and post-closure obligations recorded for operating non-landfill facilities determined under various probability scenarios as to when operating permits might be surrendered in the future and using the credit-adjusted risk-free rate. The reduction in the value of liabilities assumed in the CSD acquisition from the implementation of SFAS No. 143 of $46.7 million resulted in a corresponding reduction in the value allocated to the assets acquired (see "Acquisition" above). The implementation also resulted in a net of tax cumulative-effect adjustment of $66 thousand recorded in the statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2003. This adjustment was comprised of an increase to asset retirement obligations of $1.8 million and an increase to net asset retirement costs of $1.7 million.

        Closure and post-closure costs incurred are increased for inflation (1.15% and 2.0% for closure and post-closure liabilities incurred in the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively). We use an inflation rate published by the US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics that excludes the more volatile items of food and energy. Closure and post-closure costs are discounted at our credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate (12.5% and 14.0% for closure and post-closure liabilities incurred in the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively). Asset retirement obligations incurred in 2005 are being discounted at the credit-adjusted risk-free rate of 10.25% and inflated at a rate of 2.16%. For the asset retirement obligations incurred in 2004, we estimated our credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate by adjusting the then current yield based on market prices of our $150 million Senior Secured Notes by the difference between the yield of a US treasury note of the same duration as the Senior Secured Notes and the yield on the 30 year U.S. Treasury Bond. For the asset retirement obligations incurred in 2003 and for the initial application of SFAS No. 143, we estimated our credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate by adjusting the then current yield on intermediate term debt of companies whose debt was then similarly rated by the rating agencies by the difference between the yield of a US treasury note of the same duration as the average maturity on the intermediate term debt and the yield on the 30 year U.S. Treasury Bond. Under SFAS No. 143, the cost of financial assurance for the closure and post-closure care periods cannot be accrued but rather is a period cost. Prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 143, we accrued the cost of financial assurance relating to both landfill and non-landfill closure and to both landfill and non-landfill post-closure care, as required, under SFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies." Under SFAS No. 143, financial assurance is no longer included as a component of closure or post-closure costs. SFAS No. 143 requires the cost of financial assurance to be expensed as incurred, and SFAS No. 143 requires the cost of financial assurance to be considered in the determination of the credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate. Under SFAS No. 143, the cost of financial assurance is considered in the determination of the credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate used to discount the closure and post-closure obligations.

        Landfill Accounting—We utilize the life cycle method of accounting for landfill costs and the units-of-consumption method to amortize landfill construction and asset retirement costs and record closure and post-closure obligations over the estimated useful life of a landfill. Under this method, we include future estimated construction and asset retirement costs, as well as costs incurred to date, in the amortization base. In addition, we include probable expansion airspace that has yet to be permitted in the calculation of the total remaining useful life of the landfill.

52


        Landfill assets—Landfill assets include the costs of landfill site acquisition, permitting, preparation and improvement. These amounts are recorded at cost, which includes capitalized interest as applicable. Landfill assets, net of amortization, are combined with management's estimate of the costs required to complete construction of the landfill to determine the amount to be amortized over the remaining estimated useful economic life of a site. Amortization of landfill assets is recorded on a units-of-consumption basis, such that the landfill assets should be completely amortized at the date the landfill ceases accepting waste. Changes in estimated costs to complete construction are applied prospectively to the amortization rate.

        Amortization of cell construction costs and accrual of cell closure obligations—Landfills are typically comprised of a number of cells, which are constructed within a defined acreage (or footprint). The cells are typically discrete units, which require both separate construction and separate capping and closure procedures. Cell construction costs are the costs required to excavate and construct the landfill cell. These costs are typically amortized on a units-of-consumption basis, such that they are completely amortized when the specific cell ceases accepting waste. In some instances, we have landfills that are engineered and constructed as "progressive trenches." In progressive trench landfills, a number of contiguous cells form a progressive trench. In those instances, we amortize cell construction costs over the airspace within the entire trench, such that the cell construction costs will be fully amortized at the end of the trench's useful life.

        The design and construction of a landfill does not create a landfill asset retirement obligation. Rather, the asset retirement obligation for cell closure (the cost associated with capping each cell) is incurred in relatively small increments as waste is placed in the landfill. Therefore, the cost required to construct the cell cap is capitalized as an asset retirement cost and a liability of an equal amount is established, based on the discounted cash flow associated with each capping event, as airspace is consumed. Spending for cell capping is reflected as a change in liabilities within operating activities in the statement of cash flows.

        Landfill final closure and post-closure liabilities—We have material financial commitments for the costs associated with requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") and the comparable regulatory agency in Canada for landfill final closure and post-closure activities. In the United States, the landfill final closure and post-closure requirements are established under the standards of the EPA, and are implemented and applied on a state by state basis. Estimates for the cost of these activities are developed by our engineers, accountants and external consultants, based on an evaluation of site-specific facts and circumstances, including our interpretation of current regulatory requirements and proposed regulatory changes. Such estimates may change in the future due to various circumstances including, but not limited to, permit modifications, changes in legislation or regulations, technological changes and results of environmental studies.

        Final closure costs include the costs required to cap the final cell of the landfill (if not included in cell closure) and the costs required to dismantle certain structures for landfills and other landfill improvements. In addition, final closure costs include regulation-mandated groundwater monitoring, leachate management and other costs incurred in the closure process. Post-closure costs include substantially all costs that are required to be incurred subsequent to the closure of the landfill, including, among others, groundwater monitoring and leachate management. Regulatory post-closure periods are generally 30 years after landfill closure. Final closure and post-closure obligations are discounted. Final closure and post-closure obligations are accrued on a units-of-consumption basis, such that the present value of the final closure and post-closure obligations are fully accrued at the date the landfill discontinues accepting waste.

        For landfills purchased, we assessed and recorded the present value of the estimated closure and post-closure liability based upon the estimated final closure and post-closure costs and the percentage of airspace consumed as of the purchase date. Thereafter, the difference between the liability recorded

53


at the time of acquisition and the present value of total estimated final closure and post-closure costs to be incurred is accrued prospectively on a units-of-consumption basis over the estimated useful economic life of the landfill.

        Landfill capacity—Landfill capacity, which is the basis for the amortization of landfill assets and for the accrual of final closure and post-closure obligations, represents total permitted airspace plus unpermitted airspace that we believe is probable of ultimately being permitted based on established criteria. We apply a comprehensive set of criteria for evaluating the probability of obtaining a permit for future expansion airspace at existing sites, which provides management a sufficient basis to evaluate the likelihood of success of unpermitted expansions. Those criteria are as follows:

        Exceptions to the criteria set forth above may be approved through a landfill-specific approval process that includes approval from our Chief Financial Officer and review by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors. As of December 31, 2004, there were three unpermitted expansions included in our landfill accounting model, which represents 32.4% of our remaining airspace at that date. Of these expansions, two do not represent exceptions to our established criteria. In March 2004, the Chief Financial Officer approved and the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors reviewed the inclusion of 7.8 million cubic yards of unpermitted airspace in highly probable airspace because it was determined that the airspace was highly probable even though the permit application will not be submitted within the next year. All of the other criteria were met for the inclusion of this airspace in highly probable airspace. Had we not included the 7.8 million cubic yards of unpermitted airspace in highly probable airspace, operating expense for the year ended December 31, 2004, and for the six months ended June 30, 2005 would have been higher by $439 thousand, and $271 thousand, respectively.

54


        As of June 30, 2005, we had 11 active landfill sites (including our two non-commercial landfills), which had estimated remaining lives at December 31, 2004 (based on anticipated waste volumes and remaining highly probable airspace) as follows:

 
    
    
   Remaining Highly Probable Airspace
(cubic yards) (in thousands)
Facility Name
    
   Remaining Lives
(Years)
  Location
   Permitted
   Unpermitted
   Total
Altair   Texas   2   63   —   63
Buttonwillow   California   44   10,018   —   10,018
Deer Park   Texas   23   587   —   587
Deer Trail   Colorado   51   513   —   513
Grassy Mountain   Utah   24   761   1,366   2,127
Kimball   Nebraska   23   483   —   483
Lambton   Ontario   51   1,061   7,847   8,908
Lone Mountain   Oklahoma   18   1,463   —   1,463
Ryley   Alberta   29   1,111   —   1,111
Sawyer   North Dakota   40   449   —   449
Westmorland   California   68   2,732   —   2,732
           
 
 
            19,241   9,213   28,454
           
 
 

        We had 2.9 million cubic yards of permitted, but not highly probable, airspace as of December 31, 2004. Permitted, but not highly probable, airspace is permitted airspace we currently do not expect to utilize; therefore, this airspace has not been included in the above table. There were no significant changes in estimated remaining lives permitted, unpermitted or remaining highly probable airspace for the 11 active landfill sites at June 30, 2005 as compared to December 31, 2004.

        The following table presents the remaining highly probable airspace from December 31, 2002 through June 30, 2005 (in thousands):

 
   Highly Probable
Airspace
(cubic yards)
  
Remaining capacity at December 31, 2002   25,288  
Addition of highly probable airspace   4,280  
Consumed during 2003   (687 )
Change in estimate   150  
   
 
Remaining capacity at December 31, 2003   29,031  
Addition of highly probable airspace   141  
Consumed during 2004   (780 )
Change in estimate   62  
   
 
Remaining capacity at December 31, 2004   28,454  
Consumed during six months ended June 30, 2005   (319 )
   
 
Remaining capacity at June 30, 2005   28,135  
   
 

        Changes to landfill assets for the year ended December 31, 2004 were as follows (in thousands):

 
   Balance at
December 31,
2003
   Asset
Retirement
Costs
   Capital
Additions
   Changes in
Estimates of
Closure and
Post-Closure
Liabilities
   Currency
Translations,
Reclassifications,
and Other
   Balance at
December 31,
2004
Landfill Assets   $ 3,579   $ 958   $ 2,597   $ (1,157 ) $ 419   $ 6,396
   
 
 
 
 
 

55

        Changes to landfill assets for the year ended December 31, 2003 were as follows (in thousands):

 
   Balance at
December 31,
2002
   Asset
Retirement
Costs
   Capital
Additions
   Decrease Due to
Increase in
Highly Probable
Airspace and
Other Changes
in Estimate
   Purchase Accounting
Adjustment Due to
Change in
Accounting for Asset
Retirement Costs as
well as Other Purchase
Accounting Adjustments
   Currency
Translations,
Reclassifications,
and Other
   Balance at
December 31,
2003
    $ 14,781   $ 1,004   $ 1,669   $ (11,596 ) $ (2,820 ) $ 541   $ 3,579
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

        In 2003 and 2004 we reduced closure and post-closure liabilities as a result of increasing highly probable landfill airspace. After acquiring landfills as part of the CSD assets from Safety-Kleen in 2002, our management identified new business opportunities that made possible the expansion, and further utilization, of the assets that the previous owners had believed to be exhausted. The resulting increase in airspace was accounted for by reducing landfill retirement liabilities (due to delaying the closure and post-closure expenditures) and by correspondingly reducing landfill assets by $11.6 million and $1.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2004 respectively. See the tables of changes to closure and post-closure liabilities below.

        We calculate the rates we use to amortize landfill assets based upon the dollar value of estimated final liabilities, the surveyed remaining airspace of the landfill, and the time estimated to consume the remaining airspace. Consequently, rates vary for each landfill and for each asset category, and we recalculate them each year. During the years ended December 31, 2004, and 2003, we depreciated landfill assets at average rates of $0.39 and $2.62 per cubic yard, respectively. The change in the amortization rate of landfill assets resulted primarily from the $11.6 million reduction in landfill asset described immediately above.

        Non-landfill closure costs include costs required to dismantle and decontaminate certain structures and other costs incurred during the closure process. Post-closure costs, if required, include associated maintenance and monitoring costs and financial assurance costs as required by the closure permit. Post-closure periods are performance-based and are not generally specified in terms of years in the closure permit, but may generally range from 10 to 30 years or more.

        We record our non-landfill closure and post-closure liability by (i) estimating the current cost of closing a non-landfill facility and the post closure care of that facility, if required, based upon the closure plan that we are required to follow under our operating permit, or in the event the facility operates with a permit that does not contain a closure plan, based upon closure commitments made by us, (ii) using probability scenarios as to when in the future operations may cease, (iii) inflating the current cost of closing the non-landfill facility on a probability weighted basis using the inflation rate to the time of closing under each probability scenario, and (iv) discounting the future value of each closing scenario back to the present using the credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate. Non-landfill closure and post-closure obligations arise when we commence operations. Prior to the implementation of SFAS No. 143, these obligations were expensed in the period that a decision was made to close a facility.

56

        Reserves for closure and post-closure obligations were as follows (in thousands):

 
   June 30,
2005
   Dec. 31,
2004
   Dec. 31,
2003
Landfill facilities:                  
Cell closure   $ 16,180   $ 14,959   $ 13,744
Facility closure     1,877     1,726     1,713
Post-closure     2,407     2,203     2,246
   
 
 
      20,464     18,888     17,703

Non-landfill retirement liability:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Facility closure     6,200     6,763     7,992
   
 
 
      26,664     25,651     25,695
Less obligation classified as current     2,776     2,930     6,480
   
 
 
Long-term closure and post-closure liability   $ 23,888   $ 22,721   $ 19,215
   
 
 

        All of the landfill facilities included in the table above were active as of June 30, 2005.

        Anticipated payments at June 30, 2005 (based on current estimated costs) and anticipated timing of necessary regulatory approvals to commence work on closure and post-closure activities for each of the next five years and thereafter are as follows (in thousands):

Periods ending December 31,
        
Six months ending December 31, 2005   $ 1,122  
2006     3,734  
2007     5,295  
2008     7,036  
2009     2,922  
Thereafter     206,345  
   
 
Undiscounted closure and post-closure liabilities     226,454  
Less: Reserves to be provided (including discount of $119.3 million) over remaining site lives     (199,790 )
   
 
Present value of closure and post-closure liabilities   $ 26,664  
   
 

        The changes to closure and post-closure liabilities for the six months ended June 30, 2005 were as follows (in thousands):

 
   December 31,
2004
   New Asset Retirement Obligations
   Accretion
   Changes in Estimate
(Benefit)
Charged to Statement of Operations
   Currency Translation, Reclassifications and Other
   Payments
   June 30,
2005
Landfill retirement liability   $ 18,888   $ 476   $ 1,372   $ (153 ) $ (10 ) $ (109 ) $ 20,464
Non-landfill retirement liability     6,763     —     403     43     (2 )   (1,007 )   6,200
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total   $ 25,651   $ 476   $ 1,775   $ (110 ) $ (12 ) $ (1,116 ) $ 26,664
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

57

        The changes to closure and post-closure liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2004 were as follows (in thousands):

 
   December 31,
2003
   New Asset Retirement Obligations
   Accretion
   Changes in Estimate Charged to Statement of Operations
   Benefit to
Statement of
Operations for
Other Changes
in Estimates
   Currency Translation, Reclassifications and Other
   Payments
   December 31,
2004
Landfill retirement liability   $ 17,703   $ 958   $ 2,460   $ (1,069 ) $ (1,157 ) $ 43   $ (50 ) $ 18,888
Non-landfill retirement liability     7,992     —     902     (928 )   (8 )   6     (1,201 )   6,763
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total   $ 25,695   $ 958   $ 3,362   $ (1,997 ) $ (1,165 ) $ 49   $ (1,251 ) $ 25,651
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

        The changes to closure and post-closure liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2003 were as follows (in thousands):

 
   December 31,
2002
   Cumulative Effect of Changes in Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations
   Purchase Accounting Adjustment Due to Change in Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations
   Other Purchase Accounting Adjustments
   New Asset Retirement Obligations
   Accretion and Other Charges to Expense
   Decrease Due to Increase in Highly Probable Airspace and other Changes in Estimates
   Currency Translation, Reclassifications and Other
   Payments
   December 31, 2003
Landfill retirement liability   $ 60,765   $ (79 ) $ (38,794 ) $ 2,851   $ 1,004   $ 3,476   $ (11,596 ) $ 127   $ (51 ) $ 17,703
Non-landfill retirement liability     —     1,381     8,489     761     —     1,042     49     (1,045 )   (2,685 )   7,992
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total   $ 60,765   $ 1,302   $ (30,305 ) $ 3,612   $ 1,004   $ 4,518   $ (11,547 ) $ (918 ) $ (2,736 ) $ 25,695
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

        In 2003 and 2004 we reduced closure and post-closure liabilities as a result of increasing highly probable landfill airspace. After acquiring landfills as part of the CSD assets from Safety-Kleen in 2002, Clean Harbors' management identified new business opportunities that made possible the expansion, and further utilization, of the assets that the previous owners had believed to be exhausted. The resulting increase in airspace was accounted for by reducing landfill retirement liabilities (due to delaying the closure and post-closure expenditures) and by correspondingly reducing landfill assets by $11.6 million and $1.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2004 respectively (see tables of changes to closure and post-closure liabilities immediately above).

        We calculate the rates we use to accrue closure and post-closure costs based upon the dollar value of estimated final liabilities, the surveyed remaining airspace of the landfill, and the time estimated to consume the remaining airspace. Consequently, rates vary for each landfill and for each accrual category, and we recalculate them each year. During the years ended December 31, 2004, and 2003, we accrued asset retirement obligations at an average rate of $1.23 and $1.46 per cubic yard, respectively. The changes in the accrual rate of asset retirement obligations resulted primarily from the $11.6 million reduction in landfill retirement liability described immediately above.

        We adopted SFAS No. 143 as of January 1, 2003. The following table presents the liability for asset retirement obligations calculated on a pro forma basis as of December 31, 2002 as if the Statement had

58


been previously adopted. The pro forma amounts of the liabilities were calculated using the same assumptions as were used upon the adoption of the Standard (amounts in thousands):

 
   Pro Forma
December 31, 2002
Landfill facilities   $ 24,748
Non-landfill facilities     8,871
   
Total   $ 33,619
   

        The following table shows the adjustment to restated net loss and basic and diluted loss per share as if SFAS No. 143 was adopted as of January 1, 2002 (in thousands, except per share amounts):

 
   (Restated)
2002
  
Restated net loss   $ (28,447 )
Accretion of closure and post-closure, net of tax     155  
   
 
Adjusted net loss   $ (28,292 )
   
 

Basic loss per share:
 
 
 
 
  Restated loss attributable to common shareholders   $ (2.44 )
  Accretion of closure and post-closure liabilities, net of tax     0.01  
   
 
  Adjusted restated loss attributable to common shareholders   $ (2.43 )
   
 

Diluted loss per share:
 
 
 
 
  Restated loss attributable to common shareholders   $ (2.44 )
  Accretion of closure and post-closure, net of tax     0.01  
   
 
  Adjusted restated loss attributable to common shareholders   $ (2.43 )
   
 

        Remedial liabilities, including Superfund liabilities, include the costs of removal or containment of contaminated material, the treatment of potentially contaminated groundwater and maintenance and monitoring costs necessary to comply with regulatory requirements. SFAS No. 143 applies to asset retirement obligations that arise from normal operations. Almost all of our remedial liabilities were assumed as part of the acquisition of the CSD from Safety-Kleen Corp, and we believe that the remedial obligations did not arise from normal operations.

        Remedial liabilities are discounted only when the timing of the payments is fixed and the amounts are determinable. Our experience has been that the timing of the payments is not usually fixed so, generally, remedial liabilities are not discounted. However, under purchase accounting, acquired liabilities are recorded at fair value, which requires taking into consideration inflation and discount factors. Accordingly, as of the acquisition date, we recorded the remedial liabilities assumed as part of the acquisition of the CSD at their fair value, which was calculated by inflating costs in current dollars using an estimate of future inflation rates as of the acquisition date until the expected time of payment, then discounted to its present value using a risk-free discount rate as of the acquisition date.

59

Subsequent to the acquisition, discounts were and will be applied to the environmental liabilities as follows:

        We record claims for recovery from third parties relating to remedial liabilities only when realization of the claim is probable. The gross remedial liability is recorded separately from the claim for recovery on the balance sheet. At June 30, 2005, and December 31, 2004 and 2003, we had recorded no such claims.

        Remedial liabilities are obligations to investigate, alleviate or eliminate the effects of a release (or threat of a release) of hazardous substances into the environment and may also include corrective action under RCRA. Our operating subsidiaries' remediation obligations can be further characterized as Legal, Superfund, Long-term Maintenance and One-Time Projects. Legal liabilities are typically comprised of litigation matters that can involve certain aspects of environmental cleanup and can include third party claims for property damage or bodily injury allegedly arising from or caused by exposure to hazardous substances originating from our activities or operations, or in certain cases, from the actions or inactions of other persons or companies. Superfund liabilities are typically claims alleging that we are a potentially responsible party and/or are potentially liable for environmental response, removal, remediation and cleanup costs at/or from either an owned or third party site. As described in "Legal Proceedings" elsewhere in this prospectus, Superfund liabilities also include certain Superfund liabilities to governmental entities for which we are potentially liable to reimburse the Sellers in connection with our 2002 acquisition of the CSD assets from Safety-Kleen Corp. Long-term Maintenance includes the costs of groundwater monitoring, treatment system operations, permit fees and facility maintenance for discontinued operations. One-Time Projects include the costs necessary to comply with regulatory requirements for the removal or treatment of contaminated materials.

        We record environmental-related accruals for remedial obligations at both our landfill and non-landfill operations. See above for further discussion of our methodology for estimating and recording these accruals.

        Reserves for remedial obligations are as follows (in thousands):

 
   June 30, 2005
   December 31,
2004
   December 31,
2003
Remedial liabilities for landfill sites   $ 4,840   $ 4,985   $ 5,525
Remedial liabilities for discontinued facilities not now used in the active conduct of our business     92,459     95,116     97,535
Remedial liabilities (including Superfund) for non-landfill open sites     51,427     55,516     54,376
   
 
 
      148,726     155,617     157,436
Less obligation classified as current     11,110     11,328     14,802
   
 
 
Long-term remedial liability   $ 137,616   $ 144,289   $ 142,634
   
 
 

60

        Anticipated payments at June 30, 2005 (based on current estimated costs) and anticipated timing of necessary regulatory approvals to commence work on remedial activities for each of the next five years and thereafter are as follows (in thousands):

Periods ending December 31,
    
  
Six months ending December 31, 2005   $ 5,719  
2006     10,990  
2007     10,882  
2008     11,745  
2009     11,507  
Thereafter     140,310  
   
 
Undiscounted remedial liabilities     191,153  
Less: Discount     (42,427 )
   
 
Present value of remedial liabilities   $ 148,726  
   
 

        The anticipated payments for Long-term Maintenance range from $4.2 million to $6.3 million per year over the next five years. Spending on One-Time Projects for the next five years ranges from $3.7 million to $5.9 million per year with an average expected payment of $5.3 million per year. Legal and Superfund liabilities payments are expected to be between $0.4 million and $2.3 million per year for the next five years. These estimates are managed on a daily basis, reviewed at least quarterly, and adjusted as additional information becomes available.

        The changes to remedial liabilities for the six months ended June 30, 2005 were as follows (in thousands):

 
   December 31,
2004
   Accretion
   Beneficial Changes in Estimate Recorded to Statement of Operations
   Currency Translation, Reclassifications and Other
   Payments
   June 30, 2005
Remedial liabilities for landfill sites   $ 4,985   $ 107   $ (92 ) $ (36 ) $ (124 ) $ 4,840
Remedial liabilities for discontinued sites not now used in the active conduct of our business     95,116     2,168     (3,240 )   (30 )   (1,555 )   92,459
Remedial liabilities (including Superfund) for non-landfill operations     55,516     1,200     (4,144 )   (148 )   (997 )   51,427
   
 
 
 
 
 
Total   $ 155,617   $ 3,475   $ (7,476 ) $ (214 ) $ (2,676 ) $ 148,726
   
 
 
 
 
 

        Included in the $7.5 million change in estimate recorded to the statement of operations is the $1.9 million reversal of the Helen Kramer landfill site reserve as described in "Legal Proceedings" elsewhere in this prospectus, a $2.1 million reduction for financial assurance for remedial liabilities that was driven by the renegotiation of financial assurance for closure and post-closure care for one of our facilities and our improved financial performance; and a net $3.5 million benefit due to (i) the discounting effect of delays in certain remedial projects, (ii) cost reductions negotiated with vendors, and (iii) a pattern of historical spending being less than previously expected and reserved. Of the $7.5 million benefit recorded for the six months ended June 30, 2005, $5.3 million of the benefit was recorded to selling, general and administrative expenses. For the three month period ended June 30, 2005, the $3.4 million benefit was recorded to selling, general and administrative expenses.

61


        The changes to remedial liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2004 were as follows (in thousands):

 
   December 31,
2003
   Accretion
   Changes in Estimate Charged to Statement of Operations
   Other Changes in Estimate
   Currency Translation, Reclassifications and Other
   Payments
   December 31, 2004
Remedial liabilities for landfill sites   $ 5,525   $ 225   $ (420 ) $ —   $ 140   $ (485 ) $ 4,985
Remedial liabilities for discontinued facilities not now used in the active conduct of our business     97,535     4,390     (841 )   392     196     (6,556 )   95,116
Remedial liabilities (including Superfund) for non-landfill open sites     54,376     2,417     (29 )   —     765     (2,013 )   55,516
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total   $ 157,436   $ 7,032   $ (1,290 ) $ 392   $ 1,101   $ (9,054 ) $ 155,617
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

        The changes to remedial liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2003 were as follows (in thousands):

 
   December 31,
2002
   Cumulative Effect of Changes in Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations
   Purchase Accounting Adjustment Due to Change in Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations
   Other Purchase Accounting Adjustments
   Accretion and Other Charges to Expense
   Currency Translation, Reclassifications and Other
   Payments
   December 31, 2003
Remedial liabilities for landfill sites   $ 4,519   $ —   $ —   $ 662   $ 230   $ 358   $ (244 ) $ 5,525
Remedial liabilities for discontinued facilities not now used in the active conduct of our business     104,899     537     (16,363 )   6,003     3,804     2,228     (3,573 )   97,535
Remedial liabilities (including Superfund) for non-landfill open sites     34,428     —     (16 )   18,059     2,347     978     (1,420 )   54,376
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total   $ 143,846   $ 537   $ (16,379 ) $ 24,724   $ 6,381   $ 3,564   $ (5,237 ) $ 157,436
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

        SFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies," requires that an estimated loss from a loss contingency be accrued and recorded as a liability if it is both probable and estimable, but the Statement does not permit a company acquiring assets to record as part of the purchase price those assumed liabilities which are not both probable and estimable. As described under the headings "Ville Mercier Legal Proceedings" and "Marine Shale Processors" in "Legal Proceedings" elsewhere in this prospectus, we were unable as of December 31, 2002 to estimate the amount of potential remedial liabilities in connection with the facility and sites which are the subject of these proceedings, but, as part of the integration plan of the CSD acquisition, we committed to obtaining the data required so that we could record such potential liabilities as adjustments to the purchase price. We obtained sufficient additional information on these proceedings prior to the first anniversary of the acquisition to allow us to record these potential liabilities as adjustments to the purchase price for the CSD assets in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States. Accordingly, additional discounted environmental liabilities were recorded as part of the purchase price in the quarter ended September 30, 2003. At June 30, 2005, we had recorded reserves of $13.4 million and $10.6 million relating to Marine Shale Processors and the Ville Mercier Legal Proceedings, respectively.

        As described in the tables above under "Reserves for remedial obligations," we had as of June 30, 2005 a total of $148.7 million of estimated liabilities for remediation of environmental contamination, of which $4.8 million related to our landfills and $143.9 million related to non-landfill facilities (including Superfund sites owned by third parties). We periodically evaluate potential remedial

62

liabilities at sites that we own or operate or to which we or the Sellers of the CSD assets (or the respective predecessors of us or the Sellers) transported or disposed of waste, including 56 Superfund sites as of June 30, 2005. We periodically review and evaluate sites requiring remediation, including Superfund sites, giving consideration to the nature (i.e., owner, operator, arranger, transporter or generator) and the extent (i.e., amount and nature of waste hauled to the location, number of years of site operations or other relevant factors) of our (or the Sellers') alleged connection with the site, the extent (if any) to which we believe we may have an obligation to the Sellers to indemnify cleanup costs in connection with the site, the regulatory context surrounding the site, the accuracy and strength of evidence connecting us (or the Sellers) to the location, the number, connection and financial ability of other named and unnamed potentially responsible parties, or PRPs, and the nature and estimated cost of the likely remedy. Where we conclude that it is probable that a liability has been incurred, we reserve, based upon management's judgment and prior experience, for our best estimate of the liability.

        Remediation liabilities are inherently difficult to estimate. Estimating remedial liabilities requires that the existing environmental contamination be understood. There is a risk that the actual quantities of contaminants differ from the results of the site investigation, and there is a risk that contaminants exist that have not been identified by the site investigation. In addition, the amount of remedial liabilities recorded is dependent on the remedial method selected. There is a risk that funds will be expended on a remedial solution that is not successful, which could result in the additional incremental costs of an alternative solution. Such estimates, which are subject to change, are subsequently revised if and when additional information becomes available.

        In connection with our acquisition of the CSD assets, we performed extensive due diligence, including hiring third-party engineers and attorneys to estimate accurately the aggregate liability for remedial liabilities to which we became potentially liable as a result of the acquisition. Those remedial liabilities relate to the active and discontinued hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities which we acquired as part of the CSD assets and 35 Superfund sites owned by third parties for which we agreed to indemnify certain remedial liabilities owed or potentially owed by the Sellers and payable to governmental entities. In the case of each such facility and site, our estimate of remediation liabilities involved an analysis of such factors as: (i) the nature and extent of environmental contamination (if any), (ii) the terms of applicable permits and agreements with regulatory authorities as to cleanup procedures and whether modifications to such permits and agreements will likely need to be negotiated, (iii) the cost of performing anticipated cleanup activities based upon current technology, and (iv) in the case of Superfund and other sites where other parties will also be responsible for a portion of the cleanup costs, the likely allocation of such costs and the ability of such other parties to pay their share. Based upon our analysis of each of the above factors in light of currently available facts and legal interpretations, existing technology, and presently enacted laws and regulations, we estimate that our aggregate liabilities as of December 31, 2004 (as calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States) for future remediation relating to all of our owned or leased facilities and the Superfund sites for which we have current or potential liability is approximately $148.7 million. We also estimate that it is "reasonably possible" as that term is defined in SFAS No. 5 ("more than remote but less than likely"), that the amount of such total liabilities could be up to $22.0 million greater than such $148.7 million. Future changes in either available technology or applicable laws or regulations could affect such estimates of environmental liabilities. Since our satisfaction of the liabilities will occur over many years and in some cases over periods of 30 years or more, we cannot now reasonably predict the nature or extent of future changes in either available technology or applicable laws or regulations and the impact that those changes, if any, might have on the current estimates of environmental liabilities.

        The following tables show, respectively, as of December 31, 2004, (i) the amounts of such estimated liabilities associated with the types of facilities and sites involved and (ii) the amounts of such

63


estimated liabilities associated with each facility or site which represents at least 5% of the total and with all other facilities and sites as a group.

        Estimates Based on Type of Facility or Site (dollars in thousands):

Type of Facility or Site
   Discounted Remedial Liability
   % of Total
   Discounted Reasonably Possible Additional Losses
Facilities now used in active conduct of our business (16 facilities)   $ 36,293   24.4 % $ 7,616
Discontinued CSD facilities not now used in active conduct of our business but acquired because assumption of remedial liabilities for such facilities was part of the purchase price for CSD assets (16 facilities)     92,283   62.0     11,191
Superfund sites owned by third parties on which wastes generated or shipped by the Sellers (or their predecessors) are present (18 sites)     17,929   12.1     1,661
Sites for which we had liabilities prior to the acquisition of CSD assets (4 Superfund sites and 7 other sites)     2,221   1.5     1,491
   
 
 
Total   $ 148,726   100.0 % $ 21,959
   
 
 

        Estimates Based on Amount of Potential Liability (dollars in thousands):

Location
   Type of Facility or Site
   Discounted Remedial Liability
   % of Total
   Discounted Reasonably Possible Additional Losses
Baton Rouge, LA   Closed incinerator and landfill   $ 37,824   25.4 % $ 5,319
Bridgeport, NJ   Closed incinerator     27,537   18.6     3,363
Marine Shale Processors   Potential third party Superfund site     13,413   9.0     1,368
Mercier, Quebec   Open incineration facility and legal proceedings     11,317   7.6     1,149
Roebuck, SC   Closed incinerator     9,523   6.4     834
San Jose, CA   Open treatment, storage, or disposal facilities     7,480   5.0     844
Various   All other incinerators, landfills, wastewater treatment facilities and service centers (35 facilities)     36,899   24.8     8,598
Various   All other Superfund sites (each representing less than 5% of total liabilities) owned by third parties on which wastes generated or shipped by either us or the Sellers (or their predecessors) are present (21 sites)     4,733   3.2     484
       
 
 
Total       $ 148,726   100.0 % $ 21,959
       
 
 

64

        There has been no significant change to discounted reasonably possible additional losses at June 30, 2005 as compared to December 31, 2004.

        Revisions to remedial reserve requirements may result in upward or downward adjustments to income from operations in any given period. We believe that our extensive experience in the environmental services business, as well as our involvement with a large number of sites, provides a reasonable basis for estimating our aggregate liability. It is reasonably possible that legal, technological, regulatory or enforcement developments, the results of environmental studies or other factors could necessitate the recording of additional liabilities and/or the revision of currently recorded liabilities that could be material. The impact of such future events cannot be estimated at the current time.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

        We believe that our primary sources of liquidity are cash flows from operations, existing cash, marketable securities previously held, funds available to borrow under the Revolving Facility and anticipated proceeds from assets held for sale. For the six-month period ended June 30, 2005, we generated cash from operations of $9.0 million. As of June 30, 2005, cash and cash equivalents were approximately $50.2 million, funds available to borrow under the Revolving Facility were $28.8 million, and properties held for sale were $8.6 million.

        We intend to use our existing cash and cash flow from operations to provide for our working capital needs, to fund recurring capital expenditures, to fund small acquisitions, and, over the longer term, to reduce our outstanding debt. We anticipate that our cash flow provided by operating activities will provide the necessary funds on a short and long-term basis to meet operating cash requirements. In addition, we project that we will continue to meet our debt covenant requirements for the foreseeable future. As part of the CSD acquisition, we assumed environmental liabilities of the CSD valued at $184.5 million. We performed extensive due diligence investigations with respect to both the amount and timing of such liabilities. We anticipate such liabilities will be payable over many years and that cash flow from operations will generally be sufficient to fund the payment of such liabilities when required. However, events not now anticipated (such as future changes in environmental laws and regulations) could require that such payments be made earlier or in greater amounts than now anticipated, which could adversely affect our cash flow and financial condition.

        For the six months ended June 30, 2005, we generated approximately $9.0 million of cash from operating activities. We reported net income for the period of $12.2 million. In addition, we recorded non-cash expenses during this period, which provided sources of funds totaling $19.8 million. These non-cash expenses consisted primarily of $14.4 million for depreciation and amortization and $5.2 million for the accretion of environmental liabilities. Uses of cash for working capital purposes totaled $28.1 million, reduced cash flow from operations by the same amount, and consisted primarily of a $11.3 million decrease in closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities, a $4.3 million decrease in deferred revenue due to increased efficiency of facility operations, a $1.6 million increase in unbilled receivables, a $5.4 million decrease in accounts payable due to the timing of payments made to vendors, and a $3.0 million decrease in income taxes payable. These uses of cash were partially offset by sources of cash from working capital that totaled $5.2 million.

        For the six months ended June 30, 2005, we generated $9.3 million of cash from investing activities. Sources of cash totaled $17.2 million and consisted of the sales of marketable securities of $16.8 million and proceeds from the sale of fixed assets of $0.4 million. Cash used in investing activities totaled $7.9 million and consisted of purchases of property, plant and equipment of $7.0 million and increases in permits of $0.9 million.

65


        For the six months ended June 30, 2005, our financing activities resulted in a net source of cash of $0.9 million. This consisted primarily of proceeds from the exercise of stock options and employee stock purchase plan of $3.9 million. This source was partially offset by uses of cash from financing activities of $3.0 million that consisted primarily of a decrease in uncashed checks of $1.9 million, payments on capital leases of $0.9 million and dividend payments on our Series B Preferred Stock of $0.1 million.

        We used the cash generated from operating activities of $9.0 million together with the $9.3 million of cash generated from investing activities and $0.9 million generated from financing activities to increase cash on hand by $19.2 million at June 30, 2005 compared to the balance at December 31, 2004.

        For the year ended December 31, 2004, we generated approximately $52.5 million of cash from operating activities. Non-cash expenses, net recorded for the year totaled $46.4 million. These non-cash expenses consisted primarily of $24.1 million for depreciation and amortization, $10.4 million for the accretion of environmental liabilities, refinancing expenses of $7.1 million, $2.3 million for amortization of deferred financing costs and a loss on the embedded derivative of $1.6 million. Other sources of cash totaled $30.4 million which primarily consisted of an increase in other accrued expenses of $11.6 million, an increase in accounts payable of $9.2 million due to the timing of payments made and higher levels of expenses in the fourth quarter of 2004 as compared to the fourth quarter of 2003, a $4.4 million decrease in unbilled accounts receivable due to improvements in the timeliness of billing our customers in 2004 as compared to 2003, and $3.7 million decrease in other assets that was almost entirely due to reclassifying to current prepaid expenses the cash value of a closure and post-closure policy for our Kimball facility. These sources of cash were partially offset by other uses of cash that totaled $27.0 million consisting primarily of a decrease in closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities of $13.0 million relating primarily to expenditures made for such liabilities, an increase in accounts receivable of $6.1 million due to a higher level of revenues in the quarter ended December 2004 compared with the quarter ended December 2003, an increase in prepaid expenses of $4.8 million primarily due to the transfer of the cash value of the closure and post-closure policy for our Kimball facility, a $1.3 million decrease in supplies inventories due primarily to a program initiated in the fourth quarter of 2004 to outsource to a third party the responsibility of stocking supplies at our Site and Technical Services locations, and a $1.1 million decrease in the amount of deferred waste on hand as of December 31, 2004 as compared to December 31, 2003.

        For year ended December 31, 2004, we generated $47.6 million of cash from investing activities. Sources of cash from investing activities totaled $169.3 million and consisted of proceeds from the net sale of restricted investments of $93.2 million that resulted primarily from our no longer being required to post cash collateral for financial assurance for closure and post closure care of our facilities, proceeds from the sale of marketable securities of $73.9 million and proceeds from the sale of fixed assets of $2.2 million. Partially offsetting these sources of cash were uses of cash to acquire property, plant and equipment and permits of $26.6 million, the purchases of marketable securities of $90.7 million and the cost of restricted investment purchased of $4.4 million.

        For the year ended December 31, 2004, we used $75.8 million of cash in our financing activities. Sources of cash from financing activities totaled $149.3 million and consisted almost entirely of the issuance of Senior Secured Notes (net of issue discount) of $148.0 million. This was offset by uses of cash from financing activities that totaled $225.1 million and consisted primarily of repayments of Senior Loans and Subordinated Loans of $107.2 million and $40.0 million, respectively, repayment of the former Revolving Credit Facility of $35.2 million, redemption of the Series C Preferred Stock of $25.0 million, financing costs incurred of $10.3 million, debt extinguishment payments of $3.4 million and dividend payments on the Series B and Series C Preferred Stocks totaling $2.2 million.

66


        We used the cash generated from investing activities of $47.6 million together with the $52.5 million of cash generated from operations and $0.5 million generated from the favorable foreign exchange impact on cash to fund the financing activities of $75.8 million previously discussed, and to increase the amount of cash on hand by $24.8 million.

        For the year ended December 31, 2003, we generated $38.9 million of cash from operating activities. Non-cash expenses recorded for the year ended December 31, 2003 totaled $43.6 million and consisted primarily of $26.5 million in depreciation and amortization, and $11.1 million in accretion of environmental liabilities. Other sources of cash totaled $29.1 million and consisted primarily of reductions in our accounts receivable of $20.3 million and reductions in our unbilled accounts receivable of $4.5 million. These reductions in accounts receivable and unbilled accounts receivable resulted primarily from resolving certain issues relating to the integration of the former CSD into our operations. Largely offsetting sources of cash were uses of cash that totaled $33.9 million and consisted primarily of the net loss for the year of $17.6 million and $8.3 million in environmental spending for remedial and landfill liabilities.

        For the year ended December 31, 2003, we used approximately $53.0 million of cash in investing activities. This consisted of approximately $34.8 million in capital investment, $20.0 million of which was related to becoming compliant with the new MACT standards, and restricted investments purchased of $34.9 million to support letters of credit for our financial assurance and insurance programs. These uses were partially offset from proceeds of $2.3 million realized from the sale of real estate and equipment that we determined to be surplus, proceeds of $6.6 million generated from the sale of restricted investments, and proceeds of $7.9 million associated with the acquisition of certain CSD assets (of which $7.8 million was a global payment received from Safety-Kleen Corp. in settlement of various issues arising from our acquisition of the CSD assets).

        For the year ended December 31, 2003, we obtained net funds from financing of $5.9 million. Cash from financing activities was $18.5 million, which consisted almost entirely of $17.5 million in net borrowings on our then revolving credit facility. We used cash from financing activities of $18.5 million, together with cash generated from operations of $38.9 million, reductions in cash balances of $7.3 million and the positive effect of exchange rate change on cash of $0.9 million to fund net investing activities of $53.0 million, repay $7.8 million in senior term loans and fund other financing activities of $4.8 million.

The 2004 Refinancing

        Prior to June 30, 2004, we had outstanding a $100.0 million three-year revolving credit facility (the "Revolving Credit Facility"), $115.0 million of three-year non-amortizing term loans (the "Senior Loans") and $40.0 million of five-year non-amortizing subordinated loans (the "Subordinated Loans"). In addition to such financings, we had established a letter of credit facility (the "L/C Facility") under which we could obtain up to $100.0 million of letters of credit by providing cash collateral equal to 103% of the amount of such outstanding letters of credit. On June 30, 2004, we refinanced our debt under the Revolving Credit Facility, the Senior Loans and the Subordinated Loans by issuing $150.0 million of eight-year Senior Secured Notes (the "Senior Secured Notes") and entering into a $30.0 million revolving credit facility (the "Revolving Facility") as described below. Additionally, we replaced the L/C Facility with a synthetic letter of credit facility (the "Synthetic LC Facility") whereby we may obtain up to $90.0 million of letters of credit as described below. The principal terms of the Senior Secured Notes, the Revolving Facility, and the Synthetic LC Facility are as follows:

        Senior Secured Notes.    The Senior Secured Notes were issued under an Indenture dated June 30, 2004 (the "Indenture"). The Senior Secured Notes bear interest at 11.25% and mature on July 15,

67


2012. The Senior Secured Notes were issued at a $2.0 million discount that resulted in an effective yield of 11.5%. Interest is payable semiannually in cash on each January 15 and July 15.

        The Indenture provides for certain covenants, the most restrictive of which requires us, within 120 days after the close of each twelve-month period ending on June 30 of each year (beginning June 30, 2005) to apply an amount equal to 50% of the period's Excess Cash Flow (as defined below) to either prepay, repay, redeem or purchase first-lien obligations under the Revolving Facility and Synthetic LC Facility or to make offers ("Excess Cash Flow Offers") to repurchase of all or part of the then outstanding Senior Secured Notes at an offering price equal to 104% of their principal amount plus accrued interest. "Excess Cash Flow" is defined in the Indenture as Consolidated EBITDA (which the Indenture defines in the same manner as "Adjusted EBITDA" is defined in footnote (8) under "Selected Historical Consolidated Financial Data" elsewhere in this prospectus) less interest expense, all taxes paid or accrued in the period, capital expenditures made in cash during the period, and all cash spent on environmental monitoring, remediation or relating to environmental liabilities of ours.

        Excess Cash Flow for the twelve months ended June 30, 2005 was $29.5 million. We will within 120 days following June 30, 2005 offer to repurchase Senior Secured Notes in the amount of 50% of the Excess Cash Flow generated during the twelve-month period ending June 30, 2005. However, at June 30, 2005, we had no outstanding first-lien obligations which were then payable under the Revolving Facility or Synthetic LC Facility and, during the six-month period ended June 30, 2005, the market price of the Senior Secured Notes was consistently in excess of the 104% of principal amount at which we are required and permitted by the Indenture and the Credit Agreement to make Excess Cash Flow Offers for outstanding Senior Secured Notes. It therefore now appears unlikely that any holders of Senior Secured Notes will accept an Excess Cash Flow Offer made in accordance with the Indenture and the Credit Agreement unless the trading price of the Senior Secured Notes declines prior to the time in 2005 at which we will make such an offer. To the extent the Note holders do not accept an Excess Cash Flow Offer based on the Excess Cash Flow earned through June 30, 2005, such Excess Cash Flow will not be included in the amount of Excess Cash Flow earned in subsequent periods. However, the Indenture's requirement to make Excess Cash Flow Offers in respect of Excess Cash Flow earned in subsequent twelve-month periods will remain in effect.

        Revolving Facility.    Both the Revolving Facility and the Synthetic LC Facility were established under a Loan and Security Agreement dated June 30, 2004 (the "Credit Agreement") among us, Fleet Capital Corporation as agent for the Revolving Lenders thereunder, Credit Suisse First Boston as agent for the letter of credit facility lenders (the "LC Facility Lenders") thereunder, and certain other parties. The Revolving Facility allows us to borrow up to $30.0 million in cash, based upon a formula of eligible accounts receivable. This total is separated into two lines of credit, namely a line for us and our U.S. subsidiaries equal to $24.7 million and a line for our Canadian subsidiaries of $5.3 million. The Revolving Facility also allows us to have issued up to $10.0 million of letters of credit, with the outstanding amount of such letters of credit reducing the maximum amount of borrowings permitted under the Revolving Facility. At June 30, 2005, we had no borrowings and $1.2 million of letters of credit outstanding under the Revolving Facility, and we had approximately $28.8 million available to borrow. Amounts outstanding under the Revolving Facility bear interest at an annual rate of either the U.S. or Canadian prime rate or the Eurodollar rate (depending on the currency of the underlying loan) plus 1.50%. The Credit Agreement requires us to pay an unused line fee of 0.125% per annum on the unused portion of the Revolving Facility. The Revolving Facility matures on June 30, 2009.

        Under the Credit Agreement, we are required to maintain a maximum Leverage Ratio (as defined below) of no more than 2.50 to 1.0 for each of the four-quarter periods ended June 30, 2005 through March 31, 2006. The maximum leverage ratio is then reduced in approximately equal increments to no more than 2.30 to 1.0 for the four-quarter period ending December 31, 2008, and to no more than 2.25 to 1.0 for each succeeding quarter. The Leverage Ratio is defined as the ratio of our consolidated indebtedness to our Consolidated EBITDA (which the Credit Agreement defines in the same manner

68


as "Adjusted EBITDA" is defined in footnote (8) under "Selected Historical Consolidated Financial Data" elsewhere in this prospectus) achieved for the latest four-quarter period. For the four-quarter period ended June 30, 2005, the Leverage Ratio was 1.55 to 1.0, which was within covenant.

        We are also required under the Credit Agreement to maintain a minimum Interest Coverage Ratio (as defined below) of not less than 2.70 to 1.0 for each of the four-quarter periods ended June 30, 2005 through December 31, 2005. The minimum interest coverage ratio then decreases in approximately equal increments, to not less than 2.85 to 1.0 for the four-quarter period ending December 31, 2007, and not less than 3.00 to 1.0 for each succeeding four-quarter period. The Interest Coverage Ratio is defined as the ratio of our Consolidated EBITDA to our consolidated interest expense. For the four-quarter period ended June 30, 2005, the Interest Coverage Ratio was 3.78 to 1.0, which was within covenant.

        We are also under the Credit Agreement required to maintain a fixed charge coverage ratio of not less than 1.0 to 1.0 for each four-quarter period. For the period ended June 30, 2005, our fixed charge coverage ratio was 2.12 to 1.0, which was within covenant.

        Synthetic LC Facility.    The Synthetic LC Facility provides that Credit Suisse First Boston (the "LC Facility Issuing Bank") will issue up to $90.0 million of letters of credit at our request. The LC Facility requires that the LC Facility Lenders maintain a cash account (the "Credit-Linked Account") to collateralize our outstanding letters of credit. Should any such letter of credit be drawn in the future and we fail to satisfy our reimbursement obligation, the LC Facility Issuing Bank would be entitled to draw upon the appropriate portion of the $90.0 million in cash which the LC Facility Lenders under the Credit Agreement have deposited into the Credit-Linked Account. Acting through the LC Facility Agent, the LC Facility Lenders would then have the right to exercise their rights as first-priority lien holders (second-priority as to receivables) on substantially all of our assets and the assets of our domestic subsidiaries. We have no right, title or interest in the Credit-Linked Account established under the Credit Agreement for purposes of the Synthetic LC Facility. We are required to pay (i) a quarterly participation fee at the annual rate of 5.35% on the average daily balance in the Credit-Linked Account and (ii) a quarterly fronting fee at the annual rate of 0.30% of the average daily aggregate amount of letters of credit outstanding under the Synthetic LC Facility. At June 30, 2005, letters of credit outstanding under the Synthetic LC Facility were $89.2 million. The term of the Synthetic LC Facility will expire on June 30, 2009.

Redemption of Series C Preferred Stock

        Prior to June 30, 2004, we had outstanding 25,000 shares of Series C Convertible Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value ("Series C Preferred Stock"). The Series C Preferred Stock was entitled to receive dividends at an annual rate of 6.0% (such dividends were paid in cash through March 2003 and thereafter accrued and compounded through the redemption date). We issued the Series C Preferred Stock for $25.0 million on September 10, 2002, and incurred $2.9 million of issuance costs. We determined that the Series C Preferred Stock should be recorded on our financial statements as though the Series C Preferred Stock consisted of two components, namely: (i) non-convertible redeemable preferred stock (the "Host Contract") with a 6.0% annual dividend and (ii) an embedded derivative (the "Embedded Derivative") which reflected the right of the holders of the Series C Preferred Stock to convert into our common stock on the terms set forth in the Series C Preferred Stock. The Series C Preferred Stock reported on our consolidated balance sheet consisted only of the value of the Host Contract (less the issuance costs) plus the amount of accretion in the value of the Host Contract which had been recorded through the balance sheet date with regard to the discount which was originally recorded for the Host Contract, plus the amount of accretion for issuance costs and accrued dividends. Such discount and issuance costs were being accreted over the life of the Series C Preferred Stock, with such accretion being recorded as a reduction in additional paid-in-capital. During the period from January 1 through June 30, 2004, we recorded accretion on the discount and issuance costs of the

69


Series C Preferred Stock of $0.7 million. For the six-month period ended December 31, 2004, no accretion was recorded because of the redemption of the Series C Preferred Stock on June 30, 2004. For the year ended December 31, 2003, the amount of accretion recorded as a reduction to additional paid-in capital was $1.3 million. For the year ended December 31, 2002, we recorded in Other Long-term Liabilities the fair value of the Embedded Derivative and periodically marked that value to market. As of December 31, 2003, the market value of the Embedded Derivative was determined to be $9.6 million, and we recorded $0.4 million of Other Expense during 2003 to adjust the carrying value of the Embedded Derivative to fair value. As noted below, on June 30, 2004 we redeemed the Series C Preferred Stock. At that time, the market value of the Embedded Derivative was determined to be $11.2 million and we recorded other expense of $1.6 million through June 30, 2004 to reflect such adjustment.

        On June 30, 2004, we redeemed the Series C Preferred Stock for $25.0 million in cash and paid accrued dividends of $2.0 million. The difference between the $25.0 million paid and the carrying amount of the Series C Preferred Stock of $17.2 million on June 30, 2004 was charged to additional paid-in capital. In addition, we issued warrants to purchase 2.8 million shares of our common stock, and we paid $0.4 million of cash in lieu of warrants for certain other conversion rights of the holders of the Series C Preferred Stock. The warrants issued are exercisable at $8.00 per common share and expire on September 10, 2009. We settled the $11.2 million Embedded Derivative liability through the issuance of the 2.8 million warrants (which we valued using the Black-Scholes option pricing model at $9.2 million) together with the $0.4 million of cash that was paid in lieu of warrants, which resulted in a gain on the settlement of the Embedded Derivative of $1.6 million. The gain on the settlement of the Embedded Derivative was recorded as a reduction to refinancing-related expenses. The value of the warrants issued of $9.2 million was credited to additional paid-in capital. Because of the redemption of the Series C Preferred Stock on June 30, 2004, we will not be required to make mark-to-market adjustments to our reported income (loss) associated with the Embedded Derivative for any period subsequent to June 30, 2004.

Contractual Obligations

        The following table has been included to assist the reader in analyzing our debt and similar obligations as of June 30, 2005 and our ability to meet such obligations (in thousands):

 
    
   Payments Due by Period
Contractual Obligations
   Total
   Remaining 6 months
   2006 + 2007
   2008+2009
   2010 and
beyond
Closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities   $ 175,390   $ 6,841   $ 30,901   $ 33,210   $ 104,438
Long-term debt     150,000     —     —     —     150,000
Interest on long-term obligations     119,935     8,524     34,151     34,254     43,006
Capital leases     5,986     1,014     3,299     1,338     335
Operating leases     26,569     4,946     12,220     7,252     2,151
   
 
 
 
 
Total contractual obligations   $ 477,880   $ 21,325   $ 80,571   $ 76,054   $ 299,930
   
 
 
 
 

        The current fair value of the closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities of $175.4 million is net of discounting of $161.7 million and $80.5 million of closure and post-closure liabilities to be provided over the remaining site lives.

70


        The following table has been included to assist the reader in understanding other contractual obligations we had as of June 30, 2005 and our ability to meet these obligations (in thousands):

 
    
   Payments Due by Period
Other Commercial Commitments
   Total
   Remaining 6 months
   2006 + 2007
   2008+2009
   2010 and
beyond
Standby letters of credit   $ 90,343   $ 90,343   $ —   $ —   $ —
   
 
 
 
 
Total commercial commitments   $ 90,343   $ 90,343   $ —   $ —   $ —
   
 
 
 
 

        We obtained substantially all of the standby letters of credit described in the above table as security for financial assurance obligations which we were required to provide to regulatory bodies for the hazardous waste facilities and which would be called only in the event that we failed to satisfy closure, post-closure and other obligations under the permits issued by those regulatory bodies for such licensed facilities. As further discussed above under "The 2004 Refinancing," we obtained substantially all of the standby letters of credit described in the above table under our synthetic letter of credit facility (the "Synthetic LC Facility"). The Synthetic LC Facility provides that Credit Suisse First Boston (the "LC Facility Issuing Bank") will issue up to $90.0 million of letters of credit at our request. The LC Facility requires that the LC Facility Lenders maintain a cash account (the "Credit-Linked Account") to collateralize our outstanding letters of credit. Should any such letter of credit be drawn in the future and we fail to satisfy our reimbursement obligation, the LC Facility Issuing Bank would be entitled to draw upon the appropriate portion of the $90.0 million in cash which the LC Facility Lenders under the Credit Agreement have deposited into the Credit-Linked Account. Acting through the LC Facility Agent, the LC Facility Lenders would then have the right to exercise their rights as first-priority lien holders (second-priority as to receivables) on substantially all of the assets of Clean Harbors, Inc. and our domestic subsidiaries.

        Except for our obligations under operating leases and letters of credit described above and performance obligations incurred in the ordinary course of business, we are not now party to any off-balance sheet arrangements involving guarantee, contingency or similar obligations to entities whose financial statements are not consolidated with our results and that have or are reasonably likely to have a current or future effect on our financial condition, changes in financial condition, revenues or expenses, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources that would be material to investors in our securities.

        We anticipate that 2005 capital spending will be between $25.0 million and $30.0 million of which $1.0 million relates to complying with environmental regulations.

Stockholder Matters

        Stockholders' equity was $26.4 million at June 30, 2005, or $1.54 per weighted average share outstanding, compared to $11.0 million at December 31, 2004, or $0.78 per weighted average share outstanding. Stockholders' equity increased due to the profit for the six months ended June 30, 2005 of $12.2 million, and increases related to the exercise of stock options and stock purchases under the employee stock purchase plan that totaled $3.9 million. Primarily offsetting these increases to stockholders' equity were decreases due to the unfavorable effects of foreign currency translation of $0.7 million and dividends declared on the Series B Preferred Stock of $0.1 million.

        On May 18, 2005, we filed Restated Articles of Organization with the Massachusetts Secretary of State. As of the date of these Restated Articles of Organization, the Series B Convertible Preferred

71


Stock is our only series of preferred stock which remains authorized and outstanding. As a result of the filing, the authorized shares of common stock increased from 20,000,000 to 40,000,000, the authorized shares of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock decreased from 894,585 to zero and the authorized shares of Series C Convertible Preferred Stock decreased from 25,000 to zero. Our current authorized number of shares is 40,000,000 for common stock and 1,080,415 for preferred stock (of which 156,416 have been designated as Series B Convertible Preferred Stock).

        Our stockholders' equity was $11.0 million at December 31, 2004, or $0.78 per weighted average share outstanding, compared to $7.7 million at December 31, 2003, or $0.57 per weighted average share outstanding. Stockholders' equity increased due to the issuance of warrants valued at $9.2 million, earnings for the year ended December 31, 2004 of $2.6 million, the favorable effect of foreign currency translation of $2.2 million and increases primarily related to the exercise of stock options and stock purchases under the employee stock purchase plan that totaled $0.9 million. These increases to stockholders' equity were partially offset by the loss on redemption of the Series C Preferred Stock of $9.9 million, the dividends declared on the Series B and C Preferred Stock of $1.0 million, and the accretion of the Series C Preferred Stock discount and issuance costs of $0.7 million.

        Our stockholders' equity was $7.7 million at December 31, 2003, or $0.57 per weighted average share outstanding, compared to $20.4 million at December 31, 2002, or $1.67 per weighted average share outstanding. Stockholders' equity decreased due the loss for the year ended December 31, 2003 of $17.6 million, the dividends declared on the Series B and Series C Preferred Stock of $1.7 million, and the accretion of the discount and issuance costs of the Series C Preferred Stock of $1.3 million. These decreases to stockholders' equity were partially offset by the favorable effects of foreign currency translation of $6.8 million, and increases primarily related to the exercise of stock options and stock purchases under the employee stock purchase plan that totaled $1.1 million.

        In connection with the issuance on April 30, 2001 of Subordinated Notes (that were repaid in September 2002), we issued warrants to purchase 1,519,020 shares of common stock exercisable at $0.01 per share and expiring on April 30, 2008. The proceeds from the issuance of the Subordinated Notes and warrants were allocated based on the relative fair value of the warrants and Subordinated Notes. During the year ended December 31, 2002, warrants for 281,212 shares were exercised, 892 warrants were cancelled upon net exercise, and 1,236,916 warrants remained outstanding at December 31, 2002. During the year ended December 31, 2003, warrants for 1,236,010 shares were exercised, 906 warrants were cancelled upon net exercise, and no warrants remained outstanding at December 31, 2003.

        As described above under "Redemption of Series C Preferred Stock", on June 30, 2004, we issued warrants to purchase 2.8 million shares of our common stock and paid $0.4 million of cash in lieu of warrants for certain other conversion rights of the holders of our previously outstanding Series C Preferred Stock. The warrants issued are exercisable at $8.00 per common share and expire on September 10, 2009. As of December 31, 2004, there were 2,775,000 warrants outstanding. On February 11, 2005, warrants for 717,060 shares were exercised in a cashless exercise that resulted in the issuance of 420,571 shares of common stock. In connection with the cashless exercise, warrants for 296,489 shares were cancelled. As of February 11, 2005, warrants for 2,057,940 shares remained outstanding.

        On February 16, 1993, we issued 112,000 shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value ("Series B Preferred Stock"), for the acquisition of our Spring Grove facility. The liquidation value of each share of Series B Preferred Stock is the liquidation preference of $50.00 plus unpaid dividends. Series B Preferred Stock may be converted by the holder into common stock at a conversion rate which, as of December 31, 2004, was equal to $16.45 per share and is subject to customary antidilution adjustments. There is no expiration date associated with the conversion option. We have the option to redeem the Series B Preferred Stock at the liquidation preference plus any accrued

72


dividends with no redemption premium. Each share of Series B Preferred Stock entitles its holder to receive a cumulative annual cash dividend of $4.00 per share, or at our election, a common stock dividend of equivalent value. On October 19, 2004, 42,000 shares of Series B Preferred Stock were converted into 127,680 shares of common stock. As of December 31, 2004, we had 70,000 shares of Series B Preferred Stock outstanding.

        Dividends on the Series B Preferred Stock are payable on the 15th day of January, April, July and October, at the rate of $1.00 per share, per quarter. Due to loan covenant restrictions, we paid the third and fourth quarter 2003 and the first and second quarter 2004 dividends in equivalent value of common stock. Dividends for other quarters included in the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 and the six months ended June 30, 2005 were paid in cash.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

        In January 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the "FASB") issued FASB Interpretation No. 46 ("FIN 46"), "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities," which was revised in December 2003 as FIN 46R. FIN 46R further explains how to identify a Variable Interest Entity ("VIE") and how to determine when a business enterprise should include the assets, liabilities, noncontrolling interest and results of that VIE in its financial statements. FIN 46R is required in financial statements of public entities that have interests in structures that are commonly referred to as special purpose entities. FIN 46R had no material impact on our results of operations since we have no special purpose entities.

        In December 2003, the FASB issued a revision to Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 132, "Employers' Disclosures about Pensions and Other Postretirement Benefits," to improve financial statement disclosure for defined benefit plans. This statement requires additional disclosures about the assets (including plan assets by category), obligations and cash flows of defined pension plans and other defined benefit postretirement plans. It also requires reporting of various elements of pension and other postretirement benefit costs on a quarterly basis. Generally, the disclosure requirements are effective for interim periods beginning after December 15, 2003; however, information about foreign plans is effective for fiscal years ending after June 15, 2004. We adopted the revised SFAS No. 132 effective December 31, 2004. See Note 22 to our audited financial statements for the three years ended December 31, 2004, for further discussion of employee benefit plans.

        In December 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") issued Staff Accounting Bulletin ("SAB") No. 104, "Revenue Recognition," which supercedes SAB 101, "Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements." SAB 104's primary purpose is to rescind accounting guidance contained in SAB 101 related to multiple element revenue arrangements, superceded as a result of the issuance of Emerging Issues Task Force ("EITF") 00-21, "Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables." The issuance of SAB 104 reflects the concepts contained in EITF 00-21. The other revenue recognition concepts contained in SAB 101 remain largely unchanged. The issuance of SAB 104 did not have a material impact on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

        In November 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 151, "Inventory Costs, an amendment of ARB No. 43, Chapter 4." SFAS No. 151 amends Accounting Research Bulletin ("ARB") No. 43, Chapter 4, to clarify that abnormal amounts of idle facility expense, freight, handling costs and wasted materials (spoilage) should be recognized as current-period charges. In addition, SFAS No. 151 requires that allocation of fixed production overhead to inventory be based on the normal capacity of the production facilities. SFAS No. 151 is effective for inventory costs incurred during fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2005. We expect that the adoption of SFAS No. 151 will not have a material impact on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

        In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 153, "Exchanges of Nonmonetary Assets, an amendment of APB Opinion No. 29." SFAS No. 153 amends Accounting Principles Board ("APB")

73


Opinion No. 29, by eliminating the exception to the basic measurement principle (fair value) for exchanges of similar productive assets. That exception required that some nonmonetary exchanges, although commercially substantive, be recorded on a carryover basis. This Statement eliminates the exception and replaces it with a general exception for exchanges that do not have commercial substance. SFAS No. 153 is effective for nonmonetary exchanges occurring in fiscal periods beginning after June 15, 2005. The adoption of SFAS No. 153 is not expected to have a material impact on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

        In December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 123 (revised 2004), "Share-Based Payment." SFAS No. 123(R) replaces SFAS No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation," and supercedes APB Opinion No. 25, "Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees." SFAS No. 123(R) requires companies to report compensation cost relating to share-based payment transactions to be recognized in financial statements. That cost will be measured based upon the fair value of the equity or liability instruments issued. On March 29, 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") issued Staff Accounting Bulletin 107, "Share-Based Payment," that expresses the views of the SEC staff regarding the application of SFAS No. 123(R). We are studying the Statement and the Bulletin. The Statement will increase our compensation expense starting January 1, 2006.

        In March 2005, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 47 ("FIN 47"), "Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations." FIN 47 clarifies that the term "conditional asset retirement obligation" as used in SFAS No. 143, "Accounting for Assets Retirements Obligations," refers to a legal obligation to perform an asset retirement activity in which the timing and or method of settlement are conditional on a future event that may or may not be within the control of the entity. Furthermore, the uncertainty about the timing and or method of settlement of a conditional asset retirement obligations should be factored into the measurement of the liability when sufficient information exists. FIN 47 clarifies that an entity is required to recognize the liability for the fair value of a conditional asset when incurred if the liability's fair value can be reasonably estimated. We are studying FIN 47 and have not determined what effect, if any, FIN 47 will have on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. We will implement FIN 47 effective January 1, 2006.

        In June 2005, the FASB issued Statement No. 154, "Accounting Changes and Error Corrections", a replacement of APB Opinion No. 20 and FASB Statement No. 3. The Statement applies to all voluntary changes in accounting principle, and changes the requirements for accounting for and reporting of a change in accounting principle. Statement 154 requires retrospective application to prior periods' financial statements of a voluntary change in accounting principle unless it is impracticable. Opinion 20 previously required that most voluntary changes in accounting principle be recognized by including in net income of the period of the change the cumulative effect of changing to the new accounting principle. Statement 154 improves financial reporting because its requirements enhance the consistency of financial information between periods. Because the Statement relates to corrections of errors and changes in accounting that could occur in future periods, we cannot now predict what effect, if any, the statement will have on future results of operations.

74


CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

        Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, we evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined under Rule 13a-15(e) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2004 because of the material weakness discussed below. In light of the material weakness described below, we performed additional analysis and other post-closing procedures to ensure our consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Accordingly, our management believes that the financial statements included in this prospectus fairly present in all material respects our financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented.

Management's Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

        Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as that term is defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f). Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, we conducted an evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

        A material weakness is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected. As of December 31, 2004, we did not maintain effective controls over the completeness and accuracy of our self-insured workers' compensation and motor vehicle liability reserves and the associated provisions. Specifically, we did not have effective controls over estimating and monitoring self-insured workers' compensation and motor vehicle reserves. This control deficiency resulted in the restatement of our consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, the restatement of the quarterly data for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2003, as well as an audit adjustment in the 2004 financial statements. Additionally, this control deficiency could result in a misstatement of workers' compensation and motor vehicle liability reserves and the associated provisions that would result in a material misstatement to annual or interim financial statements that would not be prevented or detected. Accordingly, our management determined that this control deficiency constituted a material weakness as of December 31, 2004. Because of this material weakness, our management has concluded that we did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 based on the criteria in the Internal Control-Integrated Framework.

        Management's assessment of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report which appears elsewhere in this prospectus.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

        Except as otherwise discussed below under "Remediation of Material Control Weakness," there have not been any changes in our internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act, since December 31, 2004 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

75


Remediation of Material Control Weaknesses

        In order to remediate the control weakness in our internal control over financial reporting described above, we are now using an actuarial-based method for estimating our reserves for self-insured workers' compensation and motor vehicle liability reserves. As of June 30, 2005, our senior management performed an evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures. Based on that evaluation, our management, including the Chief Executive Officer and the then acting Chief Financial Officer, concluded that these disclosure procedures and controls are effective.

Limitations on the Effectiveness of Controls

        Our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal control over financial reporting will prevent all errors and all fraud.

        A company's internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company's internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company's assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

        Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

        Further, the design of disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations of controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within our Company have been detected.

76


BUSINESS

        Clean Harbors, Inc. through its subsidiaries (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Clean Harbors" or "we" or "our") is one of the largest providers of environmental services and the largest operator of non-nuclear hazardous waste treatment facilities in North America based on 2003 industry reports. We service approximately 55% of North America's commercial hazardous incineration volume, 17% of North America's hazardous landfill volume, and are the industry leader in total hazardous waste disposal facilities. We provide services and solutions to a diversified industry base with over 45,000 customers, including more than 175 Fortune 500 companies, in the United States, Canada, Mexico and Puerto Rico. We perform environmental services through a network of more than 100 service locations, and operate five incineration facilities, nine commercial landfills, seven wastewater treatment operations, and 20 treatment, storage and disposal facilities, or TSDFs, as well as five PCB management facilities and two oil and used oil products recycling facilities. We can provide low cost solutions to our customers due to our large scale, industry knowledge, recent cost cutting and productivity-enhancing initiatives, and ability to internalize our waste streams.

        The wastes that we handle include materials that are classified as "hazardous" because of their unique properties, as well as other materials subject to federal and state environmental regulation. We provide final treatment and disposal services designed to manage hazardous and non-hazardous wastes, which cannot be economically recycled or reused. We transport, treat and dispose of industrial wastes for commercial and industrial customers, health care providers, educational and research organizations, other environmental services companies and governmental entities.

        Clean Harbors, Inc. was incorporated in Massachusetts in 1980 and its principal offices are located in Braintree, Massachusetts. The Company's shares of common stock trade on The Nasdaq National Market under the symbol "CLHB." We maintain a website at the following Internet address: http://www.cleanharbors.com. Through a link on this website to the SEC website, http://www.sec.gov, we provide free access to our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as soon as reasonably practicable after electronic filing with the SEC. Our guidelines on corporate governance, the charters for our Board Committees, and our code of ethics for members of the Board of Directors, senior officers and the chief executive officer are also available on our website, and we will post on our website any waivers of, or amendments to, such code of ethics. Our website and the information contained therein or connected thereto are not incorporated by reference into this prospectus.

Acquisition

        Effective September 7, 2002, we purchased from Safety-Kleen Services, Inc., or the Seller, and certain of the Seller's domestic subsidiaries (collectively, the "Sellers"), substantially all of the assets of the Chemical Services Division, or CSD, of Safety-Kleen Corp., or Safety-Kleen. The sale included the operating assets of certain of the Seller's subsidiaries in the United States and the stock of five of the Seller's subsidiaries in Canada, or the CSD Canadian Subsidiaries. The sale was made pursuant to a Sale Order issued on June 18, 2002 by the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware as part of the proceedings under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in which Safety-Kleen and its domestic subsidiaries (including the Sellers) had been operating since June 2000 as debtors in possession. The Sale Order authorized the sale of the assets of the CSD to Clean Harbors free and clear of all liens, claims, encumbrances and interests except for certain liabilities and obligations we assumed as part of the purchase price.

        The assets of the CSD (including the assets of the CSD Canadian Subsidiaries) which we acquired consist primarily of 44 hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities including, among others, 22 TSDFs (six of which we have since closed), six wastewater treatment facilities (one of which we have

77


since closed), nine commercial landfills, and four incineration facilities. Such facilities are located in 30 states, Puerto Rico, six Canadian provinces and Mexico. The most significant of such facilities include landfills in Buttonwillow, California with approximately 10.0 million cubic yards of remaining capacity, in Lambton, Ontario with approximately 8.9 million cubic yards of remaining capacity which is the largest of the total of three hazardous waste landfills in Canada, and in Waynoka, Oklahoma with approximately 1.5 million cubic yards of remaining capacity; and incinerators in Deer Park, Texas, which is the largest hazardous waste incineration facility in the United States, and in Aragonite, Utah. Additional significant facilities are the incinerators in Mercier, Quebec and in Lambton, Ontario.

        The primary reasons for the acquisition of the CSD assets were to broaden our disposal capabilities and geographic reach, particularly in the West Coast and Southwest regions of the United States, in Canada and in Mexico, and to significantly expand our network of hazardous waste disposal facilities. In addition, we believed that the acquisition of the CSD's hazardous waste facilities in new geographic areas would allow us to expand our site and industrial services. The performance of site and industrial services often involves hazardous waste disposal components that potentially increase the utilization and profitability of our facilities. Finally, we believed that the acquisition would result in significant cost savings by allowing us to internally treat and dispose of hazardous waste for which we previously paid third parties because we lacked the facilities required to dispose of the waste internally.

Industry

        According to industry reports, the hazardous waste disposal market in North America is in excess of $2.0 billion. We also service the much larger industrial maintenance market. The $2.0 billion estimate does not include the industrial maintenance market, except to the extent that the costs of disposal of hazardous wastes generated as a result of industrial maintenance are included.

        There are substantial barriers to entry into the hazardous waste management industry including high regulatory compliance costs and expertise, the arduous federal, state, provincial and local permitting processes for new disposal facilities, and the requirement for an extensive asset network, operating knowledge and major capital expenditures to purchase or construct new disposal facilities. As a result, no new hazardous waste incinerators or hazardous waste landfills have commenced commercial operations in North America in the last decade. We believe that industry fundamentals are improving. Capacity has been reduced in recent years causing stabilization in pricing, and new regulatory requirements have increased in-house disposal costs and outsourcing. Furthermore, customers are using fewer providers for their hazardous waste treatment and disposal needs as they seek to limit their outside vendors and the number of facilities in which their hazardous waste materials are disposed.

        The hazardous waste management industry was "created" in 1976 with the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA. RCRA requires waste generators to distinguish between "hazardous" and "non-hazardous" wastes, and to treat, store and dispose of hazardous waste in accordance with specific regulations. This new regulatory environment, combined with strong economic growth, increased corporate concern surrounding environmental liabilities, and early-stage industry dynamics contributed to growth in the industry. The largest generators of hazardous waste materials are companies in the chemical, petrochemical, primary metals, paper, furniture, aerospace and pharmaceutical industries. Hazardous waste types processed or transported include flammables, combustibles and other organics, acids and caustics, cyanides and sulfides, solids and sludge, industrial wastewaters, items containing PCBs (such as utility transformers), and medical waste.

        In the mid to late 1990s, the hazardous waste management industry was characterized by overcapacity, minimal regulatory advances and pricing pressure. However, since 2001, over one-third of all North American commercial incineration capacity has been eliminated, and we believe that competition has been reduced through consolidation and that new regulations have increased the overall barriers to entry. Underscoring these trends, we believe that the number of major industry

78


participants in the North American hazardous waste sector has declined from over 20 in the early 1990s to only five major participants today. Since the mid 1990s, approximately 500,000 tons of incineration capacity has been eliminated as eight major incinerators were deactivated, substantially increasing average capacity utilization. Additionally, new Maximum Achievable Control Technologies, or MACT, standards have been implemented, which we believe will increase compliance costs and drive increased outsourcing of incineration as customers with captive (i.e., in-house and non-commercial) incinerators choose to outsource rather than make the substantial investment in their facilities which would be required to achieve compliance.

        The environmental services industry today includes a broad range of services including the following:

        The collection and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes are subject to local, state, provincial and federal requirements and regulations, which regulate health, safety, the environment, zoning and land-use. Included in these regulations is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, or CERCLA, of the United States. CERCLA holds generators and transporters of hazardous substances, as well as past and present owners and operators of sites where there has been a hazardous release, strictly, jointly and severally liable for environmental cleanup costs resulting from the release or threatened release. Canadian companies are regulated under similar regulations, but the responsibility and liability associated with the waste passes from the generator to the transporter or receiver of the waste, in contrast to provisions of CERCLA.

Competitive Strengths

79

80

Business Strategy

        Our strategy is to develop and maintain ongoing relationships with a diversified group of customers who have recurring needs for environmental services. We strive to be recognized as the premier supplier of a broad range of value-added environmental services based upon quality, responsiveness, customer service, information technologies, breadth of product offerings and cost effectiveness.

81


Services

        We provide a wide range of environmental services and manage our business as two major segments: Technical Services and Site Services.

        Technical Services    (69% of 2004 revenue). These services involve the collection, transport, treatment and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes, and include physical treatment, resource recovery, fuels blending, incineration, landfill disposal, wastewater treatment, lab chemical disposal, explosives management, and CleanPack® services. Our CleanPack® services include the collection, identification and categorization, specialized packaging, transportation and disposal of laboratory chemicals and household hazardous wastes. Our technical services are provided through a network of service centers from which a fleet of trucks or railcars is dispatched to pick up customers' wastes either on a predetermined schedule or on-demand and to deliver such wastes to permitted facilities, which are usually owned by us. Our service centers can also dispatch chemists to a customer location for the collection of chemical and laboratory waste for disposal.

        Site Services    (31% of 2004 revenue). These services provide customers with highly skilled experts who utilize specialty equipment and resources to perform services at any chosen location. Under the Site Services umbrella, our Field Service crews and equipment are dispatched on a planned or emergency basis, and perform services such as confined space entry for tank cleaning, site decontamination, large remediation projects, selective demolition, spill cleanup, railcar cleaning, product recovery and transfer, scarifying and media-blasting and vacuum services. Additional services include used oil and oil products recycling, as well as PCB management and disposal.

        Also, as part of Site Services, Industrial Services crews focus on industrial cleaning and maintenance projects. Our Industrial Services manage hazardous, non-hazardous, wet and dry materials and specialize in chemical cleaning, hydro blasting, liquid/dry vacuuming, sodium bicarbonate blasting, line cleaning, boiler cleanouts, and steam cleaning of our customers' process equipment and systems, as well as video inspection. Additionally, specialized project work such as dewatering, and on-site material processing utilizing thermal treatment units are also performed on customers' sites. We market these services through our internal sales organizations and, in many instances, delivery of services in one area supports or leads to business in our other service lines or segments.

        The table below shows for each of the six month periods ended June 30, 2004 and 2005, and the three years ended December 31, 2004, the total revenues contributed by our principal lines of business (in thousands):

 
   Six Months
Ended June 30,
   Years Ended December 31,
 
   2005
   2004
   2004
   2003
   2002
Technical Services   $ 224,807   $ 215,678   $ 444,617   $ 422,777   $ 220,085
Site Services     113,591     88,502     198,609     187,742     128,873
Other     478     208     (7 )   450     1,175
   
 
 
 
 
Total   $ 338,876   $ 304,388   $ 643,219   $ 610,969   $ 350,133
   
 
 
 
 

82

        Additional segment information can be found in the financial statements and the notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this prospectus, especially Note 23, "Segment Reporting," to our audited financial statements for the three years ended December 31, 2004, and Note 16, "Segment Reporting," to our unaudited financial statements for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004.

Technical Services

        Technical Services provides the collection, transportation and logistics management of containerized and bulk waste, as well as the categorizing, packaging and removal of laboratory chemicals for disposal (CleanPack®). Through a highly coordinated transportation fleet, we provide reliable, cost effective transportation and disposal to customers across North America. From the Technical Service Centers, trucks are dispatched to pick up customers' waste on a predetermined schedule as well as on demand, and then deliver it to one of our nearby transfer, storage and disposal ("TSD") facilities. From these same Technical Service Centers, specially trained chemists are dispatched to customer locations to safely collect, label and package all quantities of laboratory chemicals for disposal.

        As an integral part of our services, industrial wastes are collected from customers and transported by us to and between our facilities for treatment or bulking for shipment to final disposal locations. Customers typically accumulate waste in containers, such as 55 gallon drums, bulk storage tanks or 20 cubic yard roll-off boxes. In providing this service, we utilize a variety of specially designed and constructed tank trucks and semi-trailers as well as third party transporters, including railroads. Liquid waste is frequently transported in bulk, but may also be transported in drums. Heavier sludge or bulk solids are transported in sealed, roll-off boxes or bulk dump trailers. Our fleet is equipped with a mobile satellite monitoring system and communications network, which allows real time communication with the transportation fleet.

        We transport, treat and dispose of industrial wastes for commercial and industrial customers, health care providers, educational and research organizations, other environmental services companies and governmental entities. The wastes handled include substances, which are classified as "hazardous" because of their corrosive, ignitable, infectious, reactive or toxic properties, and other substances subject to federal, state and provincial environmental regulation. We provide final treatment and disposal services designed to manage hazardous and non-hazardous wastes, which cannot be otherwise economically recycled or reused.

        We operate a network of TSDFs that primarily focuses on the collection of waste from smaller to mid-size generators. These TSDFs collect, temporarily store and/or consolidate compatible waste streams for more efficient transportation to final recycling, treatment or disposal destinations. TSDFs in the United States have Part B permits under RCRA that, among other things, allow us to store waste for up to one year for bulking, treatment or transfer purposes. Larger customers typically ship directly to the end disposal sites with full truckloads of material. Depending upon the content, the material collected at the TSDFs is either disposed of at our incineration, landfill or wastewater treatment facilities, disposed of at end disposal facilities not owned by us, or recycled. Waste types processed or transferred in drums or bulk quantities include:

83

        We receive detailed waste profiles prepared by our customers to document the nature of the waste. A sample of the delivered waste is tested to ensure that it conforms to the customer-generated waste profile record and to select an appropriate method of treatment and disposal. Once the wastes are characterized, compatible wastes are consolidated to achieve economies in storage, handling, transportation and ultimate treatment and disposal. At the time of acceptance of a customer's waste at our facility, a unique computer "bar code" identification label is assigned to each container of waste, enabling the use of sophisticated computer systems to track and document the status, location and disposition of the waste.

        Physical Treatment.    Physical treatment methods include distillation, separation and stabilization. These methods are used to reduce the volume or toxicity of waste material or to make it suitable for further treatment, reuse, or disposal. Distillation uses either heat or vacuum to purify liquids for resale. Separation utilizes techniques such as sedimentation, filtration, flocculation and centrifugation to remove solid materials from liquids. Stabilization refers to a category of waste treatment processes designed to reduce contaminant mobility or solubility and convert waste to a more chemically stable form. Stabilization technology includes many classes of immobilization systems and applications. Stabilization is a frequent treatment method for metal-bearing wastes received at several of our facilities, which treat the waste to meet specific federal land disposal restrictions. After treatment, the waste is tested to confirm that it has been rendered non-hazardous. It can then be sent to a non-hazardous waste landfill, at significantly lower cost than disposal at a hazardous waste landfill.

        Resource Recovery and Fuels Blending.    Resource recovery involves the treatment of wastes using various methods, which effectively remove contaminants from the original material to restore its fitness for its intended purpose and to reduce the volume of waste requiring disposal. We operate treatment systems for the reclamation and reuse of certain wastes, particularly solvent-based wastes generated by industrial cleaning operations, metal finishing and other manufacturing processes.

        Spent solvents that can be recycled are processed through thin film evaporators and other processing equipment and are distilled into usable products. Upon recovery of these products, we either return the recovered solvents to the original generator or sell them to third parties. Organic liquids and solids with sufficient heat value are blended to meet strict specifications for use as supplemental fuels for incinerators, cement kilns, industrial furnaces and other high efficiency boilers. We have installed fuels blending equipment at some TSDFs to prepare these supplemental fuels. When possible, we burn fuel blended material at our incinerators. Otherwise, we send the fuel blended material to supplemental fuel users that are licensed to accept the blended fuel material. Although we pay a fee to the users who accept this product, this disposal method is substantially less costly than other disposal methods.

        Incineration.    Incineration is the preferred method for the treatment of organic hazardous waste, because it effectively destroys the contaminants at temperatures in excess of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. High temperature incineration effectively eliminates organic wastes such as herbicides, halogenated solvents, pesticides, and pharmaceutical and refinery wastes, regardless of whether they are gases, liquids, sludge or solids. Federal and state incineration regulations require a destruction and removal efficiency of 99.99% for most organic wastes and 99.9999% for PCBs and dioxin.

84


        We have five active incineration facilities that offer a wide range of technological capabilities to customers through this network. In the United States, we operate a fluidized bed thermal oxidation unit for maximum destruction efficiency of hazardous waste with an annual capacity of 55,000 tons, and two solids and liquids-capable incineration facilities with a combined estimated annual capacity of 185,000 tons. We also operate two hazardous waste liquid injection incinerators in Canada with total annual capacity of approximately 178,000 tons.

        Our incineration facilities in Kimball, Nebraska, Deer Park, Texas and Aragonite, Utah are designed to process liquid organic wastes, sludge, solids, soil and debris. The Deer Park facility has two kilns and a rotary reactor. Our incineration facilities in Kimball, Nebraska and Deer Park, Texas have on-site landfills for the disposal of ash and other waste material produced as a result of the incineration process.

        Our incineration facilities in Mercier, Quebec and Lambton, Ontario are liquid injection incinerators, designed primarily for the destruction of liquid organic waste. Typical waste streams include wastewater with low levels of organics and other higher concentration organic liquid wastes not amenable to conventional physical or chemical waste treatment.

        The North American hazardous waste incineration market is now served by a total of 12 major incineration facilities operated by a total of seven companies. We own five of these active incineration facilities and offer a wide range of technological capabilities to our customers through this network. The primary competitors in the incineration market are Onyx (a subsidiary of Veolia Environnement (NYSE: VE)), Teris, LLC (a subsidiary of Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux), Von Roll America/WTI (a joint venture), and Ross Incineration Services, Inc. (a private company).

        Landfills.    Landfills are used primarily for the disposal of inorganic wastes. In the United States and Canada, we operate nine commercial landfills. Seven commercial landfills are designed and permitted for the disposal of hazardous wastes and two landfills are operated for non-hazardous industrial waste disposal and, to a lesser extent, municipal solid waste.

        Of the seven commercial landfills used for disposal of hazardous waste, five are located in the United States, and two are located in Canada. As of December 31, 2004, the useful economic lives (for accounting purposes) of these landfills include approximately 27.4 million cubic yards of remaining capacity. This estimate of the useful economic lives of these landfills includes permitted airspace and unpermitted airspace that management believes to be probable of being permitted based on our analysis of various factors. In addition to the capacity included in the useful economic lives of these landfills, there are approximately 35.2 million cubic yards of additional unpermitted airspace capacity included in the footprints of these landfills that may ultimately be permitted. There can be no assurance that this unpermitted additional capacity will be permitted.

        In addition to hazardous waste landfill sites, we operate two non-hazardous industrial landfills with 0.5 million cubic yards of remaining permitted capacity. These two facilities are located in the United States and have been issued operating permits under the authority of Subtitle D of RCRA. Prior to issuance of a permit, we must demonstrate to the permitting agency that our non-hazardous industrial landfills have, and must subsequently employ, operational programs protective of the integrity of the landfill, human health and the surrounding environment. Our non-hazardous landfill facilities are permitted to accept commercial industrial waste, including wastes from foundries, demolition and construction, machine shops, automobile manufacturing, printing, metal fabrications and recycling.

        The commercial hazardous landfill sector is one of the most consolidated in the hazardous treatment and disposal industry. The North American hazardous waste landfill disposal market is serviced by 22 facilities owned by a total of 10 companies. While most of these companies operate two or fewer facilities, we and Waste Management, Inc. have a significant share of the North American

85


market. Other competitors include Envirosource, Inc., American Ecology Corp., EQ and Stablex Canada.

        Wastewater Treatment.    We operate wastewater treatment facilities that offer a range of wastewater treatment technologies. These wastewater treatment operations involve processing hazardous and non-hazardous wastes through the use of physical and chemical treatment methods. The solid waste materials produced by these wastewater processing operations are then disposed of at facilities which are owned by us, or at off-site facilities owned and operated by unrelated businesses, while the treated effluent is discharged to the local sewer system under permit.

        Our wastewater treatment facilities treat a broad range of industrial liquid and semi-liquid wastes containing heavy metals, organics and suspended solids, including:

        Wastewater treatment can be economical as well as environmentally sound, by combining different wastewaters in a "batching" process that reduces costs for multiple waste stream disposal. For instance, acidic waste from one source can be neutralized with alkaline from a second source to produce a neutral solution.

        We compete against a number of competitors with multiple facilities (e.g., Rhodia a division of Teris LLC, which is a subsidiary of Suez Lyonaise des Eaux, Philip Services Corp. (Other OTC:PSCD.PK), US Filter, a subsidiary of Veolia Environnement (NYSE: VE), Heritage Environment Services LLC, a private company, and Envirite, Inc., a private company). There are also a number of operators with single facilities that process high volumes of waste in niche markets (e.g., Dupont Environmental Treatment, a subsidiary of E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (NYSE: DD), and Empak, a private company).

        We dispose of munitions and other explosives at our facility in Colfax, Louisiana.

        CleanPack® provides specialized handling, packaging, transportation and disposal of laboratory quantities of outdated hazardous chemicals, household hazardous wastes, and waste pesticides and herbicides. CleanPack® chemists utilize our CHOICE® waste management software system to support our lab pack services and complete the regulatory information required for every pick-up. The CleanPack® operation services a wide variety of customers including:

86

        CleanPack® chemists collect, identify, label, and package waste into Department of Transportation approved containers. Lab packed wastes are then transported to one of our facilities where the waste is consolidated for recycling, reclamation, fuels blending, aqueous treatment, incineration or secure chemical landfill. Other services provided by our CleanPack® operations include:

        Household Hazardous Waste.    We perform one-day, multi-day or mobile household hazardous waste and pesticide collection programs throughout the U.S. and Canada. These collection programs provide communities and their residents the opportunity to properly dispose of their paints, solvents, batteries, fluorescent lamps, cleaners, pesticides and other potentially hazardous materials.

        Reactive Materials Services.    Reactive materials technicians utilize specialized equipment and training to stabilize and desensitize highly reactive and potentially explosive chemicals.

        CustomPack® Services.    We provide training, technical support, and disposal services for customers with the resources and experience to package their own waste chemicals.

        Laboratory Move Services.    CleanPack® chemists properly and safely segregate, package, transport, and unpackage hazardous chemicals being moved from older laboratories to newer laboratories.

        Laboratory Closures Services.    CleanPack® crews perform comprehensive, site-specific chemical removal and disposal, as well as decontamination for facilities and laboratories undergoing a closure or major cleanout.

Site Services

        We provide a wide range of environmental site services to maintain industrial facilities and process equipment, as well as clean up or contain actual or threatened releases of hazardous materials into the environment. These services are provided to a wide range of clients including large chemical, petroleum, transportation, utility, and governmental agencies. Our strategy is to identify, evaluate, and solve customers' environmental problems, on a planned or emergency basis, by providing a comprehensive interdisciplinary response to the specific requirements of each job or project.

        Site Services is responsible for providing trained, skilled labor and specialty equipment to perform various services on a customer's site or other location. Field Service crews and equipment are dispatched on a planned or emergency basis to manage routine cleaning in hazardous environments or emergencies such as a chemical or oil spill clean up. Industrial Service crews focus on industrial cleaning and maintenance projects that typically require fast turnaround, or complex onsite material processing.

        Field Services.    Crews and equipment are dispatched on a scheduled or emergency basis to perform everything from site decontamination and remediation projects to selective demolition, emergency response, spill cleanup and vacuum services. Whether the action is planned, corrective or the result of an emergency response, Clean Harbors' multidisciplinary team of remedial action professionals provide solutions to a variety of industrial cleanup problems. Clean Harbors Field Services performs a wide variety of services including:

87


        Industrial Services.    The fast turnaround of industrial cleaning and maintenance projects requires the right technologies, experience and care. Every project that Clean Harbors Industrial Services performs incorporates techniques of chemistry, operational analysis and experience to identify the right process and procedure to satisfy customer needs. Clean Harbors Industrial Services focuses on planned cleaning activities most often associated with plant maintenance, shutdowns, routine boiler cleanouts, heat exchangers, process vessels and tanks and includes the following services:

Other Services

        Apollo Onsite Services.    Our Apollo Onsite Services Program is an on-site solution that allows customers to outsource all or portions of their environmental management program. The Apollo Program serves the dual purpose of not only improving customers' waste stream management, but also can make their entire environmental program safer, more cost effective and self-sufficient. Select Clean Harbors' technicians work on a customer's site in tandem with customer to deliver proper waste transportation and disposal, lab chemical packing (CleanPack®), and can include field services and industrial services. Whether a customer requires a single field technician or a multi-person team of diversified experience, we design the right program to satisfy the customer's specific need. Apollo Onsite Services utilize a hand-in-hand, team approach that leverages our extensive resources and infrastructure, including Web-enhanced technologies and online services. Additionally, the Apollo Onsite Program leverages our transportation and disposal assets by providing incremental volumes to process at our facilities. The Apollo Onsite Services Program provides:

88

        Information Management Services.    Our Online Services allow customers free access to their waste information online, 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Customers can create, submit, edit and view their waste profiles; automatically receive quarterly waste tracking reports; and have the ability to view, print or download signed manifests. Additionally, they can view collection schedules and place orders over the Internet.

        Personnel Training.    We provide comprehensive personnel training programs for our own employees and for our customers on a commercial basis. Such programs are designed to promote safe work practices under potentially hazardous conditions, whether or not toxic chemicals are present, in compliance with stringent regulations promulgated under RCRA and the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act ("OSHA"). Our Technical Training Center includes confined space entry, exit and extraction equipment, an air-system demonstration maze, respirator fit testing room, leak and spill response equipment, and a layout of a mock decontamination zone, all designed to fulfill the requirements of OSHA Hazardous Waste and Emergency Response Standards.

Seasonality and Cyclical Nature of Business

        Our operations may be affected by seasonal fluctuations due to weather and budgetary cycles influencing the timing of customers' spending for remedial activities. Typically during the first quarter of each year there is less demand for environmental services due to the cold weather, particularly in the northern and midwestern United States and Canada. The main reason for this effect is reduced volumes of waste being received at our facilities and higher operating costs associated with operating in sub-freezing weather and high levels of snowfall. In addition, factory closings for the year-end holidays reduce the volume of industrial waste generated, which results in lower volumes of waste handled by us during the first quarter of the following year.

        The hazardous and industrial waste management business is cyclical to the extent that it is dependent upon a stream of waste from cyclical industries such as the chemical and petrochemical, primary metals, paper, furniture, aerospace and pharmaceutical industries. If the business of those cyclical industries slows significantly, the revenues that are obtained from those industries is likely to slow.

Customers

        Our principal customers are utility, chemical, petroleum, petrochemical, pharmaceutical, transportation and industrial firms, educational institutions, other environmental service companies and government agencies. Our sales efforts are directed toward establishing and maintaining relationships with businesses that have ongoing requirements for one or more of our services. Our customer list includes many of the largest industrial companies in the United States. We believe that our diverse customer base, in terms of number, industry and geographic location, as well as the large geographical area in which our facilities are located in North America, provides us with a recurring revenue base. A majority of our revenues are derived from previously served customers with recurring needs for our services. For the fiscal years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, no single customer accounted

89


for more than 5% of our revenues. We believe the loss of any single customer would not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

        Under applicable U.S. environmental laws and regulations, generators of hazardous wastes retain legal liability for the proper handling of those wastes up to and including their ultimate disposal. In response to these potential concerns, many large generators of industrial wastes and other purchasers of waste management services (such as general contractors on major remediation projects) have decreased the number of providers they use for such services. We have been selected as an approved vendor by large generators because we possess comprehensive collection, recycling, treatment, transportation, disposal, and waste tracking capabilities and have the expertise necessary to comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations. By becoming an approved vendor for a large waste generator or other purchaser, we become eligible to provide waste management services to the multiple plants and projects of each generator or purchaser located in our service areas. However, in order to obtain such approved vendor status, it may be necessary for us to bid against other qualified competitors in terms of the services and pricing to be provided. Furthermore, large generators or other purchasers of waste management services often periodically audit our facilities and operations to ensure that our waste management services are being performed in compliance with applicable laws and regulations and other criteria established by us and such customers.

Geographical Information

        For the year ended December 31, 2004, we derived approximately $557.8 million or 86.7% of revenues from customers located in the United States and Puerto Rico, approximately $84.7 million or 13.2% of revenues from customers located in Canada, and less than 1.0% of revenues from customers in Mexico. For the year ended December 31, 2003, we derived approximately $540.7 million or 88.5% of revenues from customers located in the United States and Puerto Rico, approximately $70.3 million or 11.5% of revenues from customers located in Canada, and less than 1.0% of revenues from customers in Mexico. Prior to the acquisition of the CSD assets effective September 7, 2002, we derived substantially all of our revenues from environmental services provided to customers located in the United States and Puerto Rico. Following the acquisition of the CSD assets, we derived approximately $32.6 million or 9.3% of 2002 revenues from customers located in Canada.

        As of December 31, 2004, we had property, plant and equipment, net of depreciation and amortization of approximately $180.5 million, and permits and other intangible assets of $99.5 million. Of these totals, approximately $23.5 million or 13.0% of long-lived assets and $25.2 million or 25.3% of permits and other intangible assets were in Canada, with the balance being in the United States and Puerto Rico (except for insignificant assets in Mexico).

Competitive Conditions

        The hazardous and industrial waste management industry, in which we compete, is highly competitive. The sources of competition vary by locality and by type of service rendered, with competition coming from the other major waste services companies and hundreds of privately owned firms that offer waste services. We compete against three major companies, which are Philip Services Corp., Onyx Environmental Services (a division of Veolia Environnement), and Waste Management, Inc. We also compete against regional waste management companies and numerous small companies. Each of these competitors is able to provide one or more of the environmental services offered by us. In addition, we compete with many firms engaged in the transportation, brokerage and disposal of hazardous wastes through recycling, waste-derived fuels programs, thermal treatment or landfill. The principal methods of competition for all our services are price, quality, reliability of service rendered and technical proficiency in handling industrial and hazardous wastes properly. We believe that we offer a more comprehensive range of environmental services than our competitors in major portions of our service territory, that our ability to provide comprehensive services supported by unique

90


information technologies capable of managing the customers' overall environmental program constitutes a significant competitive advantage, and that our stable ownership allows us to focus on building long-term relationships with our customers.

        Treatment and disposal operations are conducted by a number of national and regional environmental services firms. We believe that our ability to collect and transport waste products efficiently, quality of service, safety, and pricing are the most significant factors in the market for treatment and disposal services.

        For our site services, CleanPack® and onsite services, competitors include several major national and regional environmental services firms, as well as numerous smaller local firms. We believe that availability of skilled technical professional personnel, quality of performance, diversity of services and price are the key competitive factors in this service industry.

        In the United States, the original generators of hazardous waste remain liable under federal and state environmental laws for improper disposal of such wastes. Even if waste generators employ companies that have proper permits and licenses, knowledgeable customers are interested in the reputation and financial strength of the companies they use for management of their hazardous wastes. We believe that our technical proficiency and reputation are important considerations to our customers in selecting and continuing to utilize our services.

Compliance/Health & Safety

        We regard compliance with applicable environmental regulations and the health and safety of our workforce as critical components of our overall operations. We strive to maintain the highest professional standards in our compliance and health and safety activities. Our internal operating requirements are in many instances more stringent than those imposed by regulation. Our compliance program has been developed for each of our waste management facilities and service centers under the direction of our corporate staff. The compliance and health and safety staffs are responsible for facilities permitting and regulatory compliance, health and safety, field safety, compliance training, transportation compliance, and related record keeping. To ensure the effectiveness of our regulatory compliance program, our Compliance organization monitors daily operational activities and issues a monthly report to senior management concerning the status of environmental compliance and health and safety programs. We also have an Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) Compliance Internal Audit Program designed to identify any weaknesses or opportunities for improvement in our ongoing compliance programs. We also perform periodic audits and inspections of the disposal facilities of other firms utilized by us.

        Our facilities are frequently inspected and audited by regulatory agencies, as well as by customers. Although our facilities have been cited on occasion for regulatory violations, we believe that each facility is currently in substantial compliance with applicable requirements. Major facilities and service centers have a full-time compliance or health and safety representative to oversee the implementation of our compliance program at the facility or service center. These highly trained regulatory specialists are independent from operations and report to the Senior Vice President of Compliance and Regulatory Affairs, who ultimately reports to the General Counsel.

Employees

        As of June 30, 2005, we employed approximately 3,813 active full-time employees, of which approximately 423 employees belong to unions. The table below shows the employees and union or non-union affiliation. We believe that our relationship with our employees is satisfactory.

91

 
   Number of
Employees
Unions in the United States:    
International Brotherhood of Teamsters   173
Utility Workers of America   17
Unions in Canada:    
Communication, Energy and Paper Workers' Union   92
International Brotherhood of Teamsters   127
International Union of Operating Engineers   14
Non-union employees   3,390
   
    3,813
   

        As part of our commitment to employee safety and quality customer service, we have an extensive compliance program and a trained environmental, health and safety staff. We adhere to a risk management program designed to reduce potential liabilities to us and to our customers.

Intellectual Property

        We have invested significantly in the development of proprietary technology and also to establish and maintain an extensive knowledge of the leading technologies and incorporate these technologies into the environmental services that we offer and provide to our customers. We currently hold a total of three patents (which will expire in 2009, 2010 and 2013, respectively) and 17 trademarks in the United States, and we license software and other intellectual property from various third parties. We enter into confidentiality agreements with certain of our employees, consultants and corporate partners, and control access to software documentation and other proprietary information. We believe that we hold adequate rights to all intellectual property used in our business and that we do not infringe upon any intellectual property rights held by other parties.

Management of Risks

        We adhere to a program of risk management policies and practices designed to reduce potential liability, as well as to manage customers' ongoing environmental exposures. This program includes installation of risk management systems at our facilities, such as fire suppression, employee training, environmental, auditing and policy decisions restricting the types of wastes handled. We evaluate all revenue opportunities and decline those that we believe involve unacceptable risks.

        We dispose of waste at our incineration, wastewater treatment and landfill facilities, or at facilities owned and operated by other firms that we have audited and approved. Typically, we apply established technologies to the treatment, storage and recovery of hazardous wastes. We believe our operations are conducted in a safe and prudent manner and in substantial compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

Insurance and Financial Assurance

        Our insurance programs cover the potential risks associated with our multifaceted operations from two primary exposures: direct physical damage and third party liability. We maintain a casualty insurance program providing coverage for vehicles, employer's liability and commercial general liability in the aggregate amount of $30.0 million, $27.0 million and $28.0 million, respectively, per year, subject to a retention of $0.5 million per occurrence. We also have workers' compensation insurance whose limits are established by state statutes. Since the early 1980s, casualty insurance policies have typically excluded liability for pollution, which is covered under a separate pollution liability program.

92

        We have pollution liability insurance policies covering potential risk in three areas: as a contractor performing services at customer sites, as a transporter of waste and for waste processing at our facilities. We have contractor's liability insurance of $10.0 million per occurrence and $10.0 million in the aggregate, covering off-site remedial activities and associated liabilities. Steadfast Insurance Company (a unit of Zurich Insurance N.A.) provides pollution liability coverage for waste in-transit with single occurrence and aggregate liability limits of $40.0 million. This Steadfast policy covers liability in excess of $250 thousand for pollution caused by sudden and accidental occurrences during transportation of waste from the time waste is picked up from a customer until its delivery to the final disposal site.

        Federal and state regulations require liability insurance coverage for all facilities that treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRA and the Toxic Substances Control Act and comparable state hazardous waste regulations typically require hazardous waste handling facilities to maintain pollution liability insurance in the amount of $1.0 million per occurrence and $2.0 million in the aggregate for sudden occurrences, and $3.0 million per occurrence and $6.0 million in the aggregate for non-sudden occurrences. We have a policy from Steadfast Insurance Company insuring our treatment, storage and disposal activities that meets the regulatory requirements. In addition, this policy provides excess limits above the regulatory requirements up to $30.0 million.

        Under our insurance programs, coverage is obtained for catastrophic exposures, as well as those risks required to be insured by law or contract. It is our policy to retain a significant portion of certain expected losses related primarily to employee benefit, workers' compensation, commercial general and vehicle liability. Provisions for losses expected under these programs are recorded based upon our estimates of the aggregate liability for claims. We believe that policy cancellation terms are similar to those of other companies in other industries.

        Operators of hazardous waste handling facilities are also required by federal and state regulations to provide financial assurance for closure and post-closure care of those facilities should the facilities cease operation. Closure would include the cost of removing the waste stored at a facility which ceased operating and sending the material to another facility for disposal and the cost of performing certain procedures for decontamination of the facilities. Total closure and post-closure financial assurance required by regulators is approximately $279.3 million. We have placed all of the required financial assurance for closure through a qualified insurance company, Steadfast Insurance Company, which per terms of the policy required us to provide $73.5 million of letters of credit as collateral.

        Our ability to continue conducting our industrial waste management operations could be adversely affected if we should become unable to obtain sufficient insurance or surety bonds to meet our business and regulatory requirements in the future. The availability of insurance may also be influenced by developments within the insurance industry, although other businesses in the environmental services industry would likely be similarly impacted by such developments.

Environmental Regulation

        While our business has benefited substantially from increased governmental regulation of hazardous waste transportation, storage and disposal, the environmental services industry itself has become the subject of extensive and evolving regulation by federal, state, provincial and local authorities. We are required to obtain federal, state, provincial and local permits or approvals for each of our hazardous waste facilities. Such permits are difficult to obtain and, in many instances, extensive studies, tests, and public hearings are required before the approvals can be issued. We have acquired all operating permits and approvals now required for the current operation of our business, and have applied for, or are in the process of applying for, all permits and approvals needed in connection with continued operation and planned expansion or modifications of our operations.

        We make a continuing effort to anticipate regulatory, political and legal developments that might affect operations, but are not always able to do so. We cannot predict the extent to which any

93


environmental legislation or regulation that may be enacted or enforced in the future may affect our operations.

Federal Regulation of Hazardous Waste

        The most significant federal environmental laws affecting us are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), also known as the Superfund Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA").

        RCRA.    RCRA is the principal federal statute governing hazardous waste generation, treatment, transportation, storage and disposal. Pursuant to RCRA, the Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") has established a comprehensive, "cradle-to-grave" system for the management of a wide range of materials identified as hazardous or solid waste. States that have adopted hazardous waste management programs with standards at least as stringent as those promulgated by the EPA, have been delegated authority by the EPA to administer their facility permitting programs in lieu of the EPA's program.

        Every facility that treats, stores or disposes of hazardous waste must obtain a RCRA permit from the EPA or an authorized state agency, unless a specific exemption exists, and must comply with certain operating requirements. Under RCRA, hazardous waste management facilities in existence on November 19, 1980 were required to submit a preliminary permit application to the EPA, the so-called Part A Application. By virtue of this filing, a facility obtained interim status, allowing it to operate until licensing proceedings are instituted pursuant to more comprehensive and exacting regulations (the Part B permitting process). Interim Status facilities may continue to operate pursuant to the Part A Application until their Part B permitting process is concluded.

        RCRA requires that Part B permits contain provisions for required on-site study and cleanup activities, known as "corrective action," including detailed compliance schedules and provisions for assurance of financial responsibility. See "Environmental Liabilities" under "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" elsewhere in this prospectus for a discussion of our environmental liabilities. See "Insurance and Financial Assurance" above for a discussion of our financial assurance requirements.

        The Superfund Act.    The Superfund Act is the primary federal statute regulating the cleanup of inactive hazardous substance sites and imposing liability for cleanup on the responsible parties. It also provides for immediate response and removal actions coordinated by the EPA to releases of hazardous substances into the environment, and authorizes the government to respond to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances or to order responsible persons to perform any necessary cleanup. The statute provides for strict, and in certain cases, joint and several liability for these responses and other related costs, and for liability for the cost of damages to natural resources, to the parties involved in the generation, transportation and disposal of such hazardous substances. Under the statute, we may be deemed liable as a generator or transporter of a hazardous substance which is released into the environment, or as the owner or operator of a facility from which there is a release of a hazardous substance into the environment. See "Legal Proceeding" elsewhere in this prospectus for a description of certain such proceedings involving us.

        The Clean Air Act.    The Clean Air Act was passed by Congress to control the emissions of pollutants into the air and requires permits to be obtained for certain sources of toxic air pollutants such as vinyl chloride, or criteria pollutants, such as carbon monoxide. In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to require further reductions of air pollutants with specific targets for non-attainment areas in order to meet certain ambient air quality standards. These amendments also require the EPA to promulgate regulations, which (i) control emissions of 189 hazardous air pollutants; (ii) create

94


uniform operating permits for major industrial facilities similar to RCRA operating permits; (iii) mandate the phase-out of ozone depleting chemicals; and (iv) provide for enhanced enforcement.

        The Clean Air Act requires the EPA, working with the states, to develop and implement regulations, which result in the reduction of volatile organic compound ("VOC") emissions and emissions of nitrogen oxides ("NOx") in order to meet certain ozone air quality standards specified by the Clean Air Act. In late 2000, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (now known as the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, or TCEQ) enacted new Clean Air Act Regulations dealing with the monitoring and control of emissions of NOx and VOCs. These new regulations were required because of a revision in the designation of the Houston Metropolitan Area from a serious ozone non-attainment area to a severe ozone non-attainment area. This new designation will require our Deer Park, Texas incineration facility to further reduce emissions of NOx. NOx emissions contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, which can be harmful to human health and the environment.

        The Interim Standards of the Hazardous Waste Combustor Maximum Achievable Control Technology (the "HWC MACT") rule of the Clean Air Act Amendments were promulgated on February 13, 2002. This rule established new emission limits and operational controls on all new and existing incinerators, cement kilns, industrial boilers and light-weight aggregate kilns that burn hazardous waste-derived fuel.

        Facilities subject to the HWC MACT rule were required to comply with the new emission standards by September 30, 2003, or they could apply for an extension with compliance being required by September 30, 2004. We submitted the required documentation of substantial compliance at all of our three U.S. incinerator facilities on or before the September 30, 2004 deadline. We made most of the capital expenditures required to achieve that compliance in the fiscal years ended December 31, 2002 through 2004; however, there will be some additional performance testing and documentation costs in 2005.

        Clean Water Act.    This legislation prohibits discharges into the waters of the United States without governmental authorization and regulates the discharge of pollutants into surface waters and sewers from a variety of sources, including disposal sites and treatment facilities. The EPA has promulgated "pretreatment" regulations under the Clean Water Act, which establish pretreatment standards for introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works ("POTWs"). In the course of the treatment process, our wastewater treatment facilities generate wastewater, which we discharge to POTWs pursuant to permits issued by the appropriate governmental authority. We are required to obtain discharge permits and conduct sampling and monitoring programs. We believe each of our operating facilities complies in all material respects with the applicable requirements.

        In December 2000, the EPA promulgated new effluent limitations, pretreatment standards and source performance standards for centralized wastewater treatment ("CWT") facilities. CWT facilities receive and treat a wide variety of hazardous and non-hazardous wastewaters from off-site companies and discharge the treated water directly to waterways or to municipal sewer systems. The new rules set stringent limits for the discharge of metals, organic compounds and oil. All of our wastewater treatment facilities are affected by the new rules and were in substantial compliance with the discharge standards by December 2004.

        Toxic Substances Control Act.    We also operate a network of collection, treatment and field services (remediation) activities throughout North America that are regulated under provisions of the TSCA. TSCA established a national program for the management of substances classified as PCBs, which include waste PCBs as well as RCRA wastes contaminated with PCBs. The rules set minimum design and operating requirements for storage, treatment and disposal of PCB wastes. Since their initial publication, the rules have been modified to enhance the management standards for TSCA-regulated operations including the decommissioning of PCB transformers and articles; detoxification of

95


transformer oils; incineration of PCB liquids and solids; landfill disposal of PCB solids; and remediation of PCB contamination at customer sites.

        Other Federal Laws.    In addition to regulations specifically directed at the transportation, storage, and disposal facilities, there are a number of regulations that may "pass-through" to the facilities based on the acceptance of regulated waste from affected client facilities. Each facility that accepts affected waste must comply with the regulations for that waste, facility or industry. Examples of this type of regulation are National Emission Standards for Benzene Waste Operations and National Emissions Standards for Pharmaceuticals Production. Each of our facilities addresses these regulations on a case-by-case basis determined by its ability to comply with the pass-through regulations.

        In our transportation operations, we are regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as by the regulatory agencies of each state in which we operate or through which our vehicles pass.

        Health and safety standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, or OSHA, are applicable to all of our operations. This includes both the Technical Services and Site Services operations.

State and Local Regulations

        Pursuant to the EPA's authorization of their RCRA equivalent programs, a number of states have regulatory programs governing the operations and permitting of hazardous waste facilities. Accordingly, the hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal activities of a number of our facilities are regulated by the relevant state agencies in addition to federal EPA regulation.

        Some states classify as hazardous some wastes that are not regulated under RCRA. For example, Massachusetts considers used oil as "hazardous wastes" while RCRA does not. Accordingly, we must comply with state requirements for handling state regulated wastes, and, when necessary, obtain state licenses for treating, storing, and disposing of such wastes at our facilities.

        We believe that each of our facilities is in substantial compliance with the applicable requirements of federal and state laws, the regulations thereunder, and the licenses which we have obtained pursuant thereto. Once issued, such licenses have maximum fixed terms of a given number of years, which differ from state to state, ranging from three years to ten years. The issuing state agency may review or modify a license at any time during its term. We anticipate that once a license is issued with respect to a facility, the license will be renewed at the end of its term if the facility's operations are in compliance with applicable requirements. However, there can be no assurance that regulations governing future licensing will remain static, or that we will be able to comply with such requirements.

        Our wastewater treatment facilities are also subject to state and local regulation, most significantly sewer discharge regulations adopted by the municipalities which receive treated wastewater from the treatment processes. Our continued ability to operate our liquid waste treatment process at each such facility is dependent upon our ability to continue these sewer discharges.

        Our facilities are regulated pursuant to state statutes, including those addressing clean water and clean air. Local sewer discharge and flammable storage requirements are applicable to certain of our facilities. Our facilities are also subject to local siting, zoning and land use restrictions. Although our facilities occasionally have been cited for regulatory violations, we believe we are in substantial compliance with all federal, state and local laws regulating our business.

Canadian Hazardous Waste Regulation

        In Canada, the provinces retain control over environmental issues within their boundaries and thus have the primary responsibility for regulating management of hazardous wastes. The federal government regulates issues of national scope or where activities cross provincial boundaries.

96


        Provincial Regulations.    To a greater or lesser extent, provinces have enacted legislation and developed regulations to fit their needs. Most of Canada's industrial development and the major part of its population can be found in four provinces: Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia. It is in these provinces that the most detailed environmental regulations are found. We operate major waste management facilities in each of these provinces, as well as waste transfer facilities in Nova Scotia and Manitoba.

        The main provincial acts dealing with hazardous waste management are:

        These pieces of legislation were developed by the provinces totally independently and, among other things, generally control the generation, characterization, transport, treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes. Regulations developed by the provinces under the relevant legislation are also developed independently, but are often quite similar in effect and sometimes in application. For example, there is some uniformity in manifest design and utilization.

        Provincial legislation also provides for the establishment of waste management facilities. In this case, the facilities are also controlled by provincial statutes and regulations governing emissions to air, groundwater and surface water and prescribing design criteria and operational guidelines.

        During 2004 the Province of Ontario announced its intent to adopt further regulation of landfills located in the province. The proposed regulations would take the form of Land Disposal Restrictions ("LDR") similar to restrictions enacted in the United States to bring the province in closer comity with the U.S. regulatory scheme. On August 12, 2005, The Ontario Ministry of the Environment issued a Notice of Decision for Regulation and enumerated the requirements for the landfilling of various types of hazardous waste and outlined a phase in schedule for various treatment standards based on waste streams and or sectors over a 5 year period. We along with other affected stakeholders in Ontario will have an additional opportunity to provide input to the Ministry concerning the proposed phase-in schedule.

        We are carefully analyzing the just issued new regulation to determine the impact of the regulations on our operations in Ontario. Until this analysis is complete and we have also assessed any and all potential legal avenues of further input and/or appeal of any aspects of the regulation which we believe to be potentially negative to our operations, we will not be able to determine whether the phased-in implementation of the regulations will be materially detrimental to the financial aspects of our Ontario operations.

        Waste transporters require a permit to operate under provincial waste management regulations and are subject to the requirements of the Federal Transportation of Dangerous Goods legislation. They are required to report the quantities and disposition of materials shipped.

        Within the provincial regulations, definitions of hazardous wastes are quite similar. Wastes can be defined as hazardous based on origin or characteristic and the descriptions or parameters involved are very similar to those in effect in the United States. A major difference between the United States regulatory regime and those in Canada relates to ownership and liability. Under Canadian provincial regulations, ownership changes when waste is transferred to a properly permitted third party carrier and subsequently to an approved treatment and disposal facility. This means that the generator is no longer liable for improper handling, treatment or disposal, responsibility having been transferred to the carrier or the facility. Exceptions may occur if the carrier is working under contract to the generator or if the waste is different from that which was originally contracted among the parties.

97


        Canadian Federal Regulations.    The federal government has authority for those matters which are national in scope and in impact and for Canada's relations with other nations. The main federal laws governing hazardous waste management are:

        Environment Canada is the federal agency with responsibility for environmental matters and the main legislative instrument is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This act charges Environment Canada and Health Canada with protection of human health and the environment and seeks to control the production, importation and use of substances in Canada and to control their impact on the environment.

        The Export and Import of Hazardous Wastes Regulations under CEPA 99 control the export and import of hazardous wastes and hazardous recyclable materials. By reference, these regulations incorporate the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and Regulations, which address identification, packaging, marking and documentation of hazardous materials during transport. CEPA 99 requires that anyone proposing to export or import hazardous wastes or hazardous recyclable materials or to transport them through Canada notify the Minister of the Environment and obtain a permit to do so. Section 9 of CEPA 99 allows the federal government to enter into administrative agreements with the provinces and territories for the development and improvement of environmental standards. These agreements represent cooperation towards a common goal rather than a delegation of authority under CEPA 99. To facilitate the development of provincial and territorial agreements, the federal, provincial and territorial governments participate in the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment ("CCME"). The Council comprises the 14 environment ministers from the federal, provincial and territorial governments, who normally meet twice a year to discuss national environmental priorities and to determine work to be carried out under the auspices of CCME.

        Canadian Local and Municipal Regulations.    Local and municipal regulations seldom reference direct control of hazardous waste management activities. Municipal regulations and by-laws, however, control such issues as land use designation, access to municipal services and use of emergency services, all of which can have a significant impact on facility operation.

Compliance with Environmental Regulations

        We incur costs and make capital investments in order to comply with the previously discussed environmental regulations. These regulations require that we remediate contaminated sites (which almost entirely consist of facilities that were acquired or in which we became involved as part of our acquisition of the CSD assets), operate our facilities in accordance with enacted regulations, obtain required financial assurance for closure and post-closure care of our facilities should such facilities cease operations, and make capital investments in order to keep our facilities in compliance with environmental regulations.

        As further discussed in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" elsewhere in this prospectus, under the headings "Acquisition" and "Environmental Liabilities," we assumed in connection with the acquisition of the CSD assets environmental liabilities valued at approximately $184.5 million. For the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, we spent $10.3 million and $8.0 million, respectively, to address environmental liabilities, almost all of the spending related to the environmental liabilities assumed as part of the acquisition of the CSD assets. For the year ending December 31, 2005, we anticipate spending approximately $14.4 million relating to environmental liabilities.

        As discussed more fully above under the heading "Insurance and Financial Assurance," we are required to provide financial assurance with respect to certain statutorily required closure, post-closure and corrective action obligations at our facilities. We have placed most of the required financial

98


assurance for facility closure and post-closure monitoring with an insurance company. In addition to the direct cost of the financial assurance policy, the policy requires that we provide letters of credit of approximately $73.5 million as collateral for the policy.

        As described in "Legal Proceedings" elsewhere in this prospectus, we are involved in legal proceedings arising under environmental laws and regulations. Alleged failure to comply with laws and regulations may lead to the imposition of fines or the denial, revocation or delay of the renewal of permits and licenses by governmental entities. In addition, such governmental entities, as well as surrounding landowners, may claim that we are liable for environmental damages. Citizens groups have become increasingly active in challenging the grant or renewal of permits and licenses for hazardous waste facilities, and responding to such challenges has further increased the costs associated with establishing new facilities or expanding current facilities. A significant judgment against us, the loss of a significant permit or license or the imposition of a significant fine could have a material adverse effect on our business and future prospects.

Properties

        Our principal executive offices are in Braintree, Massachusetts where approximately 41,000 square feet are leased under arrangements expiring in 2006. There are also U.S. based regional administrative offices in Massachusetts and South Carolina, and regional administrative offices in Ontario and Quebec. We own or lease property in 36 states, six Canadian provinces, Mexico and Puerto Rico.

        Our principal property, plant and equipment consist of land, landfill assets and buildings (primarily incinerators, wastewater treatment plants and transfer stations), vehicles and equipment (including environmental remediation equipment). We have 48 active permitted hazardous waste management properties, and 61 additional service centers and satellite or support locations, which occasionally move to other locations as operations and space requirements change. The incinerators, landfills, and TSDFs are our most significant properties and they are included in the Technical Services segment.

        Our properties are sufficient and suitable to our needs. The following tables set forth certain information as of December 31, 2004 regarding our properties. Substantially all of our operating properties are mortgaged as collateral for our loans.

        Included in the 48 hazardous waste management properties are five incineration locations, nine commercial landfills, seven wastewater treatment plants, 20 TSDFs, and seven facilities which specialize in PCB management, oil and used oil products recycling. Some properties offer multiple capabilities. As described below under "Inactive Properties," we also own 17 discontinued facilities.

        Incinerators.    We own five operating incineration facilities containing a total of seven incinerators, as follows:

 
   # of
Incinerators
   Practical
Capacity
(Tons)
   Utilization Rate
Year Ended
December 31,
2004
  
Nebraska   1   55,000   73 %
Utah   1   65,000   80 %
Texas   3   120,000   103 %
Ontario, Canada   1   105,000   93 %
Quebec, Canada   1   73,000   97 %
   
 
 
 
    7   418,000   92 %
   
 
 
 

99

        Our incinerators offer a wide range of technological capabilities to customers through this network. Incineration in the United States is provided by a fluidized bed thermal oxidation unit and two solids and liquids-capable incineration facilities. In Canada, we operate two hazardous waste liquid injection incinerators.

        Landfills.    In the United States and Canada, we operate nine commercial landfills as follows:

 
   # of
Facilities
   Remaining
Highly Probable
Airspace
(cubic yards,
in thousands)
   Remaining
Lives
(Years)
California   2   12,750   44 and 68
Colorado   1   513   51
North Dakota   1   449   40
Oklahoma   1   1,463   18
Texas   1   63   2
Utah   1   2,127   24
Alberta, Canada   1   1,111   29
Ontario, Canada   1   8,908   51
   
 
   
    9   27,384    
   
 
   

        Seven of our commercial landfills are designed and permitted for the disposal of hazardous wastes and two landfills are operated for non-hazardous industrial waste disposal and, to a lesser extent, municipal solid waste. In addition to our commercial landfills, we also own and operate two non-commercial landfills that only accept waste from on-site incinerators. We own all of the landfills with the exception of the landfill in Oklahoma that is leased.

        Wastewater Treatment Plants.    We operate seven facilities that offer a range of wastewater treatment technologies and customer services, as follows:

 
   # of Facilities
   Owned
   Leased
Connecticut   1   1   —
Louisiana   3   2   1
Tennessee   1   1   —
Ohio   1   1   —
Ontario, Canada   1   1   —
   
 
 
    7   6   1
   
 
 

        Wastewater treatment consists primarily of three types of services: hazardous wastewater treatment, sludge de-watering or drying, and non-hazardous wastewater treatment.

100


        Transportation, Storage and Disposal Facilities ("TSDFs").    We operate 20 TSDFs in the United States and Canada as follows:

 
   # of Facilities
   Owned
   Leased
Arizona   1   1   —
California   2   1   1
Florida   1   —   1
Illinois   1   —   1
Kansas   1   —   1
Louisiana   1   1   —
Maryland   1   1   —
Massachusetts   1   1   —
North Carolina   1   1   —
Ohio   1   1   —
Texas   1   1   —
British Columbia, Canada   1   1   —
Manitoba, Canada   1   1   —
Nova Scotia, Canada   1   1   —
Ontario, Canada   3   1   2
Quebec, Canada   2   2   —
   
 
 
    20   14   6
   
 
 

        Our TSDFs facilitate the movement of materials among our network of service centers and treatment and disposal facilities. Transportation may be accomplished by truck, rail, barge or a combination of modes, with our own assets or in conjunction with third-party transporters. Specially designed containment systems, vehicles and other equipment permitted for hazardous and industrial waste transport, together with drivers trained in transportation skills and waste handling procedures, provide for the movement of customer waste streams.

        PCB Management Facilities and Oil Storage or Recycling Capabilities.    We operate seven facilities specializing in PCB management or providing oil storage and recycling capabilities in six states, of which four are owned and three are leased. These facilities are the most significant properties relating to our Site Services segment.

Other Facilities and Properties

        Service Centers and Satellite Locations.    We operate 61 additional service centers and satellite or support locations in 28 states, three provinces in Canada, one in Mexico and one in Puerto Rico, of which 17 are owned and 44 are leased. These locations are aligned with one or more of our landfills, incinerators, wastewater treatment, consulting, administrative, or other treatment and disposal facilities.

        Inactive CSD Facilities.    In addition to the active facilities and properties described above, we own a total of 17 discontinued facilities that were acquired as part of the CSD assets due to our assumption of the remediation liabilities associated with such properties or our closure of such sites. See "Business—Acquisition" above. The principal such discontinued facilities are a closed incinerator and landfill in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, closed incinerators in Roebuck, South Carolina, Coffeyville, Kansas and Bridgeport, New Jersey, and two closed wastewater treatment facilities in Cleveland, Ohio. Prior to the sale of the CSD assets, Safety-Kleen gave notice to the applicable regulatory agencies of Safety-Kleen's intent to close the facilities, and Safety-Kleen stopped accepting wastes at Baton Rouge in 1997, at Roebuck in 1998, at Coffeyville in 2000, at Bridgeport in 2001 and at Cleveland in 1990. We are proceeding with the closure process.

101


LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

General Environmental Matters

        Our waste management services are continuously regulated by federal, state, provincial and local laws enacted to regulate discharge of materials into the environment, remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater or otherwise protect the environment. This ongoing regulation results in our frequently becoming a party to judicial or administrative proceedings involving all levels of governmental authorities and other interested parties. The issues involved in such proceedings generally relate to applications for permits and licenses by us and conformity with legal requirements, alleged violations of existing permits and licenses or requirements to clean up contaminated sites. At June 30, 2005, we were involved in various proceedings, the principal of which are described below, relating primarily to activities at or shipments to and/or from our waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities.

Legal Proceedings Related to Acquisition of CSD Assets

        Effective September 7, 2002 (the "Closing Date"), we purchased from Safety-Kleen Services, Inc. and certain of its domestic subsidiaries (collectively, the "Sellers") substantially all of the assets of the Chemical Services Division (the "CSD") of Safety-Kleen Corp. ("Safety-Kleen"). We purchased the CSD assets pursuant to a sale order (the "Sale Order") issued by the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court") which had jurisdiction over the Chapter 11 proceedings involving the Sellers, and we therefore took title to the CSD assets without assumption of any liability (including pending or threatened litigation) of the Sellers except as expressly provided in the Sale Order. However, under the Sale Order (which incorporated by reference certain provisions of the Acquisition Agreement between us and Safety-Kleen Services, Inc.), we became subject to certain legal proceedings involving the CSD assets for three reasons as described below. As of June 30, 2005, we had reserves of $34.1 million (substantially all of which we had established as part of the purchase price for the CSD assets) relating to our estimated potential liabilities in connection with such legal proceedings which were then pending. We also estimate that it is "reasonably possible" as that term is defined in SFAS No. 5 (more than remote but less than likely), that the amount of such total liabilities could be up to $3.0 million greater than such $34.1 million. Because all of our reasonably possible additional losses relating to legal liabilities relate to remedial liabilities, the reasonably possible additional losses for legal liabilities are reflected in the tables of reasonably possible additional losses under the heading "Environmental Liabilities" in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations." We periodically adjust the aggregate amount of such reserves when such potential liabilities are paid or otherwise discharged or additional relevant information becomes available to us. Substantially all of our legal proceedings liabilities are environmental liabilities and, as such, are included in the tables of changes to remedial liabilities disclosed as part of "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" elsewhere in this prospectus.

        The first reason for our becoming subject to certain legal proceedings in connection with the acquisition of the CSD assets is that, as part of the CSD assets, we acquired all of the outstanding capital stock of certain Canadian subsidiaries (the "CSD Canadian Subsidiaries") formerly owned by the Sellers (which subsidiaries were not part of the Sellers' bankruptcy proceedings), and we therefore became subject to the legal proceedings (which include the Ville Mercier Legal Proceedings described below) in which the Canadian Subsidiaries were then involved. The second reason is that, on the Closing Date for the CSD assets, there were ongoing legal proceedings (which include the FUSRAP Legal Proceedings described below), which directly involved certain of the CSD assets of which we became the owner and operator. While we did not agree to be responsible for damages or other liabilities of the Sellers relating to such proceedings, these proceedings might nevertheless affect the future operation of those CSD assets. The third reason is that, as part of the purchase price for the

102


CSD assets, we agreed with the Sellers that we would indemnify the Sellers against certain current and future liabilities of the Sellers under applicable federal and state environmental laws including, in particular, the Sellers' share of certain cleanup costs payable to governmental entities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("Superfund Act") or analogous state Superfund laws. As described below, we and the Sellers are not in complete agreement at this time as to the scope of our indemnity obligations under the Sale Order and the Acquisition Agreement with respect to certain Superfund liabilities of the Sellers.

        The principal legal proceedings related to our acquisition of the CSD assets are as follows. While, as described below, we have established reserves for certain of these matters, there can be no guarantee that any ultimate liability we may incur for any of these matters will not exceed (or be less than) the amount of the current reserves or that we will not incur other material expenditures.

        Ville Mercier Legal Proceedings.    One of the CSD Canadian Subsidiaries (the "Mercier Subsidiary") owns and operates a hazardous waste incinerator in Ville Mercier, Quebec (the "Mercier Facility"). A property owned by the Mercier Subsidiary adjacent to the current Mercier Facility is now contaminated as a result of actions dating back to 1968, when the Quebec government issued to the unrelated company which then owned the Mercier Facility two permits to dump organic liquids into lagoons on the property. By 1972, groundwater contamination had been identified, and the Quebec government provided an alternate water supply to the municipality of Ville Mercier.

        In 1999, Ville Mercier and three neighboring municipalities filed separate legal proceedings against the Mercier Subsidiary and certain related companies together with certain former officers and directors, as well as against the Government of Quebec. The lawsuits assert that the defendants are jointly and severally responsible for the contamination of groundwater in the region, which the plaintiffs claim was caused by contamination from the former Ville Mercier lagoons and which they claim caused each municipality to incur additional costs to supply drinking water for their citizens since the 1970's and early 1980's. The four municipalities claim a total of $1.6 million (CDN) as damages for additional costs to obtain drinking water supplies and seek an injunctive order to obligate the defendants to remediate the groundwater in the region. The Quebec Government also sued the Mercier Subsidiary to recover approximately $17.4 million (CDN) of alleged past costs for constructing and operating a treatment system and providing alternative drinking water supplies. The Mercier Subsidiary continues to assert that it has no responsibility for the groundwater contamination in the region.

        Because the continuation of such proceedings by the Mercier Subsidiary, which we now own, would require us to incur legal and other costs and the risks inherent in any such litigation, we, as part of our integration plan for the CSD assets, decided to vigorously review options which will allow us to establish harmonious relations with the local communities, resolve the adversarial situation with the Provincial government and spare continued legal costs. Based upon our review of likely settlement possibilities, we now anticipate that as part of any such settlement we will likely agree to assume at least partial responsibility for remediation of certain environmental contamination and certain prior costs. At June 30, 2005, we had accrued $10.6 million for remedial liabilities and associated legal costs relating to the Ville Mercier Legal Proceedings.

        FUSRAP Legal Proceedings.    As part of the CSD assets, we acquired a hazardous waste landfill in Buttonwillow, California (the "Buttonwillow Landfill"). During 1998 and 1999, the Seller's subsidiary which then owned the Buttonwillow Landfill (the "Buttonwillow Seller") accepted and disposed in the Buttonwillow Landfill certain construction debris (the "FUSRAP Wastes") that originated at a site in New York that was part of the federal Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ("FUSRAP"). FUSRAP was created in the mid-1970s in an attempt to manage various sites around the country contaminated with residual radioactivity from activities conducted by the Atomic Energy Commission and the United States military during World War II. The FUSRAP Wastes are primarily construction

103


and demolition debris exhibiting low-activity residual radioactivity that were shipped to the Buttonwillow Landfill by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

        The California Department of Health Services ("DHS") claimed in a letter to the Buttonwillow Seller delivered in 1999 that the Buttonwillow Seller did not lawfully accept the FUSRAP Wastes under applicable California law and regulations. Both DHS and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") filed claims in the Sellers' bankruptcy proceedings preserving the right of those agencies to claim penalties for damages against the Buttonwillow Seller and possibly seeking to compel removal of the FUSRAP Wastes from the Buttonwillow Landfill. However, aside from the letter to the Buttonwillow Seller and the filing of the proofs of claim in the Sellers' bankruptcy proceedings, the California agencies have not commenced any enforcement proceedings relating to the Buttonwillow Landfill. Both we and the Sellers believe that the FUSRAP Wastes were properly, safely and lawfully disposed of at the Buttonwillow Landfill under all applicable laws and regulations, and we would vigorously resist any efforts to require that such wastes be removed if either of the California agencies should in the future initiate any enforcement action for this purpose. We now estimate that the cost of removing the FUSRAP Wastes from the Buttonwillow Landfill would be approximately $6.9 million. However, we have not accrued any costs of removing the FUSRAP Wastes because we believe that, in the event the California agencies were in the future to initiate any enforcement action, only a remote possibility exists that a final order would be issued requiring us to remove such wastes.

        Indemnification of Certain CSD Superfund Liabilities.    Our agreement with the Sellers under the Acquisition Agreement and the Sale Order to indemnify the Sellers against certain cleanup costs payable to governmental entities under federal and state Superfund laws now relate primarily to (i) two properties included in the CSD assets which are either now subject or proposed to become subject to Superfund proceedings, (ii) certain potential liabilities which the Sellers might incur in the future in connection with an incinerator formerly operated by Marine Shale Processors, Inc. to which the Sellers shipped hazardous wastes, and (iii) 35 active Superfund sites owned by third parties where the Sellers have been designated as Potentially Responsible Parties ("PRPs"). As described below, there are also four other Superfund sites owned by third parties where the Sellers have been named as PRPs or potential PRPs and for which the Sellers have sent demands for indemnity to us since the Closing Date. In the case of the two properties referenced above which were included in the CSD assets, we are potentially directly liable for cleanup costs under applicable environmental laws because of our ownership and operation of such properties since the Closing Date. In the case of Marine Shale Processors and the 35 other third-party sites referenced above, we do not have direct liability for cleanup costs but may have an obligation to indemnify the Sellers, to the extent provided in the Acquisition Agreement and the Sale Order, against the Sellers' share of such cleanup costs which are payable to governmental entities.

        Federal and state Superfund laws generally impose strict, and in certain circumstances, joint and several liability for the costs of cleaning up Superfund sites not only upon the owners and operators of such sites, but also upon persons or entities which in the past have either generated or shipped hazardous wastes which are present on such sites. The Superfund laws also provide for liability for damages to natural resources caused by hazardous substances at such sites. Accordingly, the Superfund laws encourage PRPs to agree to share in specified percentages of the aggregate cleanup costs for Superfund sites by entering into consent decrees, settlement agreements or similar arrangements. Non-settling PRPs may be liable for any shortfalls in government cost recovery and may be liable to other PRPs for equitable contribution. Under the Superfund laws, a settling PRP's financial liability could increase if the other settling PRPs were to become insolvent or if additional or more severe contamination were discovered at the relevant site. In estimating the amount of those Sellers' liabilities at those Superfund sites where one or more of the Sellers has been designated as a PRP and as to which we believe that we have potential liability under the Acquisition Agreement and the Sale Order, we therefore reviewed any existing consent decrees, settlement agreements or similar arrangements with

104


respect to those sites, the Sellers' negotiated volumetric share of liability (where applicable), our prior knowledge of the relevant sites, and our general experience in dealing with the cleanup of Superfund sites.

        Properties Included in CSD Assets.    The CSD assets which we acquired include an active service center located at 2549 North New York Street in Wichita, Kansas (the "Wichita Property"). The Wichita Property is one of several properties located within the boundaries of a 1,400-acre state-designated Superfund site in an old industrial section of Wichita known as the North Industrial Corridor Site. Along with numerous other PRPs, the Sellers executed a consent decree relating to such site with the EPA, and we are continuing our ongoing remediation program for the Wichita Property in accordance with that consent decree. Also included within the CSD assets which we acquired are rights under an indemnification agreement between the Sellers and a prior owner of the Wichita Property, which we anticipate but cannot guarantee will be available to reimburse certain such cleanup costs.

        The CSD assets also include a former hazardous waste incinerator and landfill in Baton Rouge, Louisiana ("BR Facility") currently undergoing remediation pursuant to an order issued by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. In December 2003, we received an information request from the federal EPA pursuant to the Superfund Act concerning the Devil's Swamp Lake Site ("Devil's Swamp") in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. On March 8, 2004, the EPA proposed to list Devil's Swamp on the National Priorities List for further investigations and possible remediation. Devil's Swamp includes a lake located downstream of an outfall ditch where wastewaters and stormwaters have been discharged from the BR Facility, as well as extensive swamplands adjacent to it. Contaminants of concern cited by the EPA as a basis for listing the site include substances of the kind found in wastewaters discharged from the BR Facility in past operations. While our ongoing corrective actions at the BR Facility may be sufficient to address the EPA's concerns, there can be no assurance that additional action will not be required and that we will not incur material costs. We cannot now estimate our potential liability for Devil's Swamp; accordingly, we have accrued no liability for remediation of Devil's Swamp beyond what was already accrued pertaining to the ongoing corrective actions and amounts sufficient to cover certain projected legal fees and related expenses.

        Marine Shale Processors.    Beginning in the mid-1980s and continuing until July 1996, Marine Shale Processors, Inc., located in Amelia, Louisiana ("Marine Shale"), operated a kiln which incinerated waste producing a vitrified aggregate as a by-product. Marine Shale contended that its operation recycled waste into a useful product, i.e., vitrified aggregate, and therefore was exempt from regulation under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act ("RCRA") and permitting requirements as a hazardous waste incinerator under applicable federal and state environmental laws. The EPA contended that Marine Shale was a "sham-recycler" subject to the regulation and permitting requirements as a hazardous waste incinerator under RCRA, that its vitrified aggregate by-product was a hazardous waste, and that Marine Shale's continued operation without required permits was illegal. Litigation between the EPA and Marine Shale began in 1990 and continued until July 1996 when the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Marine Shale to shutdown its operations. During the course of its operation, Marine Shale produced thousands of tons of aggregate, some of which was sold as fill material at various locations in the vicinity of Amelia, Louisiana, but most of which was stockpiled on the premises of the Marine Shale facility. Almost all of this aggregate has since been moved to a nearby site owned by an affiliate of Marine Shale, known as Recycling Park, Inc. In accordance with a court order authorizing the movement of this material to this off-site location, all of the materials located at Recycling Park, Inc. comply with the land disposal restrictions of RCRA. Approximately 7,000 tons of aggregate remain on the Marine Shale site. Moreover, as a result of past operations, soil and groundwater contamination may exist on the Marine Shale facility and the Recycling Park, Inc. site.

        Although the Sellers never held an equity interest in Marine Shale, the Sellers were among the largest customers of Marine Shale in terms of overall incineration revenue. Based on a plan to settle obligations that was established at the time of the acquisition, we obtained more complete information

105

as to the potential status of the Marine Shale facility and the Recycling Park, Inc. site as a Superfund site or sites, the potential costs associated with possible removal and disposal of some or all of the vitrified aggregate and closure and remediation of the Marine Shale facility and the Recycling Park, Inc. site, and the respective shares of other identified potential PRPs on a volumetric basis. Accordingly, we determined in the third quarter of 2003 that the remedial liabilities and associated legal costs were then probable and estimable and recorded liabilities for our estimate of the Sellers' proportionate share of environmental cleanup costs potentially payable to governmental entities under federal and/or state Superfund laws. At June 30, 2005, we had accrued $13.4 million of reserves relating to potential cleanup costs for the Marine Shale facility and the Recycling Park, Inc. site.

        On December 24, 2003, the Sellers' plan of reorganization became effective under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. If the EPA or the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality ("LDEQ") were in the future to designate the Marine Shale facility and/or the Recycling Park, Inc. site as a Superfund site or sites, the Sellers might assert that they are not responsible for potential cleanup costs associated with such site or sites, and we might assert that under the Sale Order we are not obligated to pay or reimburse cleanup and related costs associated with such site or sites. We cannot now provide assurances with respect to any such matters which, in the event the EPA or the LDEQ were in the future to designate the Marine Shale facility and/or the Recycling Park, Inc. site as a Superfund site or sites, would need to be resolved by future events, negotiations and, if required, legal proceedings.

        Third Party Superfund Sites.    Prior to the Closing Date, the Sellers had generated or shipped hazardous wastes, which are present on an aggregate of 35 sites owned by third parties, which have been designated as federal or state Superfund sites and at which the Sellers, along with other parties, had been designated as PRPs. Under the Acquisition Agreement and the Sale Order, we agreed with the Sellers that we would indemnify the Sellers against the Sellers' share of the cleanup costs payable to governmental entities in connection with those 35 sites, which were listed in Exhibit A to the Sale Order (the "Listed Third Party Sites"). At 29 of the Listed Third Party Sites, the Sellers had addressed, prior to our acquisition of the CSD assets in September 2002, the Sellers' cleanup obligations to the federal and state governments and to other PRPs by entering into consent decrees or other settlement agreements or by participating in ongoing settlement discussions or site studies and, in accordance therewith, the PRP group is generally performing or has agreed to perform the site remediation program with government oversight. With respect to one of those 29 Listed Third Party Sites, certain developments have occurred since our purchase of the CSD assets as described in the following two paragraphs. Of the six remaining Listed Third Party Sites, we on behalf of the Sellers are contesting with the governmental entities and PRP groups involved liability at two sites, have settled the Sellers' liability at one site, confirmed that the Sellers were ultimately not named as PRPs at one site, and plan to fund participation by the Sellers as settling PRPs at three sites. With respect to the 35 Listed Third Party Sites, we had reserves of $17.9 million at June 30, 2005.

        With respect to one of those 35 sites (the "Helen Kramer Landfill Site"), the Sellers had entered (prior to the Sellers commencing their bankruptcy proceeding in June 2000) into settlement agreements with certain members of the PRP group which agreed to perform the cleanup of that site in accordance with a consent decree with governmental entities, in return for which the Sellers received a conditional release from such governmental entities. Following the Sellers' commencement of their bankruptcy proceeding, the Sellers failed to satisfy their payment obligations to those PRPs under those settlement agreements.

        In November 2003, certain of those PRPs made a demand directly on us for the Sellers' share of the cleanup costs incurred by the PRPs with respect to the Helen Kramer Landfill Site. However, at a hearing in the Bankruptcy Court on January 6, 2004 on a motion by those PRPs seeking an order that we were liable to such PRPs under the terms of the Sale Order, the Bankruptcy Court declined to hear the motion on the ground that those PRPs (which are not governmental entities) have no right to seek direct payment from us for any portion of the cleanup costs which they have incurred in connection

106


with that site. Our legal position is that when the Sellers' plan of reorganization became effective in December 2003, the Sellers likely were discharged from their obligations to those PRPs for that site. The Sellers have never made an indemnity request upon us for any obligations relating to that site. The PRPs have indicated their intention to pursue additional recourse against us, but we filed in February 2005 a complaint with the Bankruptcy Court seeking sanctions against the PRPs for contempt of the injunction in the Sale Order against those PRPs' efforts to proceed directly against us, and that matter is still pending. On April 20, 2005, our general counsel advised us that our exposure to liability for the Sellers' obligations with respect to the Helen Kramer Landfill Site are no longer "probable," and we therefore reversed a $1.9 million reserve which we had established with respect to those potential liabilities in connection with our acquisition of the CSD assets. The reversal of the $1.9 million reserve was recorded to selling, general and administrative expenses.

        By letters to us dated September 22 and 28, 2004, and January 22 and 28, 2005, the Sellers identified, in addition to the 35 Listed Third Party Sites, four additional sites owned by third parties which the EPA or a state environmental agency has designated as a Superfund site or potential Superfund site and at which one or more of the Sellers have been named as a PRP or potential PRP. In those letters, the Sellers asserted that we have an obligation to indemnify the Sellers for their share of the potential cleanup costs associated with such four additional sites. We have responded to such letters from the Sellers by stating that, under the Sale Order, we have no obligation to reimburse the Sellers for any cleanup and related costs (if any), which the Sellers may incur in connection with such four additional sites. We intend to assist the Sellers in providing information now in our possession with respect to such four additional sites and to participate in negotiations with the government agencies and PRP groups involved. In addition, at one of those four additional sites, we may have some liability independently of the Sellers' involvement with that site, and we may also have certain defense and indemnity rights under contractual agreements for prior acquisitions relating to that site. Accordingly, we are now investigating that site further. However, we now believe that we have no liabilities with respect to the potential cleanup of those four additional sites that are both probable and estimable at this time, and we have therefore not established any reserves for any potential liabilities of the Sellers in connection therewith. It is expressly our legal position that we are not liable at any of the four sites for any and/or all of the Sellers' liabilities. In any event, at one site the potential liability of the Seller(s) is de minimis and a settlement has already been offered to the Seller(s) to that effect, and at one site we believe that the Seller(s) shipped no wastes or substances into the site and therefore the Seller(s) have no liability. For the other two sites, we cannot estimate the amount of the Sellers' liabilities, if any, at this time, and that irrespective of whatever liability the Sellers may or may not have, we reaffirm our position that we do not have any liability for any of the four sites including these two particular sites.

        Inactive Third Party Superfund Sites.    In addition to the Superfund sites owned by third parties described in the preceding paragraphs, the Sellers have also been identified as PRPs at several other federal or state Superfund sites owned by third parties that we believe are now inactive with respect to the Sellers. The inactive sites generally involve the shipment by the Sellers of a de minimis amount of wastes to such sites and prior consent decrees, settlement agreements or similar arrangements providing for minimal payment obligations by the Sellers. De minimis agreements generally are intended to settle all claims for small PRPs and such agreements have limited "re-opener" provisions. At certain other inactive sites, the Sellers have disclaimed any liability by advising the governmental entities involved that the Sellers had not shipped any wastes to those sites. We have not established reserves for any of the inactive sites because we believe that the Sellers' cleanup liabilities with respect to those sites have already been resolved and that, under the Sale Order, we would not be responsible for such liabilities in any event.

107


Other Legal Proceedings Related to CSD Assets

        In addition to the legal proceedings related to the acquisition of the CSD assets described above, subsequent to the acquisition in September 2002 various plaintiffs which are represented by the same law firm have filed three lawsuits based in part upon allegations relating to ownership and operation of a deep injection well facility near Plaquemine, Louisiana which Clean Harbors Plaquemine, LLC ("CH Plaquemine"), one of our subsidiaries, acquired as part of the CSD assets. The first such lawsuit was filed in December 2003 in the 18th Judicial District Court in Iberville Parish, Louisiana, against CH Plaquemine under the citizen suit provisions of the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act. The lawsuit alleges that the facility is in violation of state law by disposing of hazardous waste into an underground injection well that the plaintiffs allege is located within the banks or boundaries of a body of surface water within the jurisdiction of the State of Louisiana. The lawsuit also focuses on a "new area of concern" at the facility, which the plaintiffs allege is a source of contamination which will require environmental remediation and/or restoration. The lawsuit also alleges that CH Plaquemine's former facility manager made false representations and failed to disclose material information to the regulators about the facility after CH Plaquemine acquired it in September 2002. The plaintiffs seek an order declaring the facility to be located within the banks or boundaries of a body of surface water under state law, payment of civil penalties of $27,500 per violation per day from and after November 17, 2003, and an additional penalty of $1.0 million for damages to the environment, plus interest. The plaintiffs also seek an order requiring the facility to remove all waste disposed of since September of 2002, and in general, to conduct an investigation into and remediate the alleged contamination at the facility, as well as damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage, natural resources damages, costs of litigation, and attorney's fees. On January 14, 2005, the state district court judge granted the plaintiffs' petition for a preliminary (or temporary) injunction restraining the subsidiary from disposing of hazardous waste in the injection well. On January 18, 2005 (the next day the court was again open for business) CH Plaquemine filed a motion seeking to stay the preliminary injunction, which the same judge granted. The legal effect of the stay order was to allow the facility to continue normal business operations and to continue injecting hazardous waste, pending an appeal. In accordance with the stay order that was granted in favor of the subsidiary, CH Plaquemine has appealed the court's initial ruling granting the preliminary (or temporary) injunction to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal in Baton Rouge, and that appeal is presently pending.

        In February 2005 this same group of plaintiffs sent notice to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality that they intended to file a second citizen suit. In April 2005, the second citizen suit petition was filed naming Clean Harbors, Inc. ("CHI"), Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. ("CHESI"), and an employee of CHESI as defendants. The second citizen suit alleges that CHI, CHESI and the CHESI employee are liable for conduct based upon claims that are substantially similar in nature to those filed against CH Plaquemine in the original citizen suit and also alleges that CHI and CHESI are liable for certain aspects of the operations of CH Plaquemine under the lawsuit's so-called "Single Business Entity Doctrine." This second lawsuit seeks civil penalties of $10,000 per day per violation from an unspecified date. Both CHI and CHESI have filed motions to dismiss the suit against them.

        In June 2005, the same plaintiff's lawyers who filed the two lawsuits described immediately above filed a petition to add CHI, CHESI, CH Plaquemine and the two (one former, one current) employee defendants, to a lawsuit commenced in 1996 against the former owner of the site. While the allegations of that suit are slightly different from the two lawsuits described above, CHI and CHESI are again named in the petition as defendants based largely on the so-called "Single Business Entity Doctrine." This third lawsuit also names as defendants certain former owners and operators of the facility and the insurance company that currently provides environmental impairment liability insurance coverage for the facility, and seeks unspecified damages and attorney's fees.

108


        We believe that all three of these lawsuits are without merit, and are vigorously defending against the claims made. We further believe that, since its acquisition by CH Plaquemine, the Plaquemine facility has been and now is in full compliance with its operating permits and all applicable state laws, and that any alleged contamination in the "new area of concern" complained of by the plaintiffs was and is already being addressed under the corrective action provisions of its RCRA operating permit. In addition, we believe that many of the plaintiffs' claims relate to actions or omissions allegedly taken or caused prior to September 2002 by third parties that formerly owned and/or operated, or generated or shipped waste to, the Plaquemine facility for which we have no legal responsibility under the Sale Order. Prior to June 30, 2005, we had incurred legal expenses in connection with defending against these three lawsuits that satisfied the $1.0 million deductible on our environmental impairment liability insurance applicable to the Plaquemine facility. Because we believe the claims against CH Plaquemine, CHI and CHESI in the three lawsuits are without merit and that we have adequate insurance to cover any future liabilities associated with such lawsuits, we do not now maintain any reserves associated with the three Plaquemine lawsuits.

Legal Proceedings Not Related to CSD Assets

        In addition to the legal proceedings in which we became involved as a result of our acquisition of the CSD assets, we are also involved in certain legal proceedings which have arisen for other reasons. The principal such legal proceedings include certain Superfund proceedings relating to sites owned by third parties where we (or a predecessor) has been named a PRP, certain regulatory proceedings, and litigation involving the former holders of our subordinated notes.

        We have been named as a PRP at 28 sites that are not related to the CSD acquisition. Fourteen of these sites involve two subsidiaries, which we acquired from ChemWaste, a former subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. As part of that acquisition, ChemWaste agreed to indemnify us with respect to any liability of those two subsidiaries for waste disposed of before we acquired them. Accordingly, Waste Management is paying all costs of defending those two subsidiaries in those 14 cases, including legal fees and settlement costs.

        Our subsidiary which owns the Bristol, Connecticut facility is involved in one of the 28 Superfund sites. As part of the acquisition of that facility, the seller and its now parent company, Cemex, S.A., agreed to indemnify us with respect to any liability for waste disposed of before we acquired the facility, which would include any liability arising from Superfund sites.

        Eleven of the 28 Superfund sites involve subsidiaries acquired by us which had been designated as PRPs with respect to such sites prior to our acquisition of such subsidiaries. Some of these sites have been settled, and we believe our ultimate liability with respect to the remaining such sites will not be material to our result of operations, cash flow from operations or financial position.

        As of June 30, 2005, we had reserves of $0.2 million for cleanup of Superfund sites not related to the CSD acquisition at which either we or a predecessor has been named as a PRP. However, there can be no guarantee that our ultimate liabilities for these sites will not materially exceed this amount or that indemnities applicable to any of these sites will be available to pay all or a portion of related costs.

        Kimball Facility.    On April 2, 2003, Region VII of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA Region VII") in Kansas City, Kansas, served a Complaint, Compliance Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing ("CCO") on our subsidiary which operates an incineration facility in Kimball, Nebraska. The CCO stems from an inspection of the Kimball facility between April 8 and 10, 2002. Thereafter, EPA Region VII issued a Notice of Violation ("NOV") for certain alleged violations of

109

RCRA. We responded to the NOV by letter and contested the allegations. After extensive settlement negotiations, on February 23, 2004, we and EPA Region VII executed a Consent Agreement and Final Order that included a Supplemental Environmental Project ("SEP"). We will be required to perform and account for the SEP in accordance with the EPA's SEP Policy. The SEP will involve cleaning out chemicals from high school laboratories, art departments and other campus locations, with all such work to be performed by our own trained field chemists. The SEP will also include the proper packaging, labeling, manifesting, transportation, and ultimately disposal, recycling or re-use of these chemicals at the hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities owned and operated by our subsidiaries, in lieu of the payment of any further civil penalties. We will have two years to complete the performance of the SEP, and any remaining amounts then still owed and outstanding will have to be paid in cash at that time, as calculated pursuant to a sliding scale formula that reduces the amount of cash that will be owed as more of the environmental services are rendered over the two-year period. At June 30, 2005, we had accrued $132 thousand for its SEP liability.

        Chicago Facility.    By letter dated January 16, 2004, Region V of the EPA ("EPA Region V") in Chicago, Illinois notified us that EPA Region V believes our Chicago, Illinois facility may be in violation of the National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations Subpart FF regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act and that EPA Region V may seek injunctive relief and civil penalties for these alleged violations. The alleged violations pertain to total annual benzene quantity determinations and reporting, provisions of individual waste stream identification and emissions control information, and treatment and control requirements for the benzene waste streams. EPA Region V is seeking a fine of $325 thousand. We believe that our Chicago facility complies in all material respects with these regulations and has engaged in ongoing settlement discussions with EPA Region V to resolve the issues described in the letter from EPA Region V without litigation. We believe that the cost of resolving this matter will not be material to our results of operations or financial position.

        Chicago Facility.    On February 12, 2004, our subsidiary which owns the Chicago facility was notified by the Illinois Attorney General's Office that an enforcement action was being initiated against such facility. The enforcement action alleges that the Chicago facility has violated its operating permit, certain Illinois Pollution Control Board regulations, and allegedly applicable provisions of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ("NESHAPs"). The Illinois Attorney General's Office announced that it was seeking $170 thousand in penalties. Our legal and compliance representatives have held discussions with the Illinois Attorney General's Office and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and anticipate that a Supplemental Environmental Project will be negotiated that will substantially reduce the cash component of the penalty in exchange for agreeing to the installation of equipment upgrades at the facility designed to address and control air emissions from operations. These negotiations are ongoing, and although significant progress has been made, there can be no assurance that a settlement can be reached or that the penalty will be reduced.

        Aragonite, Utah Facility.    In February 2005, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") issued a Notice of Violation and Compliance Order ("NOVCO") No. 0405013 against the Clean Harbors Aragonite, LLC incinerator, transfer station and storage facility located near Aragonite, Utah ("CH Aragonite"). The NOVCO pertains to hazardous waste compliance inspections conducted from October 2003 through September 2004 at CH Aragonite. CH Aragonite filed a detailed and comprehensive response to the NOVCO in April 2005. The DEQ assessed a proposed penalty of $129,860 and we are continuing to negotiate for a reduction in the fine.

        London, Ontario Facility.    Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc., and one of our Canadian subsidiaries, Clean Harbors Canada, Inc., received a summons alleging a number of regulatory offenses under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act as a result of a fire in October 2003 at a Clean

110


Harbors Canada, Inc., waste transfer facility in London, Ontario. A worker at the facility received serious injuries as a result of the fire. The initial appearance on this matter occurred on November 22, 2004. We have not yet determined whether to defend the charges or attempt to negotiate a settlement. We have not accrued any liability associated with this matter because any potential liability is not now estimable.

        Summons To Respond to Environment Canada.    On July 15, 2005 a Summons was received by our Lambton Facility in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada requiring us to appear in an Ontario Court on September 19, 2005 to answer charges alleging that at various times between January, 2003 and June 2004, we failed to provide manifest copies to Environment Canada within three days after the manifest is provided to the first authorized carrier and failure to provide an inspector with outstanding manifests; importation of environmentally hazardous waste without an authorized carrier; and failure to submit notice information to the Minister. Such alleged failures if true, would be contrary to: section 7(o) of the Export and Import of Hazardous Waste Regulations; section 272 (1)(a) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, c-33; paragraph 3(1) of the Environmental Emergency Regulations; section 32 (a) of the Export and Import of Hazardous Waste Regulations; section 30(a) of the Export and Import of Hazardous Wastes Regulations and section 13(1)(a) of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.

        At this time the information concerning this proceeding is in its preliminary stages and we expect to learn additional details concerning the alleged charges when our counsel appears at the court proceeding on September 19, 2005.

        Litigation Involving Former Holders of Subordinated Notes.    On April 30, 2001, we issued to John Hancock Life Insurance Company, Special Value Bond Fund, LLC, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and certain other institutional lenders (collectively, the "Lenders") $35.0 million of 16% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2008 (the "Subordinated Notes") as part of our refinancing of all our then outstanding indebtedness. Under the Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of April 12, 2001, between us and the Lenders (the "Purchase Agreement"), we were was also required to pay a $350 thousand closing fee and issue to the Lenders warrants for an aggregate of 1,519,020 shares of our common stock (the "Warrants") exercisable at any time prior to April 30, 2008 at an exercise price of $.01 per share. The Purchase Agreement contained covenants limiting (with certain exceptions) our ability to acquire other businesses or incur additional indebtedness without the consent of a majority in interest of the Lenders. The Purchase Agreement also provided that, if we should elect to prepay the Subordinated Notes prior to maturity, we would be obligated to pay a prepayment penalty which, in the case of a prepayment prior to April 30, 2004, would include a so-called "Make Whole Amount" computed using a discount rate 2.5% above the then current yield on United States government securities of equal maturity to the Subordinated Notes. The Purchase Agreement also provided that, if we should default on any of the terms of the Purchase Agreement including the covenants described above, the Lenders would have the right to call the Subordinated Notes for payment at an amount equal to the principal, accrued interest and the so-called "Make Whole Amount" then in effect.

        During several months prior to our acquisition of the CSD assets effective September 7, 2002, we sought the Lenders' cooperation with respect to such acquisition and to include the Lenders in a refinancing of our outstanding debt (which might involve leaving the Subordinated Notes outstanding or refinancing them). The Lenders, however, ultimately refused to provide any such cooperation. We thus notified the Lenders that we were proceeding with the acquisition of the CSD assets, which would be a violation of certain covenants in the Purchase Agreement, and the Lenders then called the Subordinated Notes for payment, including principal, interest and the "Make Whole Amount" of $16,991,129, an amount equal to 48.5% of the principal amount of the Subordinated Notes. In response to the Lenders' demand, we immediately paid in full the amount demanded, while notifying the

111


Lenders that we were paying the "Make Whole Amount" under protest. It is our position that if the payment to the Lenders is not deemed to be voluntary and the 48.5% "Make Whole Amount" is deemed unconscionable, the "Make-Whole Amount" is likely to be held unenforceable under Massachusetts case law.

        Shortly after the closing of the acquisition of the CSD assets, we wrote to the Lenders demanding a return of the prepayment penalty, in response to which, on September 27, 2002, the Lenders filed a complaint in the Superior Court in Norfolk County, Massachusetts asking the Court to determine the prepayment penalty to be valid and enforceable. On October 1, 2002, we filed a complaint in the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court in Suffolk County, Massachusetts seeking a declaratory judgment that the "Make Whole Amount" is an unenforceable penalty and seeking an order for the return of the amount paid as a penalty, less the Lenders' actual damages (if any), plus interest and costs. In the case of certain of the Lenders, we also seek a judgment that those Lenders' receipt of their share of the "Make Whole Amount," the closing payment and the fair value of the Warrants constitutes a violation of applicable Massachusetts usury laws. We filed a motion seeking to consolidate both legal proceedings in the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which motion was granted. Discovery in the proceedings was completed and all parties served and filed motions for summary judgment. On March 15, 2004, the Court granted summary judgment for the Lenders ruling that the "Make Whole Amount" was enforceable and that the Lenders had not violated the Massachusetts usury laws, and on May 15, 2004 the Court ordered us to pay $323 thousand to the Lenders for legal and expert cost reimbursement. We appealed the Court's rulings, and the Lenders cross-appealed as to the amount of legal and expert cost reimbursement. On August 29, 2005, the Massachusetts Appeals Court issued a decision affirming the Superior Court's ruling that the "Make Whole Amount" was enforceable, reversing the Superior Court's ruling that certain of the Lenders (which collectively held 37.1% of the Subordinated Notes) had not violated the Massachusetts usury laws and remanding the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings on that issue, and affirming the Superior Court's order that we pay $323 thousand to the Lenders for legal and expert costs but denying the Lenders' appeal for additional reimbursements. We cannot predict at this time what remedy, if any, the Superior Court may fashion to address the violation by certain of the Lenders of the Massachusetts usury laws as found by the Appeals Court, and we have not yet decided whether or not to appeal the Appeals Court's decision to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. However, in light of the Appeals Court's decision, we now plan to accrue during the third quarter of 2005 $323 thousand to cover our potential liability to reimburse the Lenders for the legal and expert expenses in that amount. At June 30, 2005, we had not accrued any amount for the Lenders' legal and expert costs because we then believed that such payment was not probable.

112


MANAGEMENT

        The members of our Board of Directors, executive officers and other key employees and their respective ages as of June 1, 2005 are as follows:

Name
   Age
   Position
Alan S. McKim   50   Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer
John D. Barr   57   Director
John P. DeVillars   56   Director
Daniel J. McCarthy   73   Lead Director
John T. Preston   55   Director
Andrea Robertson   47   Director
Thomas J. Shields   58   Director
Lorne R. Waxlax   71   Director
Guy R. Adam   54   Vice President, Canadian Operations**
Eugene A. Cookson, Jr.   47   President, Site Services*
Jerry E. Correll.   55   Senior Vice President of Sales*
George L. Curtis   46   Vice President, Transportation and Disposal Services*
William J. Geary   57   Executive Vice President and General Counsel*
Eric W. Gerstenberg   36   Senior Vice President, U.S. Disposal Operations*
Stephen H. Moynihan   49   Senior Vice President, Planning & Development
William F. O'Connor   55   Senior Vice President, Risk Management*
David M. Parry   39   Senior Vice President, Technical Services*
Carl d. Paschetag, Jr.   45   Vice President, Treasurer, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
Anthony Pucillo   48   Executive Vice President, Sales, Marketing and Central Services*
James M. Rutledge   53   Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Michael J. Twohig   42   Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer*
Brian P. Weber   37   Senior Vice President, Central Services*
*
Officer of Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the parent holding company, Clean Harbors, Inc.

**
Officer of Clean Harbors Canada, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the parent holding company, Clean Harbors, Inc.

        Alan S. McKim founded the Company in 1980 and is Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer. He serves as a director of most of the Company's subsidiaries. Mr. McKim holds an MBA from Northeastern University. He has been a director of the Company since its formation. His current term as a Class I director expires in 2008.

        John D. Barr is the Vice Chairman of Papa Murphy's International, Inc., a privately owned company which is the largest take-and-bake pizza chain in the United States. From 1999 to 2004, he served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Automotive Performance Industries, a privately owned company providing a variety of logistical services to the major automotive manufacturers. From 1995 to 1999, he served as President and Chief Operating Officer and a Director of Quaker State

113


Corporation, where he was involved in a number of acquisitions and divestitures prior to the acquisition of Quaker State Corporation by Pennzoil Company in 1999. From 1970 to 1995, Mr. Barr served in various capacities with the Valvoline Company, a subsidiary of Ashland, Inc., which culminated in an eight-year tenure as President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Barr serves as a director of United Auto Group, Inc., James Hardie Industries, N.V. and UST, Inc. Mr. Barr has served as a director of the Company since August 2003. His current term as a Class II director expires in 2006.

        John P. DeVillars is the Managing Partner of BlueWave Strategies, LLC and BlueWave Capital, LLC, strategic advisory and merchant banking enterprises providing consulting and financial advisory services to environmental and renewable energy companies. From 2000 to 2003, Mr. DeVillars served as Executive Vice President of Brownfields Recovery Corporation, a privately owned company engaged in remediating, financing, and redeveloping environmentally impacted properties. From 1994 through 2000, Mr. DeVillars served as the New England Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. From 1991 to 1994, he was a Director of Environmental Advisory Services with Coopers & Lybrand, and from 1988 to 1991, he served as Secretary of Environmental Affairs for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Chairman of the Board of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Mr. DeVillars holds a Masters in Public Administration from Harvard University and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Pennsylvania and is a Visiting Lecturer in Environmental Policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has served as a director of the Company since 2001. His current term as a Class III director expires in 2007.

        Daniel J. McCarthy has been a Professor of Strategic Management at Northeastern University since 1972, prior to which he was President of Computer Environments Corporation, a computer services company. In the past, he served on five boards, most recently at Tufts Associated Health Maintenance Organization, as a member of its Audit Committee and as Chairman of its Investment Committee. Mr. McCarthy also served as director and member of the Audit and Compensation Committees of MANAGEDCOMP, Inc. Mr. McCarthy holds AB and MBA degrees from Dartmouth College and a DBA degree from Harvard Business School. He has served as a director of the Company since 1987. He was recently elected by the Board as Lead Director, an independent director who presides in executive sessions of the Board and serves as the shareholder contact person for the Board. His current term as a Class III director expires in 2007.

        John T. Preston is President and Chief Executive Officer of Atomic Ordered Materials LLC and Senior Lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT"). From 1992 through 1995, he served as Director of Technology Development at MIT. From 1986 to 1992 he was Director of the MIT Technology Licensing Office where he was responsible for the commercialization of intellectual property developed at MIT. Some of Mr. Preston's prior appointments include director or advisory positions for the Governor of Massachusetts, the U.S. Department of Defense, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Technology Board of Singapore. He holds an MBA from Northwestern University and a BS in Physics from the University of Wisconsin. Prior to joining the Board of the Company, Mr. Preston served on the board of one of our subsidiaries. He has served as a director of the Company since 1995. His current term as a Class II director expires in 2006.

        Andrea Robertson is the Senior Vice President, Treasurer of Mastercard International. From 1996 to 2003, she held financial management positions with RR Donnelley & Sons Company, and from 1984 to 1996 with International Business Machines Corporation. From 1979 to 1982, she was an auditor with Coopers & Lybrand. She holds a BS in Accounting from Merrimack College and an MBA in Finance/Management Information Systems from the University of Chicago. She has served as a director of the Company since June 2004. Her current term as a Class III director expires in 2007.

        Thomas J. Shields is Managing Director of Shields & Company, Inc., an investment-banking firm that he co-founded in 1991. He is currently a director of B.J.'s Wholesale Club, Inc. Mr. Shields is a

114


graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Business School. He has served as a director of the Company since 1999. His current term as a Class I director expires in 2008.

        Lorne R. Waxlax served as Executive Vice President of The Gillette Company from 1985 to 1993, with worldwide responsibility for Braun AG, Oral-B Laboratories and Jafra Cosmetics International. He is currently a director of B.J.'s Wholesale Club, Inc. Mr. Waxlax holds a BBA degree from the University of Minnesota and an MBA degree from Northwestern University. He has served as a director of the Company since 1994. His current term as a Class II director expires in 2006.

        Guy R. Adam is Vice President of Canadian Operations. Mr. Adam joined the Company in 2002. From 1980 to 2002, Mr. Adam held a variety of waste management operation positions with Safety-Kleen Corp. and predecessor companies including Facility Manager, Regional Director and Vice President for Eastern Canada. From 1974 to 1980, Mr. Adam held various process engineering and management positions for the ICI group of companies in Canada. Mr. Adam holds a Chemical Engineering Degree and a Management Diploma from the University of Montréal.

        Eugene A. Cookson, Jr. is President of the Site Services business unit. Mr. Cookson rejoined the Company in 1998 as Senior Vice President, Field Services & Operations. From 1996 to 1998, Mr. Cookson was the Vice President of Operations of The Flatley Group, a privately owned real estate management company, and he was in charge of major accounts at the Gartner Group. From 1991 to 1996, Mr. Cookson held a variety of management positions with the Company including Director of Sales, Director of the CleanPack Product Line and Field Services General Manager. Mr. Cookson holds a Masters Degree in Civil Environmental Engineering from Northeastern University.

        Jerry E. Correll is Senior Vice President of Sales. Mr. Correll joined the Company in 2002. From 1986 to 2002 Mr. Correll held a variety of sales and operations management positions with Safety-Kleen Corp. including Regional Vice President—Central U.S. Operations, Vice President of Corporate Accounts and Senior Vice President of Sales. Mr. Correll holds a Bachelor of Sciences Degree in Business Administration from the University of Tennessee and a JD from the Nashville School of Law.

        George L. Curtis is Vice President, Transportation and Disposal Services. Mr. Curtis joined the Company in 1980, and has served in a variety of management positions the most recent of which were Vice President of Marketing and Vice President of Business Development. Mr. Curtis holds an MBA from Northeastern University and a Bachelor of Arts in Biology from Columbia University.

        William J. Geary is Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Company. He joined the Company in 1989 and he has served as Vice President of Government Relations and as Special Counsel for the Company. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Geary served as the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Metropolitan District Commission and previously served as Deputy Secretary of State and Special Assistant to The Governor of Massachusetts. Mr. Geary has been a consultant to numerous members of the U.S. Congress and The White House and holds a B.S. in Political Science & History from the University of Massachusetts/Boston, an MA in Government & Management from Northeastern University, and a JD from Suffolk University Law School. He was awarded a Loeb Fellowship in Advanced Environmental Studies at Harvard University. Mr. Geary is admitted to the Bar in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia as well as the Bar of the United States Supreme Court.

        Eric W. Gerstenberg is Senior Vice President, US Disposal Operations. Mr. Gerstenberg rejoined the Company in June 1999 as Vice President of Disposal Services of Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. From 1997 to 1999, Mr. Gerstenberg was the Vice President of Operations for Pollution Control Industries, a privately owned environmental services company. From 1989 to 1997, Mr. Gerstenberg held a variety of positions with the Company including General Manager of the Natick, Baltimore and Chicago facilities. Mr. Gerstenberg holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering from Syracuse University.

115


        Stephen H. Moynihan has served as an officer of either the Company and one or more of its subsidiaries since 1987. In 1996, he was appointed Senior Vice President Planning and Development, prior to which he served as Vice President and Treasurer. Mr. Moynihan served as Vice President of Strategic Planning of Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. from 1990 until 1995. Prior to joining Clean Harbors, Mr. Moynihan was Audit Manager for Gerald T. Reilly and Company, a public accounting firm. Mr. Moynihan holds a BS degree in Accounting from Bentley College.

        William F. O'Connor has served as Senior Vice President of Risk Management, after rejoining the Company in December 2002. Previously, Mr. O'Connor was Vice President of William Gallagher and Associates, an insurance broker that he joined in April of 2000. From 1989 to 2000 Mr. O'Connor held a variety of roles at the Company, the last being as Vice President of Human Resources and Risk Management.

        David M. Parry is Senior Vice President, Technical Services. Mr. Parry joined the Company in 1988 and he has served in a variety of management positions including Senior Vice President of Eastern Operations. He has also previously held the positions of Regional Vice President, Northeast Region, District Sales Manager, Regional Manager of CleanPack® and T&D Services, Plant Manager and CleanPack Chemist. Mr. Parry holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering from the Massachusetts Maritime Academy.

        Carl d. Paschetag, Jr. joined the Company as Vice President, Treasurer and Controller in 1997. He also serves as Vice President and Treasurer of most of the Company's subsidiaries. In his capacity as Treasurer, he is currently the Chief Accounting Officer of the Company. From 1994 through 1997, Mr. Paschetag was the Controller of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a privately owned international management consulting company. From 1987 through 1994, Mr. Paschetag held a variety of management positions with Draka Holdings B.V., a publicly held company traded on the Amsterdam Exchange. Prior to that, Mr. Paschetag worked for KPMG Peat Marwick, an international accounting firm. He holds a BBA in Accounting from The University of Texas.

        Anthony Pucillo is Executive Vice President, Sales, Marketing and Central Operations. Mr. Pucillo joined the Company in April 2003. From 2000 to 2002, Mr. Pucillo served as President, E-Business, for the America's Region of Siemens Corporation, a global lighting, medical products, automation, information and communication company, where Mr. Pucillo was responsible for Siemens' e-business efforts throughout North and South America. From 1995 to 2000, he was President and a member of the Board of Directors of OSRAMSYLVANIA LTD., a Siemens subsidiary headquartered in Ontario, Canada. From 1994 to 1995, he was the President of Tactician Corporation, a privately held software corporation headquartered in Andover, Massachusetts, and from 1985 to 1994, he held a variety of positions with GTE Product Corporation which is a division of GTE, Inc., a publicly-held lighting and components company which was acquired by Siemens in 1993. Mr. Pucillo holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Harvard University and an MBA from Columbia University School of Business.

        James M. Rutledge is Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Rutledge joined the Company in August 2005. From 2002 to 2005, he was the Chief Financial Officer of Rogers Corporation, a publicly-held producer of highly engineered specialty materials sold in a broad range of technology markets. From 2000 to 2001, he was the Chief Financial Officer of Baldwin Technology Company, Inc., a publicly-held manufacturer of controls, accessories and handling equipment for the printing industry. From 1999 to 2000, he was Vice President of Finance and Tax of Rayonier Inc., a publicly-held manufacturer of pulp, timber and wood products. From 1979 to 1999, he held a variety of positions with Witco Corporation, a publicly-held manufacturer of specialty chemicals. He holds a Bachelor of Arts from Assumption College and an MBA from Rutgers University.

        Michael J. Twohig is Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer. Mr. Twohig joined the Company in 1999 and has served in a variety of management positions the most recent of which was the Vice President of Strategic Initiatives. From 1996 to 1999 he served a Vice President of Business

116


Operations for Internet Commerce Expo, an International Data Group company. Prior to that he was the Controller for Tocco Corporation, a Building Systems company. Mr. Twohig holds an MBA from Rivier College and a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting from Boston College.

        Brian P. Weber is Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives. Mr. Weber joined the Company in 1990. He has served in a variety of management positions with the Company including, prior to his current position, Senior Vice President of Central Services, and Vice President, Technical Services. Mr. Weber holds a BS degree in Business Management from Westfield State College.

        Information about the security ownership of our major stockholders and management, the Committees of our Board of Directors, and the compensation of our executive officers and directors is hereby incorporated by reference to the sections entitled "Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management," "Election of Directors—Board Committees and Meetings," and "Compensation of Executive Officers" in our definitive proxy statement dated April 15, 2005 for our annual meeting of stockholders on May 12, 2005 which we filed with the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (file No. 0-16379).


CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS

        In October 2003, the Company engaged BlueWave Strategies, LLC ("BlueWave"), a company in which one of its directors, John P. DeVillars, is a controlling member, to provide advisory services on environmental regulatory matters and internal environmental operating systems. The engagement, which was originally for a six-month term, involves the payment of a retainer fee of $10,000 per month. After review and approval of the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors, which is responsible for the review of related party transactions, the engagement has been extended at the same monthly fee. In addition, after review and approval by the Audit Committee, the Company entered in December 2004 into a separate consulting arrangement with BlueWave under which BlueWave has agreed to advise the Company with respect to a potential form of certification by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency which will permit a level of self regulation by the Company. For providing such consulting services, the Company has agreed to pay BlueWave $30,000 plus certain expenses to be incurred by BlueWave in providing such services.

117


DESCRIPTION OF REVOLVING CREDIT AND SYNTHETIC LETTER OF CREDIT FACILITIES

        Concurrently with the issuance of the old notes on June 30, 2004, we refinanced our previously outstanding revolving credit facility, term loans and letter of credit facility with new senior secured credit facilities under a Credit Agreement dated as of June 30, 2004 (the "Credit Agreement"). Our new senior secured credit facilities consist of a synthetic letter of credit facility and two revolving credit facilities, namely a facility for us and our domestic subsidiaries and a separate facility for our Canadian subsidiaries. Each such facility matures on June 30, 2009. The administrative agent, collateral agent and the issuing bank for the letter of credit facility is Credit Suisse First Boston ("CSFB"), and the syndication agent is Goldman Sachs Credit Partners, L.P. ("GSCP"). CSFB and GSCP were also the joint lead arrangers and bookrunners for the synthetic letter of credit facility. Fleet Capital Corporation is the administrative agent, collateral agent and sole arranger for the revolving credit facilities.

        The synthetic letter of credit facility provides for issuances of letters of credit by the issuing bank under that facility in an aggregate amount of $90.0 million. The lenders under the synthetic letter of credit facility deposited the full amount of their commitments in cash into a credit-linked deposit account on the closing date. Neither we nor any of our subsidiaries have any right, title or interest in the credit-linked deposit account. If the issuing bank makes any payment on a letter of credit issued under that facility that we do not reimburse them for the same day, the issuing bank shall be reimbursed with funds from the credit-linked deposit account.

        The U.S. revolving credit facility has a maximum availability in an amount of $24.7 million and the Canadian revolving credit facility has a maximum availability of $5.3 million. The availability of the revolving credit facilities is subject to borrowing bases comprised of 80% of our and our domestic subsidiaries' eligible accounts receivable or our Canadian subsidiaries' eligible accounts receivable, respectively. The U.S. revolving credit facility also allow us to have issued up to $10.0 million of letters of credit, with the outstanding amount of such letters of credit reducing the maximum asset of borrowings permitted under the U.S. revolving facility. At June 30, 2005, we had no borrowings and $1.2 million of letters of credit outstanding under the revolving credit facilities, and we had approximately $28.8 million available to borrow.

        Borrowings under the revolving credit facilities bear interest at a rate of, at our option, either (x) the higher of the U.S. or Canadian prime rate or (y) LIBOR plus an applicable margin of 1.50% per annum. We are also required to pay an unused line fee of 0.125% per annum on the unused portion of the revolving facility.

        The administrative agent for the synthetic letter of credit facility invests the funds in the credit-linked deposit account so that they earn a return equal to three-month LIBOR minus 0.10% per annum. Such return, together with participation fees which we pay equal to the product of 5.35% per annum times the $90.0 million amount of the synthetic letter of credit facility, are paid to the lenders under that facility (based on their proportionate interest in that facility) at the end of each three-month period (or whenever the amount of that facility is reduced or that facility expires). We are also required to pay a quarterly fronting fee at an annual rate of 0.30% of the average daily aggregate amount of letters of credit outstanding under the synthetic letter of credit facility. At June 30, 2005, the aggregate amount of letters of credit outstanding under the synthetic letter of credit facility was $89.2 million.

        The synthetic letter of credit facility is guaranteed by substantially all of our domestic subsidiaries and secured by first liens on substantially all of our and our domestic subsidiaries assets (including a second lien on accounts receivable) and pledges of stock of all of our subsidiaries, subject to certain exceptions. The revolving credit facilities are secured by our and our domestic subsidiaries' accounts receivable, or by our Canadian subsidiaries' accounts receivable, respectively. If any of the collateral were to be foreclosed upon, the proceeds from accounts receivable will be allocated to the lenders under the revolving credit facilities and then the lenders under the synthetic letter of credit facility.

118


        We will be required to cash collateralize the commitments under the letter of credit facility with (x) 100% of the net proceeds of certain asset sales, casualty events and the incurrence of debt and certain unqualified stock, and (y) 50% of the net proceeds of the issuance of common equity (which percentage shall decrease if our leverage ratio decreases).

        We are not permitted to reduce the commitments under the revolving credit facilities, except in connection with the repayment in full and termination of those facilities. If we terminate the credit revolving facilities in the first three years, prepayment premiums will apply in certain circumstances.

        Under the Credit Agreement, we are required to maintain a maximum Leverage Ratio (as defined below) of no more than 2.50 to 1.0 for each of the four-quarter periods ended June 30, 2005 through March 31, 2006. The maximum leverage ratio is then reduced in approximately equal increments to no more than 2.30 to 1.0 for the four-quarter period ending December 31, 2008, and to no more than 2.25 to 1.0 for each succeeding quarter. The Leverage Ratio is defined as the ratio of our consolidated indebtedness to our Consolidated EBITDA (which the Credit Agreement defines in the same manner as "Adjusted EBITDA" is defined in footnote (8) under "Selected Historical Consolidated Financial Data" elsewhere in this prospectus) achieved for the latest four-quarter period. For the four-quarter period ended June 30, 2005, the Leverage Ratio was 1.55 to 1.0, which was within covenant.

        We are also required under the Credit Agreement to maintain a minimum Interest Coverage Ratio (as defined below) of not less than 2.70 to 1.0 for each of the four-quarter periods ended June 30, 2005 through December 31, 2005. The minimum interest coverage ratio then decreases in approximately equal increments, to not less than 2.85 to 1.0 for the four-quarter period ending December 31, 2007, and not less than 3.00 to 1.0 for each succeeding four-quarter period. The Interest Coverage Ratio is defined as the ratio of our Consolidated EBITDA to our consolidated interest expense. For the four-quarter period ended June 30, 2005, the Interest Coverage Ratio was 3.78 to 1.0, which was within covenant.

        We are also under the Credit Agreement required to maintain a fixed charge coverage ratio of not less than 1.0 to 1.0 for each four-quarter period. For the period ended June 30, 2005, our fixed charge coverage ratio was 2.12 to 1.0, which was within covenant.

        Each borrowing under the revolving credit facilities and the issuance of each letter of credit (whether under the synthetic letter of credit facility or the revolving credit facilities) is conditioned upon no default or event of default existing and the accuracy of representations and warranties. Events of default under our senior secured credit facilities include nonpayment of principal, interest or other amounts, violation of covenants, forfeiture of collateral, incorrectness of representations and warranties, occurrence of a change of control and certain other customary events of default.

        In order to amend, modify or waive any provision of either the synthetic letter of credit facility or the revolving credit facilities, the administrative agent and a majority of lenders under that facility must consent to the amendment, modification or waiver, except that each affected lender must consent to amendments affecting the principal, interest rate and maturity of the loans and certain other basic issues.

119


THE EXCHANGE OFFER

Purpose and Effect of Exchange Offer; Registration Rights

        We sold the old notes on June 30, 2004 in an unregistered private placement to two investment banks that served as the initial purchasers. The initial purchasers then resold the old notes under an offering circular dated June 17, 2004, in reliance on Rule 144A and Regulation S under the Securities Act.

        As part of this private placement, we entered into a registration rights agreement with the initial purchasers on June 30, 2004. Under the registration rights agreement, we agreed to file this registration statement. We also agreed:

        Under the circumstances described below, we also agreed to use our reasonable best efforts to cause the SEC to declare effective a shelf registration statement with respect to the resale of the old notes. We agreed to keep the shelf registration statement effective until the earlier of the date two years after the shelf registration statement is declared effective under the Securities Act or the date on which there are no longer any old notes outstanding. These circumstances include:

        If we fail to comply with specified obligations under the registration rights agreement, we must pay certain additional interest to the holders of the notes until we have cured all of such failures.

        By participating in the exchange offer, holders of the old notes will receive new notes that are freely tradeable and not subject to restrictions on transfer, subject to the exceptions described below under "Resale of New Notes."

Resale of New Notes

        We believe that the new notes issued in exchange for the old notes may be offered for resale, resold and otherwise transferred by any new note holder without compliance with the registration and prospectus delivery provisions of the Securities Act if the conditions set forth below are met. We base this belief solely on interpretations of the federal securities laws by the SEC set forth in several no-action letters issued to third parties unrelated to us. A no-action letter is a letter from the SEC

120


responding to a request for its views as to whether a particular matter complies with the federal securities laws or whether the SEC would refer the matter to the SEC's enforcement division for action. We have not obtained, and do not intend to obtain, our own no-action letter from the SEC regarding the resale of the new notes. Instead, holders will be relying on the no-action letters that the SEC has issued to third parties in circumstances that we believe are similar to ours. Based on these no-action letters, the following conditions must be met:

        Each holder of old notes that wishes to exchange old notes for new notes in the exchange offer must represent to us that it satisfies all of the above listed conditions. Any holder who tenders in the exchange offer who does not satisfy all of the above listed conditions:

        The SEC considers broker-dealers that acquired old notes directly from us, but not as a result of market-making activities or other trading activities, to be making a distribution of the new notes if they participate in the exchange offer. Consequently, these holders must comply with the registration and prospectus delivery requirements of the Securities Act in connection with a resale of the new notes.

        Each broker-dealer that receives new notes for its own account in exchange for old notes acquired by such broker-dealer as a result of market-making activities or other trading activities must deliver a prospectus in connection with a resale of the new notes and provide us with a signed acknowledgement of this obligation. See "Plan of Distribution." A broker-dealer may use this prospectus, as amended or supplemented from time to time, in connection with resales of new notes received in exchange for old notes where the broker-dealer acquired the old notes as a result of market-making activities or other trading activities. The letter of transmittal states that by acknowledging and delivering a prospectus, a broker-dealer will not be considered to admit that it is an "underwriter" within the meaning of the Securities Act. We have agreed that for a period of 180 days after the expiration date of the exchange offer, we will make this prospectus available to broker-dealers for use in connection with any such resale of the new notes.

        Except as described in the prior paragraph, holders may not use this prospectus for an offer to resell, resale or other retransfer of new notes. We are not making the exchange offer to, nor will we accept tenders for exchange from, holders of old notes in any jurisdiction in which the exchange offer or the acceptance of it would not be in compliance with the securities or blue sky laws of that jurisdiction.

Terms of the Exchange

        Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in this prospectus and the accompanying letter of transmittal, which we refer to together in this prospectus as the "exchange offer," we will accept any and all old notes validly tendered and not withdrawn prior to 12:00 midnight, New York City time, on the expiration date. The date of acceptance for exchange of the old notes, and completion of the exchange offer, is the exchange date, which will be the first business day following the expiration date, unless extended as described in this prospectus. We will issue, on or promptly after the exchange date, an aggregate principal amount of up to $150.0 million of new notes for a like

121


principal amount of outstanding old notes tendered and accepted in connection with the exchange offer. The new notes issued in connection with the exchange offer will be delivered promptly following the exchange date. Holders may tender some or all of their old notes in connection with the exchange offer, but only in integral multiples of $1,000. The exchange offer is not conditioned upon any minimum amount of old notes being tendered for exchange.

        The terms of the new notes are identical in all material respects to the terms of the old notes, except that:

        The new notes will be new securities for which there is currently no market, and we do not intend to list the new notes on any securities exchange. Although the initial purchasers of the old notes have informed us that they intend to make a market in the new notes, they are not obligated to do so and may discontinue market-making at any time without notice. Accordingly, a liquid market for the new notes may not develop or be maintained.

        The new notes will evidence the same debt as the old notes. The new notes will be issued under the same indenture and entitled to the same benefits under that indenture as the old notes being exchanged. As of the date of this prospectus, $150.0 million in aggregate principal amount of the old notes were outstanding. Old notes accepted for exchange will be retired and cancelled and not reissued.

        In connection with the issuance of the old notes, we arranged for the old notes originally purchased by qualified institutional buyers and those sold in reliance on Regulation S under the Securities Act to be issued and transferable in book-entry form through the facilities of The Depository Trust Company, or DTC, acting as depositary. Except as described under "Description of the New Notes—Form, Denomination, Transfer, Exchange and Book-Entry Procedures," we will issue the new notes in the form of a global note registered in the name of DTC or its nominee and each beneficial owner's interest in it will be transferable in book-entry form through DTC.

        Holders of old notes do not have any appraisal or dissenters' rights in connection with the exchange offer. We intend to conduct the exchange offer in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations of the SEC.

        We shall be considered to have accepted validly tendered old notes if and when we have given oral or written notice to that effect to the exchange agent. The exchange agent will act as agent for the tendering holders for the purposes of receiving the new notes from us.

        If we do not accept any tendered old notes for exchange because of an invalid tender, the occurrence of the other events described in this prospectus or otherwise, we will return these old notes, without expense, to the tendering holder promptly after the expiration date of the exchange offer.

        Holders who tender old notes will not be required to pay brokerage commissions or fees or, subject to the instructions in the letter of transmittal, transfer taxes on exchange of old notes in connection with the exchange offer. We will pay all charges and expenses, other than the applicable taxes described in the section "Fees and Expenses" below, in connection with the exchange offer.

        If we successfully complete the exchange offer, any old notes which holders do not tender or which we do not accept in the exchange offer will remain outstanding and continue to accrue interest. The holders of old notes after the exchange offer in general will not have further rights under the

122


registration rights agreement, including registration rights and any rights to additional interest. Holders of the old notes wishing to transfer their old notes would have to rely on exemptions from the registration requirements of the Securities Act.

Expiration Date; Extensions; Amendments

        The expiration date for the exchange offer is 12:00 midnight, New York City time, on                        , 2005. We may extend this expiration date in our sole discretion, but in no event to a date later than            , 2005. If we so extend the expiration date, the term "expiration date" shall mean the latest date and time to which we extend the exchange offer.

        We reserve the right, in our sole discretion:

        We will give oral or written notice of any delay, extension or termination to the exchange agent. In addition, we will promptly give oral or written notice regarding any delay in acceptance, extension or termination of the offer to the registered holders of old notes. If we amend the exchange offer in a manner that we determine to constitute a material change, or if we waive a material condition, we will promptly disclose the amendment or waiver in a manner reasonably calculated to inform the holders of old notes of the amendment, and extend the offer if required by law.

        Without limiting the manner in which we may choose to make public announcements of any delay in acceptance, extension, termination, amendment or waiver regarding the exchange offer, we shall have no obligation to publish, advertise, or otherwise communicate any public announcement, other than by making a release to a financial news service not later than 9:00 a.m., Eastern time on the business day after the previously scheduled expiration date.

Interest on the New Notes

        Interest on the new notes will accrue at the rate of 111/4% per annum on the principal amount, payable semiannually in arrears on January 15 and July 15, commencing on January 15, 2006. In order to avoid duplicative payment of interest, all interest accrued on old notes that are accepted for exchange before January 15, 2006 will be superseded by the interest that is deemed to have accrued on the new notes from July 15, 2005 through the date of the exchange.

Conditions to the Exchange Offer

        Despite any other term of the exchange offer, we will not be required to accept for exchange, or exchange new notes for, any old notes and we may terminate the exchange offer as provided in this

123


prospectus before the exchange offer's termination or receipt of any required governmental approval, if:

        The conditions listed above are for our sole benefit and we may assert them regardless of the circumstances giving rise to any of these conditions. We may waive these conditions in our sole discretion in whole or in part at any time. A failure on our part to exercise any of the above rights shall not constitute a waiver of that right, and that right shall be considered an ongoing right, which we may assert at any time and from time to time. However, in no event shall the exchange offer be consummated unless all conditions, other than those dependent upon receipt of any required governmental approval, have been satisfied or waived prior to the expiration of the exchange offer or any extension thereof and, if we elect to waive any condition, we must announce that decision in a manner reasonably calculated to inform noteholders of the waiver.

        If we determine in our reasonable discretion that any of the events listed above has occurred, we may, subject to applicable law:

        Any determination by us concerning the above events will be final and binding.

        In addition, we reserve the right in our reasonable discretion to:

        The terms of any such purchases or offers may differ from the terms of the exchange offer.

Procedures for Tendering

        Except in limited circumstances, only a DTC participant listed on a DTC securities position listing with respect to the old notes may tender old notes in the exchange offer. To tender old notes in the exchange offer, holders of old notes that are DTC participants may follow the procedures for book-entry transfer as set forth below under "Book-Entry Transfer" and in the letter of transmittal.

        In addition, you must comply with one of the following:

124

        The tender by a holder of old notes will constitute an agreement between such holder and us in accordance with the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in this prospectus and in the letter of transmittal. If less than all the old notes held by a holder are tendered, the tendering holder should fill in the amount of old notes being tendered in the specified box on the letter of transmittal. The entire amount of old notes delivered or transferred to the exchange agent will be deemed to have been tendered unless otherwise indicated.

        The method of delivery of old notes, the letter of transmittal and all other required documents or transmission of an agent's message, as described under "Book-Entry Transfer," to the exchange agent is at the election and risk of the holder. Instead of delivery by mail, we recommend that holders use an overnight or hand delivery service. In all cases, sufficient time should be allowed to assure timely delivery to the exchange agent prior to the expiration of the exchange offer. No letter of transmittal or old notes should be sent to us or DTC. Delivery of documents to DTC in accordance with its procedures will not constitute delivery to the exchange agent.

        Any beneficial holder whose old notes are registered in the name of his or its broker, dealer, commercial bank, trust company or other nominee and who wishes to tender should contact such registered holder promptly and instruct such registered holder to tender on its behalf. If such beneficial holder wishes to tender on its own behalf, such beneficial holder must, prior to completing and executing the letter of transmittal and delivering its old notes, either:

        The transfer of record ownership may take considerable time and may not be completed prior to the expiration date.

        Signatures on a letter of transmittal or a notice of withdrawal, as described in "—Withdrawal of Tenders" below, must be guaranteed by a member firm of a registered national securities exchange or of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., a commercial bank or trust company having an office or correspondent in the United States or an "eligible guarantor institution," within the meaning of Rule 17Ad-15 under the Exchange Act, which we refer to in this prospectus as an "eligible institution," unless the old notes are tendered:

        If the letter of transmittal is signed by a person other than the registered holder of any old notes listed therein, the old notes must be endorsed or accompanied by appropriate bond powers which authorize the person to tender the old notes on behalf of the registered holder, in either case signed as the name of the registered holder or holders appears on the old notes. If the letter of transmittal or any old notes or bond powers are signed by trustees, executors, administrators, guardians, attorneys-in-fact, officers of corporations or others acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity, such persons should so indicate when signing and, unless waived by us, evidence satisfactory to us of their authority to so act must be submitted with the letter of transmittal.

        We will determine in our sole discretion all questions as to the validity, form, eligibility, including time of receipt, and acceptance and withdrawal of tendered old notes. We reserve the absolute right to reject any and all old notes not properly tendered or any old notes whose acceptance by us would, in

125


the opinion of our counsel, be unlawful. We also reserve the right to waive any defects, irregularities or conditions of tender as to any particular old notes either before or after the expiration date. However, in no event shall the exchange offer be consummated unless all conditions, other than those dependent upon receipt of any required governmental approval, have been satisfied or waived prior to the expiration of the exchange offer or any extension thereof and, if we elect to waive any condition, we must announce that decision in a manner reasonably calculated to inform noteholders of the waiver. Our interpretation of the terms and conditions of the exchange offer, including the instructions in the letter of transmittal, will be final and binding on all parties. Unless waived, holders must cure any defects or irregularities in connection with tenders of old notes within a period we will determine. Although we intend to request the exchange agent to notify holders of defects or irregularities relating to tenders of old notes, neither we, the exchange agent nor any other person will have any duty or incur any liability for failure to give this notification. We will not consider tenders of old notes to have been made until these defects or irregularities have been cured or waived. The exchange agent will return any old notes that are not properly tendered and as to which the defects or irregularities have not been cured or waived to the tendering holders, unless otherwise provided in the letter of transmittal, promptly following the expiration date.

        In addition, we reserve the right, as set forth above under the caption "Conditions to the Exchange Offer," to terminate the exchange offer.

        By tendering, each holder represents to us, among other things, that:


        If the holder is a broker-dealer which will receive new notes for its own account in exchange for old notes acquired by such broker-dealer as a result of market-making activities or other trading activities, such holder must acknowledge that it will deliver a prospectus in connection with any resale of the new notes.

Book-Entry Transfer

        We understand that the exchange agent will make a request promptly after the date of this prospectus to establish an account with respect to the old notes at DTC for the purpose of facilitating the exchange offer. Any financial institution that is a participant in DTC's system, including Euroclear and Clearsteam, may make book-entry delivery of old notes by causing DTC to transfer such old notes into the exchange agent's DTC account in accordance with DTC's Automated Tender Offer Program procedures for such transfer. The exchange of new notes for tendered old notes will only be made after a timely confirmation of a book-entry transfer of the old notes into the exchange agent's account and timely receipt by the exchange agent of an agent's message.

        The term "agent's message" means a message, transmitted by DTC and received by the exchange agent and forming part of the confirmation of a book-entry transfer, which states that DTC has received an express acknowledgment from a participant tendering old notes that such participant has received an appropriate letter of transmittal and agrees to be bound by the terms of the letter of transmittal, and that we may enforce such agreement against the participant. Delivery of an agent's message will also constitute an acknowledgment from the tendering DTC participant that the representations contained in the letter of transmittal and described under "Resale of New Notes" above are true and correct.

126


Guaranteed Delivery Procedures

        The following guaranteed delivery procedures are intended for holders who wish to tender their old notes but:

        The conditions that must be met to tender old notes through the guaranteed delivery procedures are as follows:

•
setting forth the name and address of the holder, the certificate number or numbers of the old notes tendered and the principal amount of old notes tendered;

•
stating that the tender offer is being made by guaranteed delivery; and

•
guaranteeing that, within three business days after expiration of the exchange offer, the letter of transmittal, or facsimile of the letter of transmittal, together with the old notes tendered or a book-entry confirmation, and any other documents required by the letter of transmittal will be deposited by the eligible institution with the exchange agent; and

•
the exchange agent must receive the properly completed and executed letter of transmittal, or facsimile of the letter of transmittal, as well as all tendered old notes in proper form for transfer or a book-entry confirmation, and any other documents required by the letter of transmittal, within three New York Stock Exchange trading days after expiration of the exchange offer.

        Upon request to the exchange agent, a notice of guaranteed delivery will be sent to holders who wish to tender their old notes according to the guaranteed delivery procedures set forth above.

Withdrawal of Tenders

        Your tender of old notes pursuant to the exchange offer is irrevocable except as otherwise provided in this section. You may withdraw tenders of old notes at any time prior to 12:00 midnight, New York City time, on the expiration date.

        For a withdrawal to be effective:

127

        Any notice of withdrawal must:

        If old notes have been tendered pursuant to the procedure for book-entry transfer described above, any notice of withdrawal must specify the name and number of the account at DTC to be credited with the withdrawn old notes and otherwise comply with the procedures of the applicable facility. We will determine in our sole discretion all questions as to the validity, form and eligibility, including time of receipt, for such withdrawal notices, and our determination shall be final and binding on all parties. Any old notes so withdrawn will be deemed not to have been validly tendered for purposes of the exchange offer and no new notes will be issued with respect to them unless the old notes so withdrawn are validly re-tendered. Any old notes which have been tendered but which are not accepted for exchange will be returned to the holder without cost to such holder promptly after withdrawal, rejection of tender or termination of the exchange offer. Properly withdrawn old notes may be re-tendered by following the procedures described above under "Procedures for Tendering" at any time prior to the expiration date.

Exchange Agent

        We have appointed U.S. Bank National Association as exchange agent in connection with the exchange offer. Holders should direct questions, requests for assistance and for additional copies of this prospectus, the letter of transmittal or notices of guaranteed delivery to the exchange agent addressed as follows:

By Hand or Overnight Courier:   By Facsimile Transmission:

U.S. Bank National Association
60 Livingston Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55107
Attention: Specialized Finance, 2nd Floor
(800) 934-6802
 
(651) 495-8158
(For Eligible Institutions Only)
U.S. Bank National Association
Attention: Specialized Finance, 2nd Floor
Confirm by Telephone:
(800) 934-6802

        Delivery of a letter of transmittal to any address or facsimile number other than the one set forth above will not constitute a valid delivery.

Fees and Expenses

        We will not make any payments to brokers, dealers or other persons soliciting acceptances of the exchange offer. We will, however, pay the exchange agent reasonable and customary fees for its services and will pay the exchange agent for its related reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, including accounting and legal fees. We may also pay brokerage houses and other custodians, nominees and fiduciaries the reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by them in forwarding copies of this prospectus, letters of transmittal and related documents to the beneficial owners of the old notes and in handling or forwarding tenders for exchange.

128


        Holders who tender their old notes for exchange will not be obligated to pay any transfer taxes. If, however:

then the tendering holder must pay the amount of any transfer taxes due, whether imposed on the registered holder or any other persons. If the tendering holder does not submit satisfactory evidence of payment of these taxes or exemption from them with the letter of transmittal, the amount of these transfer taxes will be billed directly to the tendering holder.

Consequences of Failures to Properly Tender Old Notes in the Exchange

        We will issue the new notes in exchange for old notes under the exchange offer only after timely receipt by the exchange agent of the old notes, a properly completed and duly executed letter of transmittal and all other required documents. Therefore, holders of the old notes desiring to tender old notes in exchange for new notes should allow sufficient time to ensure timely delivery. We are under no duty to give notification of defects or irregularities of tenders of old notes for exchange. Old notes that are not tendered or that are tendered but not accepted by us will, following completion of the exchange offer, continue to be subject to the existing restrictions upon transfer under the Securities Act. Upon completion of the exchange offer, specified rights under the exchange and registration rights agreement, including registration rights and any right to additional interest, will be either limited or eliminated.

        Participation in the exchange offer is voluntary. In the event the exchange offer is completed, we will not be required to register the remaining old notes. Remaining old notes will continue to be subject to the following restrictions on transfer:

        We do not currently anticipate that we will register the remaining old notes under the Securities Act. To the extent that old notes are tendered and accepted in connection with the exchange offer, any trading market for remaining old notes could be adversely affected.

129


DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW NOTES

General

        You can find the definitions of certain terms used in this description under the subheading "—Certain Definitions". In this description, "we," "us" or "the Issuer" refers only to Clean Harbors, Inc. and not to any of its subsidiaries.

        We issued the old notes, and will issue the new notes, under an indenture, dated as of June 30, 2004, as supplemented and amended from time to time (the "Indenture"), among us, the Guarantors (as defined below) and U.S. Bank National Association, a national banking association, as trustee (the "Trustee"). The terms of the notes include those stated in the Indenture and those made part of that Indenture by reference to the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended (the "Trust Indenture Act"). The terms of the new notes are substantially identical to the terms of the old notes for which they may be exchanged pursuant to the exchange offer, except that the new notes are registered under the Securities Act and do not contain provisions requiring the payment of additional interest in connection with the failure to comply with the registration covenants in the registration rights agreement. Accordingly, unless specifically stated to the contrary, the following description applies equally to the old notes and the new notes (which are sometimes referred to in this description collectively as "notes").

        The following description is a summary of the material provisions of the Indenture. It does not restate that agreement in its entirety. We urge you to read the Indenture, because it, and not this description, defines your rights as holders of the notes except to the extent that you may have rights under the United States federal securities laws if the following description of the Indenture and the notes were inaccurate in any material respect. A copy of the form of Indenture was filed as an exhibit to our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the SEC on August 6, 2004 and is available from us upon request. See also "Where You Can Find Additional Information."

        We are offering to exchange new notes in the aggregate principal amount of $150.0 million for old notes. The notes will be issued only in registered form, without coupons, in denominations of $1,000 and integral multiples thereof.

        The notes are senior secured obligations of the Issuer, ranking equal in right of payment with all existing and future Senior Debt of the Issuer, and ranking senior in right of payment to all existing and future subordinated debt of the Issuer. The notes are secured by a second-priority Lien to the extent described under "—Security." However, the proceeds of any Collateral shall be used first to pay all outstanding First-Lien Obligations until such First-Lien Obligations are paid in full. Any remaining proceeds of Collateral after the payment in full of all First-Lien Obligations shall be used to repay outstanding notes.

        At June 30, 2005, the Issuer and its Restricted Subsidiaries had approximately $90.4 million of aggregate amount of First-Lien Obligations outstanding (consisting of reimbursement obligations for letters of credit outstanding under the Credit Agreement) excluding approximately $0.8 million in unissued letters of credit and $28.8 million of unused commitments under the Credit Agreement. In addition, the Issuer and its Restricted Subsidiaries had approximately $5.2 million aggregate principal amount of Capitalized Lease Obligations outstanding as of June 30, 2005.

        The Trustee now acts as paying agent and registrar for the notes. You may present your notes for registration of transfer and exchange at the offices of the registrar, which initially will be the Trustee's corporate trust office. The Issuer may change any paying agent and registrar without prior notice.

130


        The Issuer will pay principal (and premium, if any) on the notes at the Trustee's corporate office in New York, New York. At the Issuer's option, interest may be paid at the Trustee's corporate trust office or by check mailed to the registered address of holders.

        Any old notes that remain outstanding after completion of the exchange offer, together with the new notes issued in connection with the exchange offer, will be treated as a single class of securities under the Indenture.

Principal, Maturity and Interest

        We issued an aggregate principal amount of $150.0 million of old notes on June 30, 2004, and will issue up to a like principal amount of new notes pursuant to the exchange offer. The notes will mature on July 15, 2012. Additional notes may be issued under the Indenture from time to time, subject to the limitations set forth under "—Certain Covenants—Limitation on Incurrence of Additional Indebtedness" and "—Limitation on Liens." The notes and any additional notes subsequently issued will be treated as a single class for all purposes under the Indenture.

        Interest on the notes will be payable semiannually in cash on each January 15 and July 15, commencing on January 15, 2006, to the persons who are registered holders at the close of business on the January 1 and July 1 immediately preceding the applicable interest payment date. In order to avoid duplicative payment of interest, all interest accrued on old notes that are accepted for exchange before January 15, 2006 will be superseded by the interest that is deemed to have accrued on the new notes from July 15, 2005 through the date of the exchange.

        The notes are not entitled to the benefit of any mandatory sinking fund.

Redemption

        The Issuer may redeem all or any portion of the notes, on and after July 15, 2008, upon not less than 30 nor more than 60 days' notice, at the following redemption prices (expressed as percentages of the principal amount) if redeemed during the twelve-month period commencing on July 15 of the year set forth below, plus, in each case, accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to the date of redemption:

Year
   Percentage
  
2008   105.625 %
2009   102.813 %
2010 and thereafter   100.000 %

        At any time, or from time to time, on or prior to July 15, 2007, we may, at our option, use the net cash proceeds of one or more Equity Offerings to redeem up to 35% in aggregate principal amount of the notes originally issued under the Indenture at a redemption price equal to 111.250% of the principal amount thereof plus accrued and unpaid interest thereon, if any, to the date of redemption; provided, however, that after any such redemption the aggregate principal amount of the notes outstanding must equal at least 65% of the aggregate amount of the notes originally issued under the Indenture. In order to effect the foregoing redemption with the net cash proceeds of any Equity Offering, we shall make such redemption not more than 90 days after the consummation of any such Equity Offering.

131

        If less than all of the notes are to be redeemed at any time, the Trustee will select those notes for redemption in compliance with the requirements of the principal national securities exchange, if any, on which the notes are listed or, if the notes are not then listed on a national securities exchange, on a pro rata basis, provided that:

        (1)   notes with a principal amount of $1,000 or less may only be redeemed in full and

        (2)   if a partial redemption is made with the Net Cash Proceeds of an Asset Sale or an Equity Offering, the Trustee will select the notes or portions of the notes for redemption on a pro rata basis or on as nearly a pro rata basis as is practicable, unless the method is otherwise prohibited.

        Notice of redemption will be mailed by first-class mail at least 30 but not more than 60 days before the redemption date to each holder of notes to be redeemed at its registered address. If any note is to be redeemed in part only, the notice of redemption that relates to the note will state the portion of the principal amount to be redeemed. A new note in a principal amount equal to the unredeemed portion will be issued in the name of the holder upon cancellation of the original note. On and after the redemption date, interest will cease to accrue on those notes called for redemption if the Issuer has deposited with the paying agent the funds needed to pay the applicable redemption price.

Guarantees

        Each Guarantor unconditionally guarantees, on a senior secured basis, jointly and severally, to each holder of notes and the Trustee, the full and prompt performance of the Issuer's obligations under the indenture and the notes, including the payment of principal of and interest on the notes. Each Guarantee will rank equal in right of payment with all existing and future Senior Debt of the respective Guarantor. The obligations of each Guarantor are limited to the maximum amount which, after giving effect to all other contingent and fixed liabilities of such Guarantor and after giving effect to any collections from or payments made by or on behalf of any other Guarantor in respect of the obligations of such other Guarantor under its Guarantee or pursuant to its contribution obligations under the Indenture, will result in the obligations of such Guarantor under the Guarantee not constituting a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer under federal or state law. Each Guarantor that makes a payment or distribution under a Guarantee shall be entitled to a contribution from each other Guarantor in an amount pro rata, based on the net assets of each Guarantor, determined in accordance with GAAP.

        Each Guarantor may consolidate with or merge into or sell its assets to the Issuer or another Guarantor without limitation, or with other Persons upon the terms and conditions set forth in the indenture. See "—Certain Covenants—Merger, Consolidation and Sale of Assets." In the event all of the Capital Stock of a Guarantor is disposed of by the Issuer, whether by merger, consolidation, sale or otherwise, and the disposition is not in violation of the provisions set forth in "—Certain Covenants—Limitation on Asset Sales," the Guarantor's Guarantee will be released. In addition, upon the designation of a Restricted Subsidiary that is a Guarantor as an Unrestricted Subsidiary, which designation is in compliance with the indenture, such Guarantor's Guarantee will be released.

        Not all of our Subsidiaries will guarantee the notes. Our Unrestricted Subsidiaries and Foreign Restricted Subsidiaries will not be Guarantors. Our non-guarantor Subsidiaries generated approximately 17.1% of our consolidated revenues and approximately 22.6% of our Adjusted EBITDA for the twelve months ended June 30, 2005 and held approximately 16.1% of our consolidated total assets as of June 30, 2005.

132


Security

        The Obligations under the notes and the Guarantees are secured by a second-priority Lien on certain of the assets of the Issuer and the Guarantors that are pledged from time to time by the Issuer and the Guarantors to secure the Obligations under the Credit Agreement (subject to certain exceptions specified below and in the Security Documents), whether now owned or hereafter acquired, including, without limitation, goods, inventory, equipment, real estate and fixtures located thereon, certain material leasehold interests, contracts, patents, copyrights, trademarks and other intellectual property (collectively, the "Collateral"); provided that the Collateral shall not include (A) foreign collateral of the Issuer and the Guarantors; (B) assets of the Issuer's foreign Subsidiaries; (C) any capital stock, notes, instruments, other equity interests and other securities of any Subsidiary of the Issuer; (D) accounts receivable; and (E) proceeds and products from any and all of the foregoing excluded collateral described in clauses (A) through (D) above (collectively, the "Excluded Collateral"). The Excluded Collateral may nevertheless secure the Issuer's and the Guarantors' Obligations under First-Lien Obligations. The First-Lien Obligations are secured by a first-priority Lien on the Collateral and on certain of the Excluded Collateral.

        If the notes become due and payable prior to the final stated maturity thereof for any reason or are not paid in full at the final stated maturity thereof and after any applicable grace period has expired, pursuant to the provisions of the Security Documents, the lenders under the Credit Agreement and/or their affiliates (the "Bank Lenders") will have the exclusive right to direct the Collateral Agent to foreclose (or decline to foreclose) upon, or otherwise exercise (or decline to exercise) remedies in respect of, the Collateral. In addition, neither the Trustee nor the holders of notes shall have any right to (a) enforce the lien or foreclose upon the Collateral, (b) vote in any bankruptcy or similar proceeding with respect to, or take any other actions concerning, the Collateral, (c) receive any proceeds from any sale, transfer or other disposition of the Collateral, (d) oppose any sale, transfer or other disposition of the Collateral, (e) object to any debtor-in-possession financing in any bankruptcy or similar proceeding which is provided by one or more Bank Lenders among others (including on a priming basis), (f) object to the use of cash collateral in respect of the Collateral in any bankruptcy or similar proceeding, or (g) seek or object to the Bank Lenders seeking any adequate protection or relief from the automatic stay with respect to the Collateral in any bankruptcy or similar proceeding. At such time as all First-Lien Obligations have been satisfied in full in cash in accordance with the terms thereof and all commitments under the Credit Agreement shall have terminated, the Trustee will have the right to so direct the Collateral Agent in accordance with instructions from the holders of a majority in aggregate principal amount of the notes, or in the absence of such instructions, in such manner as the Trustee deems appropriate in its absolute discretion. At such time as all First-Lien Obligations have been paid in full in cash in accordance with the terms thereof and all commitments under the Credit Agreement shall have terminated, proceeds received by the Trustee from the sale of Collateral (whether directly received or paid over to the Trustee from the Collateral Agent) will be applied by the Trustee first to pay the expenses of any foreclosure (to the extent not already paid) and fees and other amounts then payable to the Trustee in its capacity as such under the Indenture and the Security Documents and, thereafter, to pay all Obligations owing to the holders under the Indenture and the notes.

        No appraisals of any of the Collateral have been prepared by or on behalf of the Issuer in connection with the issuance and sale of the notes. In addition, the Issuer and the Guarantors do not know and have not attempted to determine the value of the Excluded Collateral. There can be no assurance that the proceeds from the sale of the Collateral in whole or in part pursuant to the Security Documents following an Event of Default would be sufficient to satisfy payments due on the notes. By its nature, some or all of the Collateral will be illiquid and may have no readily ascertainable market value. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the Collateral can be sold in a short period of time, or at all.

133


        The collateral release provisions of the Indenture and the Security Documents permit the release of Collateral without substitution of collateral of equal value under certain circumstances. See "—Release of Collateral."

        To the extent that third parties enjoy Liens permitted by the Security Documents and the Indenture, such third parties will have rights and remedies with respect to the assets subject to such Liens that, if exercised, could adversely affect the value of the Collateral or the ability of the Trustee or the holders of notes to realize or foreclose on the Collateral. In addition, the ability of the holders of notes to realize on the Collateral may be subject to certain bankruptcy law limitations in the event of a bankruptcy. See "—Certain Bankruptcy Limitations."

        In the case of an Asset Sale of Collateral where the consideration to be received consists in part of Capital Stock or other securities acquired by the Issuer or the Guarantors or any cash Collateral is converted into Capital Stock or other securities, such Capital Stock or other securities will no longer constitute Collateral securing the notes, but will continue to secure the First-Lien Obligations.

Security Documents

        On the Issue Date, the Collateral Agent, the administrative agent for the letter of credit facility under the Credit Agreement, the Trustee, the Issuer and the Guarantors entered into the Security Documents which provide for, among other things, the allocation of rights among the various creditors with respect to the Collateral.

        So long as First-Lien Obligations (or commitments or letters of credit in respect thereof) remain outstanding, upon the occurrence of an event of default under a Credit Agreement, which would include the occurrence of an Event of Default under the Indenture governing the notes, the Bank Lenders shall have the exclusive right to determine the circumstances and manner in which Collateral shall be disposed of or realized upon and the timing of such disposition or realization, including, but not limited to, the determination of whether to release all or any portion of the Collateral from the Lien created by the Security Documents (except as described under "—Release of Collateral") and whether to exercise remedies in respect of the Collateral following an Event of Default.

        The Indenture provides that the Issuer may not agree to any Refinancing of Indebtedness under the Credit Agreement (if a replacement Credit Agreement is to be in existence) unless, on or prior thereto, the lenders and/or a collateral agent on behalf of such lenders under the Credit Agreement (after giving effect to such Refinancing) execute appropriate replacement Security Documents to provide for a junior-priority lien in favor of the holders of notes consistent with the priorities of various creditors described herein; provided that the Issuer need not comply with this requirement to the extent that any new Indebtedness incurred in connection with such Refinancing is not secured by any of the Collateral. If requested by the lenders providing such Refinancing or any other First-Lien Obligations incurred after the Issue Date, the Trustee, on behalf of the holders of notes, shall enter into such intercreditor agreements, and shall take such other actions, as may be necessary or desirable to provide for intercreditor arrangements substantially similar to the intercreditor arrangements described in the Security Documents as in effect on the Issue Date.

Certain Bankruptcy Limitations

        The right of the Collateral Agent to repossess and dispose of, or otherwise exercise remedies in respect of, the Collateral upon the occurrence of an Event of Default is likely to be significantly impaired by applicable bankruptcy law if a bankruptcy proceeding were to be commenced by or against the Issuer or a Guarantor prior to the Collateral Agent having repossessed and disposed of, or otherwise exercised remedies in respect of, the Collateral. Under the Bankruptcy Law, a secured creditor such as the Collateral Agent is prohibited from repossessing its security from a debtor in a bankruptcy case, or from disposing of security repossessed from such debtor, without bankruptcy court

134


approval. Moreover, the Bankruptcy Law permits the debtor to continue to retain and to use collateral even though the debtor is in default under the applicable debt instruments; provided that the secured creditor is given "adequate protection." The meaning of the term "adequate protection" may vary according to circumstances, but it is intended in general to protect the value of the secured creditor's interest in the collateral and may include cash payments or the granting of additional security, if and at such times as the court in its discretion determines, for any diminution in the value of the collateral as a result of the stay of repossession or disposition or any use of the collateral by the debtor during the pendency of the bankruptcy case. In view of the lack of a precise definition of the term "adequate protection" and the broad discretionary powers of a bankruptcy court, it is impossible to predict how long payment with respect to the notes could be delayed following commencement of a bankruptcy case, whether or when the Collateral Agent could repossess or dispose of the Collateral or whether or to what extent holders of notes would be compensated for any delay in payment or loss of value of the Collateral.

        Under the Bankruptcy Law, a claim is a secured claim up to the value of the collateral that secures it. In most cases, interest stops accruing on the date of bankruptcy, but if the collateral's value exceeds the amount of the claim, post bankruptcy petition interest will accrue up to the value of the collateral. If, on the other hand, the amount of the claim exceeds the collateral's value, the excess constitutes an unsecured claim.

        The interest of the holders of notes in the Collateral is junior to the interest of the lenders under the Credit Agreement, who have the controlling decision making power with respect to bankruptcy decisions. In the event a bankruptcy proceeding is commenced by or against the Issuer and the Issuer enters into debtor-in-possession financings in such proceeding, the Liens on the Collateral securing the notes and the Guarantees may, without any further action or consent by the Trustee or the holders of notes, be made junior and subordinated to liens granted to secure such debtor-in-possession financings, subject to the right of the Trustee and the holders of notes to request adequate protection in connection with any such subordination. If the Collateral's value is insufficient to pay all First-Lien Obligations in full, the Obligations under the notes will constitute unsecured claims in their entirety. It is not possible to predict what recovery (if any) would be available for unsecured claims if the Issuer or a Guarantor became a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding.

Change of Control

        The Indenture provides that upon the occurrence of a Change of Control, each holder will have the right to require that we purchase all or a portion of such holder's notes pursuant to the offer described below (the "Change of Control Offer"), at a purchase price equal to 101% of the principal amount plus accrued interest to the date of purchase. Notwithstanding the occurrence of a Change of Control, we will not be obligated to repurchase the notes under this covenant if we have exercised our right to redeem all the notes under the terms of the section titled "—Optional Redemption."

        The Indenture provides that, prior to the mailing of the notice referred to below, but in any event within 30 days following any Change of Control, we covenant to:

        (1)   repay in full all outstanding Obligations under the Credit Agreement and terminate all related commitments; or

        (2)   obtain the requisite consents, if any, under the Credit Agreement to permit the repurchase of notes required by this covenant.

        We will first comply with the covenant in the immediately preceding sentence before we are required to repurchase notes under the provisions described below. Our failure to comply with the covenant described in the second preceding sentence (and any failure to send the notice referred to in

135


the succeeding paragraph as a result of the prohibition in the second preceding sentence) constitutes an Event of Default described in clause (3) and not in clause (2) under "—Events of Default" below.

        Within 30 days following the date upon which the Change of Control occurred, we will send, by first-class mail, a notice to each holder, with a copy to the Trustee, which notice shall govern the terms of the Change of Control Offer. The notice will state, among other things, the purchase date, which must be no earlier than 30 days nor later than 60 days from the date the notice is mailed, other than as may be required by law (the "Change of Control Payment Date"). Holders electing to have a note purchased pursuant to a Change of Control Offer must surrender the note, with the form entitled "Option of Holder to Elect Purchase" on the reverse of the note completed, to the paying agent at the address specified in the notice prior to the close of business on the third business day prior to the Change of Control Payment Date.

        We will not be required to make a Change of Control Offer upon a Change of Control if a third party makes the Change of Control Offer in the manner, at the times and otherwise in compliance with the requirements set forth in the Indenture applicable to a Change of Control Offer made by us and purchases all notes validly tendered and not withdrawn under such Change of Control Offer.

        If we make a Change of Control Offer, there can be no assurance that we will have available funds sufficient to pay the Change of Control purchase price for all the notes that might be delivered by holders seeking to accept the Change of Control Offer. In the event we are required to purchase outstanding notes pursuant to a Change of Control Offer, we expect that we would seek third party financing to the extent we lack available funds to meet our purchase obligations. However, there can be no assurance that we would be able to obtain such financing.

        The Trustee may not waive the covenant relating to a holder's right to redemption upon a Change of Control. However, the covenant and other provisions contained in the Indenture relating to our obligation to make a Change of Control Offer may be waived or modified with the written consent of the holders of a majority in principal amount of the notes. Restrictions described in the Indenture on the ability of the Issuer and our Restricted Subsidiaries to incur additional Indebtedness, to grant Liens on our property, to make Restricted Payments and to make Asset Sales may also make more difficult or discourage a takeover of the Issuer, whether favored or opposed by our management. Consummation of any such transaction may require redemption or repurchase of the notes, and there can be no assurance that the Issuer or the acquiring party will have sufficient financial resources to effect such redemption or repurchase. Such restrictions and the restrictions on transactions with Affiliates may make more difficult or discourage any leveraged buyout of us or any of our Restricted Subsidiaries by our management. While such restrictions cover a wide variety of arrangements which have traditionally been used to effect highly leveraged transactions, the Indenture may not afford you protection in all circumstances from the adverse aspects of a highly leveraged transaction, reorganization, restructuring, merger or similar transaction.

        We will comply with the requirements of Rule 14e-1 under the Exchange Act and any other securities laws and regulations thereunder to the extent such laws and regulations are applicable in connection with the repurchase of notes pursuant to a Change of Control Offer. To the extent that the provisions of any securities laws or regulations conflict with the "Change of Control" provisions of the Indenture, we will comply with the applicable securities laws and regulations and will not be deemed to have breached our obligations under the "Change of Control" provisions of the Indenture by so doing.

        The definition of "Change of Control" includes, among other transactions, a disposition of "all or substantially all" of our property and assets. With respect to the disposition of property or assets, the phrase "all or substantially all" as used in the Indenture varies according to the facts and circumstances of the subject transaction, has no clearly established meaning under relevant law and is subject to judicial interpretation. Accordingly, in certain circumstances, there may be a degree of uncertainty in ascertaining whether a particular transaction would involve a disposition of "all or substantially all" of the property or assets of a Person, and therefore it may be unclear whether a Change of Control has occurred and whether we are required to make a Change of Control Offer.

136

Excess Cash Flow

        (a)   Within 120 days after the end of each Excess Cash Flow Period, the Issuer will apply an amount equal to the Excess Cash Flow Amount to either:

        Each offer to purchase notes pursuant to this covenant (each, an "Excess Cash Flow Offer") shall be made to each holder at the time of such offer, shall offer to purchase notes at a purchase price of 104% of their principal amount and shall remain open for a period of not less than 20 business days (or any longer period as is required by law).

        (b)   If the Issuer is required to make an Excess Cash Flow Offer pursuant to this covenant, no later than 120 days after the end of the applicable Excess Cash Flow Period, the Issuer will mail a notice of such Excess Cash Flow Offer to each holder stating:

        (c)   If the aggregate purchase price of the notes tendered in connection with any Excess Cash Flow Offer exceeds the Excess Cash Flow Amount allotted to their purchase, the trustee will select the notes to be purchased on a pro rata basis but in denominations of $1,000 principal amount or multiples thereof. If the aggregate purchase price of the notes tendered in connection with any Excess Cash Flow Offer is less than the Excess Cash Flow Amount allotted to their purchase, the Issuer shall be permitted to use the portion of the Excess Cash Flow Amount that is not applied to the purchase of notes in connection with such Excess Cash Flow Offer for general corporate purposes or for any other purposes not prohibited by the Indenture. To the extent the Excess Cash Flow Amount for any Excess Cash Flow Period is less than $1.0 million, the Issuer may elect not to make an Excess Cash Flow Offer for such Excess Cash Flow Period and, in lieu thereof, add such Excess Cash Flow to the amount of Excess Cash Flow for the next succeeding Excess Cash Flow Period. Upon completion of an Excess Cash Flow Offer, the Excess Cash Flow Amount with respect thereto will be deemed to be reduced by the aggregate amount of such Excess Cash Flow Offer.

        (d)   The Issuer shall comply with the requirements of Rule 14e-1 under the Exchange Act and any other securities laws and regulations thereunder to the extent such laws and regulations are applicable in connection with the repurchase of notes pursuant to an Excess Cash Flow Offer. To the extent the provisions of any securities laws or regulations conflict with the provisions of this covenant, the Issuer shall comply with the applicable securities laws and regulations and shall not be deemed to have breached its obligations under the "Excess Cash Flow" provisions of the indenture by virtue thereof. The covenant and other provisions contained in the indenture relating to the Issuer's obligation to make an Excess Cash Flow Offer may be waived or modified with the written consent of the holders of a majority in principal amount of the notes.

137


Certain Covenants

        The Indenture contains, among others, the following covenants:

        (a)   We will not, and will not permit any of our Restricted Subsidiaries to, directly or indirectly, create, incur, assume, guarantee, acquire, become liable, contingently or otherwise, with respect to, or otherwise become responsible for payment of (collectively, "incur"), any Indebtedness (other than Permitted Indebtedness); provided, however, that if no Default or Event of Default shall have occurred and be continuing at the time of or as a consequence of the incurrence of any such Indebtedness, we and any of our Restricted Subsidiaries that is, or upon such incurrence becomes, a Guarantor may incur Indebtedness (including, without limitation, Acquired Indebtedness) and any of our Restricted Subsidiaries that is not or will not become, upon such incurrence, a Guarantor may incur Acquired Indebtedness, in each case, if on the date of the incurrence of such Indebtedness, after giving effect to the incurrence thereof, our Consolidated Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio is greater than 2.25 to 1.0.

        (b)   We will not, and will not permit any Guarantor to, directly or indirectly, incur any Indebtedness which by its terms (or by the terms of any agreement governing such Indebtedness) is expressly subordinated in right of payment to any other Indebtedness of ours or such Guarantor, as the case may be, unless such Indebtedness is also by its terms (or by the terms of any agreement governing such Indebtedness) made expressly subordinate to the notes or the applicable Guarantee, as the case may be, to the same extent and in the same manner as such Indebtedness is subordinated to other Indebtedness of ours or such Guarantor, as the case may be. For purposes of the foregoing, no Indebtedness will be deemed to be subordinated in right of payment to any other Indebtedness of ours or any Guarantor solely by virtue of such Indebtedness being unsecured or by virtue of the fact that the holders of such Indebtedness have entered into one or more intercreditor agreements giving one or more of such holders priority over the other holders in the collateral held by them.

        We will not, and will not cause or permit any of our Restricted Subsidiaries to, directly or indirectly,

        (each of the actions listed above being referred to as a "Restricted Payment"), if at the time of such Restricted Payment or immediately after giving effect thereto:

138

        However, the provisions set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph do not prohibit:

139

        In determining the aggregate amount of Restricted Payments made after the Issue Date in accordance with clause (3) of the immediately preceding paragraph, amounts expended pursuant to clauses (1), (2), (3)(b), (4)(b)(i), (5) and (6) will be included in the calculation.

        Not later than the date of making any Restricted Payment, we will deliver to the trustee an officers' certificate stating that such Restricted Payment complies with the indenture and setting forth in reasonable detail the basis upon which the required calculations were computed, which calculations may be based upon our latest available internal quarterly financial statements.

        We will not, and will not permit any of our Restricted Subsidiaries to, consummate an Asset Sale unless:

140

Pending the final application of the Net Cash Proceeds, we and our Restricted Subsidiaries may temporarily reduce Indebtedness that constitutes First-Lien Obligations or otherwise invest such Net Cash Proceeds in any manner not prohibited by the indenture.

        On the 366th day after an Asset Sale or such earlier date, if any, as our Board of Directors or of such Restricted Subsidiary determines not to apply the Net Cash Proceeds relating to such Asset Sale as set forth in clauses (3)(a), (3)(b) and (3)(c) of the preceding paragraph (each, a "Net Proceeds Offer Trigger Date"), such aggregate amount of Net Cash Proceeds which have not been applied on or before such Net Proceeds Offer Trigger Date as permitted in clauses (3)(a), (3)(b) and (3)(c) of the next preceding paragraph (each a "Net Proceeds Offer Amount") shall be applied by us or such Restricted Subsidiary to make an offer to purchase (the "Net Proceeds Offer") on a date (the "Net Proceeds Offer Payment Date") not less than 30 nor more than 60 days following the applicable Net Proceeds Offer Trigger Date, from all holders on a pro rata basis, that amount of notes equal to the

141


Net Proceeds Offer Amount at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the notes to be purchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest thereon, if any, to the date of purchase.

        If at any time any non-cash consideration received by us or any Restricted Subsidiary of ours, as the case may be, in connection with any Asset Sale is converted into or sold or otherwise disposed of for cash (other than interest received with respect to any such non-cash consideration), then such conversion or disposition shall be deemed to constitute an Asset Sale hereunder as of the date of such conversion or disposition and the Net Cash Proceeds thereof will be applied in accordance with this covenant.

        The Issuer may defer the Net Proceeds Offer until there is an aggregate unutilized Net Proceeds Offer Amount equal to or in excess of $10.0 million resulting from one or more Asset Sales (at which time, the entire unutilized Net Proceeds Offer Amount, and not just the amount in excess of $10.0 million, shall be applied as required pursuant to the second preceding paragraph).

        In the event of the transfer of substantially all (but not all) of the property and assets of us and our Restricted Subsidiaries as an entirety to a Person in a transaction permitted under "—Merger, Consolidation and Sale of Assets," which transaction does not constitute a Change of Control, the successor corporation shall be deemed to have sold the properties and assets of us and our Restricted Subsidiaries not so transferred for purposes of this covenant and shall comply with the provisions of clause (3) of this covenant with respect to such deemed sale as if it were an Asset Sale. In addition, the fair market value of such properties and assets of us or our Restricted Subsidiaries deemed to be sold shall be deemed to be Net Cash Proceeds for purposes of this covenant.

        Notice of each Net Proceeds Offer will be mailed to the record holders as shown on the register of holders within 25 days following the Net Proceeds Offer Trigger Date, with a copy to the trustee, and will comply with the procedures set forth in the indenture. Upon receiving notice of the Net Proceeds Offer, holders may elect to tender their notes in whole or in part in integral multiples of $1,000 in exchange for cash. To the extent holders properly tender notes in an amount exceeding the Net Proceeds Offer Amount, notes of tendering holders will be purchased on a pro rata basis (based on amounts tendered). To the extent that the aggregate amount of the notes tendered pursuant to a Net Proceeds Offer is less than the Net Proceeds Offer Amount, we may use such excess Net Proceeds Offer Amount for general corporate purposes or for any other purposes not prohibited by the indenture. Upon completion of any such Net Proceeds Offer, the Net Proceeds Offer Amount shall be reset at zero. A Net Proceeds Offer shall remain open for a period of 20 business days or such longer period as may be required by law.

        The Issuer will comply with the requirements of Rule 14e-1 under the Exchange Act and any other securities laws and regulations thereunder to the extent such laws and regulations are applicable in connection with the repurchase of notes pursuant to a Net Proceeds Offer. To the extent that the provisions of any securities laws or regulations conflict with the "Asset Sale" provisions of the indenture, the Issuer shall comply with the applicable securities laws and regulations and shall not be deemed to have breached their obligations under the "Asset Sale" provisions of the indenture by virtue thereof. The covenant and other provisions contained in the indenture relating to the Issuer's obligation to make a Net Proceeds Offer may be waived or modified with the written consent of the holders of a majority in principal amount of the notes.

        We will not, and will not cause or permit any of our Restricted Subsidiaries (other than a Restricted Subsidiary that has executed a Guarantee) to, directly or indirectly, create or otherwise

142

cause or permit to exist or become effective any encumbrance or restriction on the ability of any Restricted Subsidiary of ours to:

except for such encumbrances or restrictions existing under or by reason of:

143

        We will not sell, and will not permit any of our Restricted Subsidiaries, directly or indirectly, to issue or sell, any shares of Capital Stock of a Restricted Subsidiary (including options, warrants or other rights to purchase shares of such Capital Stock) except:


        We will not permit any of our Restricted Subsidiaries, directly or indirectly, to guarantee any of our Indebtedness or any Indebtedness of our Domestic Restricted Subsidiaries, unless (1) such Restricted Subsidiary simultaneously executes and delivers a supplemental indenture to the indenture providing for a senior secured Guarantee of payment of the notes by such Restricted Subsidiary, and (2) such Restricted Subsidiary waives and will not in any manner whatsoever claim or take the benefit or advantage of any rights of reimbursement, indemnity or subrogation or any other rights against us or any other Restricted Subsidiary as a result of any payment by such Restricted Subsidiary under its Guarantee so long as any notes remain outstanding.

        Notwithstanding the foregoing or the covenant set forth below under "Future Guarantors," any Guarantee by a Restricted Subsidiary may provide by its terms that it shall be automatically and unconditionally released and discharged upon

144

        If we organize or acquire any Domestic Restricted Subsidiary after the Issue Date (each, a "New Domestic Restricted Subsidiary") having total assets with a book value in excess of $500,000, we will cause such New Domestic Restricted Subsidiary to promptly execute and deliver to the Trustee a Guarantee.

        Thereafter, such New Domestic Restricted Subsidiary shall be a Guarantor for all purposes of the Indenture.

        The following additional requirements shall apply:


        We will not, and will not cause or permit any of our Restricted Subsidiaries to, directly or indirectly, create, incur, assume or permit or suffer to exist any Lien of any kind against or upon any property or assets of us or any of our Restricted Subsidiaries whether owned on the Issue Date or acquired after the Issue Date, or any proceeds therefrom, or assign or otherwise convey any right to receive income or profits therefrom unless such Lien relates to assets not constituting Collateral and:

except for the following Liens which are expressly permitted:

145

        We will not, in a single transaction or series of related transactions, consolidate or merge with or into any Person, or sell, assign, transfer, lease, convey or otherwise dispose of (or cause or permit any Restricted Subsidiary of ours to sell, assign, transfer, lease, convey or otherwise dispose of) all or substantially all of our assets (determined on a consolidated basis for us and our Restricted Subsidiaries) whether as an entirety or substantially as an entirety to any Person unless:

146

        Notwithstanding the foregoing, (a) the merger of the Issuer with an Affiliate incorporated solely for the purpose of reincorporating the Issuer in another jurisdiction shall be permitted and (b) the merger of any Restricted Subsidiary of the Issuer into the Issuer or the transfer, lease, conveyance or other disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of a Restricted Subsidiary of the Issuer to the Issuer shall be permitted so long as the Issuer delivers to the trustee an officers' certificate stating that the purpose of such merger, transfer, lease, conveyance or other disposition is not to consummate a transaction that would otherwise be prohibited by clause (3) of this covenant.

        For purposes of the foregoing, the transfer (by lease, assignment, sale or otherwise, in a single transaction or series of transactions) of all or substantially all of the properties or assets of one or more Restricted Subsidiaries of the Issuer the Capital Stock of which constitutes all or substantially all of the properties and assets of the Issuer shall be deemed to be the transfer of all or substantially all of the properties and assets of the Issuer.

        The Indenture provides that upon any consolidation, combination or merger or any transfer of all or substantially all of the assets of the Issuer in accordance with the foregoing in which the Issuer is not the continuing corporation, the successor Person formed by such consolidation or into which the Issuer is merged or to which such conveyance, lease or transfer is made shall succeed to, and be substituted for, and may exercise every right and power of, the Issuer under the Indenture and the notes with the same effect as if such Surviving Entity had been named as such.

        The following additional conditions shall apply to each transaction described in the above paragraphs:

147


        Each Guarantor (other than any Guarantor whose Guarantee is to be released in accordance with the terms of such Guarantee and the Indenture in connection with any transaction complying with the provisions of "—Limitation on Asset Sales") will not, and we will not cause or permit any Guarantor to, consolidate with or merge with or into any Person other than us or any other Guarantor unless:

        Any merger or consolidation of a Guarantor with and into us (with the Issuer being the surviving entity) or another Guarantor that is a Wholly Owned Restricted Subsidiary of ours need only comply with clause (4) of the first paragraph of this covenant.

        (1)   We will not, and will not permit any of our Restricted Subsidiaries to, directly or indirectly, enter into or permit to exist any transaction or series of related transactions (including, without limitation, the purchase, sale, lease or exchange of any property or the rendering of any service) with, or for the benefit of, any of our Affiliates (each an "Affiliate Transaction"), other than

All Affiliate Transactions (and each series of related Affiliate Transactions which are similar or part of a common plan) involving aggregate payments or other property with a fair market value in excess of $4.0 million shall be approved by our Board of Directors or the Board of Directors of such Restricted Subsidiary, as the case may be, such approval to be evidenced by a Board Resolution stating that such Board of Directors has determined that such transaction complies with the foregoing provisions. If we

148


or any of our Restricted Subsidiaries enters into an Affiliate Transaction (or a series of related Affiliate Transactions related to a common plan) that involves an aggregate fair market value of more than $10.0 million, we or such Restricted Subsidiary, as the case may be, shall, prior to the consummation thereof, obtain a favorable opinion as to the fairness of such transaction or series of related transactions to us or the relevant Restricted Subsidiary, as the case may be, from a financial point of view, from an Independent Financial Advisor and file the same with the trustee.

        (2)   The restrictions set forth in clause (1) shall not apply to:

        The Indenture provides that, whether or not required by the rules and regulations of the Commission, so long as any notes are outstanding, we will file a copy of the following information and reports with the Commission for public availability (unless the Commission will not accept such a filing) and will furnish to the holders of notes and to securities analysts and prospective investors, upon their written request:

        In addition, following the consummation of the exchange offer contemplated by the Registration Rights Agreement, whether or not required by the rules and regulations of the Commission, we will file a copy of all such information and reports with the Commission for public availability within the time periods specified in the Commission's rules and regulations (unless the Commission will not

149


accept such a filing) and make such information available to securities analysts and prospective investors upon written request to us.

        In addition, we have agreed that, for so long as any notes remain outstanding, we will furnish to the holders and to securities analysts and prospective investors, upon their request, the information required to be delivered pursuant to Rule 144A(d)(4) under the Securities Act.

        We will not, and we will not permit any of our Restricted Subsidiaries to, take, or knowingly omit to take, any action, which action or omission would have the effect of causing a Lien to be created in favor of the Collateral Agent or the Bank Lenders (in their respective capacities as such) on any property or assets of the type that would constitute Collateral unless a Lien is created in favor of the Collateral Agent for the benefit of the Notes Secured Creditors with respect to such property or assets (which Lien in favor of the Notes Secured Creditors shall have the priority set forth in the Security Documents). Such Lien in favor of the Collateral Agent for the benefit of the Notes Secured Creditors shall at all times be in accordance with the provisions of the Indenture and the Security Documents.

Events of Default

        The following events are defined in the indenture as "Events of Default":

150

        If an Event of Default (other than an Event of Default specified in clause (6) above with respect to us) shall occur and be continuing, the Trustee or the holders of at least 25% in principal amount of outstanding notes may declare the principal of and accrued interest on all the notes to be due and payable by notice in writing to us and the trustee specifying the respective Event of Default and that it is a "notice of acceleration" (the "Acceleration Notice"), and the same shall become immediately due and payable or if there are any amounts of First-Lien Obligations outstanding under the Credit Agreement, it shall become immediately due and payable upon the first to occur of an acceleration under the Credit Agreement or five business days after receipt by us and the representative of the creditors holding First-Lien Obligations under the Credit Agreement of such Acceleration Notice (but only if such Event of Default is then continuing).

        If an Event of Default specified in clause (6) above with respect to us occurs and is continuing, then all unpaid principal of and premium, if any, and accrued and unpaid interest on all of the outstanding notes shall automatically become and be immediately due and payable without any declaration or other act on the part of the trustee or any holder.

        The Indenture provides that, at any time after a declaration of acceleration with respect to the notes as described in the preceding paragraph, the holders of a majority in principal amount of the notes may rescind and cancel such declaration and its consequences:

        No such rescission will affect any subsequent Default or Event of Default or impair any right consequent thereto.

        The holders of a majority in principal amount of the notes may waive any existing Default or Event of Default under the Indenture, and its consequences, except a Default in the payment of the principal of or interest on any notes.

        Holders of the notes may not enforce the Indenture or the notes except as provided in the Indenture and under the TIA. Subject to the provisions of the Indenture relating to the duties of the

151


Trustee, the Trustee is under no obligation to exercise any of its rights or powers under the Indenture at the request, order or direction of any of the holders, unless such holders have offered to the Trustee reasonable indemnity. Subject to all provisions of the Indenture and applicable law, the holders of a majority in aggregate principal amount of the then outstanding notes have the right to direct the time, method and place of conducting any proceeding for any remedy available to the Trustee or exercising any trust or power conferred on the Trustee.

        Under the Indenture, we are required to provide an officers' certificate to the Trustee

No Personal Liability of Directors, Officers, Employees, Members and Stockholders

        No Affiliate, director, officer, employee, limited liability company member or stockholder of us or any Subsidiary, as such, shall have any liability for any obligations of us or any Guarantor under the notes or the Indenture or any Guarantee or for any claim based on, in respect of, or by reason of, such obligations or their creation. Each holder of notes by accepting a note waives and releases all such liability. The waiver and release were part of the consideration for issuance of the notes. The specified waiver and release would, however, not apply to any liabilities arising under the United States federal securities laws since any agreement to waive the requirements of such laws would be void under Section 14 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

Legal Defeasance and Covenant Defeasance

        We may at any time elect to have our obligations and the obligations of any Guarantor discharged with respect to the outstanding notes ("Legal Defeasance"). Such Legal Defeasance means that we will be deemed to have paid and discharged the entire Indebtedness represented by the outstanding notes, except for:

        In addition, we may at any time elect to have our obligations released with respect to certain covenants that are described in the Indenture ("Covenant Defeasance"). Any omission to comply with such obligations would then not constitute a Default or Event of Default with respect to the notes. If Covenant Defeasance occurs, our failure to perform these covenants will no longer constitute an Event of Default with respect to the notes.

        In order to exercise either Legal Defeasance or Covenant Defeasance:

152

        However, the opinion of counsel required by clause (2) above is not required if all notes not theretofore delivered to the Trustee for cancellation have become due and payable, will become due and payable on the maturity date within one year or are to be called for redemption within one year under arrangements reasonably satisfactory to the Trustee for the giving of notice of redemption by the Trustee in our name, and at our expense.

153


Satisfaction and Discharge

        The Indenture will be discharged when:

        When the Indenture is discharged, it ceases to be of further effect except for surviving rights of registration or transfer or exchange of the notes.

Modification of the Indenture

        From time to time, we, the Guarantors and the Trustee, without the consent of the holders, may amend the Indenture and the Security Documents to cure ambiguities, defects or inconsistencies, and to add Guarantees, to release the Notes Secured Creditors' Lien with respect to Collateral in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Indenture and the Security Documents or similar provisions, so long as such change does not, in the good faith determination of our Board of Directors, adversely affect the rights of any of the holders in any material respect. In making its determination, our Board of Directors may rely on such evidence as it deems appropriate. Other modifications and amendments of the Indenture may be made with the consent of the holders of a majority in principal amount of the then outstanding notes issued under the Indenture, except that the consent of each holder affected thereby is required to:

154

        In addition, without the consent of the holders of at least 75% in principal amount of the notes then outstanding, (a) no amendment may release from the Lien of the Indenture or the notes and the Security Documents all or substantially all of the Collateral otherwise than in accordance with the terms of such Security Documents and (b) no amendment to, or waiver of, the provisions of the Indenture or the Security Documents may alter the priority of the Lien securing the Collateral in any manner that adversely affects the rights of the holders of the notes.

Release of Collateral

        (a)   For so long as there are any First-Lien Obligations or commitments or letters of credit under the Credit Agreement outstanding, the Bank Lenders shall have the exclusive right and authority, whether before or after the occurrence of an event or default under a Credit Agreement or an Event of Default under the Indenture, to determine the release, sale or other disposition of the Collateral and any consent by the Bank Lenders to the release of their Lien upon any of the Collateral shall be binding upon the holders of notes and shall be deemed to be a release of the Notes Secured Creditors' Lien; provided that no release of the Notes Secured Creditors' Lien on the Collateral shall be made if (i) the Collateral to be released is not the subject of a sale or other disposition and such release is being made in connection with or in contemplation of the repayment in full of the First-Lien Obligations or (ii) all or substantially all of the properties and assets constituting the Collateral are to be released, in each case, other than in accordance with the terms of the Indenture and the Security Documents.

        (b)   At such time as all First-Lien Obligations, all commitments and letters of credit under the Credit Agreement have been satisfied in full in cash in accordance with the terms thereof and/or terminated, except as set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) below and subject to "—Modification of the Indenture," the Trustee will have the exclusive right and authority to determine the release, sale or other disposition of the Collateral in accordance with instructions from the holders of a majority in aggregate principal amount of notes or, in the absence of such instructions, in such manner as the Trustee deems appropriate in its absolute discretion.

        (c)   At such time as all First-Lien Obligations, all commitments and letters of credit under the Credit Agreement have been satisfied in full in cash in accordance with the terms thereof and/or terminated, we and the Guarantors shall have the right to obtain a release of items of Collateral (the "Released Interest") in connection with an Asset Sale upon compliance with the condition that we deliver to the Trustee the following:

155

Upon compliance by the Issuer with the conditions set forth in this paragraph (c), the Trustee will instruct the Collateral Agent to release the Released Interest from the Lien in favor of the Collateral Agent for the benefit of the Notes Secured Creditors.

        (d)   If at any time pursuant to the provisions of the Indenture (including in connection with an Asset Sale comprising the sale of Capital Stock of a Guarantor), a Guarantor is released from its guarantee obligations with respect to the notes, such Guarantor shall have the right to obtain a release from the Notes Secured Creditors' Lien on any Collateral pledged by such Guarantor.

        (e)   At such time as all First-Lien Obligations and all commitments and letters of credit under the Credit Agreement have been satisfied in full in cash in accordance with the terms thereof and/or terminated, subject to the provisions of the Indenture and the Security Documents, the Issuer and the Guarantors may, without any release or consent by the Trustee or the Collateral Agent, perform a number of activities permitted by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code of the relevant states in the ordinary course in respect of the Collateral, including any sale or disposition of assets not constituting an Asset Sale. Upon any such permitted sale or other disposition (other than sales or dispositions to the Issuer or a Guarantor), such assets shall be sold free and clear of Liens created by the Security Documents.

        (f)    If at any time pursuant to, and in compliance with, the provisions of the Indenture described in "—Legal Defeasance and Covenant Defeasance" the Issuer shall exercise Legal Defeasance or Covenant Defeasance, the Issuer and the Guarantors shall have the right to obtain a release from the Notes Secured Creditors' Lien on any Collateral pledged by the Issuer and the Guarantors.

Taking and Destruction

        At such time as all First-Lien Obligations and all commitments and letters of credit under the Credit Agreement have been satisfied in full in cash in accordance with the terms thereof and/or terminated, upon any Taking or Destruction of any Collateral, all Net Insurance Proceeds received by the Issuer or any Guarantor shall be deemed Net Cash Proceeds and shall be applied in accordance with "—Certain Covenants—Limitation on Asset Sales."

Use of Trust Monies

        To the extent received by the Trustee pursuant to the provisions of the Indenture, the Security Documents or otherwise, all Trust Monies shall be held by the Trustee as a part of the Collateral securing the notes and, so long as no Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, shall, at the Issuer's direction, be (a) applied by the Trustee from time to time to the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on any notes at maturity or upon redemption or retirement, or to the purchase of notes upon tender or in the open market or otherwise, in each case in compliance with the Indenture or (b) released to the extent such cash would be considered Collateral under the Security Documents following such release.

156

        The Trustee shall be entitled to apply any Trust Monies to cure any payment Event of Default. Trust Monies deposited with the Trustee shall be invested in Cash Equivalents pursuant to the direction of the Issuer and, so long as no Default or Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, the Issuer shall be entitled to any interest or dividends accrued, earned or paid on such Cash Equivalents.

Governing Law

        The Indenture, the notes and any Guarantee will be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York but without giving effect to applicable principles of conflicts of law to the extent that the application of the law of another jurisdiction would be required thereby.

The Trustee

        U.S. Bank National Association is the Trustee under the Indenture and has been appointed to act as registrar and paying agent with respect to the notes. The Indenture provides that, except during the continuance of an Event of Default, the Trustee will perform only such duties as are specifically set forth in the Indenture. During the existence of an Event of Default, the Trustee will exercise such rights and powers vested in it by the Indenture and use the same degree of care and skill in its exercise as a prudent man would exercise or use under the circumstances in the conduct of his own affairs.

        If the Trustee becomes a creditor of ours, the Indenture and the provisions of the TIA limit the rights of the Trustee to obtain payments of its claims or to realize on certain property received in respect of its claims. Subject to the TIA, the Trustee will be permitted to engage in other transactions; however, if the Trustee acquires any conflicting interest as described in the TIA, it must eliminate such conflict or resign.

Certain Definitions

        Set forth below is a summary of certain of the defined terms used in the Indenture. You should read the Indenture for the full definition of all such terms and any other terms used herein for which no definition is provided.

        "Acquired Indebtedness" means Indebtedness of a Person or any of its Subsidiaries

in each case, not incurred by such Person in connection with, or in contemplation of, such Person becoming a Restricted Subsidiary of ours or such acquisition, merger or consolidation.

        "Affiliate" of any specified Person means any other Person who directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, such specified Person. The term "control" means the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a Person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract or otherwise. "Controlling" and "controlled" shall have correlative meanings.

        "Asset Acquisition" means:

157

        "Asset Coverage Ratio" means, at any date, the ratio of (i) Consolidated Net Tangible Assets of the Issuer less the aggregate principal amount of First-Lien Obligations outstanding, to (ii) the aggregate principal amount of notes outstanding.

        "Asset Sale" means any direct or indirect sale, issuance, conveyance, transfer, lease (other than operating leases entered into in the ordinary course of business), assignment or other transfer for value by us or any of our Restricted Subsidiaries, including any Sale and Leaseback Transaction, to any Person other than us or a Wholly Owned Restricted Subsidiary of ours of:

        Notwithstanding the preceding, the following items shall not be deemed Asset Sales:

        "Beneficial Owner" has the meaning assigned to such term in Rule 13d-3 and Rule 13d-5 under the Exchange Act, except that in calculating the beneficial ownership of any particular "person" (as such term is used in Section 13(d)(3) of the Exchange Act), such "person" will be deemed to have beneficial ownership of all securities that such "person" has the right to acquire, whether such right is currently exercisable or is exercisable only upon the occurrence of a subsequent condition, regardless of when such right may be exercised.

        "Board Resolution" means a copy of a resolution certified by the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary of any Person to have been duly adopted by the Board of Directors of such Person and to be in full force and effect on the date of such certification, and delivered to the Trustee.

        "Capital Expenditure" means, for any period, expenditures (including the aggregate amount of Capitalized Lease Obligations incurred during such period) made by the Issuer or any of its Restricted

158


Subsidiaries to acquire (including the acquisitions of Capital Stock, or all or substantially all of the assets, of a Person that becomes a Restricted Subsidiary of the Issuer permitted by the Indenture) or construct fixed assets, plant and equipment (including renewals, improvements and replacements, but excluding repairs unless such repairs are required to be capitalized in accordance with GAAP) during such period computed in accordance with GAAP; provided, however, that Capital Expenditures shall not include (a) any expenditure classified as a Permitted Investment, (b) any expenditure made with the proceeds of condemnation awards or insurance, (c) any expenditure with Net Cash Proceeds from Asset Sales, to the extent such expenditures do not exceed the book value of the assets sold in such Asset Sales, and (d) any expenditure financed with the proceeds of long term Indebtedness raised specifically to finance, in whole or in part, such Capital Expenditure.

        "Capitalized Lease Obligation" means, at the time any determination thereof is to be made, the amount of the liability of a Person under a capital lease that would at that time be required to be capitalized on a balance sheet in accordance with GAAP, with the stated maturity being the date of the last payment of rent or any other amount due under such lease prior to the first date upon which such lease may be prepaid by the lessee without payment of a penalty.

        "Capital Stock" means:

        "Cash Equivalents" means:

159

        "Change of Control" means the occurrence of one or more of the following:

        "Collateral Agent" means, initially, Credit Suisse First Boston, acting through its Cayman Islands Branch.

        "Commodity Agreement" means any commodity futures contract, commodity option or other similar agreement or arrangement entered into by us or any of our Restricted Subsidiaries designed to protect us or any of our Restricted Subsidiaries against fluctuations in the price of the commodities at the time used in the ordinary course of our business or the business of any of our Restricted Subsidiaries.

        "Common Stock" means any and all shares, interests or other participations in, and other equivalents (however designated and whether voting or nonvoting) of, such Person's common stock, whether outstanding on the Issue Date or issued after the Issue Date, including all series and classes of such common stock.

        "Consolidated EBITDA" means, with respect to any Person, for any period, the sum (without duplication) of:

160

all as determined on a consolidated basis for such Person and its Restricted Subsidiaries in accordance with GAAP as applicable. To the extent not otherwise included in the calculation thereof, Consolidated EBITDA shall be reduced by any extraordinary or nonrecurring cash charges and increased by any extraordinary or nonrecurring cash gains for the purposes of the definition of "Excess Cash Flow."

        "Consolidated Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio" means, with respect to any Person, the ratio of Consolidated EBITDA of such Person during the four full fiscal quarters for which financial statements are available (the "Four Quarter Period") ending on or prior to the date of the transaction giving rise to the need to calculate the Consolidated Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio (the "Transaction Date") to Consolidated Fixed Charges of such Person for the Four Quarter Period. In addition to and without limitation of the foregoing, for purposes of this definition, "Consolidated EBITDA" and "Consolidated Fixed Charges" shall be calculated after giving effect on a pro forma basis (consistent with the provisions below) for the period of such calculation to:

        Furthermore, in calculating "Consolidated Fixed Charges" for purposes of determining the denominator (but not the numerator) of this "Consolidated Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio,"

161


        "Consolidated Fixed Charges" means, with respect to any Person for any period, the sum, without duplication, of:

        "Consolidated Interest Expense" means, with respect to any Person for any period, the sum of, without duplication:

        "Consolidated Net Income" means, with respect to any Person for any period, the aggregate net income (or loss) of such Person and its Restricted Subsidiaries for such period on a consolidated basis, determined in accordance with GAAP; provided that the following shall be excluded:

162

        "Consolidated Net Tangible Assets" means, at any date, with respect to any Person, the consolidated total assets of such Person and its Restricted Subsidiaries determined in accordance with GAAP (calculated after giving pro forma effect to any acquisition of assets on such date), less all goodwill, trade names, trademarks, patents, unamortized debt discount, organization expense and other similar intangibles properly classified as intangibles in accordance with GAAP.

        "Consolidated Non-cash Charges" means, with respect to any Person for any period, the aggregate depreciation, amortization, accretion and other non-cash expenses of such Person and its Restricted Subsidiaries reducing Consolidated Net Income of such Person and its Restricted Subsidiaries for such period, determined on a consolidated basis in accordance with GAAP (excluding any such charges constituting an extraordinary item or loss or any such charge (other than non-cash accretion of environmental liabilities required by GAAP) which requires an accrual of or a reserve for cash charges for any future period).

        "Credit Agreement" means, collectively, (i) the Loan and Security Agreement dated as of the Issue Date, among us, certain of our Subsidiaries, the financial institutions party to such agreement in their capacities as lenders and/or issuers of letters of credit, Credit Suisse First Boston, as administrative agent for the letter of credit facility included thereunder, and Fleet Capital Corporation or its affiliate, as administrative agent for the revolving credit facility included thereunder, and certain other parties and (ii) the related documents (including, without limitation, any guarantee agreements and security documents), in each case as such agreements, other agreements and security documents may be amended (including any amendment and restatement), supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, including any agreement extending the maturity of, refinancing, replacing or otherwise restructuring (including increasing the amount of available borrowings or availability of letters of credit thereunder or adding Restricted Subsidiaries of ours as additional borrowers or guarantors thereunder) all or any portion of the Indebtedness under such agreements, other agreements or any successor or replacement agreement or agreements and whether by the same or any other agent, lender or group of lenders, or issuers of letters of credit.

163

        "Currency Agreement" means any foreign exchange contract, currency swap agreement or other similar agreement or arrangement designed to protect us or any Restricted Subsidiary of ours against fluctuations in currency values.

        "Default" means an event that is, or with the passage of time or the giving of notice or both would be, an Event of Default.

        "Destruction" means any damage to, loss or destruction of all or any portion of the Collateral.

        "Disqualified Capital Stock" means that portion of any Capital Stock which, by its terms (or by the terms of any security into which it is convertible or for which it is exchangeable at the option of the holder thereof), or upon the happening of any event (other than an event which would constitute a Change of Control), matures or is mandatorily redeemable, pursuant to a sinking fund obligation or otherwise, or is redeemable at the sole option of the holder thereof (except, in each case, upon the occurrence of a Change of Control) on or prior to the final maturity date of the notes.

        "Domestic Restricted Subsidiary" means any Restricted Subsidiary of ours incorporated or otherwise organized or existing under the laws of the United States, any State or the District of Columbia.

        "Equity Offering" means a public or private sale of Qualified Capital Stock (other than on Form S-4 or S-8 or any successor Forms thereto) of the Issuer.

        "Excess Cash Flow" means, for the Issuer and its Restricted Subsidiaries, for any period, its Consolidated EBITDA for such period less the sum, without duplication, of (i) the Issuer's consolidated interest expense as determined in accordance with GAAP but excluding any amortization of original issue discount attributable to such period; (ii) all federal, state, foreign and other income taxes accrued or paid in cash (without duplication) by the Issuer and its Restricted Subsidiaries during such period; (iii) an amount equal to the Capital Expenditures made in cash during such period; and (iv) all cash spent on environmental monitoring or remediation or relating to environmental liabilities of the Issuer and its Restricted Subsidiaries.

        "Excess Cash Flow Amount" means, for any Excess Cash Flow Period, an amount equal to 50% of Excess Cash Flow for such Excess Cash Flow Period less the aggregate amount of all scheduled, mandatory and voluntary prepayments, repayments, redemptions or purchases of First-Lien Obligations or Capitalized Lease Obligations of the Issuer made by the Issuer during such Excess Cash Flow Period (other than prepayments, repayments, redemptions or purchases made with the proceeds of Indebtedness incurred to Refinance the First-Lien Obligations or Capitalized Lease Obligations prepaid, repaid, redeemed or purchased during such Excess Cash Flow Period) including any cash required to be restricted to cash collateralize letters of credit either under the Credit Agreement or otherwise.

        "Excess Cash Flow Period" means the twelve-month period ending on June 30 of each year, beginning with the twelve-month period ending June 30, 2005.

        "fair market value" means with respect to any asset or property, the price which could be negotiated in an arm's-length, free market transaction, for cash, between a willing seller and a willing and able buyer, neither of whom is under undue pressure or compulsion to complete the transaction. Fair market value shall be determined conclusively by our Board of Directors acting reasonably and in good faith and shall be evidenced by a Board Resolution of our Board of Directors delivered to the Trustee.

        "First-Lien Obligations" means Obligations for Indebtedness (with letters of credit being deemed to have a principal amount equal to the maximum potential liability of the Issuer and its Restricted Subsidiaries thereunder) incurred pursuant to the Credit Agreement and each other agreement under which Indebtedness of the Issuer or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries is incurred that is secured by Liens on all or a portion of the Collateral, which Liens are senior in priority to the Liens securing the

164


notes and the Guarantees; provided that such Indebtedness is incurred in compliance with the terms of the Indenture and secured by Liens permitted to be incurred pursuant to clause (b), (c) or (d) of the covenant described under "—Certain Covenants—Limitations on Liens."

        "Foreign Restricted Subsidiary" means any of our Restricted Subsidiaries incorporated or organized in any jurisdiction outside of the United States.

        "GAAP" means generally accepted accounting principles set forth in the opinions and pronouncements of the Accounting Principles Board of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and statements and pronouncements of the Financial Accounting Standards Board or in such other statements by such other entity as may be approved by a significant segment of the accounting profession of the United States, which are in effect as of the Issue Date.

        "Guarantee" means the guarantee by each Guarantor of the Issuer's obligations under the Indenture.

        "guarantee" means any obligation, contingent or otherwise, of any Person directly or indirectly guaranteeing any Indebtedness of any other Person, including any obligation, direct or indirect, contingent or otherwise, of such Person

        Notwithstanding the preceding, "guarantee" does not include endorsements for collection or deposit in the ordinary course of business. The term "guarantee" used as a verb has a corresponding meaning.

        "Guarantor" means:


provided that any Person constituting a Guarantor as described above shall cease to constitute a Guarantor when its Guarantee is released in accordance with the terms of the Indenture.

        "Indebtedness" means with respect to any Person any indebtedness of such Person, without duplication, in respect of:

165

        For purposes of this definition of Indebtedness, the "maximum fixed repurchase price" of any Disqualified Capital Stock which does not have a fixed repurchase price shall be calculated in accordance with the terms of such Disqualified Capital Stock as if such Disqualified Capital Stock were purchased on any date on which Indebtedness shall be required to be determined pursuant to the Indenture, and if such price is based upon, or measured by, the fair market value of such Disqualified Capital Stock, such fair market value shall be determined reasonably and in good faith by the Board of Directors of the issuer of such Disqualified Capital Stock. For purposes of the covenant described above under the caption "Limitation on Incurrence of Additional Indebtedness," in determining the principal amount of any Indebtedness to be incurred by us or any Restricted Subsidiary or which is outstanding at any date, the principal amount of any Indebtedness which provides that an amount less than the principal amount shall be due upon any declaration of acceleration shall be the accreted value of the Indebtedness at the date of determination.

        "Independent Financial Advisor" means a firm:

        "Interest Swap Obligations" means the obligations of any Person pursuant to any arrangement with any other Person, whereby, directly or indirectly, such Person is entitled to receive from time to time periodic payments calculated by applying either a floating or a fixed rate of interest on a stated notional amount in exchange for periodic payments made by such other Person calculated by applying a fixed or a floating rate of interest on the same notional amount and shall include, without limitation, interest rate swaps, caps, floors, collars and similar agreements.

        "Investment" means, with respect to any Person, any direct or indirect loan or other extension of credit, including a guarantee, or capital contribution to (by means of any transfer of cash or other property to others or any payment for property or services for the account or use of others), or any purchase or acquisition by such Person of any Capital Stock, bonds, notes, debentures or other

166


securities or evidences of Indebtedness issued by, any Person. "Investment" does not include extensions of trade credit by, prepayment of expenses by, and receivables owing to, us and our Restricted Subsidiaries on commercially reasonable terms in accordance with our normal trade practices or those of such Restricted Subsidiary, as the case may be. For purposes of the "Limitation on Restricted Payments" covenant:

        If we or any Restricted Subsidiary of ours sells or otherwise disposes of any Common Stock of any direct or indirect Restricted Subsidiary of ours such that, after giving effect to any such sale or disposition, such Person ceases to be a Restricted Subsidiary of ours, we shall be deemed to have made an Investment on the date of any such sale or disposition equal to the fair market value of the Common Stock of that Restricted Subsidiary not sold or disposed of.

        "Issue Date" means June 30, 2004, the date of original issuance of the notes.

        "Lien" means any lien, mortgage, deed of trust, pledge, security interest, charge or encumbrance of any kind, including any conditional sale or other title retention agreement, any lease in the nature thereof and any agreement to give any security interest.

        "Net Cash Proceeds" means (a) with respect to any Asset Sale, the proceeds in the form of cash or Cash Equivalents including payments in respect of deferred payment obligations when received in the form of cash or Cash Equivalents (other than the portion of any such deferred payment constituting interest) received by us or any of our Restricted Subsidiaries from such Asset Sale net of:

167

and (b) with respect to any issuance or sale of Capital Stock, the cash proceeds of such issuance or sale, net of attorneys' fees, accountants' fees, underwriters' or placement agents' or initial purchasers' fees, discounts or commissions and brokerage, consultant and other fees and expenses actually incurred in connection with such issuance or sale and net of taxes paid or payable as a result thereof.

        "Net Insurance Proceeds" means the insurance proceeds (excluding liability insurance proceeds payable to the Trustee for any loss, liability or expense incurred by it and excluding the proceeds of business interruption insurance) or condemnation awards actually received by the Issuer or any Restricted Subsidiary of the Issuer as a result of the Destruction or Taking of all or any portion of the Collateral, net of:

        "New Domestic Restricted Subsidiary" has the meaning set forth in the "Future Guarantors" covenant.

        "Notes Secured Creditors" means, collectively, the Trustee and the holders of notes.

        "Obligations" means all obligations for principal, premium, interest, penalties, fees, indemnifications, reimbursements, damages and other liabilities payable under the documentation governing any Indebtedness.

        "Permitted Business" means the business of us and our Restricted Subsidiaries as existing on the Issue Date and any other businesses that are the same, similar or reasonably related, ancillary or complementary thereto and reasonable extensions thereof.

        "Permitted Holders" means (i) Alan S. McKim; (ii) the spouse and lineal descendants of Alan S. McKim; (iii) any controlled Affiliate of any of the foregoing; (iv) in the event of the incompetence or death of any of the Persons described in clause (i) or (ii), such Person's estate, executor, administrator, committee or other personal representative, in each case who at any particular date will beneficially own or have the right to acquire, directly or indirectly, Capital Stock of the Issuer owned by such Person; or (v) any trusts, general partnerships or limited partnerships created for the benefit of the Persons described in clause (i), (ii), or (iv) or any trust for the benefit of any such trust general partnership or limited partnership.

        "Permitted Indebtedness" means, without duplication, each of the following:

168

169

        For purposes of determining compliance with the "Limitation on Incurrence of Additional Indebtedness" covenant,

        "Permitted Investments" means:

170

171

        "Permitted Liens" means the following types of Liens:

172

        "Person" means an individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, unincorporated organization, trust or joint venture, or a governmental agency or political subdivision thereof or any other entity.

        "Preferred Stock" of any Person means any Capital Stock of such Person that has preferential rights to any other Capital Stock of such Person with respect to dividends or redemptions or upon liquidation.

        "Purchase Money Indebtedness" means Indebtedness of us and our Restricted Subsidiaries incurred in the normal course of business for the purpose of financing all or any part of the purchase price, or the cost of installation, construction or improvement, of property or equipment or other related assets and any Refinancing thereof.

        "Qualified Capital Stock" means any Capital Stock that is not Disqualified Capital Stock.

173


        "Qualified Receivables Transaction" means any transaction or series of transactions that may be entered into by us or any of our Restricted Subsidiaries in which we or any of our Restricted Subsidiaries may sell, convey or otherwise transfer to (1) a Receivables Entity (in the case of a transfer by us or any of our Restricted Subsidiaries) and (2) any other Person (in the case of a transfer by a Receivables Entity), or may grant a security interest in Receivables and Related Assets; provided that such transaction is on market terms at the time we or such Restricted Subsidiary or the Receivables Entity entered into the transaction.

        "Receivables and Related Assets" means any accounts receivable (whether existing on the Issue Date or arising thereafter) of us or any of our Restricted Subsidiaries, and any assets related thereto, including, without limitation, all collateral securing such accounts receivable, all contracts and contract rights and all guarantees or other obligations in respect of such accounts receivable, proceeds of such accounts receivable and other assets which are customarily transferred or in respect of which security interests are customarily granted in connection with asset securitization transactions involving accounts receivable.

        "Receivables Entity" means a Wholly Owned Restricted Subsidiary of ours (or another Person in which we or any Subsidiary of ours makes an Investment and to which we or any Subsidiary of ours transfers Receivables and Related Assets) that engages in no activities other than in connection with the financing of accounts receivable and that is designated by our Board of Directors (as provided below) as a Receivables Entity:

        Any such designation by our Board of Directors shall be evidenced to the Trustee by filing with the Trustee a Board Resolution giving effect to such designation and an officers' certificate certifying that such designation complied with the preceding conditions.

        "Refinance" means, in respect of any security or Indebtedness, to refinance, extend, renew, refund, repay, prepay, redeem, defease or retire, or to issue a security or Indebtedness in exchange or

174


replacement for, such security or Indebtedness in whole or in part. "Refinanced" and "Refinancing" shall have correlative meanings.

        "Refinancing Indebtedness" means any Refinancing by us or any Restricted Subsidiary of ours of (A) for purposes of clause (13) of the definition of "Permitted Indebtedness," Indebtedness incurred or existing in accordance with the "Limitation on Incurrence of Additional Indebtedness" covenant (other than pursuant to clause (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12) or (14) of the definition of "Permitted Indebtedness") or (B) for any other purpose, Indebtedness incurred in accordance with the "Limitation on Incurrence of Additional Indebtedness" covenant, in each case that does not:

provided that

        "Restricted Payment" has the meaning set forth in the "Limitation on Restricted Payments" covenant.

        "Restricted Subsidiary" of any Person means any Subsidiary of such Person which at the time of determination is not an Unrestricted Subsidiary.

        "Sale and Leaseback Transaction" means any direct or indirect arrangement with any Person or to which any such Person is a party, providing for the leasing to us or a Restricted Subsidiary of ours of any property, whether owned by us or any Restricted Subsidiary at the Issue Date or later acquired, which has been or is to be sold or transferred by us or such Restricted Subsidiary to such Person or to any other Person from whom funds have been or are to be advanced by such Person on the security of such property.

175

        "Security Documents" means, collectively:

        "Senior Debt" means, with respect to a Person, the notes, the Guarantees and any other Indebtedness of such Person that specifically provides that such Indebtedness is to rank on an equal basis with the notes or Guarantees, as applicable, in right of payment and is not subordinated by its terms in right of payment to any Indebtedness or other Obligations.

        Notwithstanding the preceding, "Senior Debt" shall not include:

provided, if any Senior Debt is disallowed under Section 548 of Title 11, United States Code, or any applicable state fraudulent conveyance law, such Senior Debt shall nevertheless constitute Senior Debt of all purposes of the Indenture.

        "Series B Preferred Stock" means the Issuer's Series B Convertible Preferred Stock under the Certificate of Vote therefore in effect on the Issue Date or as thereafter amended in a manner not materially adverse to the holders of the notes.

        "Significant Subsidiary," means (1) any Restricted Subsidiary that would be a "significant subsidiary" as defined in Regulation S-X under the Securities Act as such Regulation is in effect on the Issue Date and (2) any Restricted Subsidiary that, when aggregated with all other Restricted Subsidiaries that are not otherwise Significant Subsidiaries and as to which any event described in

176


clause (5), (6) or (7) under "—Events of Default" has occurred and is continuing, would constitute a Significant Subsidiary under clause (1) of this definition.

        "Subsidiary," with respect to any Person, means:

        "Taking" means any taking of all or any portion of the Collateral by condemnation or other eminent domain proceedings, pursuant to any law, general or special, or by reason of the temporary requisition of the use or occupancy of all or any portion of the Collateral by any governmental authority, civil or military, or any sale pursuant to the exercise by any such governmental authority of any right which it may then have to purchase or designate a purchaser or to order a sale of all or any portion of the Collateral.

        "Trust Monies" means all cash and Cash Equivalents received by the Trustee, net of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses and fees (including, without limitation, expenses of attorneys):

        "Unrestricted Subsidiary" means (1) any Subsidiary of any Person that is designated an Unrestricted Subsidiary by the Board of Directors of such Person in the manner provided below and (2) any Subsidiary of an Unrestricted Subsidiary. The Board of Directors may designate any Subsidiary, including any newly acquired or newly formed Subsidiary, to be an Unrestricted Subsidiary only if:

        The Board of Directors may designate any Unrestricted Subsidiary to be a Restricted Subsidiary only if

177

        "Weighted Average Life to Maturity" means, when applied to any Indebtedness at any date, the number of years obtained by dividing

        "Wholly Owned Restricted Subsidiary" of any Person means any Restricted Subsidiary of such Person of which all the outstanding voting securities (other than in the case of a Foreign Restricted Subsidiary, directors' qualifying shares or an immaterial amount of shares required to be owned by other Persons pursuant to applicable law) are owned by such Person or any Wholly Owned Restricted Subsidiary of such Person.

178


 UNITED STATES FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSIDERATIONS

        The following is a summary of the material United States federal tax consequences that may be relevant to the exchange, ownership and disposition of the notes; it does not purport to be a complete analysis of all the potential tax considerations relating thereto. This summary is based on the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), the Treasury regulations promulgated thereunder and administrative and judicial interpretations thereof, all as of the date hereof, and all of which are subject to change, possibly on a retroactive basis. No ruling from the Internal Revenue Service (the "IRS") has been, or will be, sought with respect to the matters described below. We cannot assure you that the IRS will not challenge one or more of the tax consequences described herein. Unless otherwise stated, this summary deals only with the notes purchased for cash on original issue and held as capital assets (generally, property held for investment) and does not address tax considerations applicable to investors that may be subject to special tax rules including banks, thrifts, real estate investment trusts, regulated investment companies, tax exempt organizations, insurance companies, dealers in securities or currencies, traders in securities that elect to use the mark-to-market method of accounting for their securities holdings, persons that will hold the notes as part of a hedging transaction, "straddle," "synthetic security" or "conversion transaction" for tax purposes or persons that have a "functional currency" other than the U.S. dollar. If a partnership or other entity treated as a partnership for United States federal income tax purposes holds notes, the tax treatment of a partner will generally depend on the status of the partner and the activities of the partnership. If you are a partner of a partnership holding notes, you should consult your tax advisor. Further, this summary does not discuss alternative minimum tax consequences, if any, or any state, local or foreign tax consequences to holders of the notes.

        Investors considering exchanging their old notes for new notes pursuant to the exchange offer should consult with their own tax advisors regarding the federal, state, local and foreign income, franchise, personal property and any other tax consequences that may be relevant to the exchange, ownership and disposition of the notes.

U.S. Holders of Notes

        For purposes of this summary, a "U.S. holder" means the beneficial owner of a note that for United States federal income tax purposes is:


        Interest Income.    Payments of interest on a note generally will be taxable to a U.S. holder as ordinary interest income at the time such payments are accrued or are received in accordance with the holder's regular method of tax accounting for United States federal income tax purposes.

        Sale or Exchange of Notes.    Subject to the discussion below under the "The Exchange Offer," upon the sale, exchange, redemption or other taxable disposition of a note, a holder will recognize taxable gain or loss equal to the difference between (A) the amount of cash proceeds and the fair market value of any property received (except to the extent that this amount is attributable to accrued

179


interest income, which is taxable as ordinary income) and (B) the holder's adjusted tax basis in the note. A holder's adjusted tax basis in the note generally will be the initial purchase price paid therefore. The gain or loss will be long-term capital gain or loss provided that the holder's holding period for the note exceeds one year. In the case of a holder other than a corporation, the current maximum marginal United States federal income tax rate applicable to long term capital gain recognized on the sale of a note is 15%. The deductibility of capital losses is subject to certain limitations.

        The Exchange Offer.    The exchange of the old notes for new notes pursuant to the exchange offer will not constitute an exchange or other taxable disposition for United States federal income tax purposes. Therefore, a holder will have the same issue price, holding period and adjusted tax basis in the new note as in the note surrendered. In addition, each holder of notes will continue to be required to include interest on the notes in its gross income in accordance with its regular method of accounting for United States federal income tax purposes, and all other United States federal income tax consequences of holding and disposing of new notes will be the same as the United States federal income tax consequences of holding and disposing of old notes.

        Information Reporting and Backup Withholding Tax.    In general, information reporting requirements will apply to payments of principal and interest on the notes and payments of the proceeds of the sales of the notes, and backup withholding tax may also apply to these payments. A U.S. holder will generally be subject to backup withholding unless the holder provides to us or our paying agent a correct taxpayer identification number and certain other information, certified under penalties of perjury, or the holder otherwise establishes an exemption.

        Any amounts withheld under the backup withholding rules from a payment to a holder will be allowed as a credit against the holder's United States federal income tax and may entitle the holder to a refund, provided that the required information is furnished to the IRS.

Non-U.S. Holders of Notes

        For purposes of this summary, a "non-U.S. holder" means a beneficial owner of a note that is not a U.S. holder.

        The rules governing United States federal income taxation of a beneficial owner of notes that, for United States federal income tax purposes, is a non-U.S. holder are complex and no attempt will be made herein to provide more than a summary of those rules. Non-U.S. holders should consult with their own tax advisors to determine the effect of federal, state, local and foreign income tax laws, as well as treaties, with regard to an investment in the notes, including any reporting requirements.

        Interest Income.    Generally, interest income of a non-U.S. holder will qualify for the "portfolio interest" exemption and therefore will not be subject to United States federal income tax or withholding tax, provided that:

180

        If the non-U.S. holder cannot satisfy the requirements described above, payments of interest made to such holder will be subject to the 30% United States federal withholding tax, unless the non-U.S. holder provides to us a properly completed and executed (1) IRS Form W-8BEN (or successor form) from the non-U.S. holder claiming an exemption from or reduction in withholding under the benefit of an applicable income tax treaty or (2) IRS Form W-8ECI (or successor form) stating that interest paid on a note is not subject to withholding tax because it is effectively connected with the non-U.S. holder's conduct of a trade or business in the United States.

        If any interest on the notes is effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business conducted by a non-U.S. holder (or in the case of an applicable income tax treaty, attributable to a non-U.S. holder's permanent establishment in the United States), then the income or gain will be subject to United States federal income tax at regular graduated income tax rates but will not be subject to withholding tax if the certification requirements described immediately above were satisfied. If a non-U.S. holder is eligible for the benefits of an income tax treaty between the United States and its country of residence, any "effectively connected" income or gain will generally be subject to United States federal income tax only if it is also attributable to a permanent establishment maintained by such non-U.S. holder in the United States. If a non-U.S. holder is a corporation, that portion of its earnings and profits that is effectively connected with its U.S. trade or business (or in the case of an applicable income tax treaty, attributable to its permanent establishment in the United States) also may be subject to a "branch profits tax" at a 30% rate, although an applicable income tax treaty may provide for a lower rate.

        Sale or Exchange of Notes.    Subject to compliance with certain reporting and other requirements described below under "Information Reporting and Backup Withholding," a non-U.S. holder will not be subject to United States federal income tax or withholding tax on any gain realized on the sale, exchange, retirement or other taxable disposition of the notes unless:

        United States Federal Estate Tax.    The notes will not be included in the estate of a deceased non-U.S. holder (as specifically defined for United States federal estate tax purposes) for United States federal estate tax purposes if (A) interest on the notes is exempt from withholding of United States federal income tax under the portfolio interest exemption (without regard to the certification requirement), or (B) for individual non-U.S. holders, the interest on the notes was not effectively connected to a United States trade or business of the non-U.S. holder.

        Information Reporting and Backup Withholding.    Payments to a non-U.S. holder of interest on a note, and amounts withheld from such payments, if any, generally will be required to be reported to

181


the IRS and to the non-U.S. holder. Copies of the information returns reporting such interest payments and any withholding may also be made available to the tax authorities in the country in which the non-U.S. holder resides under the provisions of an applicable income tax treaty.

        Backup withholding generally will not apply to payments on the notes to a non-U.S. holder if such holder has complied with the applicable certification requirements described in subparagraph (4) in the "Interest Income" section above or otherwise establishes an exemption under the applicable Treasury regulations, provided the payor does not have actual knowledge or reason to know that the holder is a United States person.

        Payment of the proceeds of a sale of a note effected by the United States office of a United States or foreign broker will be subject to information reporting requirements and backup withholding unless the non-U.S. holder properly certifies under penalties of perjury as to its foreign status and certain other conditions are met or the non-U.S. holder otherwise establishes an exemption. Information reporting requirements and backup withholding generally will not apply to any payment of the proceeds of the sale of a note effected outside the United States by a foreign office of a broker. However, unless such a broker has documentary evidence in its records that the beneficial owner is a non-U.S. holder and certain other conditions are met, or a non-U.S. holder otherwise establishes an exemption, information reporting will apply to a payment of the proceeds of the sale of a note effected outside the United States by such a broker if it:

        Any amount withheld under the backup withholding rules may be credited against the holder's United States federal income tax liability and any excess may be refundable if the proper information is provided to the IRS.


PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION

        Each broker-dealer that receives new notes for its own account in connection with the exchange offer must acknowledge that it will deliver a prospectus in connection with any resale of those new notes. A broker-dealer may use this prospectus, as amended or supplemented from time to time, in connection with resales of new notes received in exchange for old notes where such broker-dealer acquired old notes as a result of market-making activities or other trading activities. We have agreed that for a period of 180 days after the expiration date of the exchange offer, we will make available a prospectus, as amended or supplemented, meeting the requirements of the Securities Act to any broker-dealer for use in connection with those resales.

        We will not receive any proceeds from any sale of new notes by broker-dealers. Broker-dealers may sell new notes received by them for their own account pursuant to the exchange offer from time to time in one or more transactions in the over-the-counter market, in negotiated transactions, through the writing of options on the new notes or a combination of those methods of resale, at market prices prevailing at the time of resale, at prices related to such prevailing market prices or negotiated prices. Any such resale may be made directly to purchasers or to or through brokers or dealers who may receive compensation in the form of commissions or concessions from any broker-dealer or the purchasers of any new notes. Any broker-dealer that resells new notes that were received by it for its

182


own account pursuant to the exchange offer and any broker or dealer that participates in a distribution of such new notes may be deemed to be an "underwriter" within the meaning of the Securities Act. A profit on any such resale of new notes and any commissions or concessions received by any such persons may be deemed to be underwriting compensation under the Securities Act. The letter of transmittal states that, by acknowledging that it will deliver and by delivering a prospectus, a broker-dealer will not be deemed to admit that it is an "underwriter" within the meaning of the Securities Act.

        For a period of 180 days after the expiration date of the exchange offer, we will promptly send additional copies of this prospectus and any amendment or supplement to this prospectus to any broker-dealer that requests these documents in the letter of transmittal. We will indemnify the holders of the old notes, including any broker-dealers, against specified liabilities, including liabilities under the Securities Act.


LEGAL MATTERS

        Davis, Malm & D'Agostine, P.C., Boston, Massachusetts, has passed upon the validity and enforceability of the new notes and the guarantees for Clean Harbors and the Guarantors.


INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

        The consolidated financial statements of Clean Harbors, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and the results of our operations and our cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2004, included in this prospectus, have been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, as stated in their report appearing herein.


EXCHANGE AGENT

        We have appointed U.S. Bank National Association as exchange agent in connection with the exchange offer. Holders should direct questions, requests for assistance and for additional copies of this prospectus, the letter of transmittal or notices of guaranteed delivery to the exchange agent addressed as follows:

By Hand or Overnight Courier:   By Facsimile Transmission:

U.S. Bank National Association
60 Livingston Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55107
Attention: Specialized Finance, 2nd Floor
(800) 934-6802
 
(651) 495-8158
(For Eligible Institutions Only)
U.S. Bank National Association
Attention: Specialized Finance, 2nd Floor
Confirm by Telephone:
(800) 934-6802

183


 WHERE YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

        We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. Our SEC filings are available to the public over the Internet at the SEC's web site at http://www.sec.gov. Copies of the documents we file with the SEC can be read at the SEC's public reference facility at 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549. You can also obtain copies of our filings at prescribed rates by writing to the Public Reference Section of the SEC at 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the operation of its public reference facility.

        We are "incorporating by reference" in this prospectus some of the documents we file with the SEC. This means that we can disclose important information to you by referring you to those documents. The information in the documents incorporated by reference is considered to be part of this prospectus. Information in specified documents that we file with the SEC after the date of this prospectus will automatically update and supersede information in this prospectus. We incorporate by reference the documents listed below and any future filings we may make with the SEC under Section 13(a), 13(c), 14 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 after the date of filing of the initial registration statement relating to the exchange offer and prior to the termination of any offering of securities offered by this prospectus:

        Information contained in this prospectus supplements, modifies or supersedes, as applicable, the information contained in earlier-dated documents incorporated by reference. Information contained in later-dated documents incorporated by reference supplements, modifies or supersedes, as applicable, the information contained in this prospectus or in earlier-dated documents incorporated by reference.

        We will provide a copy of the documents we incorporate by reference (other than exhibits, unless the exhibit is specifically incorporated by reference into the filing requested), at no cost, to you if you submit a request to us by writing to or telephoning us at the following address or telephone number:

Clean Harbors, Inc.
1501 Washington Street
Braintree, Massachusetts 02184-7535
Telephone: (781) 849-1800, Ext. 4454
Attention: Executive Offices

        If you would like to request any documents, please do so by no later than                        , 2005 in order to receive them before the expiration of the exchange offer.

        We have filed this prospectus with the SEC as part of a registration statement on Form S-4 under the Securities Act. This prospectus does not contain all of the information set forth in the registration statement because some parts of the registration statement are omitted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the SEC. The registration statement and its exhibits are available for inspection and copying as set forth above.

184


 INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

 
   Page
Audited Consolidated Financial Statements:    
  Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm   F-2
  Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2004 and 2003   F-4
  Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Three Years Ended December 31, 2004   F-6
  Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Three Years Ended December 31, 2004   F-7
  Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity for the Three Years Ended December 31, 2004   F-9
  Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements   F-11

Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements:
 
 
  Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2005   F-87
  Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004   F-89
  Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004   F-90
  Consolidated Statement of Stockholders' Equity for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2005   F-91
  Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements   F-92

F-1


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Clean Harbors, Inc.:

We have completed an integrated audit of Clean Harbors Inc.'s 2004 consolidated financial statements and of its internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and audits of its 2003 and 2002 consolidated financial statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Our opinions, based on our audits, are presented below.

Consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule

        In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements listed in the accompanying index present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Clean Harbors, Inc. and its subsidiaries at December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2004 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In addition, in our opinion, the financial statement schedule listed in the accompanying index presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements. These financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our audits. We conducted our audits of these statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit of financial statements includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

        As described in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company restated its financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 to correct its accounting for self-insured workers' compensation and motor vehicle insurance claims.

        As described in Note 4(m) and Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements, effective January 1, 2003, the Company changed its method of accounting for asset retirement obligations.

Internal control over financial reporting

        Also, we have audited management's assessment, included in Management's Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting appearing on page 73, that Clean Harbors, Inc. did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, because the Company did not maintain effective controls over the completeness and accuracy of its self insured workers' compensation and motor vehicle liability reserves, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company's management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express opinions on management's assessment and on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

        We conducted our audit of internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. An audit of internal control over financial reporting includes obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management's assessment, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other procedures as we consider necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions.

F-2


        A company's internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company's internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company's assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

        Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

        A material weakness is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected. The following material weakness has been identified and included in management's assessment. As of December 31, 2004, the Company did not maintain effective controls over the completeness and accuracy of its self-insured workers' compensation and motor vehicle liability reserves and the associated provisions. Specifically, the Company did not have effective controls over estimating and monitoring self-insured workers' compensation and motor vehicle reserves. This control deficiency resulted in the restatement of the Company's consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the restatement of the quarterly data for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2003. Additionally, this control deficiency could result in a misstatement of workers' compensation and motor vehicle liability reserves that would result in a material misstatement to annual or interim financial statements that would not be prevented or detected. Accordingly, management has determined that this control deficiency constitutes a material weakness. This material weakness was considered in determining the nature, timing, and extent of audit tests applied in our audit of the 2004 consolidated financial statements, and our opinion regarding the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting does not affect our opinion on those consolidated financial statements.

        In our opinion, management's assessment that Clean Harbors, Inc. did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the COSO. Also, in our opinion, because of the effect of the material weakness described above on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria, Clean Harbors, Inc. has not maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the COSO.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 31, 2005 with respect to our opinion
relating to the consolidated financial statements
and financial statement schedule and
April 29, 2005 with respect to our
opinions relating to internal control over
financial reporting

F-3


CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

ASSETS

(dollars in thousands)

 
   As of December 31,
 
   2004
   (Restated)
2003
Current assets:            
  Cash and cash equivalents   $ 31,081   $ 6,331
  Marketable securities     16,800     —
  Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $3,723 and $3,572, respectively     120,886     114,429
  Unbilled accounts receivable     5,377     9,476
  Deferred costs     4,923     5,395
  Prepaid expenses     13,407     8,582
  Supplies inventories     10,318     9,018
  Deferred tax asset     188     178
  Properties held for sale     8,849     12,690
   
 
    Total current assets     211,829     166,099
   
 
Property, plant, and equipment:            
  Land     13,992     14,492
  Asset retirement costs     995     994
  Landfill assets     6,396     3,579
  Buildings and improvements     90,045     84,649
  Vehicles     12,879     10,870
  Equipment     190,353     153,823
  Furniture and fixtures     2,283     2,604
  Construction in progress     13,635     25,931
   
 
      330,578     296,942
Less—accumulated depreciation and amortization     150,052     130,400
   
 
      180,526     166,542
   
 
Other assets:            
  Restricted cash     —     88,817
  Deferred financing costs     8,950     6,297
  Goodwill     19,032     19,032
  Permits and other intangibles, net of accumulated amortization of $22,557 and $17,630, respectively     80,463     79,811
  Deferred tax asset     488     6,594
  Other     3,414     6,967
   
 
      112,347     207,518
   
 
    Total assets   $ 504,702   $ 540,159
   
 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-4


CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

LIABILITIES, REDEEMABLE CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK
AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY

(dollars in thousands)

 
   As of December 31,
  
 
   2004
   (Restated)
2003
  
Current liabilities:              
  Uncashed checks   $ 6,542   $ 5,983  
  Revolving credit facility     —     35,291  
  Current portion of capital lease obligations     1,522     1,207  
  Accounts payable     70,363     60,611  
  Accrued disposal costs     3,032     2,021  
  Deferred revenue     22,060     22,799  
  Other accrued expenses     41,054     33,857  
  Current portion of closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities     14,258     21,282  
  Income taxes payable     2,302     2,623  
   
 
 
    Total current liabilities     161,133     185,674  
   
 
 
Other liabilities:              
  Closure and post-closure liabilities, less current portion of $2,930 and $6,480, respectively     22,721     19,215  
  Remedial liabilities, less current portion of $11,328 and $14,802, respectively     144,289     142,634  
  Long-term obligations, less current maturities     148,122     147,209  
  Capital lease obligations, less current portion     3,485     3,412  
  Other long-term liabilities     13,298     18,055  
  Accrued pension cost     616     633  
   
 
 
    Total other liabilities     332,531     331,158  
   
 
 
Commitments and contingent liabilities              
Redeemable Series C Convertible Preferred Stock, $.01 par value: authorized 25,000 shares; issued and outstanding 0 and 25,000 shares, respectively, net of issuance costs and fair value of embedded derivative     —     15,631  
Stockholders' equity:              
  Preferred stock, $.01 par value:              
    Series A convertible preferred stock: authorized 894,585 shares; issued and outstanding—none     —     —  
    Series B convertible preferred stock: authorized 156,416 shares; issued and outstanding 70,000 and 112,000 shares, respectively (liquidation preference of $3.5 million and $5.6 million, respectively)     1     1  
  Common stock, $.01 par value:              
    Authorized 20,000,000 shares; issued and outstanding 14,327,224 and 13,911,212 shares, respectively     143     139  
  Additional paid-in capital     62,165     63,642  
  Accumulated other comprehensive income     8,667     6,452  
  Accumulated deficit     (59,938 )   (62,538 )
   
 
 
    Total stockholders' equity     11,038     7,696  
   
 
 
    Total liabilities, redeemable convertible preferred stock and stockholders' equity   $ 504,702   $ 540,159  
   
 
 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-5


CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(in thousands except per share amounts)

 
   For the years ended December 31,
  
 
   2004
   (Restated)
2003
   (Restated)
2002
  
Revenues   $ 643,219   $ 610,969   $ 350,133  
Cost of revenues (exclusive of items shown separately below)     464,838     453,461     252,469  
Selling, general and administrative expenses     104,509     108,430     61,518  
Accretion of environmental liabilities     10,394     11,114     1,199  
Depreciation and amortization     24,094     26,482     15,508  
Restructuring     —     (124 )   750  
Other acquisition costs     —     —     5,406  
   
 
 
 
Income from operations     39,384     11,606     13,283  
Other income (expense)     (1,345 )   (94 )   129  
(Loss) on refinancings     (7,099 )   —     (24,658 )
Interest (expense), net of interest income of $692, $1,003 and $478, respectively     (22,297 )   (23,724 )   (13,414 )
   
 
 
 
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle     8,643     (12,212 )   (24,660 )
Provision for income taxes     6,043     5,322     3,787  
   
 
 
 
Income (loss) before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle     2,600     (17,534 )   (28,447 )
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of taxes     —     66     —  
   
 
 
 
Net income (loss)     2,600     (17,600 )   (28,447 )
Redemption of Series C Preferred Stock, dividends on Series B and C Preferred Stocks and accretion on Series C Preferred Stock     11,798     3,287     1,291  
   
 
 
 
Net loss attributable to common shareholders   $ (9,198 ) $ (20,887 ) $ (29,738 )
   
 
 
 
Basic loss per share:                    
  Loss before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle   $ (0.65 ) $ (1.54 ) $ (2.44 )
  Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of tax     —     —     —  
   
 
 
 
  Basic loss attributable to common shareholders   $ (0.65 ) $ (1.54 ) $ (2.44 )
   
 
 
 
Diluted loss per share:                    
  Loss before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle   $ (0.65 ) $ (1.54 ) $ (2.44 )
  Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of tax     —     —     —  
   
 
 
 
  Diluted loss attributable to common shareholders   $ (0.65 ) $ (1.54 ) $ (2.44 )
   
 
 
 
Weighted average common shares outstanding     14,099     13,553     12,189  
   
 
 
 
Weighted average common shares outstanding plus potentially dilutive common shares     14,099     13,553     12,189  
   
 
 
 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-6


CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(in thousands)

 
   For the years ended December 31,
  
 
   2004
   (Restated)
2003
   (Restated)
2002
  
Cash flows from operating activities:                    
  Net income (loss)   $ 2,600   $ (17,600 ) $ (28,447 )
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:                    
  Depreciation and amortization     24,094     26,482     15,508  
  Loss on refinancings     7,099     —     24,658  
  Allowance for doubtful accounts     1,232     2,439     842  
  Amortization of deferred financing costs     2,294     2,467     899  
  Accretion of environmental liabilities     10,394     11,114     1,199  
  Amortization of debt discount     77     —     388  
  Deferred income taxes     381     (620 )   1,676  
  (Gain) loss on sale of fixed assets     (724 )   292     24  
  Stock options expensed     35     29     166  
  (Gain) loss on embedded derivative     1,590     379     (129 )
  Foreign currency (gain) loss on intercompany transactions     (88 )   996     —  
  Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of taxes     —     66     —  
  Changes in assets and liabilities, net of acquisition:                    
    Accounts receivable     (6,058 )   20,265     (9,679 )
    Unbilled accounts receivable     4,429     4,539     (9,695 )
    Deferred costs     538     (838 )   (4,433 )
    Prepaid expenses     (4,781 )   14     (5,277 )
    Supplies inventories     (1,261 )   705     456  
    Other assets     3,714     (1,632 )   1,025  
    Accounts payable     9,249     2,923     12,201  
    Closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities     (13,030 )   (8,268 )   (817 )
    Deferred revenue     (1,086 )   (2,121 )   8,693  
    Accrued disposal costs     910     (72 )   (5,060 )
    Other accrued expenses     11,586     (3,387 )   237  
    Income taxes payable     (734 )   685     1,214  
   
 
 
 
    Net cash provided by operating activities     52,460     38,857     5,649  
   
 
 
 
Cash flows from investing activities:                    
  Acquisition of CSD assets     —     7,890     (44,217 )
  Additions to property, plant and equipment     (26,343 )   (34,832 )   (12,460 )
  Cost of restricted investments purchased     (4,390 )   (34,881 )   (60,256 )
  Proceeds from sales of restricted investments     93,207     6,573     792  
  Purchases of marketable securities     (90,725 )   —     —  
  Sales of marketable securities     73,925     —     —  
  Proceeds from sale of fixed assets     2,184     2,252     402  
  Increase in permits     (227 )   —     —  
   
 
 
 
    Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities     47,631     (52,998 )   (115,739 )
   
 
 
 
                     

F-7

Cash flows from financing activities:                    
  Repayments on Senior Loans     (107,209 )   (7,791 )   —  
  Issuance of Senior Secured Notes or Senior Loans     148,045     —     115,000  
  Net borrowings (repayments) under revolving credit facility     (35,168 )   17,450     17,709  
  Issuance of Series C preferred stock and embedded derivative     —     —     25,000  
  Issuance costs of Series C preferred stock     —     —     (2,891 )
  Redemption of Series C preferred stock     (25,000 )   —     —  
  Payments on long-term obligations     —     —     (21,424 )
  Change in uncashed checks     419     (1,312 )   3,049  
  Proceeds from exercise of stock options     386     520     982  
  Dividend payments on preferred stock     (2,187 )   (974 )   (536 )
  Deferred financing costs incurred     (10,289 )   (1,727 )   (8,222 )
  Proceeds from employee stock purchase plan     487     542     274  
  Payments on capital leases     (1,476 )   (839 )   —  
  Issuance of Subordinated Loans     —     —     40,000  
  Repayment of Subordinated Notes or Subordinated Loans     (40,000 )   —     (35,000 )
  Borrowings on Term Notes     —     —     3,200  
  Debt extinguishment payments     (3,420 )   —     (20,048 )
  Cash paid in lieu of warrants     (363 )   —     —  
   
 
 
 
    Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities     (75,775 )   5,869     117,093  
   
 
 
 
Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents     24,316     (8,272 )   7,003  
Effect of exchange rate change on cash     434     921     (36 )
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year     6,331     13,682     6,715  
   
 
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year   $ 31,081   $ 6,331   $ 13,682  
   
 
 
 
Supplemental information:                    
Cash payments for interest and income taxes:                    
  Interest, net   $ 13,020   $ 19,659   $ 9,451  
  Income taxes, net     2,772     3,943     2,683  
Non-cash investing and financing activities:                    
  Stock dividend on preferred stock   $ 224   $ 224   $ —  
  Property, plant and equipment accrued     1,309     1,943     3,366  
  New capital lease obligations     1,847     3,785     1,756  

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-8

CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
(in thousands)

 
   Series B
Preferred Stock
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
  
 
   Common Stock
    
    
    
   (Restated)
Retained
Earnings/
(Accumulated
Deficit)
    
  
 
    
   (Restated)
Comprehensive
Income
(Loss)
   Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
   (Restated)
Total
Stockholders'
Equity
  
 
   Number of
Shares
   $0.01 Par
Value
   Number of
Shares
   $0.01 Par
Value
   Additional
Paid-in
Capital
  
Balance at December 31, 2001   112   $ 1   11,485   $ 115   $ 64,838         $ —   $ (16,491 ) $ 48,463  
  Net loss   —     —   —     —     —   $ (28,447 )   —     (28,447 )   (28,447 )
  Foreign currency translation   —     —   —     —     —     (396 )   (396 )   —     (396 )
                             
                   
  Comprehensive loss   —     —   —     —     —   $ (28,843 )   —     —     —  
                             
                   
  Preferred stock dividends:                                                    
    Series B   —     —   —     —     (448 )         —     —     (448 )
    Series C   —     —   —     —     (462 )         —     —     (462 )
  Exercise of warrants   —     —   281     3     (3 )         —     —     —  
  Issuance of warrants   —     —   —     —     668           —     —     668  
  Stock option expense   —     —   —     —     166           —     —     166  
  Exercise of stock options   —     —   478     4     979           —     —     983  
  Employee stock purchase plan   —     —   63     1     273           —     —     274  
  Accretion of preferred stock discount and issuance costs   —     —   —     —     (381 )         —     —     (381 )
   
 
 
 
 
       
 
 
 
Balance at December 31, 2002   112   $ 1   12,307   $ 123   $ 65,630         $ (396 ) $ (44,938 ) $ 20,420  
  Net loss   —     —   —     —     —   $ (17,600 )   —     (17,600 )   (17,600 )
  Foreign currency translation   —     —   —     —     —     6,848     6,848     —     6,848  
                             
                   
  Comprehensive loss   —     —   —     —     —   $ (10,752 )   —     —     —  
                             
                   
  Preferred stock dividends:                                                    
    Series B   —     —   35     —     (224 )         —     —     (224 )
    Series C   —     —   —     —     (1,517 )         —     —     (1,517 )
  Exercise of warrants   —     —   1,236     12     (12 )         —     —     —  
  Stock option expense   —     —   —     —     29           —     —     29  
  Exercise of stock options   —     —   247     3     517           —     —     520  
  Employee stock purchase plan   —     —   86     1     541           —     —     542  
  Accretion of preferred stock discount and issuance costs   —     —   —     —     (1,322 )         —     —     (1,322 )
   
 
 
 
 
       
 
 
 
Balance at December 31, 2003   112   $ 1   13,911   $ 139   $ 63,642         $ 6,452   $ (62,538 ) $ 7,696  

F-9

CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY (Continued)
(in thousands)

 
   Series B
Preferred Stock
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
  
 
   Common Stock
    
    
    
   (Restated)
Retained
Earnings/
(Accumulated
Deficit)
    
  
 
    
   (Restated)
Comprehensive
Income
(Loss)
   Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
   (Restated)
Total
Stockholders'
Equity
  
 
   Number of
Shares
   $0.01 Par
Value
   Number of
Shares
   $0.01 Par
Value
   Additional
Paid-in
Capital
  
  Net income   —     —   —     —     —   $ 2,600     —     2,600     2,600  
  Foreign currency translation   —     —   —     —     —     2,215     2,215     —     2,215  
                             
                   
  Comprehensive loss   —     —   —     —     —   $ 4,815     —     —     —  
                             
                   
  Preferred stock dividends:                                                    
    Series B   —     —   28     —     (182 )         —     —     (182 )
    Series C   —     —   —     —     (821 )         —     —     (821 )
  Conversion of Series B preferred stock   (42 )   —   127     1     (1 )         —     —     —  
  Issuance of warrants   —     —   —     —     9,193           —     —     9,193  
  Stock option expense   —     —   —     —     35           —     —     35  
  Exercise of stock options   —     —   173     2     384           —     —     386  
  Employee stock purchase plan   —     —   88     1     486           —     —     487  
  Loss on redemption of Series C preferred stock   —     —   —     —     (9,864 )         —     —     (9,864 )
  Accretion of preferred stock discount and issuance costs   —     —   —     —     (707 )         —     —     (707 )
   
 
 
 
 
       
 
 
 
Balance at December 31, 2004   70   $ 1   14,327   $ 143   $ 62,165         $ 8,667   $ (59,938 ) $ 11,038  
   
 
 
 
 
       
 
 
 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-10


CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(1) OPERATIONS

        Clean Harbors, Inc., through its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company"), is managed in two segments, Technical Services and Site Services, which provide a wide range of environmental services and solutions to a diversified customer base in the United States, Canada, Mexico and Puerto Rico. The Company's shares of common stock trade on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol: CLHB. Following the acquisition described below, the Company became one of the largest providers of environmental services and the largest operator of hazardous waste treatment facilities in North America. The Company has a network of more than 100 service locations, including 48 active hazardous waste management properties. These properties include five incineration facilities, nine commercial landfills, seven wastewater treatment facilities, 20 treatment, storage and disposal facilities ("TSDFs"), and seven locations specializing in PCB management and oil storage and recycling. Some properties offer multiple capabilities. In addition, the Company has 61 service centers, satellite and support locations and has eight corporate and regional offices. These properties are located in 36 states, six Canadian provinces, Mexico and Puerto Rico.

(2) RESTATEMENT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

        The Company has restated its financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 to correct errors relating to estimated self-insured workers' compensation and motor vehicle liability claims.

        The Company's previous methodology for estimating its self-insured workers' compensation and motor vehicle insurance claims resulted in an understatement of its self-insured liabilities because negative trends inherent in these types of liabilities were not considered in calculating the self-insured liabilities. The new methodology is an actuarial-based method versus the specific reserve method previously used. For the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, the impact of the restatements resulting from correcting its self-insured liabilities on net loss and basic and diluted loss per share attributable to common shareholders is as follows (in thousands except per share amounts):

 
   2003
   2002
  
Net loss as previously reported   $ (17,345 ) $ (28,191 )
Restatement adjustment to cost of revenues     (255 )   (256 )
   
 
 
Net loss as restated   $ (17,600 ) $ (28,447 )
   
 
 
Basic and diluted loss per share attributable to common shareholders previously reported   $ (1.52 ) $ (2.42 )
Restatement adjustment     (0.02 )   (0.02 )
   
 
 
Basic and diluted loss per share attributable to common shareholders as restated   $ (1.54 ) $ (2.44 )
   
 
 

        The adjustments for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 did not change the amount of income tax expense previously recorded for those periods.

F-11


        For the year ended December 31, 2003, the impact on other accrued expenses resulting from the correction is as follows (in thousands):

 
   2003
Other accrued expenses as previously reported   $ 32,240
Restatement adjustment     1,617
   
Other accrued expenses as restated   $ 33,857
   

        At December 31, 2003 and 2002, the impact of this restatement on accumulated deficit is as follows (in thousands):

 
   2003
   2002
  
Accumulated deficit as previously reported   $ (60,921 ) $ (43,576 )
Restatement adjustment     (1,617 )   (1,362 )
   
 
 
Accumulated deficit as restated   $ (62,538 ) $ (44,938 )
   
 
 

        The restatements had no effect on net cash provided by operating activities. The primary statements and footnotes have been restated as applicable, including: Consolidated Statements of Operations; Consolidated Balance Sheets; Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows; Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity; Note 4, "Significant Accounting Policies;" Note 9, "Other Accrued Expenses;" Note 16, "Income Taxes;" Note 17, "Earnings (Loss) Per Share;" Note 23, "Segment Reporting;" and Note 24, "Quarterly Data."

(3) ACQUISITION

        Effective September 7, 2002, the Company purchased from Safety-Kleen Services, Inc. (the "Seller") and certain of the Seller's domestic subsidiaries substantially all of the assets of the Chemical Services Division (the "CSD") of Safety-Kleen Corp. ("Safety-Kleen"). The CSD acquisition is included in the Company's results of operations since the acquisition date. The sale included the operating assets of certain of the Seller's subsidiaries in the United States and the stock of five of the Seller's subsidiaries in Canada.

        The assets of the CSD (including the assets of the CSD Canadian Subsidiaries) acquired by the Company consist primarily of 44 hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities including, among others, 22 transportation, storage or disposal facilities (six of which have since been closed by the Company), six wastewater treatment facilities (one of which has since been closed by the Company), nine commercial landfills and four incineration facilities. Such facilities are located in 30 states, Puerto Rico, six Canadian provinces and Mexico. The most significant of such facilities include landfills in Buttonwillow, California with approximately 10.0 million cubic yards of remaining capacity, in Lambton, Ontario with approximately 8.9 million cubic yards of remaining capacity, which is the largest of the total of three hazardous waste landfills in Canada, and in Waynoka, Oklahoma with approximately 1.5 million cubic yards of remaining capacity; and incinerators in Deer Park, Texas which is the largest hazardous waste incineration facility in the United States, and in Aragonite, Utah. Additional significant facilities are the incinerators in Mercier, Quebec and Lambton, Ontario. The acquired assets

F-12


do not include Safety-Kleen's Pinewood landfill in South Carolina, which Safety-Kleen had previously operated as part of the CSD.

        The primary reasons for the acquisition of the CSD assets were to broaden the Company's disposal capabilities and geographic reach, particularly in the West Coast and Southwest regions of the United States, in Canada and in Mexico, and to significantly expand the Company's network of hazardous waste disposal facilities. In addition, the Company believed that the acquisition of the CSD's hazardous waste facilities in new geographic areas would allow the Company to expand its site and industrial services which in turn could increase the utilization and profitability of the facilities. Finally, the Company believed that the acquisition would result in significant cost savings by allowing the Company to treat hazardous waste internally, for which the Company previously paid third parties to dispose of hazardous waste because the Company lacked the facilities required to dispose of the waste internally.

        In accordance with the Acquisition Agreement between the Seller and the Company dated February 22, 2002, as amended through September 6, 2002, the Company purchased the assets of the CSD for $26.6 million in net cash, and incurred direct costs related to the transaction of $9.7 million for a total purchase price of $36.3 million. In addition, the Company assumed with the transaction certain environmental liabilities valued at $184.5 million.

        The Company has allocated the total purchase price for the CSD assets based upon the estimated fair value of each asset acquired and each liability assumed. The following table shows the final allocation of the purchase price and direct costs incurred among the assets acquired, liabilities assumed, and liabilities accrued relating to the CSD assets acquired (in thousands):

 
   Acquired Assets and
Liabilities as Revised
December 31, 2003
  
Current assets   $ 101,604  
Property, plant and equipment     100,804  
Intangible assets     72,659  
Deferred taxes     5,670  
Other assets     1,888  
Current closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities     (9,076 )
Other current liabilities     (54,749 )
Closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities, long-term     (175,473 )
Other long-term liabilities     (7,000 )
   
 
Cost of CSD assets acquired   $ 36,327  
   
 
Cash purchase price   $ 26,580  
Estimated transaction costs     9,747  
   
 
Cost of CSD assets acquired   $ 36,327  
   
 

        The Company engaged an independent appraisal firm to assist in determining the fair values of the property, plant, equipment and intangible assets, which were acquired as part of the assets of the CSD. Intangible assets recorded at $72.6 million consist of $68.2 million of permits and $4.4 million of customer profile databases. The valuation for intangible assets was based on discounted cash flows from operations of the acquired facilities to which those permits and customer profile databases relate. The

F-13

Company concluded that the intangible assets acquired have finite lives and will amortize these assets over their estimated useful lives. As the fair value of the assets acquired from the CSD is higher than the purchase price paid, the Company reduced the recorded value of the fixed assets and intangible assets as of the acquisition date by $302.5 million in order to record the assets at cost as required by generally accepted accounting principles in the United States after adjusting for changes in estimates. The Company allocated $12.7 million of the purchase price to properties held for sale as discussed in Note 6.

        In connection with the acquisition of the CSD assets, the Company recorded integration liabilities of $11.9 million (after giving effect to subsequent net changes in estimates) which consisted primarily of lease costs, severance, closure, post-closure, remedial and other exit costs to close duplicative facilities and functions. Groups of employees severed and to be severed consist primarily of duplicative selling, general and administrative personnel and personnel at offices which were closed. The following table summarizes the purchase accounting liabilities recorded in connection with the acquisition of the CSD assets (dollars in thousands):

 
   Severance
   Facilities
    
    
  
 
   Number of
Employees
   Liability
   Number of
Facilities
   Liability
   Other
Liability
   Total
Liability
  
Original reserve established   461   $ 9,076   12   $ 3,604   $ 528   $ 13,208  
Net change in estimate   —     —   —     (59 )   (206 )   (265 )
Utilized through December 31, 2002   (238 )   (4,300 ) (2 )   (15 )   (92 )   (4,407 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Balance December 31, 2002   223     4,776   10     3,530     230     8,536  
Net change in estimate   93     (228 ) (1 )   (205 )   77     (356 )
Interest accretion   —     —   —     416     —     416  
Utilized year ended December 31, 2003   (264 )   (3,872 ) —     (810 )   (307 )   (4,989 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Balance December 31, 2003   52     676   9     2,931     —     3,607  
Net change in estimate   (41 )   (246 ) —     (423 )   —     (669 )
Interest accretion   —     —   —     221     —     221  
Utilized year ended December 31, 2004   (6 )   (402 ) (1 )   (1,021 )   —     (1,423 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Balance December 31, 2004   5   $ 28   8   $ 1,708   $ —   $ 1,736  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

        The balance of purchase accounting liabilities at December 31, 2004 of $1.7 million consists almost entirely of long-term closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities.

(4) SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

        The accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company reflect the application of certain significant accounting policies as described below:

        The accompanying consolidated statements include the accounts of Clean Harbors, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. All material intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

F-14

        The Company recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred or services have been rendered, the price is fixed or determinable, and collection is reasonably assured.

        The Company provides a wide range of environmental services through two major segments: Technical Services and Site Services. Technical Services involve (i) services for collection, transportation and logistics management, (ii) services for the categorizing, packaging and removal of laboratory chemicals (Cleanpack®), and (iii) services related to the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes. Site Services involve a wide range of services to maintain industrial facilities and process equipment, as well as clean up or contain actual or threatened releases of hazardous materials into the environment. Revenues for all services with the exception of services for the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste are recorded as services are rendered. Revenues for disposing of hazardous waste are recognized upon completion of wastewater treatment, landfill or incineration of the waste at a Company-owned site or when the waste is shipped to a third party for processing and disposal. Revenues from waste that is not yet completely processed and the related costs are deferred until services are completed. Revenue is recognized on contracts with retainage when services have been rendered and collectability is reasonably assured.

        Concentration of credit risks in accounts receivable is limited due to the large number of customers comprising the Company's customer base throughout North America. The Company performs periodic credit evaluations of its customers. The Company establishes an allowance for uncollectible accounts based on the credit risk applicable to particular customers, historical trends and other relevant information.

        There are two components of income tax expense, current and deferred. Current income tax expense approximates cash to be paid or refunded for taxes for the applicable period. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based upon the difference between the financial statement and tax basis of assets and liabilities as measured by the enacted tax rates, which will be in effect when these differences reverse. Deferred tax expense or benefit is the result of changes between deferred tax assets and liabilities.

        A valuation allowance is established when, based on an evaluation of objective verifiable evidence, it is more likely than not that some portion or all of deferred tax assets will not be realized.

        Basic EPS is calculated by dividing income available to common shareholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted EPS gives effect to all potentially dilutive common shares that were outstanding during the period.

F-15

        The Companies operations are managed in two segments, Technical Services and Site Services. The Company operates within the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada and Mexico and no individual customer accounts for more than 5% of revenues.

        The Company considers all highly liquid instruments purchased with original maturities of less than three months to be cash equivalents.

        The Company's cash management program with its revolving credit lender allows maintenance of a zero balance in the U.S. bank accounts that are used to issue vendor and payroll checks. The checks are covered from availability under the revolving line of credit when the checks are presented for payment. The program can result in checks outstanding in excess of bank balances in the disbursement accounts. When checks are presented to the bank for payment, cash deposits in amounts sufficient to fund the checks are made from funds provided under the terms of the Company's revolving credit facility. Uncashed checks are checks that have been sent to either vendors or employees but have not yet been presented for payment at the Company's bank.

        Marketable securities consist primarily of auction bond securities which are readily marketable and are held for working capital purposes. Accordingly, the Company has classified its investments as available-for-sale. Available-for-sale securities are carried at fair value, with the unrealized gains and losses, net of tax reported as a component of stockholders' equity. The Company determines the appropriate classification of its marketable securities at the time of purchase and reevaluates such classification as of each balance sheet date.

        Parts and supplies inventories consist primarily of supplies and repair parts, which are stated at the lower of cost or market. The Company periodically reviews its inventories for obsolete or unsaleable items and adjusts its carrying value to reflect estimated realizable values.

        Property, plant and equipment are stated at cost and include amounts capitalized under capital lease obligations. Expenditures for major renewals and improvements which extend the life or usefulness of the asset are capitalized. Items of an ordinary repair or maintenance nature, as well as major maintenance activities at incinerators, are charged directly to operating expense as incurred. During the construction and development period of an asset, the costs incurred, including applicable interest costs, are classified as construction-in-progress. Once an asset has been completed and placed in service, it is transferred to the appropriate category and depreciation commences. In addition, the Company capitalizes applicable interest costs associated with partially developed landfill sites, which are included in landfill assets. No interest was capitalized to landfill assets for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 or 2002. Depreciation and amortization expense of $24.1 million for 2004 decreased from $26.5 million for 2003 due to changes in estimates in landfill lives and changes in

F-16

estimates in useful lives of certain assets of $3.5 million, which was offset by an increase in amortization and depreciation due to capital additions. The impact of the changes in estimate on dilutive loss per share for the year ended December 31, 2004 was a decrease in the loss of $0.25 per common share.

        The Company develops software internally for its own use. Development and implementation costs are expensed until the Company has determined that the software will result in probable future economic benefits and management has committed to funding the project. Thereafter, all direct costs of material and services, and payroll-related costs of employees working solely on development of the software portion of the project are capitalized. Capitalized costs of the software are amortized using the straight-line method over the remaining estimated useful lives. The Company capitalized costs for internally developed software of $0.2 million, $0.4 million, and $1.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002, respectively.

        Depreciation and amortization of capitalized software costs amounted to $0.5 million, $0.8 million and $0.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002, respectively.

        Permits consist of the value of permits acquired through acquisition and environmental cleanup costs that improve facilities, as compared with the condition of that property when originally acquired.

        Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 144, "Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets," requires that an impairment in the carrying value of long-lived assets be recognized when the expected future undiscounted cash flows derived from the assets are less than its carrying value. For the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, the Company recorded no impairment charge related to long-term assets.

        Depreciation and amortization of other property, plant and equipment is provided on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives, with the exception of landfill and deep injection well assets which are depreciated on a units-of-consumption basis. Leasehold improvements are capitalized and amortized over the shorter of the life of the lease or the asset.

        The Company depreciates and amortizes the cost of these assets, using the straight-line method as follows:

Asset Classification
   Estimated
Useful
Life
Capitalized software   5 years
Buildings and building improvements   Shorter of remaining life or 35 years
Land improvements   5 years
Leasehold improvements   Shorter of lease term or 10 years
Vehicles   3–10 years
Equipment   3–8 years
Furniture and fixtures   5–8 years

        Upon retirement or other disposition, the cost and related accumulated depreciation of the assets are removed from the accounts and the resulting gain or loss is reflected in other income (expense).

F-17


        Goodwill, permits and customer profile database, as further discussed in Note 8, are stated at cost. Permits are amortized over periods ranging from 5 to 30 years. The customer profile database is amortized over five years. SFAS No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets," requires that ratable amortization be replaced with periodic tests of the carrying value of goodwill. The Company recorded no amortization related to goodwill for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002. The Company tested goodwill for impairment as of December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, using the criteria set forth under SFAS No. 142. For the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, the Company recorded no impairment charge for goodwill.

        The Company leases rolling stock, equipment, real estate and office equipment under operating leases. Certain real estate leases contain rent holidays and rent escalation clauses. Most of the Company's real estate lease agreements include renewal periods at the Company's option. The Company recognizes rent holiday periods and scheduled rent increases on a straight-line basis over the lease term beginning with the date the Company takes possession of the leased space.

        Deferred financing costs are amortized over the life of the related debt instrument. Amortization expense is included in interest expense in the statements of operations.

        Effective January 1, 2003, the Company adopted SFAS No. 143, "Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations." SFAS No. 143 requires companies to record the fair value of a liability for an asset retirement obligation in the period in which it is incurred. When a liability is initially recorded, the entity capitalizes a cost by increasing the carrying amount of the related long-lived asset. Over time, the liability is accreted to its present value each period using the Company's credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate, and the capitalized cost is depreciated over the useful life of the related asset. Upon settlement of the liability, an entity either settles the obligation for its recorded amount or incurs a gain or loss upon settlement. SFAS No. 143 requires upon initial application that companies reflect in their balance sheet: (1) liabilities for any existing asset retirement obligations adjusted for cumulative accretion to the date of adoption of the Statement, (2) asset retirement costs capitalized as an increase to the carrying amount of the associated long-lived asset, and (3) accumulated depreciation on that capitalized cost adjusted for accumulated depreciation to the date of adoption of the Statement. The cumulative effect of initially applying SFAS No. 143 in the year ended December 31, 2003 was recorded as a change in accounting principle which requires that a cumulative effect adjustment be recorded in the statement of operations.

        The principal changes from the Company's implementation of SFAS No. 143 were: (1) a reduction in accrued landfill closure and post-closure obligations due to discounting the accruals at the Company's then credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate of 14.0% as required under SFAS No. 143, instead of discounting the accruals at the risk-free interest rate of 4.9% used under purchase accounting at December 31, 2002, (2) a reduction in accrued financial assurance for closure and post-closure care of the facilities which is now expensed in the period incurred under SFAS No. 143,

F-18


and (3) reductions in the closure and post-closure obligations due to discounting at the credit-adjusted risk-free rate previously undiscounted accrued cell closure costs. These reductions were partly offset by new closure and post-closure obligations recorded for operating non-landfill facilities determined under various probability scenarios as to when operating permits might be surrendered in the future and using the credit-adjusted risk-free rate. The reduction in the value of liabilities assumed in the CSD acquisition from the implementation of SFAS No. 143 of $46.7 million resulted in a corresponding reduction in the value allocated to the assets acquired (see Note 3, "Acquisition"). The implementation also resulted in a net of tax cumulative-effect adjustment of $66 thousand recorded in the statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2003. This adjustment was comprised of an increase to asset retirement obligations of $1.8 million and an increase to net asset retirement costs of $1.7 million.

        Closure and post-closure costs incurred are increased for inflation (1.15% and 2.0% for closure and post-closure liabilities incurred in the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively). The Company uses an inflation rate published by the US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics that excludes the more volatile items of food and energy. Closure and post- closure costs are discounted at the Company's credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate (12.5% and 14.0% for closure and post-closure liabilities incurred in the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively). For the asset retirement obligations incurred in 2004, the Company estimated its credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate by adjusting the then current yield based on market prices of its $150 million Senior Secured Notes by the difference between the yield of a US treasury note of the same duration as the Senior Secured Notes and the yield on the 30 year U.S. Treasury Bond. For the asset retirement obligations incurred in 2003 and for the initial application of SFAS No. 143, the Company estimated its credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate by adjusting the then current yield on intermediate term debt of companies whose debt was then similarly rated by the rating agencies by the difference between the yield of a US treasury note of the same duration as the average maturity on the intermediate term debt and the yield on the 30 year U.S. Treasury Bond. Under SFAS No. 143, the cost of financial assurance for the closure and post-closure care periods cannot be accrued but rather is a period cost. Prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 143, the Company accrued the cost of financial assurance relating to both landfill and non-landfill closure and to both landfill and non-landfill post-closure care, as required, under SFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies." Under SFAS No. 143, financial assurance is no longer included as a component of closure or post-closure costs. SFAS No. 143 requires the cost of financial assurance to be expensed as incurred, and SFAS No. 143 requires the cost of financial assurance to be considered in the determination of the credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate. Under SFAS No. 143, the cost of financial assurance is considered in the determination of the credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate used to discount the closure and post-closure obligations.

        Landfill Accounting—The Company utilizes the life cycle method of accounting for landfill costs and the units-of-consumption method to amortize landfill construction and asset retirement costs and record closure and post-closure obligations over the estimated useful life of a landfill. Under this method, the Company includes future estimated construction and asset retirement costs, as well as costs incurred to date, in the amortization base. In addition, the Company includes probable expansion airspace that has yet to be permitted in the calculation of the total remaining useful life of the landfill.

F-19

        Landfill assets—Landfill assets include the costs of landfill site acquisition, permitting, preparation and improvement. These amounts are recorded at cost, which includes capitalized interest as applicable. Landfill assets, net of amortization, are combined with management's estimate of the costs required to complete construction of the landfill to determine the amount to be amortized over the remaining estimated useful economic life of a site. Amortization of landfill assets is recorded on a units-of-consumption basis, such that the landfill assets should be completely amortized at the date the landfill ceases accepting waste. Changes in estimated costs to complete construction are applied prospectively to the amortization rate.

        Amortization of cell construction costs and accrual of cell closure obligations—Landfills are typically comprised of a number of cells, which are constructed within a defined acreage (or footprint). The cells are typically discrete units, which require both separate construction and separate capping and closure procedures. Cell construction costs are the costs required to excavate and construct the landfill cell. These costs are typically amortized on a units-of-consumption basis, such that they are completely amortized when the specific cell ceases accepting waste. In some instances, the Company has landfills that are engineered and constructed as "progressive trenches." In progressive trench landfills, a number of contiguous cells form a progressive trench. In those instances, the Company amortizes cell construction costs over the airspace within the entire trench, such that the cell construction costs will be fully amortized at the end of the trench useful life.

        The design and construction of a landfill does not create a landfill asset retirement obligation. Rather, the asset retirement obligation for cell closure (the cost associated with capping each cell) is incurred in relatively small increments as waste is placed in the landfill. Therefore, the cost required to construct the cell cap is capitalized as an asset retirement cost and a liability of an equal amount is established, based on the discounted cash flow associated with each capping event, as airspace is consumed. Spending for cell capping is reflected as a change in liabilities within operating activities in the statement of cash flows.

        Landfill final closure and post-closure liabilities—The Company has material financial commitments for the costs associated with requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") and the comparable regulatory agency in Canada for landfill final closure and post-closure activities. In the United States, the landfill final closure and post-closure requirements are established under the standards of the EPA, and are implemented and applied on a state by state basis. Estimates for the cost of these activities are developed by the Company's engineers, accountants and external consultants, based on an evaluation of site-specific facts and circumstances, including the Company's interpretation of current regulatory requirements and proposed regulatory changes. Such estimates may change in the future due to various circumstances including, but not limited to, permit modifications, changes in legislation or regulations, technological changes and results of environmental studies.

        Final closure costs include the costs required to cap the final cell of the landfill (if not included in cell closure) and the costs required to dismantle certain structures for landfills and other landfill improvements. In addition, final closure costs include regulation-mandated groundwater monitoring, leachate management and other costs incurred in the closure process. Post-closure costs include substantially all costs that are required to be incurred subsequent to the closure of the landfill, including, among others, groundwater monitoring and leachate management. Regulatory post-closure periods are generally 30 years after landfill closure. Final closure and post-closure obligations are discounted. Final closure and post-closure obligations are accrued on a units-of-consumption basis, such

F-20


that the present value of the final closure and post-closure obligations are fully accrued at the date the landfill discontinues accepting waste.

        For landfills purchased, the Company assessed and recorded the present value of the estimated closure and post-closure liability based upon the estimated final closure and post-closure costs and the percentage of airspace consumed as of the purchase date. Thereafter, the difference between the liability recorded at the time of acquisition and the present value of total estimated final closure and post-closure costs to be incurred is accrued prospectively on a units-of-consumption basis over the estimated useful economic life of the landfill.

        Landfill capacity—Landfill capacity, which is the basis for the amortization of landfill assets and for the accrual of final closure and post-closure obligations, represents total permitted airspace plus unpermitted airspace that management believes is probable of ultimately being permitted based on established criteria. The Company applies a comprehensive set of criteria for evaluating the probability of obtaining a permit for future expansion airspace at existing sites, which provides management a sufficient basis to evaluate the likelihood of success of unpermitted expansions. Those criteria are as follows:

F-21

        Exceptions to the criteria set forth above may be approved through a landfill-specific approval process that includes approval from the Company's Chief Financial Officer and review by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors. As of December 31, 2004, there were three unpermitted expansions included in the Company's landfill accounting model, which represents 32.4% of the Company's remaining airspace at that date. Of these expansions, two do not represent exceptions to the Company's established criteria. In March 2004, the Chief Financial Officer approved and the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors reviewed the inclusion of 7.8 million cubic yards of unpermitted airspace in highly probable airspace because it was determined that the airspace was highly probable even though the permit application will not be submitted within the next year. All of the other criteria were met for the inclusion of this airspace in highly probable airspace. Had the Company not included the 7.8 million cubic yards of unpermitted airspace in highly probable airspace, operating expense for the year ended December 31, 2004 would have been higher by $439 thousand.

        As of December 31, 2004, the Company had 11 active landfill sites (including the Company's two non-commercial landfills), which have estimated remaining lives (based on anticipated waste volumes and remaining highly probable airspace) as follows:

 
    
    
   Remaining Highly Probable Airspace
(cubic yards) (in thousands)
Facility Name
    
   Remaining
Lives
(Years)
  Location
   Permitted
   Unpermitted
   Total
Altair   Texas   2   63   —   63
Buttonwillow   California   44   10,018   —   10,018
Deer Park   Texas   23   587   —   587
Deer Trail   Colorado   51   513   —   513
Grassy Mountain   Utah   24   761   1,366   2,127
Kimball   Nebraska   23   483   —   483
Lambton   Ontario   51   1,061   7,847   8,908
Lone Mountain   Oklahoma   18   1,463   —   1,463
Ryley   Alberta   29   1,111   —   1,111
Sawyer   North Dakota   40   449   —   449
Westmorland   California   68   2,732   —   2,732
           
 
 
            19,241   9,213   28,454
           
 
 

        The Company had 2.9 million cubic yards of permitted, but not highly probable, airspace as of December 31, 2004. Permitted, but not highly probable, airspace is permitted airspace the Company currently does not expect to utilize; therefore, this airspace has not been included in the above table.

F-22


        The following table presents the remaining highly probable airspace from December 31, 2002 through December 31, 2004 (in thousands):

 
   Highly
Probable
Airspace
(cubic yards)
  
Remaining capacity at December 31, 2002   25,288  
Addition of highly probable airspace   4,280  
Consumed during 2003   (687 )
Change in estimate   150  
   
 
Remaining capacity at December 31, 2003   29,031  
Addition of highly probable airspace   141  
Consumed during 2004   (780 )
Change in estimate   62  
   
 
Remaining capacity at December 31, 2004   28,454  
   
 

        Changes to landfill assets for the year ended December 31, 2004 were as follows (in thousands):

 
   Balance at
December 31,
2003
   Asset
Retirement
Costs
   Capital
Additions
   Changes in
Estimates of
Closure and
Post-Closure
Liabilities
   Currency
Translations,
Reclassifications,
and Other
   Balance at
December 31,
2004
Landfill Assets   $ 3,579   $ 958   $ 2,597   $ (1,157 ) $ 419   $ 6,396
   
 
 
 
 
 

        Changes to landfill assets for the year ended December 31, 2003 were as follows (in thousands):

 
   Balance at
December 31,
2002
   Asset
Retirement
Costs
   Capital
Additions
   Decrease Due to
Increase in
Highly Probable
Airspace and
Other Changes
in Estimate
   Purchase Accounting
Adjustment Due to
Change in
Accounting for Asset
Retirement Costs as
well as Other Purchase
Accounting Adjustments
   Currency
Translations,
Reclassifications,
and Other
   Balance at
December 31,
2003
    $ 14,781   $ 1,004   $ 1,669   $ (11,596 ) $ (2,820 ) $ 541   $ 3,579
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

        In 2003 and 2004 a reduction in closure and post-closure liabilities arose as a result of the Company increasing its highly probably landfill airspace. After acquiring landfills as part of the CSD assets from Safety-Kleen in 2002, Clean Harbors' management identified new business opportunities that made possible the expansion, and further utilization, of the assets that the previous owners had believed to be exhausted. The resulting increase in airspace was accounted for by reducing landfill retirement liabilities (due to delaying the closure and post-closure expenditures) and by correspondingly reducing landfill assets by $11.6 million and $1.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2004 respectively (see tables of changes to closure and post-closure liabilities on page F-49).

        Rates used to amortize landfill assets are calculated based upon the dollar value of estimated final liabilities, the surveyed remaining airspace of the landfill, and the time estimated to consume the remaining airspace. Consequently, rates vary for each landfill and for each asset category, and are recalculated each year. During the years ended December 31, 2004, and 2003, landfill assets were depreciated at average rates of $0.39 and $2.62 per cubic yard, respectively. The change in the

F-23


amortization rate of landfill assets resulted primarily from the $11.6 million reduction in landfill asset described immediately above.

        Non-landfill closure costs include costs required to dismantle and decontaminate certain structures and other costs incurred during the closure process. Post-closure costs, if required, include associated maintenance and monitoring costs and financial assurance costs as required by the closure permit. Post-closure periods are performance-based and are not generally specified in terms of years in the closure permit, but may generally range from 10 to 30 years or more.

        The Company records its non-landfill closure and post-closure liability by (i) estimating the current cost of closing a non-landfill facility and the post closure care of that facility, if required, based upon the closure plan that the Company is required to follow under its operating permit, or in the event the facility operates with a permit that does not contain a closure plan, based upon legally enforceable closure commitments made by the Company to various governmental agencies, (ii) using probability scenarios as to when in the future operations may cease, (iii) inflating the current cost of closing the non-landfill facility on a probability weighted basis using the inflation rate to the time of closing under each probability scenario, and (iv) discounting the future value of each closing scenario back to the present using the credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate. Non-landfill closure and post-closure obligations arise when the Company commences operations. Prior to the implementation of SFAS No. 143, these obligations were expensed in the period that a decision was made to close a facility.

        Remedial liabilities, including Superfund liabilities, include the costs of removal or containment of contaminated material, the treatment of potentially contaminated groundwater and maintenance and monitoring costs necessary to comply with regulatory requirements. SFAS No. 143 applies to asset retirement obligations that arise from normal operations. Almost all of the Company's remedial liabilities were assumed as part of the acquisition of the CSD from Safety-Kleen Corp, and the Company believes that the remedial obligations did not arise from normal operations.

        Remedial liabilities are discounted only when the timing of the payments is estimable and the amounts are determinable. The Company's experience has been that the timing of the payments is not usually estimable so, generally, remedial liabilities are not discounted. However, under purchase accounting, acquired liabilities are recorded at fair value, which requires taking into consideration inflation and discount factors. Accordingly, as of the acquisition date, the Company recorded the remedial liabilities assumed as part of the acquisition of the CSD at their fair value, which was calculated by inflating costs in current dollars using an estimate of future inflation rates as of the acquisition date until the expected time of payment, then discounted to its present value using a risk-free discount rate as of the acquisition date. Subsequent to the acquisition, discounts were and will be applied to the environmental liabilities as follows:

F-24


        The Company records claims for recovery from third parties relating to remedial liabilities only when realization of the claim is probable. The gross remedial liability is recorded separately from the claim for recovery on the balance sheet. At December 31, 2004 and 2003, the Company had recorded no such claims.

        Foreign subsidiary balances are translated according to the provisions of SFAS No. 52, "Foreign Currency Translation." The functional currency of each foreign subsidiary is its respective local currency. Assets and liabilities are translated to U.S. dollars at the exchange rate in effect at the balance sheet date and revenue and expenses at the average exchange rate for the period. Gains and losses from the translation of the consolidated financial statements of the foreign subsidiaries into U.S. dollars are included in stockholders' equity as a component of other comprehensive income. Gains and losses resulting from foreign currency transactions are recognized in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. Recorded balances that are denominated in a currency other than the functional currency are adjusted to the functional currency using the exchange rate at the balance sheet date.

        The Company utilizes letters of credit to provide collateral assurance to regulatory authorities that certain funds will be available for closure of Company facilities. In addition, the Company utilizes letters of credit to provide collateral for casualty insurance programs, to provide collateral for the vehicle lease line and to provide collateral for a transportation permit. As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, the Company had outstanding letters of credit amounting to $90.5 million and $87.1 million, respectively.

        The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the dates of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

F-25

        The Company applies Accounting Principles Board ("APB") Opinion No. 25 and related Interpretations in accounting for its stock-based employee compensation plans. SFAS No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation," defines a fair value method of accounting for stock options and other instruments. Under the fair value method, compensation cost is measured at the grant date based on the fair value of the award and is recognized over the service period, which is usually the vesting period. The Company elected to continue to apply the accounting provisions of APB Opinion No. 25 for stock options. Accordingly, no stock-based employee compensation cost is reflected in net loss attributable to common shareholders, as all options granted under those plans have an exercise price equal to the market value of the underlying common stock on the date of the grant. Had compensation cost for the Company's stock option grants been determined based on the fair value at the grant dates, as calculated in accordance with SFAS No. 123, the Company's net loss and net loss per common share for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 would approximate the following pro forma amounts as compared to the amounts reported (in thousands except for per share amounts):

 
    
   (Restated)
   (Restated)
  
 
   2004
   2003
   2002
  
Net loss attributable to common shareholders   $ (9,198 ) $ (20,887 ) $ (29,738 )
Deduct: Total stock-based employee compensation expense determined under fair value based method for all awards, net of related tax effects     1,993     1,840     656  
   
 
 
 
Pro forma net loss   $ (11,191 ) $ (22,727 ) $ (30,394 )
   
 
 
 
Loss per share:                    
  Basic as reported   $ (0.65 ) $ (1.54 ) $ (2.44 )
  Basic pro forma     (0.79 )   (1.68 )   (2.49 )
  Diluted as reported     (0.65 )   (1.54 )   (2.44 )
  Diluted pro forma     (0.79 )   (1.68 )   (2.49 )

        Certain reclassifications have been made in the prior years' Consolidated Financial Statements to conform to the 2004 presentation.

        In January 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued FASB Interpretation No. 46 ("FIN 46"), "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities," which was revised in December 2003 as FIN 46R. FIN 46R further explains how to identify a Variable Interest Entity ("VIE") and how to determine when a business enterprise should include the assets, liabilities, noncontrolling interest and results of the VIE in its financial statements. FIN 46R is required in financial statements of public entities that have interests in structures that are commonly referred to as special purpose entities. FIN 46R had no material impact on the Company's results of operations since the Company has no special purpose entities.

F-26

        In December 2003, the FASB issued a revision to SFAS No. 132, "Employers' Disclosures about Pensions and Other Postretirement Benefits," to improve financial statement disclosure for defined benefit plans. This statement requires additional disclosures about the assets (including plan assets by category), obligations and cash flows of defined pension plans and other defined benefit postretirement plans. It also requires reporting of various elements of pension and other postretirement benefit costs on a quarterly basis. Generally, the disclosure requirements are effective for interim periods beginning after December 15, 2003; however, information about foreign plans is effective for fiscal years ending after June 15, 2004. The Company adopted the revised SFAS No. 132 effective December 31, 2004. See Note 22 for further discussion of employee benefit plans.

        In December 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") issued Staff Accounting Bulletin ("SAB") No. 104, "Revenue Recognition," which supercedes SAB 101, "Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements." SAB 104's primary purpose is to rescind accounting guidance contained in SAB 101 related to multiple element revenue arrangements, superceded as a result of the issuance of Emerging Issues Task Force ("EITF") 00-21, "Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables." The issuance of SAB 104 reflects the concepts contained in EITF 00-21. The other revenue recognition concepts contained in SAB 101 remain largely unchanged. The issuance of SAB 104 did not have a material impact on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

        In November 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 151, "Inventory Costs, an amendment of ARB No. 43, Chapter 4." SFAS No. 151 amends Accounting Research Bulletin ("ARB") No. 43, Chapter 4, to clarify that abnormal amounts of idle facility expense, freight, handling costs and wasted materials (spoilage) should be recognized as current period charges. In addition, SFAS No. 151 requires that allocation of fixed production overhead to inventory be based on the normal capacity of the production facilities. SFAS No. 151 is effective for inventory costs incurred during fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2005. The adoption of SFAS No. 151 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

        In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 153, "Exchanges of Nonmonetary Assets, an amendment of APB Opinion No. 29." SFAS No. 153 amends APB Opinion No. 29 by eliminating the exception to the basic measurement principle (fair value) for exchanges of similar productive assets. That exception required that some nonmonetary exchanges, although commercially substantive, be recorded on a carryover basis. This Statement eliminates the exception and replaces it with a general exception for exchanges that do not have commercial substance. SFAS No. 153 is effective for nonmonetary exchanges occurring in fiscal periods beginning after June 15, 2005. The adoption of SFAS No. 153 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

        In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123 (revised 2004), "Share-Based Payment." SFAS No. 123(R) replaces SFAS No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation," and supercedes APB Opinion No. 25, "Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees." SFAS No. 123(R) requires companies to report compensation cost relating to share-based payment transactions to be recognized in financial statements. That cost will be measured based upon the fair value of the equity or liability instruments issued. The disclosure requirements under SFAS 123(R) are effective for interim periods beginning after June 15, 2005. On March 29, 2005, the SEC issued SAB 107, "Share-Based Payment," that expresses the views of the SEC staff regarding the application of SFAS No. 123(R). The Company is

F-27


studying the Statement and the Bulletin. The Statement will increase compensation expense starting July 1, 2005.

(5) MARKETABLE SECURITIES

        At December 31, 2004, marketable securities have been categorized as available for sale and, as a result, are stated at fair value based on quoted market prices. The Company's marketable securities available for current operations are classified as current assets. During 2004 the Company invested in auction bond securities that trade at par and reprice within 30 days. Interest income earned on investments is included in interest expense, net on the face of the statement of operations. There were no marketable securities held as of December 31, 2003.

        Marketable securities classified as current assets at December 31, 2004 include the following (in thousands):

 
   Cost
   Market Value
Auction bond securities   $ 16,800   $ 16,800
   
 
Total   $ 16,800   $ 16,800
   
 

(6) PROPERTIES HELD FOR SALE

        As part of its plan to integrate the activities of the CSD into its operations, the Company determined that certain acquired properties were no longer needed for its operations. The Company decided to sell these acquired properties; accordingly, the acquired surplus properties were transferred to properties held for sale. In the allocation of the purchase price of the CSD acquisition, the Company valued properties held for sale at the current appraised market value less estimated selling costs. In addition, subsequent to the completion of purchase accounting, the Company identified several additional properties that were no longer needed for its operations. These properties were transferred to properties held for sale at the lower of their net book value or current appraised market value less estimated selling costs. Properties held for sale include only those properties that the Company believes can be sold within the next twelve months based on current market conditions and the asking price. The Company cannot provide assurance that the proceeds from properties held for sale will equal their carrying value.

        The following table presents the changes in properties held for sale for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2004 (in thousands):

2003 transfers to held for sale   $ 12,690  
   
 
Balance at December 31, 2003     12,690  
2004 transfers to held for sale     509  
Assets sold during 2004     (1,329 )
Adjustments in estimated carrying value     (129 )
Assets returned to active use     (2,892 )
   
 
Balance at December 31, 2004   $ 8,849  
   
 

F-28

        The gains on the sale of properties classified as held for sale of approximately $0.5 million for the year 2004 are classified as a reduction of selling, general and administrative expenses.

(7) RESTRICTED CASH

        At December 31, 2004 and 2003, restricted cash and cash equivalents consisted of the following (in thousands):

 
   2004
   2003
Cash collateral for letter of credit facility   $ —   $ 88,817

        Operators of hazardous waste handling facilities are required by federal and state regulations to provide financial assurance for closure and post-closure care of those facilities should those facilities cease operation. Closure would include the cost of removing the waste stored at the facility which ceased operating, sending such material to another site for disposal, and performing certain procedures for decontamination of the facility. The Company has placed most of the required financial assurance through Steadfast Insurance Company, which requires letters of credit as collateral to its financial assurance obligations. At December 31, 2003, the Company had a Letter of Credit Facility (the "L/C Facility") under an Agreement dated September 6, 2002 between the Company and Fleet National Bank ("Fleet"). The L/C Facility Agreement provided that Fleet would issue up to $100.0 million of letters of credit at the Company's request provided that the Company posted collateral equal to 103% of the amount of the outstanding letters of credit. As further discussed in Note 10, "Financing Arrangements," on June 30, 2004, the L/C Facility was replaced with a synthetic letter of credit facility (the "Synthetic LC Facility"). Under the Synthetic LC Facility, the Company is not required to post cash collateral. On June 30, 2004, the $88.9 million of restricted cash then on deposit was released to the Company.

F-29

(8) INTANGIBLE ASSETS

        Below is a summary of amortizable intangible assets at December 31, 2004 and 2003 (in thousands):

 
   2004
   2003
 
   Cost
   Accumulated
Amortization
   Net
   Cost
   Accumulated
Amortization
   Net
Permits   $ 98,120   $ 20,269   $ 77,851   $ 92,815   $ 16,272   $ 76,543
Customer Profile Database     4,900     2,288     2,612     4,626     1,358     3,268
   
 
 
 
 
 
    $ 103,020   $ 22,557   $ 80,463   $ 97,441   $ 17,630   $ 79,811
   
 
 
 
 
 

        Below is a summary of the expected amortization for intangible assets for the years ending December 31, (in thousands):

 
   Expected
Amortization
2005   $ 5,014
2006     4,615
2007     4,229
2008     3,584
2009     3,179
Thereafter     59,842
   
      80,463
Goodwill no longer subject to amortization     19,032
   
    $ 99,495
   

        Amortization expense was $4.8 million, $4.8 million, and $2.5 million, for the years 2004, 2003, and 2002, respectively.

(9) OTHER ACCRUED EXPENSES

        Other accrued expenses consist of the following (in thousands):

 
    
   (Restated)
 
   2004
   2003
Insurance   $ 7,249   $ 8,925
Interest     8,505     1,597
Payroll and benefits     5,721     6,157
Transaction costs     28     1,211
Other items     19,551     15,967
   
 
    $ 41,054   $ 33,857
   
 

F-30

(10) FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS

        The following table is a summary of the Company's financing arrangements:

 
   December 31,
2004
   December 31,
2003
 
   (in thousands)
Revolving Facility with a financial institution, bearing interest at either the U.S. or Canadian prime rate (5.25% and 4.25%, respectively, at December 31, 2004) or the Eurodollar rate (2.40% at December 31, 2004), depending on the currency of the underlying loan, plus 1.50%, collateralized by accounts receivable   $ —   $ —
Senior Secured Notes, bearing interest at 11.25%, collateralized by a second-priority lien on substantially all of the Company's assets within the United Sates except for accounts receivable     150,000     —
Revolving Credit Facility with a financial institution, bearing interest at LIBOR (1.17% at December 31, 2003) plus 3.50% or the U.S. or Canadian prime rate (both 4.00% at December 31, 2003) plus 0.50% at the Company's election     —     35,291
Senior Loans, bearing interest at LIBOR (1.17% at December 31, 2003) plus 7.75%     —     107,209
Subordinated Loans, bearing interest at 22.50%     —     40,000
   
 
      150,000     182,500
Less unamortized issue discount     1,878     —
Less obligations classified as current     —     35,291
   
 
  Long-term obligations   $ 148,122   $ 147,209
   
 

        Prior to June 30, 2004, the Company had outstanding a $100.0 million three-year revolving credit facility (the "Revolving Credit Facility"), $115.0 million of three-year non-amortizing term loans (the "Senior Loans") and $40.0 million of five-year non-amortizing subordinated loans (the "Subordinated Loans"). In addition to such financings, the Company had established a letter of credit facility (the "L/C Facility") under which the Company could obtain up to $100.0 million of letters of credit by providing cash collateral equal to 103% of the amount of such outstanding letters of credit. On June 30, 2004, the Company's debt under the Revolving Credit Facility, the Senior Loans and the Subordinated Loans was replaced by $150.0 million of eight-year Senior Secured Notes (the "Senior Secured Notes") and a $30.0 million revolving credit facility (the "Revolving Facility") as described below. Additionally, the L/C Facility was replaced with a synthetic letter of credit facility (the "Synthetic LC Facility") whereby the Company may obtain up to $90.0 million of letters of credit as described below.

        The principal terms of the Senior Secured Notes, the Revolving Facility, and the Synthetic LC Facility are as follows:

        Senior Secured Notes.    The Senior Secured Notes were issued under an Indenture dated June 30, 2004 (the "Indenture"). The Senior Secured Notes bear interest at 11.25% and mature on July 15, 2012. The Senior Secured Notes were issued at a $2.0 million discount that resulted in an effective yield of 11.5%. Interest is payable semiannually in cash on each January 15 and July 15, commencing on January 15, 2005.

F-31


        The Senior Secured Notes are secured by a second-priority lien on all of the domestic assets of the Company and its domestic subsidiaries that secure the Company's reimbursement obligations under the Synthetic LC Facility on a first-priority basis (as described below); provided that such assets do not include any capital stock, notes, instruments, other equity interests of any of the Company's subsidiaries, accounts receivable, and certain other excluded collateral as provided in the Indenture. The Senior Secured Notes are jointly and severally guaranteed on a senior secured second-lien basis by substantially all of the Company's existing and future domestic subsidiaries. The Senior Secured Notes are not guaranteed by the Company's foreign subsidiaries.

        The Indenture provides for certain covenants, the most restrictive of which requires the Company, within 120 days after the close of each twelve-month period ending on June 30 of each year (beginning June 30, 2005) to apply an amount equal to 50% of the period's Excess Cash Flow (as defined below) to either prepay, repay, redeem or purchase its first-lien obligations under the Revolving Facility and Synthetic LC Facility or to make offers ("Excess Cash Flow Offers") to repurchase of all or part of the then outstanding Senior Secured Notes at an offering price equal to 104% of their principal amount plus accrued interest. "Excess Cash Flow" is defined in the Indenture as Consolidated EBITDA (as defined in the Indenture) less interest expense, all taxes paid or accrued in the period, capital expenditures made in cash during the period, and all cash spent on environmental monitoring, remediation or relating to environmental liabilities of the Company.

        Excess Cash Flow for the six months ended December 31, 2004 was $9.8 million, and the Company anticipates Excess Cash Flow will be generated from operations during the six-month period ending June 30, 2005. Accordingly, the Company anticipates being required, within 120 days following June 30, 2005, to offer to repurchase Senior Secured Notes in the amount of 50% of the Excess Cash Flow generated during the twelve-month period ending June 30, 2005. However, at December 31, 2004, the Company had no outstanding first-lien obligations which were then payable under its Revolving Facility or Synthetic LC Facility and the market price of the Senior Secured Notes was in excess of the 104% of principal amount at which the Company is required and permitted by the Indenture and the Credit Agreement to make Excess Cash Flow Offers for outstanding Senior Secured Notes. It therefore now appears unlikely that any holders of Senior Secured Notes would accept an Excess Cash Flow Offer made in accordance with the Indenture and the Credit Agreement unless the trading price of the Senior Secured Notes declines prior to the time in 2005 at which the Company will be required to make such an offer. To the extent the Note holders do not accept an Excess Cash Flow Offer based on the Excess Cash Flow earned through June 30, 2005, such Excess Cash Flow will not be included in the amount of Excess Cash Flow earned in subsequent periods. However, the Indenture's requirement to make Excess Cash Flow Offers in respect of Excess Cash Flow earned in subsequent twelve-month periods will remain in effect.

        The $6.3 million cost associated with the issuance of the Senior Secured Notes was recorded as a component of deferred financing costs and is being amortized to interest expense over the life of the Senior Secured Notes.

        Revolving Facility.    Both the Revolving Facility and the Synthetic LC Facility were established under a Loan and Security Agreement dated June 30, 2004 (the "Credit Agreement") among the Company, Fleet Capital Corporation as agent for the Revolving Lenders thereunder, Credit Suisse First Boston as agent for the letter of credit facility lenders (the "LC Facility Lenders") thereunder, and certain other parties. The Revolving Facility allows the Company to borrow up to $30.0 million in cash,

F-32


based upon a formula of eligible accounts receivable. This total is separated into two lines of credit, namely a line for the Company and its U.S. subsidiaries equal to $24.7 million and a line for the Company's Canadian subsidiaries of $5.3 million. The Revolving Facility also allows the Company to have issued up to $10.0 million of letters of credit, with the outstanding amount of such letters of credit reducing the maximum amount of borrowings permitted under the Revolving Facility. At December 31, 2004, the Company had no borrowings and $1.2 million of letters of credit outstanding under the Revolving Facility, and the Company had approximately $28.8 million available to borrow. Amounts outstanding under the Revolving Facility bear interest at an annual rate of either the U.S. or Canadian prime rate or the Eurodollar rate (depending on the currency of the underlying loan) plus 1.50%. The Credit Agreement requires the Company to pay an unused line fee of 0.125% per annum on the unused portion of the Revolving Facility. The Revolving Facility matures on June 30, 2009.

        The Revolving Facility is secured by a first security interest in accounts receivable and a second security interest in substantially all other assets. The Revolving Facility prohibits the payment of dividends on the Company's common stock but allows the payment of dividends on the Company's Series B Preferred Stock.

        Under the Credit Agreement, the Company is required to maintain a maximum Leverage Ratio (as defined below) of no more than 2.80 to 1.0 and 2.55 to 1.0 for the four-quarter periods ended or ending December 31, 2004 and March 31, 2005, respectively. The maximum Leverage Ratio is then reduced to no more than 2.50 to 1.0 for the four-quarter periods ending June 30, 2005 through March 31, 2006, and then, in approximately equal increments, to no more than 2.30 to 1.0 for the four-quarter period ending December 31, 2008, and to no more than 2.25 to 1.0 for each succeeding quarter. The Leverage Ratio is defined as the ratio of the consolidated indebtedness of the Company to its Consolidated EBITDA (as defined in the Credit Agreement) achieved for the latest four-quarter period. For the four-quarter period ended December 31, 2004, the Leverage Ratio was 1.81 to 1.0, which was within covenant.

        The Company is also required under the Credit Agreement to maintain a minimum Interest Coverage Ratio (as defined below) of not less than 2.40 to 1.0 and 2.65 to 1.0 for the four-quarter periods ended or ending December 31, 2004 and March 31, 2005, respectively. The minimum Interest Coverage Ratio is then increased to not less than 2.70 to 1.0 for the four-quarter periods ending June 30, 2005 through December 31, 2005, and then, in approximately equal increments, to not less than 2.85 to 1.0 for the four-quarter period ending December 31, 2007, and not less than 3.00 to 1.0 for each succeeding four-quarter period. The Interest Coverage Ratio is defined as the ratio of the Company's Consolidated EBITDA to its consolidated interest expense. For the four-quarter period December 31, 2004, the Interest Coverage Ratio was 3.32 to 1.0, which was within covenant.

        The Company is also required to maintain a fixed charge coverage ratio of not less than 1.0 to 1.0 for each four-quarter period, commencing with the quarter ended December 31, 2004. For the period ended December 31, 2004, the Company's fixed charge coverage ratio was 1.74 to 1.0, which was within covenant.

        The $0.3 million cost associated with the issuance of the Revolving Facility was recorded as a component of deferred financing costs and is being amortized to interest expense over the life of the Revolving Facility.

F-33


        Synthetic LC Facility.    The Synthetic LC Facility provides that Credit Suisse First Boston (the "LC Facility Issuing Bank") will issue up to $90.0 million of letters of credit at the Company's request. The LC Facility requires that the LC Facility Lenders maintain a cash account (the "Credit-Linked Account") to collateralize the Company's outstanding letters of credit. Should any such letter of credit be drawn in the future and the Company fail to satisfy its reimbursement obligation, the LC Facility Issuing Bank would be entitled to draw upon the appropriate portion of the $90.0 million in cash which the LC Facility Lenders under the Credit Agreement have deposited into the Credit-Linked Account. Acting through the LC Facility Agent, the LC Facility Lenders would then have the right to exercise their rights as first-priority lien holders (second-priority as to receivables) on substantially all of the assets of the Company and its domestic subsidiaries. The Company has no right, title or interest in the Credit- Linked Account established under the Credit Agreement for purposes of the Synthetic LC Facility. The Company is required to pay (i) a quarterly participation fee at the annual rate of 5.35% on the average daily balance in the Credit-Linked Account and (ii) a quarterly fronting fee at the annual rate of 0.30% of the average daily aggregate amount of letters of credit outstanding under the Synthetic LC Facility. At December 31, 2004, letters of credit outstanding under the Synthetic LC facility were $89.4 million. The term of the Synthetic LC Facility will expire on June 30, 2009.

        The $3.1 million cost associated with the issuance of the Synthetic LC Facility was recorded as a component of deferred financing costs and is being amortized to interest expense over the life of the Synthetic LC Facility.

        The principal terms of the Revolving Credit Facility, the Senior Loans, the Subordinated Loans, and the L/C Facility outstanding at December 31, 2003 were as follows:

        Revolving Credit Facility.    The Revolving Credit Facility was established under a Loan and Security Agreement dated September 6, 2002, as subsequently amended (the "Revolving Credit Agreement") between the Company and Congress Financial Corporation (New England) as Lender and as Agent for the other Lenders thereunder. The Revolving Credit Facility allowed the Company to borrow up to $100.0 million in cash and letters of credit, based upon a formula of eligible accounts receivable. This total was separated into two lines of credit, namely a line for the Company's Canadian Subsidiaries of $20.0 million in Canadian dollars and a line for the Company and its U.S. subsidiaries equal to $100.0 million in U.S. dollars less the then conversion value of the Canadian line. Letters of credit outstanding at any one time under the Revolving Credit Facility could not exceed $20.0 million. At December 31, 2003, letters of credit outstanding were $1.2 million and the Company had approximately $39.8 million available to borrow. This consisted of borrowing availability in the U.S. of approximately $30.6 million and availability in Canada of approximately $9.2 million (USD). The Revolving Credit Agreement, as most recently amended, allowed for up to 80% of the outstanding balance of the loans to bear interest at an annual rate of LIBOR plus 3.50%, with the balance at either U.S. or Canadian prime (as appropriate) plus 0.50%. The Revolving Credit Agreement required the Company to pay an unused line fee of 0.25% per annum on the unused portion of the revolving credit. The Company's obligations under the Revolving Credit Facility were secured by a first security interest in the Company's accounts receivable and a second security interest in substantially all of the Company's other assets (exclusive of real estate, rolling stock and cash collateral provided by the Company to the issuer of the letters of credit under the L/C Facility).

        For the first and second quarters of 2003, the Company violated a loan covenant under the Revolving Credit Facility which was cured by amending the Loan and Security Agreement dated

F-34


September 6, 2002 (the "Loan and Security Agreement") with the Second Amendment to the Loan and Security Agreement (the "Second Amendment") and the Third Amendment to the Loan and Security Agreement (the "Third Amendment").

        In exchange for the lenders waiving the violation of the loan covenant for the first and second quarters of 2003 and resetting the loan covenants for future periods, the Second Amendment and Third Amendment required the Company to pay amendment fees that totaled approximately $0.4 million and the Third Amendment increased the interest rate from that of the Loan and Security Agreement from LIBOR plus 3.00% to LIBOR plus 3.50%, or from the U.S. prime rate to the prime rate plus 0.50% for U.S. based prime rate loans. For prime rate based borrowings in Canada, the Third Amendment increased the interest rate from that of the Loan and Security Agreement from the Canadian prime rate to the Canadian prime rate plus 0.50%. The increases in the interest rates under the Third Amendment became effective as of August 1, 2003.

        Senior Loans and Subordinated Loans.    The Senior Loans and the Subordinated Loans were issued under a Financing Agreement dated September 6, 2002 (the "Financing Agreement"). As explained below, at December 31, 2003 the Senior Loans bore interest at LIBOR plus 7.75% and the Subordinated Loans bore at 22.5%. The Senior Loans and the Subordinated Loans were secured by a first security or mortgage interest in substantially all of the Company's assets, except for second security interests in the Company's accounts receivable in which the Agent under the Revolving Credit Facility had a first security interest and the cash collateral provided by the Company to the issuer of letters of credit under the L/C Facility in which such issuer had a first security interest.

        For the first and second quarters of 2003, the Company violated certain of the loan covenants under the Senior Loans and Subordinated Loans which was cured by amending the Financing Agreement dated September 6, 2002 (the "Financing Agreement") with the First Amendment to Financing Agreement (the "First Financing Amendment") and the Second Amendment to Financing Agreement (the "Second Financing Amendment").

        In exchange for the lenders waiving the violation of the loan covenants for the first and second quarters of 2003 and resetting the loan covenants for future periods, the First Financing Amendment and Second Financing Amendment required the Company to pay amendment fees totaling approximately $1.0 million. The Second Financing Amendment increased the interest rates from those of the Financing Agreement for Senior and Subordinated Loans from LIBOR plus 7.25% to LIBOR plus 7.75% and from 22.0% to 22.5%, respectively.

        In October 2003, the Financing Agreement was further modified by the Third Amendment to Financing Agreement (the "Third Financing Amendment"). The Third Financing Amendment redefined the fixed charge coverage ratio for the fiscal quarters ending September 30, 2003 through June 30, 2004 to exclude from capital expenditures the effect of correcting certain non-cash errors that had been made through application of purchase accounting in the preparation of the consolidated statements of cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2003. Those corrections are described in Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A as filed on November 14, 2003 to the Company's previously filed reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2003 and June 30, 2003.

        L/C Facility.    The L/C Facility was established under a Letter of Credit Facility Agreement dated September 6, 2002 (the "L/C Facility Agreement") between the Company and Fleet National Bank ("Fleet"). The L/C Facility Agreement provided that Fleet will issue up to $100.0 million of letters of

F-35


credit at the Company's request provided that the Company posted cash collateral equal to 103% of the amount of the outstanding letters of credit (with the Company paying Fleet's customary charges for the issuance of such letters of credit plus an annual fee equal to 0.3% of the outstanding amount thereof). At December 31, 2003, letters of credit outstanding were $85.9 million.

(11) LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

        The Company's waste management services are continuously regulated by federal, state, provincial and local laws enacted to regulate discharge of materials into the environment, remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater or otherwise protect the environment. This ongoing regulation results in the Company frequently becoming a party to judicial or administrative proceedings involving all levels of governmental authorities and other interested parties. The issues involved in such proceedings generally relate to applications for permits and licenses by the Company and conformity with legal requirements, alleged violations of existing permits and licenses or requirements to clean up contaminated sites. At December 31, 2004, the Company was involved in various proceedings, the principal of which are described below, relating primarily to activities at or shipments from the Company's waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Substantially all of the Company's legal proceedings liabilities are environmental liabilities and, as such, are included in the tables of changes to remedial liabilities disclosed as part of Footnote 13, Remedial Liabilities, on pages F-52 and F-53.

        Effective September 7, 2002 (the "Closing Date"), the Company purchased from Safety-Kleen Services, Inc. and certain of its domestic subsidiaries (collectively, the "Sellers") substantially all of the assets of the Chemical Services Division (the "CSD") of Safety-Kleen Corp. ("Safety-Kleen"). The Company purchased the CSD assets pursuant to a sale order (the "Sale Order") issued by the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court") which had jurisdiction over the Chapter 11 proceedings involving the Sellers, and the Company therefore took title to the CSD assets without assumption of any liability (including pending or threatened litigation) of the Sellers except as expressly provided in the Sale Order. However, under the Sale Order (which incorporated by reference certain provisions of the Acquisition Agreement between the Company and Safety-Kleen Services, Inc.), the Company became subject to certain legal proceedings involving the CSD assets for three reasons as described below. As of December 31, 2004, the Company had reserves of $35.4 million (substantially all of which the Company had established as part of the purchase price for the CSD assets) relating to the Company's estimated potential liabilities in connection with such legal proceedings which were then pending. The Company also estimates that it is "reasonably possible" as that term is defined in SFAS No. 5 (more than remote but less than likely), that the amount of such total liabilities could be up to $3.2 million greater than such $35.4 million. Because all of the Company's reasonably possible additional losses relating to legal liabilities relate to remedial liabilities, the reasonably possible additional losses for legal liabilities are reflected in the tables of reasonably possible additional losses in Note 13, "Remedial Liabilities." The Company periodically adjusts the aggregate amount of such reserves when such potential liabilities are paid or otherwise discharged or additional relevant information becomes available to the Company.

F-36

        The first reason for the Company becoming subject to certain legal proceedings in connection with the acquisition of the CSD assets is that, as part of the CSD assets, the Company acquired all of the outstanding capital stock of certain Canadian subsidiaries (the "CSD Canadian Subsidiaries") formerly owned by the Sellers (which subsidiaries were not part of the Sellers' bankruptcy proceedings), and the Company therefore became subject to the legal proceedings (which include the Ville Mercier Legal Proceedings described below) in which the Canadian Subsidiaries were then involved. The second reason is that, on the Closing Date for the CSD assets, there were ongoing legal proceedings (which include the FUSRAP Legal Proceedings described below) which directly involved certain of the CSD assets of which the Company became the owner and operator. While the Company did not agree to be responsible for damages or other liabilities of the Sellers relating to such proceedings, these proceedings might nevertheless affect the future operation of those CSD assets. The third reason is that, as part of the purchase price for the CSD assets, the Company agreed with the Sellers that the Company would indemnify the Sellers against certain current and future liabilities of the Sellers under applicable federal and state environmental laws including, in particular, the Sellers' share of certain cleanup costs payable to governmental entities under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("Superfund Act") or analogous state Superfund laws. As described below, the Company and the Sellers are not in complete agreement at this time as to the scope of the Company's indemnity obligations under the Sale Order and the Acquisition Agreement with respect to certain Superfund liabilities of the Sellers.

        The principal legal proceedings related to the Company's acquisition of the CSD assets are as follows. While, as described below, the Company has established reserves for certain of these matters, there can be no guarantee that any ultimate liability the Company incurs for any of these matters will not exceed (or be less than) the amount of the current reserves or that the Company will not incur other material expenditures.

        Ville Mercier Legal Proceedings.    One of the CSD Canadian Subsidiaries (the "Mercier Subsidiary") owns and operates a hazardous waste incinerator in Ville Mercier, Quebec (the "Mercier Facility"). A property owned by the Mercier Subsidiary adjacent to the current Mercier Facility is now contaminated as a result of actions dating back to 1968, when the Quebec government issued to the unrelated company which then owned the Mercier Facility two permits to dump organic liquids into lagoons on the property. By 1972, groundwater contamination had been identified, and the Quebec government provided an alternate water supply to the municipality of Ville Mercier.

        In 1999, Ville Mercier and three neighboring municipalities filed separate legal proceedings against the Mercier Subsidiary and certain related companies together with certain former officers and directors, as well as against the Government of Quebec. The lawsuits assert that the defendants are jointly and severally responsible for the contamination of groundwater in the region, which the plaintiffs claim was caused by contamination from the former Ville Mercier lagoons and which they claim caused each municipality to incur additional costs to supply drinking water for their citizens since the 1970's and early 1980's. The four municipalities claim a total of $1.6 million (CDN) as damages for additional costs to obtain drinking water supplies and seek an injunctive order to obligate the defendants to remediate the groundwater in the region. The Quebec Government also sued the Mercier Subsidiary to recover approximately $17.4 million (CDN) of alleged past costs for constructing and operating a treatment system and providing alternative drinking water supplies. The Mercier

F-37


Subsidiary continues to assert that it has no responsibility for the groundwater contamination in the region.

        Because the continuation of such proceedings by the Mercier Subsidiary, which the Company now owns, would require the Company to incur legal and other costs and the risks inherent in any such litigation, the Company, as part of its integration plan for the CSD assets, decided to vigorously review options which will allow the Company to establish harmonious relations with the local communities, resolve the adversarial situation with the Provincial government and spare continued legal costs. Based upon the Company's review of likely settlement possibilities, the Company now anticipates that as part of any such settlement it will likely agree to assume at least partial responsibility for remediation of certain environmental contamination and certain prior costs. At December 31, 2004, the Company had accrued $10.6 million for remedial liabilities and associated legal costs relating to the Ville Mercier Legal Proceedings.

        FUSRAP Legal Proceedings.    As part of the CSD assets, the Company acquired a hazardous waste landfill in Buttonwillow, California (the "Buttonwillow Landfill"). During 1998 and 1999, the Seller's subsidiary which then owned the Buttonwillow Landfill (the "Buttonwillow Seller") accepted and disposed in the Buttonwillow Landfill certain construction debris (the "FUSRAP Wastes") that originated at a site in New York that was part of the federal Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ("FUSRAP"). FUSRAP was created in the mid-1970s in an attempt to manage various sites around the country contaminated with residual radioactivity from activities conducted by the Atomic Energy Commission and the United States military during World War II. The FUSRAP Wastes are primarily construction and demolition debris exhibiting low-activity residual radioactivity that were shipped to the Buttonwillow Landfill by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

        The California Department of Health Services ("DHS") claimed in a letter to the Buttonwillow Seller delivered in 1999 that the Buttonwillow Seller did not lawfully accept the FUSRAP Wastes under applicable California law and regulations. Both DHS and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") filed claims in the Sellers' bankruptcy proceedings preserving the right of those agencies to claim penalties for damages against the Buttonwillow Seller and possibly seeking to compel removal of the FUSRAP Wastes from the Buttonwillow Landfill. However, aside from the letter to the Buttonwillow Seller and the filing of the proofs of claim in the Sellers' bankruptcy proceedings, the California agencies have not commenced any enforcement proceedings relating to the Buttonwillow Landfill. Both the Company and the Sellers believe that the FUSRAP Wastes were properly, safely and lawfully disposed of at the Buttonwillow Landfill under all applicable laws and regulations, and the Company would vigorously resist any efforts to require that such wastes be removed if either of the California agencies should in the future initiate any enforcement action for this purpose. The Company now estimates that the cost of removing the FUSRAP Wastes from the Buttonwillow Landfill would be approximately $6.9 million. However, the Company has not accrued any costs of removing the FUSRAP Wastes because the Company believes that, in the event the California agencies were in the future to initiate any enforcement action, only a remote possibility exists that a final order would be issued requiring the Company to remove such wastes.

        In November 2003, a California non-profit corporation allegedly acting under the California Unfair Business Practices Act added the Company (as the current owner of the Buttonwillow Landfill) as a defendant to a lawsuit which that corporation had originally brought in 2000 against certain of the Sellers in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. That lawsuit sought, among

F-38


other matters, an order requiring the named defendants (including the Company) to remove the FUSRAP Wastes from the Buttonwillow Landfill and to dispose of this material at a facility licensed for disposal of radioactive waste. The Company filed a motion for summary adjudication and while the motion was pending, on December 23, 2004, the Company settled the lawsuit brought by that non-profit corporation through payment by the Company of a substantially reduced percentage of the legal fees incurred by that corporation and the execution of releases by all parties to the lawsuit, and the lawsuit was dismissed by the Court with prejudice.

        Indemnification of Certain CSD Superfund Liabilities.    The Company's agreement with the Sellers under the Acquisition Agreement and the Sale Order to indemnify the Sellers against certain cleanup costs payable to governmental entities under federal and state Superfund laws now relate primarily to (i) two properties included in the CSD assets which are either now subject or proposed to become subject to Superfund proceedings, (ii) certain potential liabilities which the Sellers might incur in the future in connection with an incinerator formerly operated by Marine Shale Processors, Inc. to which the Sellers shipped hazardous wastes, and (iii) 35 active Superfund sites owned by third parties where the Sellers have been designated as Potentially Responsible Parties ("PRPs"). As described below, there are also four other Superfund sites owned by third parties where the Sellers have been named as PRPs or potential PRPs and for which the Sellers have sent demands for indemnity to the Company since September 2004. In the case of the two properties referenced above which were included in the CSD assets, the Company is potentially directly liable for cleanup costs under applicable environmental laws because of the Company's ownership and operation of such properties since the Closing Date. In the case of Marine Shale Processors and the 35 other third-party sites referenced above, the Company does not have direct liability for cleanup costs but may have an obligation to indemnify the Sellers, to the extent provided in the Acquisition Agreement and the Sale Order, against the Sellers' share of such cleanup costs which are payable to governmental entities.

        Federal and state Superfund laws generally impose strict, and in certain circumstances, joint and several liability for the costs of cleaning up Superfund sites not only upon the owners and operators of such sites, but also upon persons or entities which in the past have either generated or shipped hazardous wastes which are present on such sites. The Superfund laws also provide for liability for damages to natural resources caused by hazardous substances at such sites. Accordingly, the Superfund laws encourage PRPs to agree to share in specified percentages of the aggregate cleanup costs for Superfund sites by entering into consent decrees, settlement agreements or similar arrangements. Non-settling PRPs may be liable for any shortfalls in government cost recovery and may be liable to other PRPs for equitable contribution. Under the Superfund laws, a settling PRP's financial liability could increase if the other settling PRPs were to become insolvent or if additional or more severe contamination were discovered at the relevant site. In estimating the amount of those Sellers' liabilities at those Superfund sites where one or more of the Sellers has been designated as a PRP and as to which the Company believes that it has potential liability under the Acquisition Agreement and the Sale Order, the Company therefore reviewed any existing consent decrees, settlement agreements or similar arrangements with respect to those sites, the Sellers' negotiated volumetric share of liability (where applicable), the Company's prior knowledge of the relevant sites, and the Company's general experience in dealing with the cleanup of Superfund sites.

        Properties Included in CSD Assets.    The CSD assets acquired by the Company include an active service center located at 2549 North New York Street in Wichita, Kansas (the "Wichita Property"). The

F-39


Wichita Property is one of several properties located within the boundaries of a 1,400 acre state-designated Superfund site in an old industrial section of Wichita known as the North Industrial Corridor Site. Along with numerous other PRPs, the Sellers executed a consent decree relating to such site with the EPA, and the Company is continuing its ongoing remediation program for the Wichita Property in accordance with that consent decree. Also included within the CSD assets acquired by the Company are rights under an indemnification agreement between the Sellers and a prior owner of the Wichita Property which the Company anticipates but cannot guarantee will be available to reimburse certain such cleanup costs.

        The CSD assets also include a former hazardous waste incinerator and landfill in Baton Rouge, Louisiana ("BR Facility") currently undergoing remediation pursuant to an order issued by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. In December 2003, the Company received an information request from the federal EPA pursuant to the Superfund Act concerning the Devil's Swamp Lake Site ("Devil's Swamp") in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. On March 8, 2004, the EPA proposed to list Devil's Swamp on the National Priorities List for further investigations and possible remediation. Devil's Swamp includes a lake located downstream of an outfall ditch where wastewaters and stormwaters have been discharged from the BR Facility, as well as extensive swamplands adjacent to it. Contaminants of concern cited by the EPA as a basis for listing the site include substances of the kind found in wastewaters discharged from the BR Facility in past operations. While the Company's ongoing corrective actions at the BR Facility may be sufficient to address the EPA's concerns, there can be no assurance that additional action will not be required and that the Company will not incur material costs. The Company cannot now estimate its potential liability for Devil's Swamp; accordingly, the Company has accrued no liability for remediation of Devil's Swamp beyond what was already accrued pertaining to the ongoing corrective actions and amounts sufficient to cover certain projected legal fees and related expenses.

        Marine Shale Processors.    Beginning in the mid-1980's and continuing until July 1996, Marine Shale Processors, Inc., located in Amelia, Louisiana ("Marine Shale"), operated a kiln which incinerated waste producing a vitrified aggregate as a by-product. Marine Shale contended that its operation recycled waste into a useful product, i.e., vitrified aggregate, and therefore was exempt from regulation under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act ("RCRA") and permitting requirements as a hazardous waste incinerator under applicable federal and state environmental laws. The EPA contended that Marine Shale was a "sham-recycler" subject to the regulation and permitting requirements as a hazardous waste incinerator under RCRA, that its vitrified aggregate by-product was a hazardous waste, and that Marine Shale's continued operation without required permits was illegal. Litigation between the EPA and Marine Shale began in 1990 and continued until July 1996 when the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Marine Shale to shutdown its operations. During the course of its operation, Marine Shale produced thousands of tons of aggregate, some of which was sold as fill material at various locations in the vicinity of Amelia, Louisiana, but most of which was stockpiled on the premises of the Marine Shale facility. Almost all of this aggregate has since been moved to a nearby site owned by an affiliate of Marine Shale, known as Recycling Park, Inc. In accordance with a court order authorizing the movement of this material to this off-site location, all of the materials located at Recycling Park, Inc. comply with the land disposal restrictions of RCRA. Approximately 7,000 tons of aggregate remain on the Marine Shale site. Moreover, as a result of past operations, soil and groundwater contamination may exist on the Marine Shale facility and the Recycling Park, Inc. site.

F-40


        Although the Sellers never held an equity interest in Marine Shale, the Sellers were among the largest customers of Marine Shale in terms of overall incineration revenue. If the EPA or the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality ("LDEQ") were in the future to designate the Marine Shale facility and/or the Recycling Park, Inc. site as a Superfund site or sites, the Sellers could potentially be exposed to liability for cleanup costs as PRPs and, in such event, the Sellers could assert that the Company would be obligated to indemnify the Sellers for such costs payable to governmental entities in accordance with the Company's agreement described above. Based on a plan to settle obligations that was established at the time of the acquisition, the Company obtained more complete information as to the potential status of the Marine Shale facility and the Recycling Park, Inc. site as a Superfund site or sites, the potential costs associated with possible removal and disposal of some or all of the vitrified aggregate and closure and remediation of the Marine Shale facility and the Recycling Park, Inc. site, and the respective shares of other identified potential PRPs on a volumetric basis. Accordingly, the Company determined in the third quarter of 2003 that the remedial liabilities and associated legal costs were then probable and estimable and recorded liabilities for the Company's estimate of the Sellers' proportionate share of environmental cleanup costs potentially payable to governmental entities under federal and/or state Superfund laws. At December 31, 2004, the Company had accrued $13.7 million of reserves relating to potential cleanup costs for the Marine Shale facility and the Recycling Park, Inc. site.

        On December 24, 2003, the Sellers' plan of reorganization became effective under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. If the EPA or the LDEQ were in the future to designate the Marine Shale facility and/or the Recycling Park, Inc. site as a Superfund site or sites, the Sellers might assert that they are not responsible for potential cleanup costs associated with such site or sites, and the Company might assert that under the Sale Order the Company is not obligated to pay or reimburse cleanup and related costs associated with such site or sites. The Company cannot now provide assurances with respect to any such matters which, in the event the EPA or the LDEQ were in the future to designate the Marine Shale facility and/or the Recycling Park, Inc. site as a Superfund or sites, would need to be resolved by future events, negotiations and, if required, legal proceedings.

        Third Party Superfund Sites.    Prior to the Closing Date, the Sellers had generated or shipped hazardous wastes which are present on an aggregate of 35 sites owned by third parties which have been designated as federal or state Superfund sites and at which the Sellers, along with other parties, had been designated as PRPs. Under the Acquisition Agreement and the Sale Order, the Company agreed with the Sellers that the Company would indemnify the Sellers against the Sellers' share of the cleanup costs payable to governmental entities in connection with those 35 sites, which were listed in Exhibit A to the Sale Order (the "Listed Third Party Sites"). At 29 of the Listed Third Party Sites, the Sellers had addressed, prior to the Company's acquisition of the CSD assets in September 2002, the Sellers' cleanup obligations to the federal and state governments and to other PRPs by entering into consent decrees or other settlement agreements or by participating in ongoing settlement discussions or site studies and, in accordance therewith, the PRP group is generally performing or has agreed to perform the site remediation program with government oversight. With respect to one of those 29 Listed Third Party Sites, certain developments have occurred since the Company's purchase of the CSD assets as described in the following paragraph. Of the six remaining Listed Third Party Sites, the Company on behalf of the Sellers is contesting with the governmental entities and PRP groups involved liability at two sites, has settled the Sellers' liability at one site, confirmed that the Sellers were ultimately not named as PRPs at one site, and plans to fund participation by the Sellers as settling PRPs at three

F-41


sites. With respect to the 35 Listed Third Party Sites, the Company had reserves of $20.2 million at December 31, 2004.

        With respect to one (the "Helen Kramer Landfill Site") of the 35 Listed Third Party Sites, the Sellers had entered (prior to the Sellers commencing their bankruptcy proceeding in June 2000) into settlement agreements with certain members of the PRP group which agreed to perform the cleanup of that site in accordance with a consent decree with governmental entities, in return for which the Sellers received a conditional release from such governmental entities. Following the Sellers' commencement of their bankruptcy proceeding, the Sellers failed to satisfy their payment obligations to those PRPs under those settlement agreements. In November 2003, certain of those PRPs made a demand directly on the Company for the Sellers' share of the cleanup costs incurred by the PRPs with respect to the Helen Kramer Landfill Site. However, at a hearing in the Bankruptcy Court on January 6, 2004 on a motion by those PRPs seeking an order that the Company was liable to such PRPs under the terms of the Sale Order, the Bankruptcy Court declined to hear the motion on the ground that those PRPs (which are not governmental entities) have no right to seek direct payment from the Company for any portion of the cleanup costs which they have incurred in connection with that site. The Company also understands that, when the Sellers' plan of reorganization became effective in December 2003, the Sellers were discharged from their obligations to those PRPs for that site, and the Sellers have never made an indemnity request upon the Company for any obligations relating to that site. The PRPs have indicated their intention to pursue additional recourse against the Company, but the Company filed in February 2005 a complaint with the Bankruptcy Court seeking sanctions against the PRPs for contempt of the injunction in the Sale Order against those PRPs' efforts to proceed directly against the Company, and that matter is still pending.

        By letters to the Company dated September 22 and 28, 2004, and January 22 and 28, 2005, the Sellers identified, in addition to the 35 Listed Third Party Sites, four additional sites owned by third parties which the EPA or a state environmental agency has designated as a Superfund site or potential Superfund site and at which one or more of the Sellers have been named as a PRP or potential PRP. In those letters, the Sellers asserted that the Company has an obligation to indemnify the Sellers for their share of the potential cleanup costs associated with such four additional sites. The Company has responded to such letters from the Sellers by stating that, under the Sale Order, the Company has no obligation to reimburse the Sellers for any cleanup and related costs (if any) which the Sellers may incur in connection with such four additional sites. The Company intends to assist the Sellers in providing information now in the Company's possession with respect to such four additional sites and to participate in negotiations with the government agencies and PRP groups involved. In addition, at one of those four additional sites, the Company may have some liability independently of the Sellers' involvement with that site, and the Company may also have certain defense and indemnity rights under contractual agreements for prior acquisitions relating to that site. Accordingly, the Company is now investigating that site further. However, the Company now believes that it has no liabilities with respect to the potential cleanup of those four additional sites that are both probable and estimable at this time, and the Company has therefore not established any reserves for any potential liabilities of the Sellers or the Company in connection therewith.

        Inactive Third Party Superfund Sites.    In addition to the Superfund sites owned by third parties described in the preceding paragraphs, the Sellers have also been identified as PRPs at several other federal or state Superfund sites owned by third parties that the Company believes are now inactive with

F-42


respect to the Sellers. The inactive sites generally involve the shipment by the Sellers of a de minimis amount of wastes to such sites and prior consent decrees, settlement agreements or similar arrangements providing for minimal payment obligations by the Sellers. De minimis agreements generally are intended to settle all claims for small PRPs and such agreements have limited "re-opener" provisions. At certain other inactive sites, the Sellers have disclaimed any liability by advising the governmental entities involved that the Sellers had not shipped any wastes to those sites. The Company has not established reserves for any of the inactive sites because the Company believes that the Sellers' cleanup liabilities with respect to those sites have already been resolved and that, under the Sale Order, the Company would not be responsible for such liabilities in any event.

        In addition to the legal proceedings related to the acquisition of the CSD assets described above, one lawsuit has been filed against the Company subsequent to the acquisition based in part upon allegations relating to the Company's current ownership and operation of a former CSD facility. In December 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the 18th Judicial District Court in Iberville Parish, Louisiana, against the Company's subsidiary which acquired and now operates a deep injection well facility near Plaquemine, Louisiana. This lawsuit was brought under the citizen suit provisions of the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act. The lawsuit alleges that the facility is in violation of state law by disposing of hazardous waste into an underground injection well that the plaintiffs allege is located within the banks or boundaries of a body of surface water within the jurisdiction of the State of Louisiana. The lawsuit also focuses on a "new area of concern" at the facility which the plaintiffs allege is a source of contamination which will require environmental remediation and/or restoration. The lawsuit also alleges that the Company's former facility manager made false representations and failed to disclose material information to the regulators about the site after the Company acquired it in September 2002. The plaintiffs seek an order declaring the injection well to be located within the banks or boundaries of a body of surface water under state law, payment of civil penalties, and an additional penalty of $1.0 million for damages to the environment, plus interest. The plaintiffs also seek an order requiring the facility to remove all waste disposed of since September of 2002, and in general, to conduct an investigation into and remediate the alleged contamination at the facility, as well as damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage, natural resources damages, costs of litigation, and attorney's fees. Although, as described above, this lawsuit was originally brought only against the Company's subsidiary which acquired and operates the Plaquemine facility, the plaintiffs sent on February 23, 2005 a written notice to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality indicating their intent to file a new citizens' suit to seek similar remedies against Clean Harbors, Inc. and Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.

        The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit, and is vigorously defending against the claims made. The Company further believes that, since its acquisition by the Company, the Plaquemine facility has been and now is in full compliance with its operating permits and all applicable state laws, and that any alleged contamination in the "new area of concern" complained of by the plaintiffs was and is already being addressed under the corrective action provisions of its RCRA operating permit. In addition, the Company believes that many of the plaintiffs' claims relate to actions or omissions allegedly taken or caused by third parties that formerly owned and/or operated, or generated or shipped waste to, the Plaquemine facility for which the Company has no legal responsibility under the Sale Order. Although the Company has established reserves to cover its estimated legal costs to be

F-43


incurred in connection with this proceeding, this lawsuit is in its preliminary stages and the Company is therefore unable to estimate any other potential liability relating to the lawsuit.

        In addition to the legal proceedings in which the Company became involved as a result of its acquisition of the CSD assets, the Company is, or in the case of certain recently resolved proceedings was, also involved in certain legal proceedings which have arisen for other reasons. The principal such legal proceedings include certain federal securities class action litigation (which was dismissed on November 30, 2004 as described below), certain Superfund proceedings relating to sites owned by third parties where the Company (or a predecessor) has been named a PRP, certain regulatory proceedings, and litigation involving the former holders of the Company's subordinated notes.

        Federal Securities Class Action Litigation.    On November 18, 2003, an individual plaintiff who purchased 1,700 shares of the Company's common stock filed a purported class action suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and a current and former officer of the Company. The plaintiff alleged violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and regulations promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), and sought certification of a class that would consist of all purchasers of the Company's stock between November 19, 2002 and August 14, 2003. Principally, the complaint alleged that in connection with certain of the Company's public announcements the Company failed to disclose adverse information with respect to the impact of the acquisition of the CSD assets on the Company and that certain financial projections included in those announcements, particularly the guidance issued with respect to anticipated EBITDA for 2003, were overstated and made without reasonable basis. Subsequently, three additional plaintiffs who purchased 300, 16,500 and 1,500 shares of the Company's common stock, respectively, filed complaints in the same court containing essentially the same allegations and seeking the same class certification.

        The Company believes that at all times during the purported class period the Company and the two other defendants conducted themselves in compliance with relevant securities laws and that the guidance as to anticipated EBITDA and other forward-looking statements contained in the Company's public announcements are protected by the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On November 30, 2004, all of the lawsuits described in the preceding paragraph were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the lead counsel for the plaintiffs. The cases were never certified as a class action, and the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their cases by means of a voluntary stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, without financial consideration and with mutual release of all claims.

        Superfund Sites Not Related to CSD Acquisition.    The Company has been named as a PRP at 28 sites that are not related to the CSD acquisition. Fourteen of these sites involve two subsidiaries which the Company acquired from ChemWaste, a former subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. As part of that acquisition, ChemWaste agreed to indemnify the Company with respect to any liability of those two subsidiaries for waste disposed of before the Company acquired them. Accordingly, Waste Management is paying all costs of defending those two Company subsidiaries in those 14 cases, including legal fees and settlement costs.

F-44


        The Company's subsidiary which owns the Bristol, Connecticut facility is involved in one of the 28 Superfund sites. As part of the acquisition of that facility, the seller and its now parent company, Cemex, S.A., agreed to indemnify the Company with respect to any liability for waste disposed of before the Company acquired the facility, which would include any liability arising from Superfund sites.

        Eleven of the 28 Superfund sites involve subsidiaries acquired by the Company which had been designated as PRPs with respect to such sites prior to acquisition of such subsidiaries by the Company. Some of these sites have been settled, and the Company believes its ultimate liability with respect to the remaining such sites will not be material to the Company's result of operations, cash flow from operations or financial position.

        As of December 31, 2004, the Company had reserves of $0.2 million for cleanup of Superfund sites not related to the CSD acquisition at which either the Company or a predecessor has been named as a PRP. However, there can be no guarantee that the Company's ultimate liabilities for these sites will not materially exceed this amount or that indemnities applicable to any of these sites will be available to pay all or a portion of related costs.

        Kimball Facility.    On April 2, 2003, Region VII of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA Region VII") in Kansas City, Kansas, served a Complaint, Compliance Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing ("CCO") on the Company's subsidiary which operates an incineration facility in Kimball, Nebraska. The CCO stems from an inspection of the Kimball facility between April 8 and 10, 2002. Thereafter, EPA Region VII issued a Notice of Violation ("NOV") for certain alleged violations of RCRA. The Company responded to the NOV by letter and contested the allegations. After extensive settlement negotiations, on February 23, 2004, the Company and EPA Region VII executed a Consent Agreement and Final Order that included a Supplemental Environmental Project ("SEP"). The Company will be required to perform and account for the SEP in accordance with the EPA's SEP Policy. The SEP will involve cleaning out chemicals from high school laboratories, art departments and other campus locations, with all such work to be performed by the Company's own trained field chemists. The SEP will also include the proper packaging, labeling, manifesting, transportation, and ultimately disposal, recycling or re-use of these chemicals at the hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities owned and operated by the Company's subsidiaries, in lieu of the payment of any further civil penalties. The Company will have two years to complete the performance of the SEP, and any remaining amounts then still owed and outstanding will have to be paid in cash at that time, as calculated pursuant to a sliding scale formula that reduces the amount of cash that will be owed as more of the environmental services are rendered over the two-year period. At December 31, 2004, the Company had accrued $132 thousand for its SEP liability.

        Chicago Facility.    By letter dated January 16, 2004, Region V of the EPA ("EPA Region V") in Chicago, Illinois notified the Company that EPA Region V believes the Company's Chicago, Illinois facility may be in violation of the National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations Subpart FF regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act and that EPA Region V may seek injunctive relief and civil penalties for these alleged violations. The alleged violations pertain to total annual benzene quantity determinations and reporting, provisions of individual waste stream identification and emissions control information, and treatment and control requirements for the benzene waste streams.

F-45


EPA Region V is seeking a fine of $325 thousand. The Company believes that its Chicago facility complies in all material respects with these regulations and has engaged in ongoing settlement discussions with EPA Region V to resolve the issues described in the letter from EPA Region V without litigation. The Company believes that the cost of resolving this matter will not be material to the Company's results of operations or financial position.

        Chicago Facility.    On February 12, 2004, the Company's subsidiary which owns the Chicago facility was notified by the Illinois Attorney General's Office that an enforcement action was being initiated against such facility. The enforcement action alleges that the Chicago facility has violated its operating permit, certain Illinois Pollution Control Board regulations, and allegedly applicable provisions of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ("NESHAPs"). The Illinois Attorney General's Office announced that it was seeking $170 thousand in penalties. Legal and compliance representatives of the Company have held discussions with the Illinois Attorney General's Office and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and anticipate that a Supplemental Environmental Project will be negotiated that will substantially reduce the cash component of the penalty in exchange for agreeing to the installation of equipment upgrades at the facility designed to address and control air emissions from operations. These negotiations are ongoing, and although significant progress has been made, there can be no assurance that a settlement can be reached or that the penalty will be reduced.

        London, Ontario Facility.    Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc., and one of the Company's Canadian subsidiaries, Clean Harbors Canada, Inc., received a summons alleging a number of regulatory offenses under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act as a result of a fire in October 2003 at a Clean Harbors Canada, Inc., waste transfer facility in London, Ontario. A worker at the facility received serious injuries as a result of the fire. The initial appearance on this matter occurred on November 22, 2004. The Company has not yet determined whether to defend the charges or attempt to negotiate a settlement. The Company has not accrued any liability associated with this matter because any potential liability is not now estimable.

        Litigation Involving Former Holders of Subordinated Notes.    On April 30, 2001, the Company issued to John Hancock Life Insurance Company, Special Value Bond Fund, LLC, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and certain other institutional lenders (collectively, the "Lenders") $35 million of 16% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2008 (the "Subordinated Notes") as part of the Company's refinancing of all its then outstanding indebtedness. Under the Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of April 12, 2001, between the Company and the Lenders (the "Purchase Agreement"), the Company was also required to pay a $350 thousand closing fee and issue to the Lenders warrants for an aggregate of 1,519,020 shares of the Company's common stock (the "Warrants") exercisable at any time prior to April 30, 2008 at an exercise price of $.01 per share. The Purchase Agreement contained covenants limiting (with certain exceptions) the Company's ability to acquire other businesses or incur additional indebtedness without the consent of a majority in interest of the Lenders. The Purchase Agreement also provided that, if the Company should elect to prepay the Subordinated Notes prior to maturity, the Company would be obligated to pay a prepayment penalty which, in the case of a prepayment prior to April 30, 2004, would include a so-called "Make Whole Amount" computed using a discount rate

F-46

2.5% above the then current yield on United States government securities of equal maturity to the Subordinated Notes. The Purchase Agreement also provided that, if the Company should default on any of the terms of the Purchase Agreement including the covenants described above, the Lenders would have the right to call the Subordinated Notes for payment at an amount equal to the principal, accrued interest and the so-called "Make Whole Amount" then in effect.

        During several months prior to the Company's acquisition of the CSD assets effective September 7, 2002, the Company sought the Lenders' cooperation with respect to such acquisition and to include the Lenders in a refinancing of the Company's outstanding debt (which might involve leaving the Subordinated Notes outstanding or refinancing them). The Lenders, however, ultimately refused to provide any such cooperation. The Company thus notified the Lenders that it was proceeding with the acquisition of the CSD assets, which would be a violation of certain covenants in the Purchase Agreement, and the Lenders then called the Subordinated Notes for payment, including principal, interest and the "Make Whole Amount" of $16,991,129, an amount equal to 48.5% of the principal amount of the Subordinated Notes. In response to the Lenders' demand, the Company immediately paid in full the amount demanded, while notifying the Lenders that it was paying the "Make Whole Amount" under protest. It is the Company's position that if the payment to the Lenders is not deemed to be voluntary and the 48.5% "Make Whole Amount" is deemed unconscionable, the "Make-Whole Amount" is likely to be held unenforceable under Massachusetts case law.

        Shortly after the closing of the acquisition of the CSD assets, the Company wrote to the Lenders demanding a return of the prepayment penalty, in response to which, on September 27, 2002, the Lenders filed a complaint in the Superior Court in Norfolk County, Massachusetts asking the Court to determine the prepayment penalty to be valid and enforceable. On October 1, 2002, the Company filed a complaint in the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court in Suffolk County, Massachusetts seeking a declaratory judgment that the "Make Whole Amount" is an unenforceable penalty and seeking an order for the return of the amount paid as a penalty, less the Lenders' actual damages (if any), plus interest and costs. In the case of certain of the Lenders, the Company also seeks a judgment that those Lenders' receipt of their share of the "Make Whole Amount," the closing payment and the fair value of the Warrants constitutes a violation of applicable Massachusetts usury laws. The Company filed a motion seeking to consolidate both legal proceedings in the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which motion was granted. Discovery in the proceedings was completed and all parties served and filed motions for summary judgment. On March 15, 2004, the Court granted summary judgment for the Lenders ruling that the "Make Whole Amount" was enforceable, and on May 15, 2004 the court ordered the Company pay $323 thousand to the Lenders for legal and expert cost reimbursement. The Company has appealed the Court's rulings, and the Lenders have cross-appealed as to the amount of legal and expert cost reimbursement. The Appeals Court heard the appeals on March 5, 2005, but a decision by the Court is not expected for several months. The Company has not accrued the Lenders' legal and expert costs because the Company now believes that such payment is not probable.

F-47

(12) CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE LIABILITIES

        The Company records environmental-related accruals for closure and post-closure obligations at both its landfill and non-landfill operations. See Note 4 for further discussion of the Company's methodology for estimating and recording these accruals.

        Reserves for closure and post-closure obligations are as follows (in thousands):

 
   2004
   2003
Landfill facilities:            
  Cell closure   $ 14,959   $ 13,744
  Facility closure     1,726     1,713
  Post-closure     2,203     2,246
   
 
      18,888     17,703
   
 
Non-landfill retirement liability:            
  Facility closure     6,763     7,992
   
 
      25,651     25,695
Less obligation classified as current     2,930     6,480
   
 
  Long-term closure and post-closure liability   $ 22,721   $ 19,215
   
 

        All of the landfill facilities included in the table above are active as of December 31, 2004.

        Anticipated payments (based on current estimated costs) and anticipated timing of necessary regulatory approvals to commence work on closure and post-closure activities for each of the next five years and thereafter are as follows (in thousands):

Year ending December 31,
    
  
2005   $ 3,097  
2006     3,347  
2007     5,188  
2008     7,207  
2009     3,411  
Thereafter     205,570  
       
 
Undiscounted closure and post-closure liabilities     227,820  
Less:   Reserves to be provided (including discount of $120.1 million) over remaining site lives     (202,169 )
       
 
Present value of closure and post-closure liabilities   $ 25,651  
       
 

F-48

        The changes to closure and post-closure liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2004 are as follows (in thousands):

 
   December 31,
2003
   New Asset
Retirement
Obligations
   Accretion
   Changes in
Estimate
Charged to
Statement of
Operations
   Benefit to
Statement of
Operations for
Other Changes
in Estimates
   Currency
Translation,
Reclassifications
and Other
   Payments
   December 31,
2004
Landfill retirement liability   $ 17,703   $ 958   $ 2,460   $ (1,069 ) $ (1,157 ) $ 43   $ (50 ) $ 18,888
Non-landfill retirement liability     7,992     —     902     (928 )   (8 )   6     (1,201 )   6,763
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total   $ 25,695   $ 958   $ 3,362   $ (1,997 ) $ (1,165 ) $ 49   $ (1,251 ) $ 25,651
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

        The changes to closure and post-closure liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2003 are as follows (in thousands):

 
   December 31,
2002
   Cumulative
Effect of
Changes in
Accounting
for Asset
Retirement
Obligations
   Purchase
Accounting
Adjustment
Due to
Change in
Accounting
for Asset
Retirement
Obligations
   Other
Purchase
Accounting
Adjustments
   New Asset
Retirement
Obligations
   Accretion
and
Other
Charges
to
Expense
   Decrease
Due to
Increase in
Highly
Probable
Airspace
and other
Changes in
Estimates
   Currency
Translation,
Reclassifications
and Other
   Payments
   December 31,
2003
Landfill retirement liability   $ 60,765   $ (79 ) $ (38,794 ) $ 2,851   $ 1,004   $ 3,476   $ (11,596 ) $ 127   $ (51 ) $ 17,703
Non-landfill retirement liability     —     1,381     8,489     761     —     1,042     49     (1,045 )   (2,685 )   7,992
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total   $ 60,765   $ 1,302   $ (30,305 ) $ 3,612   $ 1,004   $ 4,518   $ (11,547 ) $ (918 ) $ (2,736 ) $ 25,695
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

        In 2003 and 2004 a reduction in closure and post-closure liabilities arose as a result of the Company increasing its highly probable landfill airspace. After acquiring landfills as part of the CSD assets from Safety-Kleen in 2002, Clean Harbors' management identified new business opportunities that made possible the expansion, and further utilization, of the assets that the previous owners had believed to be exhausted. The resulting increase in airspace was accounted for by reducing landfill retirement liabilities (due to delaying the closure and post-closure expenditures) and by correspondingly reducing landfill assets by $11.6 million and $1.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2004 respectively (see tables of changes to closure and post-closure liabilities immediately above).

        Rates used to accrue closure and post-closure costs are calculated based upon the dollar value of estimated final liabilities, the surveyed remaining airspace of the landfill, and the time estimated to consume the remaining airspace. Consequently, rates vary for each landfill and for each accrual category, and are recalculated each year. During the years ended December 31, 2004, and 2003, asset retirement obligations were accrued at an average rate of $1.23 and $1.46, respectively. The changes in the accrual rate of asset retirement obligations resulted from the $11.6 million reduction in landfill retirement liability described immediately above.

        The Company adopted SFAS No. 143 as of January 1, 2003. The following table presents the liability for asset retirement obligations calculated on a pro forma basis as of December 31, 2002 as if

F-49


the Statement had been previously adopted. The pro forma amounts of the liabilities were calculated using the same assumptions as were used upon the adoption of the Standard (amounts in thousands):

 
   Pro Forma
December 31,
2002
Landfill facilities   $ 24,748
Non-landfill facilities     8,871
   
Total   $ 33,619
   

        The following table shows the adjustment to restated net loss and basic and diluted loss per share as if SFAS No. 143 was adopted as of January 1, 2002 (in thousands except for per share amounts):

 
   (Restated)
  
 
   2002
  
Restated net loss   $ (28,447 )
Accretion of closure and post-closure liabilities, net of tax     155  
   
 
Adjusted net loss   $ (28,292 )
   
 
Basic loss per share:        
  Restated loss attributable to common shareholders   $ (2.44 )
  Accretion of closure and post-closure liabilities, net of tax     0.01  
   
 
  Adjusted restated loss attributable to common shareholders   $ (2.43 )
   
 
Diluted loss per share:        
  Restated loss attributable to common shareholders   $ (2.44 )
  Accretion of closure and post-closure liabilities, net of tax     0.01  
   
 
  Adjusted restated loss attributable to common shareholders   $ (2.43 )
   
 

(13) REMEDIAL LIABILITIES

        Remedial liabilities are obligations to investigate, alleviate or eliminate the effects of a release (or threat of a release) of hazardous substances into the environment and may also include corrective action under RCRA. The Company's operating subsidiaries' remediation obligations can be further characterized as Legal, Superfund, Long-term Maintenance and One-Time Projects. Legal liabilities are typically comprised of litigation matters that can involve certain aspects of environmental cleanup and can include third party claims for property damage or bodily injury allegedly arising from or caused by exposure to hazardous substances originating from Company activities or operations, or in certain cases, from the actions or inactions of other persons or companies. Superfund liabilities are typically claims alleging that the Company is a potentially responsible party and/or is potentially liable for environmental response, removal, remediation and cleanup costs at/or from either an owned or third party site. As described in Note 11, "Legal Proceedings," Superfund liabilities also include certain Superfund liabilities to governmental entities for which the Company is potentially liable to reimburse the Sellers in connection with the Company's 2002 acquisition of the CSD assets from Safety-Kleen Corp. Long-term Maintenance includes the costs of groundwater monitoring, treatment system

F-50


operations, permit fees and facility maintenance for discontinued operations. One-Time Projects include the costs necessary to comply with regulatory requirements for the removal or treatment of contaminated materials.

        SFAS No. 143 applies to asset retirement obligations that arise from ordinary business operations. The Company became subject to almost all of its remedial liabilities as part of the acquisition of the CSD from Safety-Kleen Corp., and the Company believes that most of the remedial obligations did not arise from normal operations. Remedial liabilities to which the Company became subject in connection with the acquisition of the CSD assets have been and will continue to be inflated using the inflation rate at the time of acquisition (2.4%) until the expected time of payment, then discounted at the risk-free interest rate at the time of acquisition (4.9%). Remedial liabilities incurred subsequent to the acquisition and remedial liabilities that existed prior to the acquisition have been and will continue to be recorded at the estimated current value of the liability, which is usually neither increased for inflation nor reduced for discounting.

        The Company records environmental-related accruals for remedial obligations at both its landfill and non-landfill operations. See Note 4 for further discussion of the Company's methodology for estimating and recording these accruals.

        Reserves for remedial obligations are as follows (in thousands):

 
   2004
   2003
Remedial liabilities for landfill sites   $ 4,985   $ 5,525
Remedial liabilities for discontinued facilities not now used in active conduct of the Company's business     95,116     97,535
Remedial liabilities (including Superfund) for non-landfill open sites     55,516     54,376
   
 
      155,617     157,436
Less obligation classified as current     11,328     14,802
   
 
Long-term remedial liability   $ 144,289   $ 142,634
   
 

        Anticipated payments (based on current estimated costs) and anticipated timing of necessary regulatory approvals to commence work on remedial activities for each of the next five years and thereafter are as follows (in thousands):

Year ending December 31,
    
  
2005   $ 11,328  
2006     11,351  
2007     16,970  
2008     16,490  
2009     12,185  
Thereafter     133,535  
   
 
Undiscounted remedial liabilities     201,859  
Less: Discount     (46,242 )
   
 
Present value of remedial liabilities   $ 155,617  
   
 

F-51

        The anticipated payments for Long-term Maintenance range from $4.5 million to $6.9 million per year over the next five years. Spending on One-Time Projects for the next five years ranges from $1.1 million to $8.2 million per year with an average expected payment of $5.0 million per year. Legal and Superfund liabilities payments are expected to be between $1.7 million and $2.8 million per year for the next five years with the exception of 2009 where spending is anticipated to be $6.4 million primarily because of one case. These estimates are managed on a daily basis, reviewed at least quarterly, and adjusted as additional information becomes available.

        The changes to remedial liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2004 are as follows (in thousands):

 
   December 31,
2003
   Accretion
   Changes in
Estimate
Charged to
Statement of
Operations
   Other Changes
in Estimate
   Currency
Translation,
Reclassifications
and Other
   Payments
   December 31,
2004
Remedial liabilities for landfill sites   $ 5,525   $ 225   $ (420 ) $ —   $ 140   $ (485 ) $ 4,985
Remedial liabilities for discontinued facilities not now used in the active conduct of the Company's business     97,535     4,390     (841 )   392     196     (6,556 )   95,116
Remedial liabilities (including Superfund) for non-landfill open sites     54,376     2,417     (29 )   —     765     (2,013 )   55,516
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total   $ 157,436   $ 7,032   $ (1,290 ) $ 392   $ 1,101   $ (9,054 ) $ 155,617
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

F-52

        The changes to remedial liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2003 are as follows (in thousands):

 
   December 31, 2002
   Cumulative Effect of Changes in Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations
   Purchase Accounting Adjustment Due to Change in Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations
   Other Purchase Accounting Adjustments
   Accretion and Other Charges to Expense
   Currency Translation, Reclassifications and Other
   Payments
   December 31, 2003
Remedial liabilities for landfill sites   $ 4,519   $ —   $ —   $ 662   $ 230   $ 358   $ (244 ) $ 5,525
Remedial liabilities for discontinued facilities not now used in the active conduct of the Company's business     104,899     537     (16,363 )   6,003     3,804     2,228     (3,573 )   97,535
Remedial liabilities (including Superfund) for non-landfill open sites     34,428     —     (16 )   18,059     2,347     978     (1,420 )   54,376
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total   $ 143,846   $ 537   $ (16,379 ) $ 24,724   $ 6,381   $ 3,564   $ (5,237 ) $ 157,436
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

        Estimation of Certain Preacquisition Contingencies—SFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies," requires that an estimated loss from a loss contingency be accrued and recorded as a liability if it is both probable and estimable, but the Statement does not permit a company acquiring assets to record as part of the purchase price those assumed liabilities which are not both probable and estimable. As described in Note 11, "Legal Proceedings," under the headings "Ville Mercier Legal Proceedings" and "Marine Shale Processors," as of December 31, 2002 the Company was unable to estimate the amount of potential remedial liabilities in connection with the facility and sites which are the subject of these proceedings, but, as part of the integration plan of the CSD acquisition, the Company committed to obtaining the data required so that the Company could record such potential liabilities as adjustments to the purchase price. Sufficient additional information on these proceedings was obtained prior to the first anniversary to allow the Company to record these potential liabilities as adjustments to the purchase price for the CSD assets in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States. Accordingly, additional discounted environmental liabilities were recorded as part of the purchase price in the quarter ended September 30, 2003. At December 31, 2004, the Company had recorded reserves of $13.7 million and $10.6 million relating to Marine Shale Processors and the Ville Mercier Legal Proceedings, respectively.

        Remedial liabilities, including Superfund liabilities—As described in the tables above under "Reserves for remedial obligations," the Company had as of December 31, 2004 a total of $155.6 million of estimated liabilities for remediation of environmental contamination, of which $5.0 million related to the Company's landfills and $150.6 million related to non-landfill facilities (including Superfund sites owned by third parties). The Company periodically evaluates potential remedial liabilities at sites that it owns or operates or to which the Company or the Sellers of the CSD assets (or the respective predecessors of the Company or the Sellers) transported or disposed of waste, including 56 Superfund sites as of December 31, 2004. The Company periodically reviews and evaluates

F-53


sites requiring remediation, including Superfund sites, giving consideration to the nature (i.e., owner, operator, arranger, transporter or generator) and the extent (i.e., amount and nature of waste hauled to the location, number of years of site operations or other relevant factors) of the Company's (or the Sellers') alleged connection with the site, the extent (if any) to which the Company believes it may have an obligation to the Sellers to indemnify cleanup costs in connection with the site, the regulatory context surrounding the site, the accuracy and strength of evidence connecting the Company (or the Sellers) to the location, the number, connection and financial ability of other named and unnamed PRPs and the nature and estimated cost of the likely remedy. Where the Company concludes that it is probable that a liability has been incurred, provision is made, based upon management's judgment and prior experience, for the Company's best estimate of the liability.

        Remediation liabilities are inherently difficult to estimate. Estimating remedial liabilities requires that the existing environmental contamination be understood. There is a risk that the actual quantities of contaminates differ from the results of the site investigation, and there is a risk that contaminants exist that have not been identified by the site investigation. In addition, the amount of remedial liabilities recorded is dependent on the remedial method selected. There is a risk that funds will be expended on a remedial solution that is not successful, which could result in the additional incremental costs of an alternative solution. Such estimates, which are subject to change, are subsequently revised if and when additional information becomes available.

        In connection with the Company's acquisition of the CSD assets, the Company performed extensive due diligence, including hiring third-party engineers and attorneys to estimate accurately the aggregate liability for remedial liabilities to which the Company became potentially liable as a result of the acquisition. Those remedial liabilities relate to the active and discontinued hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities which the Company acquired as part of the CSD assets and 35 Superfund sites owned by third parties for which the Company agreed to indemnify certain remedial liabilities owed or potentially owed by the Sellers and payable to governmental entities. In the case of each such facility and site, the Company's estimate of remediation liabilities involved an analysis of such factors as: (i) the nature and extent of environmental contamination (if any), (ii) the terms of applicable permits and agreements with regulatory authorities as to cleanup procedures and whether modifications to such permits and agreements will likely need to be negotiated, (iii) the cost of performing anticipated cleanup activities based upon current technology, and (iv) in the case of Superfund and other sites where other parties will also be responsible for a portion of the cleanup costs, the likely allocation of such costs and the ability of such other parties to pay their share. Based upon the Company's analysis of each of the above factors in light of currently available facts and legal interpretations, existing technology, and presently enacted laws and regulations, the Company estimates that its aggregate liabilities as of December 31, 2004 (as calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States) for future remediation relating to all of its owned or leased facilities and the Superfund sites for which the Company has current or potential liability is approximately $155.6 million. The Company also estimates that it is "reasonably possible" as that term is defined in SFAS No. 5 ("more than remote but less than likely"), that the amount of such total liabilities could be up to $22.3 million greater than such $155.6 million. Future changes in either available technology or applicable laws or regulations could affect such estimates of environmental liabilities. Since the Company's satisfaction of the liabilities will occur over many years and in some cases over periods of 30 years or more, the Company cannot now reasonably predict the nature or

F-54


extent of future changes in either available technology or applicable laws or regulations and the impact that those changes, if any, might have on the current estimates of environmental liabilities.

        The following tables show, respectively, (i) the amounts of such estimated liabilities associated with the types of facilities and sites involved and (ii) the amounts of such estimated liabilities associated with each facility or site which represents at least 5% of the total and with all other facilities and sites as a group.

        Estimates Based on Type of Facility or Site (dollars in thousands):

Type of Facility or Site
   Discounted
Remedial
Liability
   % of Total
   Discounted
Reasonably
Possible
Additional Losses
Facilities now used in active conduct of the Company's business (14 facilities)   $ 38,490   24.7 % $ 7,534
Discontinued CSD facilities not now used in active conduct of the Company's business but acquired because assumption of remedial liabilities for such facilities was part of the purchase price for CSD assets (18 facilities)     94,939   61.0     11,471
Superfund sites owned by third parties on which wastes generated or shipped by the Sellers (or their predecessors) are present (19 sites)     20,180   13.0     1,863
Sites for which the Company had liabilities prior to the acquisition of CSD assets (3 Superfund sites and 6 other sites)     2,008   1.3     1,475
   
 
 
Total   $ 155,617   100.0 % $ 22,343
   
 
 

F-55

        Estimates Based on Amount of Potential Liability (dollars in thousands):

Location
   Type of Facility or Site
   Discounted
Remedial
Liability
   % of Total
   Discounted
Reasonably
Possible
Additional
Losses
Baton Rouge, LA   Closed incinerator and landfill   $ 38,552   24.8 % $ 5,391
Bridgeport, NJ   Closed incinerator     27,657   17.8     3,345
Marine Shale Processors   Potential third party Superfund site     13,739   8.8     1,379
Mercier, Quebec   Open incineration facility and legal proceedings     11,325   7.3     1,163
Roebuck, SC   Closed incinerator     10,438   6.7     832
Various   All other incinerators, landfills, wastewater treatment facilities and service centers (35 facilities)     47,271   30.4     9,556
Various   All other Superfund sites (each representing less than 5% of total liabilities) owned by third parties on which wastes generated or shipped by either the Company or the Sellers (or their predecessors) are present (21 sites)     6,635   4.2     677
       
 
 
Total   $ 155,617   100.0 % $ 22,343
       
 
 

        Revisions to remedial reserve requirements may result in upward or downward adjustments to income from operations in any given period. The Company believes that its extensive experience in the environmental services business, as well as its involvement with a large number of sites, provides a reasonable basis for estimating its aggregate liability. It is reasonably possible that legal, technological, regulatory or enforcement developments, the results of environmental studies or other factors could necessitate the recording of additional liabilities and/or the revision of currently recorded liabilities that could be material. The impact of such future events cannot be estimated at the current time.

F-56

(14) FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

        The carrying amounts of cash and cash equivalents, and restricted cash and cash equivalents approximate fair value. The fair value of the marketable securities, which consist of auction rate securities, is par value, at which they trade. The fair value of the Senior Secured Notes is based on quoted market price. The Company borrowings at variable interest rates approximate fair value because the interest rates are based on floating rates identified by reference to market rates. The fair values of the Company's Subordinated Loans could not be determined, since there was no active market in these securities. At December 31, 2004 and 2003, the estimated fair values of the Company's financial instruments are as follows (in thousands):

 
   Carrying
Amount
   Fair
Value
December 31, 2004            
  Cash and cash equivalents   $ 31,081   $ 31,081
  Marketable securities     16,800     16,800
  Senior Secured Notes     150,000     159,516

December 31, 2003
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Cash and cash equivalents   $ 6,331   $ 6,331
  Restricted cash and cash equivalents     88,817     88,817
  Subordinated Loans for which no quoted market prices were available     40,000     —
  Borrowings at variable rates     142,500     142,500

        See Notes 4, 7 and 10 for further discussion on restricted cash and cash equivalents.

(15) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

        Leases.    The Company leases facilities, service centers and personal property under certain operating leases. Some of these lease agreements contain an escalation clause for increased taxes and operating expenses and are renewable at the option of the Company. The Company also leases certain equipment under capital lease obligations, which consists primarily of rolling stock and laboratory equipment. Lease terms range from two to seven years. The following is a summary of future minimum

F-57

payments under capital and operating leases that have initial or remaining noncancelable lease terms in excess of one year at December 31, 2004 (in thousands):

Year
   Total
Capital
Leases
   Total
Operating
Leases
2005   $ 1,872   $ 9,104
2006     1,707     5,955
2007     1,178     4,024
2008     817     2,896
2009     138     2,251
Thereafter     10     1,297
   
 
Total minimum lease payments     5,722   $ 25,527
         
Less: imputed interest at interest rates ranging from 1.67% to 35.9%     715      
   
     
Present value of future minimum lease payments   $ 5,007      
   
     
Total capital lease obligations   $ 5,007      
Less: current portion of capital lease obligations     1,522      
   
     
Long-term capital lease obligations   $ 3,485      
   
     

        During the years 2004, 2003 and 2002, rent expense was approximately $32.3 million, $30.0 million, and $17.9 million, respectively.

        Other Contingencies.    The Company is subject to various regulatory requirements, including the procurement of requisite licenses and permits at its facilities. These licenses and permits, without which the Company's operations would be adversely affected, are subject to periodic renewal. The Company anticipates that, once a license or permit is issued with respect to a facility, the license or permit will be renewed at the end of its term if the facility's operations are in compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements.

        Under the Company's insurance programs, coverage is obtained for catastrophic exposures, as well as those risks required to be insured by law or contract. It is the policy of the Company to retain a significant portion of certain expected losses related primarily to workers' compensation, health insurance, comprehensive general, environmental impairment and vehicle liability. Provisions for losses expected under these programs are recorded based upon the Company's estimates of the aggregate liability for claims. The deductible per occurrence for the workers' compensation, general liability and vehicle liability is $0.5 million. The deductible per occurrence for the environmental impairments is $1.0 million. At December 31, 2004 and 2003, the Company had accrued $4.4 million and $4.4 million as restated, respectively, for its self-insurance liabilities. Actual expenditures in future periods can differ materially from accruals based on estimates.

        Gain Contingency.    In 2003, the Company filed an insurance claim in the amount of $4.5 million for reimbursement of costs incurred and lost profits relating to a fire that occurred at a then CSD-owned facility that the Company acquired as part of the acquisition of the CSD assets from Safety-Kleen Corp. The Company recorded $1.2 million as a receivable for out-of-pocket costs, and the Company determined that the $3.3 million of the claim related to lost profits was a gain contingency.

F-58


As of December 31, 2004, the Company had $1.2 million recorded as a receivable for out-of-pocket costs. The Company will record the portion of the claim that represents lost profits as a component of other income if or when a settlement is reached with the insurance company.

(16) INCOME TAXES

        The domestic and foreign components of income (loss) before provision for income taxes and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle are as follows (in thousands):

 
   For the Year Ended December 31,
  
 
    
   (Restated)
   (Restated)
  
 
   2004
   2003
   2002
  
Domestic   $ (4,906 ) $ (27,602 ) $ (31,854 )
Foreign     13,549     15,390     7,194  
   
 
 
 
Total   $ 8,643   $ (12,212 ) $ (24,660 )
   
 
 
 

        The provision for income taxes consists of the following (in thousands):

 
   For the Year Ended December 31,
  
 
   2004
   2003
   2002
  
Current:                    
  Federal   $ (124 ) $ —   $ (545 )
  State     50     185     610  
  Foreign     5,944     5,701     2,047  
   
 
 
 
Total     5,870     5,886     2,112  
   
 
 
 
Deferred                    
  Federal     —     —     488  
  State     —     —     564  
  Foreign     173     (564 )   623  
   
 
 
 
Total     173     (564 )   1,675  
   
 
 
 
Net provision for income taxes   $ 6,043   $ 5,322   $ 3,787  
   
 
 
 

F-59

        The effective income tax rate varies from the amount computed using the statutory federal income tax rate as follows:

 
   For the Year Ended December 31,
  
 
    
   (Restated)
   (Restated)
  
 
   2004
   2003
   2002
  
Book income at statutory rate   $ 2,939   $ (4,152 ) $ (8,384 )
State income taxes, net of federal benefit     (304 )   148     556  
Foreign rate differential     1,349     330     202  
Foreign income inclusion     4,529     3,378     2,446  
Adjustment of prior year's estimated attributes     645     (362 )   (456 )
Change in federal valuation allowance     1,034     5,632     8,934  
Other     609     348     489  
Tax credits, net     (4,758 )   —     —  
   
 
 
 
Net provision for income taxes.   $ 6,043   $ 5,322   $ 3,787  
   
 
 
 

        The components of the total net deferred tax assets and liabilities at December 31, 2004 and 2003 were as follows (in thousands):

 
   2004
   (Restated)
2003
  
Deferred tax assets:              
  Workers compensation accrual   $ 1,753   $ 1,775  
  Provision for doubtful accounts     1,144     1,228  
  Closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities     45,072     47,771  
  Accrued expenses     2,250     1,497  
  Accrued compensation     10     446  
  Net operating loss carryforwards     17,661     23,706  
  Tax credit carryforwards     12,525     1,660  
   
 
 
  Total deferred tax asset     80,415     78,083  
   
 
 
Deferred tax liabilities:              
  Property, plant and equipment     (11,198 )   (14,951 )
  Permits and customer databases     (28,623 )   (20,384 )
  Miscellaneous     (204 )   (3,139 )
   
 
 
  Total deferred tax liability     (40,025 )   (38,474 )
   
 
 
Total net deferred tax asset before valuation allowance     40,390     39,609  
   
 
 
  Less valuation allowance     (39,714 )   (32,837 )
   
 
 
  Net deferred tax asset   $ 676   $ 6,772  
   
 
 

        The Company has U.S. federal net operating loss carryovers of approximately $45.2 million at December 31, 2004 which begin to expire in 2012. The Company has federal tax credit carryovers of approximately $1.4 million at December 31, 2004 which begin to expire in 2007 and foreign tax credit carryovers of approximately $11.1 million which begin to expire in 2012.

F-60


        In the first quarter of 2004, the Company recorded a benefit of approximately $0.1 million as the result of a favorable resolution of a federal alternative minimum tax net operating loss carryback claim.

        In the fourth quarter of 2002, the Company recorded a benefit of approximately $0.7 million as a result of the favorable resolution of a federal alternative minimum tax net operating loss carryback claim.

        In the third quarter of 2002, the Company established a $16.9 million valuation allowance on the deferred tax assets recorded in connection with the acquisition of the CSD assets. The valuation allowance was subsequently reduced to $4.4 million in 2003 as a result of adjustments to the deferred tax assets recorded in the acquisition. In the third quarter of 2002, the Company established a valuation allowance against its existing net deferred tax assets position of $1.1 million in recognition of the difficulty posed in projecting future profits in view of the acquisition. All reductions to the valuation allowance associated with the CSD acquisition in the future will be recorded as a decrease to acquisition-related intangible assets, rather than a tax provision benefit as the net deferred tax assets were fully reserved at the time of the related business combination.

        The Company provides for U.S. taxes on all of its foreign earnings as the foreign earnings are not considered to be permanently invested outside the U.S.

        The Company maintains a full valuation allowance against its U.S. deferred tax assets, calculated in accordance with the provisions of SFAS No. 109, "Accounting for Income Taxes," which requires that a valuation allowance be established or maintained when it is "more likely than not" that all or a portion of the deferred tax asset will not be realized.

        The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (the "Act") was enacted on October 24, 2004. The Act makes a number of changes to the income tax laws such as a new reduction for qualifying domestic production activities and the ability to repatriate permanent reinvested foreign earnings at an effective tax rate of 5.25%. The Company is currently reviewing the provisions of the Act and its impact cannot be quantified at this time; however, it is not anticipated that the Act will have a material impact on the Company's income tax provision.

F-61

(17) EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE

        The following is a reconciliation of basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share computations (in thousands except for per share amounts):

 
   Year Ended 2004
  
 
   Loss
(Numerator)
   Shares
(Denominator)
   Loss
Per Share
  
Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle   $ 2,600            
Redemption of Series C Preferred Stock, dividends on Series B and C Preferred Stocks and accretion on Series C Preferred Stock     (11,798 )          
   
           
Basic and diluted loss available to common shareholders before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle     (9,198 ) 14,099   $ (0.65 )
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of tax     —   14,099     —  
   
     
 
Basic and diluted loss attributable to common shareholders   $ (9,198 ) 14,099   $ (0.65 )
   
     
 
 
   Year Ended 2003
  
 
   (Restated)
Loss
(Numerator)
   Shares
(Denominator)
   (Restated)
Loss
Per Share
  
Loss before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle   $ (17,534 )          
Dividends on Series B and C Preferred Stocks and accretion on Series C Preferred Stock     3,287            
   
           
Basic and diluted loss available to common shareholders before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle     (20,821 ) 13,553   $ (1.54 )
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of tax     (66 ) 13,553     —  
   
     
 
Basic and diluted loss attributable to common shareholders   $ (20,887 ) 13,553   $ (1.54 )
   
     
 
 
   Year Ended 2002
  
 
   (Restated)
Loss
(Numerator)
   Shares
(Denominator)
   (Restated)
Loss
Per Share
  
Loss before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle   $ (28,447 )          
Dividends on Series B and C Preferred Stocks and accretion on Series C Preferred Stock     1,291            
   
           
Basic and diluted loss available to common shareholders before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle     (29,738 ) 12,189   $ (2.44 )
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of tax     —   12,189     —  
   
     
 
Basic and diluted loss attributable to common shareholders   $ (29,738 ) 12,189   $ (2.44 )
   
     
 

        Because the effects would be anti-dilutive for the periods presented, the above computation of diluted income (loss) per share excludes the following: (i) for the year ended December 31, 2004, the effect of 2.8 million warrants outstanding issued on June 30, 2004 relating to the redemption of the

F-62


Series C Preferred Stock; (ii) the assumed conversion of the Series C Preferred Stock into 3.3 million and 2.4 million shares of common stock for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively; (iii) the assumed exercise of the warrants issued in conjunction with the $35.0 million of Subordinated Notes in 2001 into 1.2 million shares of common stock for the year ended December 31, 2002; (iv) the assumed exercise of 1.6 million, 1.8 million and 1.2 million stock options for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively; and (v) the assumed conversion of the Series B Preferred Stock into 0.2 million common shares for the year ended December 31, 2004 and into 0.3 million common shares for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002.

(18) REDEEMABLE SERIES C PREFERRED STOCK

        Prior to June 30, 2004, the Company had outstanding 25,000 shares of Series C Convertible Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value ("Series C Preferred Stock"). The Series C Preferred Stock was entitled to receive dividends at an annual rate of 6.0% (such dividends were paid in cash through March 2003 and thereafter accrued and compounded through the redemption date). The Company issued the Series C Preferred Stock for $25.0 million on September 10, 2002, and incurred $2.9 million of issuance costs. The Company determined that the Series C Preferred Stock should be recorded on the Company's financial statements as though the Series C Preferred Stock consisted of two components, namely: (i) non-convertible redeemable preferred stock (the "Host Contract") with a 6.0% annual dividend and (ii) an embedded derivative (the "Embedded Derivative") which reflected the right of the holders of the Series C Preferred Stock to convert into the Company's common stock on the terms set forth in the Series C Preferred Stock. The Series C Preferred Stock reported on the Company's consolidated balance sheet consisted only of the value of the Host Contract (less the issuance costs) plus the amount of accretion in the value of the Host Contract which had been recorded through the balance sheet date with regard to the discount which was originally recorded for the Host Contract, plus the amount of accretion for issuance costs and accrued dividends. Such discount and issuance costs were being accreted over the life of the Series C Preferred Stock, with such accretion being recorded as a reduction in additional paid-in-capital. During the period from January 1 through June 30, 2004, the Company recorded accretion on the discount and issuance costs of the Series C Preferred Stock of $0.7 million. For the six-month period ended December 31, 2004, no accretion was recorded because of the redemption of the Series C Preferred Stock on June 30, 2004. For the year ended December 31, 2003, the amount of accretion recorded as a reduction to additional paid-in capital was $1.3 million. For the year ended December 31, 2002, the Company recorded in Other Long-term Liabilities the fair value of the Embedded Derivative and periodically marked that value to market. As of December 31, 2003, the market value of the embedded derivative was determined to be $9.6 million, and the Company recorded $0.4 million of Other Expense during 2003 to adjust the carrying value of the Embedded Derivative to fair value. As noted below, on June 30, 2004 the Company redeemed the Series C Preferred Stock. At that time, the market value of the Embedded Derivative was determined to be $11.2 million and the Company recorded other expense of $1.6 million through June 30, 2004 to reflect such adjustment.

F-63

        On June 30, 2004, the Company redeemed the Series C Preferred Stock for $25.0 million in cash and paid accrued dividends of $2.0 million. The difference between the $25.0 million paid and the carrying amount of the Series C Preferred Stock of $17.2 million on June 30, 2004 was charged to additional paid-in capital. In addition, the Company issued warrants to purchase 2.8 million shares of the Company's common stock, and the Company paid $0.4 million of cash in lieu of warrants for certain other conversion rights of the holders of the Series C Preferred Stock. The warrants issued are exercisable at $8.00 per common share and expire on September 10, 2009. The Company settled the $11.2 million Embedded Derivative liability through the issuance of the 2.8 million warrants (which the Company valued using the Black-Scholes option pricing model at $9.2 million) together with the $0.4 million of cash that was paid in lieu of warrants, which resulted in a gain on the settlement of the Embedded Derivative of $1.6 million. The gain on the settlement of the Embedded Derivative was recorded as a reduction to refinancing-related expenses. The value of the warrants issued of $9.2 million was credited to additional paid-in capital. Because of the redemption of the Series C Preferred Stock on June 30, 2004, the Company will not be required to make mark-to-market adjustments to the Company's reported income (loss) associated with the Embedded Derivative for any period subsequent to June 30, 2004.

(19) STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY

        As described in Note 3, "Acquisition," effective September 7, 2002, the Company purchased from Safety-Kleen Services, Inc. (the "Seller") and certain of the Seller's domestic subsidiaries substantially all of the assets of the Chemical Services Division (the "CSD") of Safety-Kleen Corp. ("Safety-Kleen"). Regulations of the SEC require the filing of audited financial statements of the acquired company if determined to be a material acquisition. Safety-Kleen publicly disclosed that it had material deficiencies in many of its financial systems, processes and related internal controls. The Seller agreed in the Acquisition Agreement to provide the Company audited balance sheets for the CSD as of the end of each of the CSD's three fiscal years in the period ended August 31, 2001, and the Company filed these balance sheets as part of the Form 8-K filed by the Company with the SEC on September 25, 2002. However, due to Safety-Kleen's material internal control deficiencies, Safety-Kleen's auditors advised Safety-Kleen that they were not able to provide auditors' reports with respect to the CSD's statements of operations and cash flows for such three fiscal years. Additionally, Safety-Kleen's pre-existing deficiencies in financial systems, processes, and related internal controls led the Company to believe that the historical unaudited financial statements of the CSD may not be reliable or accurate. The Company received a "no-action letter" from the SEC staff with respect to the Company's inability to file audited statements of operations and cash flows for the CSD or a pro forma statement of operations based thereon. However, until the Company is able to file audited statements of operations and cash flows reflecting combined operations following the Company's acquisition of the CSD assets for at least three years (or such lesser period as the SEC staff may permit in the future), the Company will not be able to file registration statements for public securities offerings (except for offerings involving employee benefit plans and secondary offerings by holders of warrants and other securities). This could prevent the Company from being able to access the public capital markets until audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2005 are filed, but it does not prevent the Company from obtaining financing through other sources such as private equity or debt placements and bank loans.

F-64

        In 1992 the Company adopted an equity incentive plan, which provides for a variety of incentive awards, including stock options ("1992 Plan"), and in 2000, the Company adopted a stock incentive plan, which provides for awards in the form of incentive stock options, non-qualified stock options and restricted stock ("2000 Plan"). In 2002, the Company amended the 2000 Plan by increasing the awards that can be issued under the 2000 Plan from 0.8 million shares to 1.5 million shares. As of December 31, 2004, all awards under the 1992 and 2000 Plans were in the form of non-qualified stock options. These options generally become exercisable up to five years from the date of grant, subject to certain employment requirements, and terminate ten years from the date of grant. As of December 31, 2004, the Company had reserved 207,581 shares of common stock for issuance under the 2000 Plan, exclusive of shares previously issued or reserved for options previously granted under the 2000 Plan. The 1992 Plan expired on March 15, 2002, but there were outstanding on December 31, 2004 options for an aggregate of 401,265 shares which shall remain in effect until such options are either exercised or expire in accordance with their terms. In addition, on December 31, 2004, there were outstanding options for an aggregate of 31,750 shares under the Company's 1987 Equity Incentive Plan which had expired in 1997.

        Under the terms of the 2000 Plan, as amended, options may be granted to purchase shares of common stock at an exercise price less than the fair market value on the date of grant. No compensation expense related to stock option grants to employees was recorded in 2004, 2003 or 2002, as the option exercise prices were equal to, or greater than, the fair market value on the date of grant.

        During 2004, 2003 and 2002, the Company granted options to non-employees of the Company, and in accordance with SFAS No. 123 "Accounting for Stock Based Compensation," recorded expense of $35 thousand, $29 thousand and $166 thousand related to those options for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

        Activity under the Plans for the three years ended December 31, 2004 is as follows:

 
   Number of
Shares
   Weighted
Average
Exercise Price
Outstanding at December 31, 2001   1,526,882   $ 2.18
  Granted at fair value   193,800     8.14
  Forfeited   (50,020 )   3.08
  Exercised   (478,144 )   2.06
   
 
Outstanding at December 31, 2002   1,192,518     3.17
  Granted at fair value   967,042     12.54
  Forfeited   (154,685 )   11.23
  Exercised   (246,965 )   2.10
   
 
Outstanding at December 31, 2003   1,757,910     7.76
  Granted at fair value   77,833     6.70
  Forfeited   (27,310 )   8.61
  Exercised   (172,665 )   2.26
   
 
Outstanding at December 31, 2004   1,635,768   $ 8.28
   
 

F-65

        Summarized information about stock options outstanding at December 31, 2004 is as follows:

 
    
    
    
   Exercisable
 
    
   Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Life
    
Range of
Exercise Prices
   Number of
Options
Outstanding
   Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
   Number of
Options
   Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
$1.44–1.75   17,000   2.76   $1.53   17,000   $1.53
1.81   101,415   3.32   1.81   101,415   1.81
1.88–2.06   110,900   4.06   1.98   90,600   1.97
2.13–2.42   139,778   3.05   2.22   102,778   2.24
2.50   100,650   5.15   2.50   59,950   2.50
2.61–2.88   14,000   2.06   2.65   13,000   2.63
3.26–3.86   106,800   6.99   3.38   50,000   3.36
5.73–6.46   94,300   8.00   6.05   39,300   6.25
7.52–8.08   21,833   5.25   7.85   6,000   7.89
9.07–9.91   95,667   7.78   9.56   32,778   9.65
10.37–10.78   119,000   7.20   10.55   39,000   10.57
11.22–11.70   20,000   7.86   11.58   15,000   11.70
12.98   694,425   8.14   12.98   139,685   12.98

        Options exercisable at December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002 were 706,506, 559,007, and 586,999, respectively. The weighted average exercise prices for the exercisable options at December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002 were $5.63, $2.88, and $2.39, respectively.

        The fair value of each option granted during 2004, 2003, and 2002 is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following assumptions:

 
   2004
   2003
   2002
  
Dividend yield   none   none   none  
Expected volatility   85.0 % 85.0 % 88.2 %
Risk-free interest rate   3.4 % 3.0 % 4.3 %
Expected life   3.7   4.9   5.9  

        Weighted average fair value of options granted at fair value during:

2004   $ 5.16
   
2003   $ 8.55
   
2002   $ 5.98
   

        There were no options granted at greater than fair value in the periods presented.

        In May of 1995, the Company's stockholders approved an Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "ESPP"), which is a qualified employee stock purchase plan under Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, through which employees of the Company are given the opportunity to

F-66

purchase shares of common stock. According to the ESPP, a total of one million shares of common stock have been reserved for offering to employees, in quarterly offerings of 50,000 shares each plus any shares not issued in any previous quarter, commencing on July 1, 1995 and on the first day of each quarter thereafter. As of December 31, 2004, an aggregate of 132,480 shares remained available for future issuance under the ESPP. Employees who elect to participate in an offering may utilize up to 10% of their payroll for the purchase of common stock at 85% of the closing price of the stock on the first day of such quarterly offering or, if lower, 85% of the closing price on the last day of the offering. During the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, monies were withheld from employees for the purchase of 64,760, 105,537, and 53,937, shares, respectively, of common stock under the ESPP. The weighted average per share fair value of the purchase rights granted under the ESPP during 2004, 2003 and 2002 were $2.81, $1.93, and $2.61, respectively.

        In connection with the issuance on April 30, 2001 of Subordinated Notes (that were repaid in September 2002), the Company issued warrants to purchase 1,519,020 shares of common stock exercisable at $0.01 per share and expiring on April 30, 2008. The proceeds from the issuance of the Subordinated Notes and warrants were allocated based on the relative fair value of the warrants and Subordinated Notes. During the year ended December 31, 2002, warrants for 281,212 shares were exercised, 892 warrants were cancelled upon net exercise, and 1,236,916 warrants remained outstanding at December 31, 2002. During the year ended December 31, 2003, warrants for 1,236,010 shares were exercised, 906 warrants were cancelled upon net exercise, and no warrants remained outstanding at December 31, 2003.

        As further described in Note 18, "Redeemable Series C Preferred Stock," on June 30, 2004, the Company issued warrants to purchase 2.8 million shares of the Company's common stock and the Company paid $0.4 million of cash in lieu of warrants for certain other conversion rights of the holders of the Series C Preferred Stock. The warrants issued are exercisable at $8.00 per common share and expire on September 10, 2009. As of December 31, 2004, there were 2,775,000 warrants outstanding. On February 11, 2005, warrants for 717,060 shares were exercised in a cashless exercise that resulted in the issuance of 420,571 shares of common stock. In connection with the cashless exercise, warrants for 296,489 shares were cancelled. As of February 11, 2005, warrants for 2,057,940 shares remained outstanding.

        On February 16, 1993, the Company issued 112,000 shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value ("Series B Preferred Stock"), for the acquisition of its Spring Grove facility. The liquidation value of each share of Series B Preferred Stock is the liquidation preference of $50.00 plus unpaid dividends. Series B Preferred Stock may be converted by the holder into common stock at a conversion rate which, as of December 31, 2004, was equal to $16.45 per share and is subject to customary antidilution adjustments. There is no expiration date associated with the conversion option. The Company has the option to redeem the Series B Preferred Stock at the liquidation preference plus any accrued dividends with no redemption premium. Each share of Series B Preferred Stock entitles its holder to receive a cumulative annual cash dividend of $4.00 per share, or at the election of the Company, a common stock dividend of equivalent value. On October 19, 2004, 42,000 shares of

F-67

Series B Preferred Stock were converted into 127,680 shares of common stock. As of December 31, 2004, the Company had 70,000 shares of Series B Preferred Stock outstanding.

        Dividends on the Series B Preferred Stock are payable on the 15th day of January, April, July and October, at the rate of $1.00 per share, per quarter. Due to loan covenant restrictions, the Company paid the third and fourth quarter 2003 and the first and second quarter 2004 dividends in equivalent value of common stock. Dividends for other quarters included in the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, were paid in cash.

(20) RESTRUCTURING

        For the year ended December 31, 2002, the Company recorded a restructuring charge of $750,000 related to the acquisition of the assets of the CSD. The restructuring charge consisted of $250,000 for severance for individuals that were employees of the Company prior to the acquisition, and $500,000 of costs associated with the decision to close parts of facilities and sales offices that were operated by the Company prior to the acquisition and that became duplicative due to facilities and sales offices acquired as part of the CSD assets. The Company is in the process of completing the restructuring. The following table summarizes the activity from the acquisition date through December 31, 2004 (dollars in thousands):

 
   Severance
   Locations
    
  
 
   Number of
Employees
   Costs
   Number of
Locations
   Costs
   Total
  
Accrued Restructuring Costs   20   $ 250   9   $ 500   $ 750  
Utilized from acquisition through December 31, 2002   (14 )   (183 ) (7 )   (128 )   (311 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
Balance December 31, 2002   6     67   2     372     439  
Change in estimate   (6 )   (67 ) —     (57 )   (124 )
Utilized year ended December 31, 2003   —     —   —     (81 )   (81 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
Balance December 31, 2003   —     —   2     234     234  
Change in estimate   —     —   —     (22 )   (22 )
Utilized year ended December 31, 2004   —     —   (2 )   (43 )   (43 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
Balance December 31, 2004   —   $ —   —   $ 169   $ 169  
   
 
 
 
 
 

F-68

(21) LOSS ON REFINANCINGS

        As further discussed in Notes 10 and 18, the Company previously had outstanding a $100.0 million three-year revolving credit facility (the "Revolving Credit Facility"), $115.0 million of three-year non-amortizing term loans (the "Senior Loans"), $40.0 million of five-year non-amortizing subordinated loans (the "Subordinated Loans"), Series C Convertible Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value (the "Series C Preferred Stock") and the related embedded derivative (the "Embedded Derivative") which reflected the right of the holders of the Series C Preferred Stock to convert into the Company's common stock on the terms set forth in the Series C Preferred Stock. As described in Note 10, on June 30, 2004, the Company repaid the Revolving Credit Facility, the Senior Loans and the Subordinated Loans, redeemed the Series C Convertible Preferred Stock and settled the related Embedded Derivative liability. The Company recorded refinancing expenses, net of $7.1 million during the three-month period ended June 30, 2004. Such expenses consisted of write-off of deferred financing costs of $5.3 million, prepayment penalties of $3.1 million and other expenses of $0.3 million. These expenses were partially offset by the gain on the settlement of the Embedded Derivative of $1.6 million.

        Prior to the purchase of the CSD assets as discussed in Notes 3, 4, and 11, the Company had outstanding prior to September 10, 2002, $35.0 million of 16% Senior Subordinated Notes ("Subordinated Notes") and $9.6 million of 10.75% economic development revenue bonds ("Bonds"). The total cost of the extinguishment of that debt of approximately $24.7 million was recorded in 2002 and consisted of: (1) a "Make Whole Amount" for the Subordinated Notes of approximately $17.0 million, (2) the defeasance costs on the Bonds of approximately $3.1 million, and (3) the write-off of deferred financing costs for both the Subordinated Notes and the Bonds of approximately $4.6 million, of which approximately $2.4 million represented a write-off of the then unamortized debt issue discount based on the fair value of warrants issued in connection with the Subordinated Notes on April 30, 2001. The Company recorded this loss in the financial statements for the period ended September 30, 2002. As described in Note 11 under "Litigation Involving Former Holders of Subordinated Notes," the Company has initiated litigation against the former holders of the Subordinated Notes seeking to recover the "Make Whole Amount" as an unenforceable penalty under Massachusetts case law.

(22) EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS

        As part of the acquisition of the Canadian subsidiaries of the CSD from Safety-Kleen, the Company assumed responsibility for a defined benefit plan that covers 31 active non-supervisory Canadian employees. The following table presents the net periodic pension cost for the years ended December 31, (in thousands):

 
   2004
   2003
   2002
  
Service cost   $ 100   $ 80   $ 56  
Interest cost     256     236     69  
Expected return on fair value of assets     (266 )   (285 )   (108 )
Net amortization and deferral     —     57     (56 )
   
 
 
 
Net periodic pension cost   $ 90   $ 88   $ (39 )
   
 
 
 

F-69

        Weighted average assumptions used to determine net pension cost during the period:

 
   2004
   2003
   2002
  
Discount rate   5.50 % 5.75 % 6.0 %
Expected return on fair value of assets   7.00 % 7.00 % 7.0 %
Rate of compensation increase   4.68 % 4.17 % 3.9 %

        The long-term rate-of-return-on-assets assumption was determined using a building-block method, which integrates historical inflation, real risk-free rates and risk premiums for the different asset categories forming the plan fund. A weighted average of the above result and the historical return of the plan's fund is then calculated. The current asset mix is assumed to remain constant and a 1% adjustment for investment and custodial fees is taken into account. Unless the result so obtained is significantly different from the previous year assumption, the long-term rate-of-return-on-assets assumption remains unchanged.

        The accumulated benefit obligation was $5.0 million and $4.5 million at December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

        The following table sets forth the changes in benefit obligations, plan assets and the net pension liability accrued on the Company's consolidated balance sheets at December 31, (in thousands):

 
   2004
   2003
  
Change in benefit obligations:              

Benefit obligation at the beginning of year
 
$
4,505
 
$
3,495
 
Service cost     100     80  
Interest cost     256     236  
Employee contributions     29     24  
Actuarial loss     42     36  
Benefits paid     (191 )   (161 )
Currency translation     351     795  
   
 
 
Benefit obligation at end of year   $ 5,092   $ 4,505  
   
 
 
 
   2004
   2003
  
Change in plan assets:              

Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year
 
$
3,826
 
$
2,876
 
Actual return on plan assets     345     285  
Employer contributions     149     140  
Employee contributions     29     23  
Benefits paid     (191 )   (161 )
Currency translation     309     663  
   
 
 
Fair value of plan assets at end of year   $ 4,467   $ 3,826  
   
 
 

F-70

 
   2004
   2003
  
Amount underfunded   $ (625 ) $ (679 )
Unrecognized net actuarial loss     8     46  
Unrecognized prior service cost     —     —  
Currency translation     1     —  
   
 
 
Pension liability accrued   $ (616 ) $ (633 )
   
 
 

        Weighted average assumptions used to determine pension benefit obligations at year end:

 
   2004
   2003
   2002
  
Discount rate   5.50 % 5.75 % 6.0 %
Rate of compensation increase   4.68 % 4.17 % 3.9 %

        The Company's investment policy targets a 30% to 65% allocation to equity securities, a 25% to 55% allocation to debt securities, and a 0% to 25% allocation to cash. The asset mix is frequently reviewed by the fund manager by examining the domestic and international macroeconomic factors and relative valuation levels of equity versus fixed income markets as well as internal forecasts of interest rate trends. The objective is to add value through longer-term asset mix positioning rather than short-term trading. The portfolio's volatility is kept to a minimum by implementing only incremental asset mix changes. It is believed that this investment policy fits the long-term nature of pension obligations.

        The Company's weighted average asset allocations at December 31, 2004 and 2003 are as follows:

 
   2004
   2003
  
Equity securities   51 % 49 %
Debt securities   39 % 42 %
Cash and cash equivalents   10 % 9 %
   
 
 
Total   100 % 100 %
   
 
 

        The Company expects to contribute $161 thousand to this pension plan in 2005.

        Benefit payments including those amounts to be paid out of corporate assets and reflecting future expected service as appropriate, are expected to be paid as follows (in thousands):

 
   2004
2005   $ 234
2006     236
2007     267
2008     275
2009     281
2010–2014     1,604

        The Company has a profit-sharing plan under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code covering substantially all U.S. employees. The plan allows employees to make contributions up to a specified percentage of their compensation. The Company makes discretionary partial matching

F-71


contributions dependent on meeting profit targets established annually by the Board of Directors. The Company recognized income of $7 thousand for the plan in 2004 and expensed $438 thousand and $315 thousand for the plan in 2003 and 2002, respectively.

(23) SEGMENT REPORTING

        Segment information has been prepared in accordance with SFAS No. 131, "Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information." The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those described in the summary of significant accounting policies. Performance of the segments is evaluated on several factors, of which the primary financial measure is operating income before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization, restructuring, non-recurring severance charges, other non-recurring refinancing-related expenses, (gain) loss on disposal of assets held for sale, other (income) expense, and loss of refinancings ("Adjusted EBITDA Contribution"). Transactions between the segments are accounted for at the Company's estimate of fair value based on similar transactions with outside customers. In general, SFAS No. 131 requires that business entities report selected information about operating segments in a manner consistent with that used for internal management reporting.

        The Company has two reportable segments: Technical Services and Site Services.

        Technical Services include:

        These services are provided through a network of service centers where a fleet of trucks, rail or other transport is dispatched to pick up customers' waste either on a pre-determined schedule or on demand, and then to deliver waste to a permitted facility. From the service centers, chemists can also be dispatched to a customer location for the collection of chemical waste for disposal.

        Site Services provide highly skilled experts utilizing specialty equipment and resources to perform services, such as industrial maintenance, surface remediation, groundwater restoration, site and facility decontamination, emergency response, site remediation, PCB disposal, oil disposal, analytical testing services, information management services and personnel training. The Company offers outsourcing services for customer environmental management programs as well, and provides analytical testing services, information management and personnel training services.

        The Company markets these services through its sales organizations and, in many instances, services in one area of the business support or lead to work in other service lines. Expenses associated with the sales organizations are allocated based on external revenues by segment.

        The operations not managed through the Company's two operating segments are presented herein as "Corporate Items." Corporate item revenues consist of two different operations where the revenues

F-72


are insignificant and represents approximately one-tenth of one percent of the Company's total revenues. Corporate item cost of revenues represents certain central services that are not allocated to the segments for internal reporting purposes. Corporate item selling, general and administrative expenses include typical corporate items such as legal, accounting and other items of a general corporate nature that are not allocated to the Company's two segments.

        The following tables reconcile revenues from direct revenue to third party revenues for the twelve month periods ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002. The Company analyzes results of operations based on direct revenues because the Company believes that these revenues and related expenses best reflect the mangement of operations.

 
   For the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2004
  
 
   Technical
Services
   Site
Services
   Corporate
Items
   Totals
  
Direct revenue   $ 474,262   $ 169,479   $ (522 ) $ 643,219  
Intersegment expenses     333,244     59,885     1,943     395,072  
   
 
 
 
 
Gross revenues     807,506     229,364     1,421     1,038,291  
Intersegment revenues     (362,889 )   (30,755 )   (1,428 )   (395,072 )
   
 
 
 
 
Third party revenues   $ 444,617   $ 198,609   $ (7 ) $ 643,219  
   
 
 
 
 
 
   For the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2003
  
 
   Technical
Services
   Site
Services
   Corporate
Items
   Totals
  
Direct revenue   $ 448,073   $ 163,697   $ (801 ) $ 610,969  
Intersegment expenses     322,638     53,307     1,656     377,601  
   
 
 
 
 
Gross revenues     770,711     217,004     855     988,570  
Intersegment revenues     (347,934 )   (29,262 )   (405 )   (377,601 )
   
 
 
 
 
Third party revenues   $ 422,777   $ 187,742   $ 450   $ 610,969  
   
 
 
 
 
 
   For the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2002
  
 
   Technical
Services
   Site
Services
   Corporate
Items
   Totals
  
Direct revenue   $ 240,571   $ 107,367   $ 2,195   $ 350,133  
Intersegment expenses     175,506     40,954     (88,338 )   128,122  
   
 
 
 
 
Gross revenues     416,077     148,321     (86,143 )   478,255  
Intersegment revenues     (195,992 )   (19,448 )   87,318     (128,122 )
   
 
 
 
 
Third party revenues   $ 220,085   $ 128,873   $ 1,175   $ 350,133  
   
 
 
 
 

F-73

        The following table presents information used by management by reported segment. Revenues from Technical and Site Services consist principally of external revenue from customers. Transactions between the segments are accounted for at the Company's estimate of fair value based on similar transactions with outside customers. Corporate Items revenues consist of revenues for miscellaneous services that are not part of a reportable segment. The Company does not allocate interest expense, income taxes, depreciation, amortization, accretion of environmental liabilities, non-recurring severance charges, other non-recurring refinancing-related expenses, (gain) loss on disposal of assets held for sale, other (income) expense, and loss on refinancings to segments. Certain reporting units have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation (in thousands):

 
   For the Year Ended December 31,
  
 
   2004
   (Restated)
2003
   (Restated)
2002
  
Revenues:                    
  Technical Services   $ 444,617   $ 422,777   $ 220,085  
  Site Services     198,609     187,742     128,873  
  Corporate Items     (7 )   450     1,175  
   
 
 
 
  Total     643,219     610,969     350,133  
   
 
 
 
Cost of Revenues:                    
  Technical Services     297,926     290,882     144,730  
  Site Services     159,042     148,196     101,773  
  Corporate Items     7,870     14,383     5,966  
   
 
 
 
  Total     464,838     453,461     252,469  
   
 
 
 
Selling, General & Administrative Expenses:                    
  Technical Services     48,748     48,585     26,627  
  Site Services     18,449     16,999     11,734  
  Corporate Items     36,440     41,180     23,133  
   
 
 
 
  Total     103,637     106,764     61,494  
   
 
 
 
Adjusted EBITDA:                    
  Technical Services     97,943     83,310     48,728  
  Site Services     21,118     22,547     15,366  
  Corporate Items     (44,317 )   (55,113 )   (27,924 )
   
 
 
 
  Combined Adjusted EBITDA Contribution     74,744     50,744     36,170  
   
 
 
 
Reconciliation to Consolidated Statements of Operations:                    
  Depreciation and amortization     24,094     26,482     15,508  
  Accretion of environmental liabilities     10,394     11,114     1,199  
  Restructuring and non-recurring severance charges     25     1,250     750  
  Other non-recurring refinancing-related expenses     1,326     —     —  
  Gain on disposal of assets held for sale     (479 )   —     —  
  Other acquisition costs     —     —     5,406  
   
 
 
 
Income from operations     39,384     11,898     13,307  
Other (income) expense     1,345     386     (105 )
Loss on refinancings     7,099     —     24,658  
Interest expense, net     22,297     23,724     13,414  
   
 
 
 
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle   $ 8,643   $ (12,212 ) $ (24,660 )
   
 
 
 

F-74

        For the year ended December 31, 2004, the Company derived approximately $557.8 million or 86.7% of revenues from customers located in the United States and Puerto Rico, approximately $84.7 million or 13.2% of revenues from customers located in Canada, and less than 1.0% of revenues from customers in Mexico. For the year ended December 31, 2003, the Company derived approximately $540.7 million or 88.5% of revenues from customers located in the United States and Puerto Rico, approximately $70.3 million or 11.5% of revenues from customers located in Canada, and less than 1.0% of revenues from customers in Mexico. Prior to the acquisition of the CSD assets effective September 7, 2002, the Company derived substantially all of its revenues from environmental services provided to customers located in the United States and Puerto Rico. Following the acquisition of the CSD assets, the Company derived approximately $32.6 million or 9.3% of 2002 revenues from customers located in Canada.

        As of December 31, 2004, the Company had property, plant and equipment, net of depreciation and amortization of approximately $180.5 million, and permits and other intangible assets of $99.5 million. Of these totals, approximately $23.5 million or 13.0% of long-lived assets and $25.2 million or 25.3% of permits and other intangible assets were in Canada, with the balance being in the United States and Puerto Rico (except for insignificant assets in Mexico).

        The following table presents assets by reported segment and in the aggregate (in thousands):

 
   As of December 31,
 
   2004
   2003
Property, plant & equipment, net            
  Technical Services   $ 153,733   $ 138,467
  Site Services     10,475     12,215
  Corporate or other assets     16,318     15,860
   
 
    $ 180,526   $ 166,542
   
 
Intangible assets:            
  Technical Services            
    Goodwill   $ 18,884   $ 18,884
    Permits, net     77,419     76,214
    Customer profile database, net     2,591     3,242
   
 
      98,894     98,340
   
 
  Site Services            
    Goodwill     148     148
    Permits, net     433     329
    Customer profile database, net     20     26
   
 
      601     503
   
 
    $ 99,495   $ 98,843
   
 

F-75

        The following table presents the total assets by reported segment (in thousands):

 
   December 31,
2004
   December 31,
2003
Site Services   $ 19,452   $ 19,821
Technical Services     277,678     265,309
Corporate Items     207,572     255,029
   
 
Total   $ 504,702   $ 540,159
   
 

        The following table presents the total assets by geographical area (in thousands):

 
   December 31,
2004
   December 31,
2003
United States   $ 412,301   $ 470,006
Canada     92,401     70,153
   
 
Total   $ 504,702   $ 540,159
   
 

        Corporate items consist of the following (in thousands):

 
   December 31,
2004
   December 31,
2003
Cash   $ 42,904   $ 1,744
Accounts receivable, net     119,327     116,586
Prepaid expenses     7,204     6,819
Property held for sale     8,834     9,145
PPE, net     16,318     15,860
Deferred financing costs     8,950     6,297
Restricted cash     —     88,817
Deferred taxes     675     6,773
Other     3,360     2,988
   
 
Total   $ 207,572   $ 255,029
   
 

(24) QUARTERLY DATA (UNAUDITED)

 
   First
Quarter
   Second
Quarter
   Third
Quarter
   Fourth
Quarter
 
   (in thousands except per share amounts)
2004                        
Revenues   $ 142,757   $ 161,631   $ 162,650   $ 176,181
Cost of revenues     107,460     115,842     116,835     124,701
Income from operations     4,100     9,364     11,239     14,681
Other income (expense)     5,287     (6,635 )   (85 )   88
(Loss) on refinancing     —     (7,099 )   —     —
Net income (loss)     2,817     (12,127 )   4,441     7,469
Basic earnings (loss) per share     0.14     (1.63 )   0.31     0.52
Diluted loss per share     (0.08 )   (1.63 )   0.25     0.42

F-76

 
   Revised First
Quarter
   Second
Quarter
   Third
Quarter
   (Restated)
Fourth
Quarter
  
 
   (in thousands except per share amounts)

  
2003                          
Revenues   $ 142,305   $ 172,035   $ 151,085   $ 145,544  
Cost of revenues     106,614     131,797     108,687     106,363  
Income (loss) from operations     (655 )   280     6,456     5,525  
Other income (expense)     17     162     8,755     (9,028 )
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of income taxes     66     —     —     —  
Net income (loss)     (7,202 )   (6,799 )   7,417     (11,016 )
Basic earnings (loss) per share     (0.60 )   (0.57 )   0.48     (0.85 )
Diluted loss per share     (0.60 )   (0.57 )   (0.09 )   (0.85 )

        As further discussed in Note 2, "Restatement of Financial Statements" and in connection with the preparation of its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2004, the Company concluded that its previous methodology for estimating its self-insured workers compensation and motor vehicle insurance claims resulted in an understatement of its self-insured liabilities. The correction of the errors resulted in a charge to earnings in the fourth quarter of 2004 of $157 thousand or $(0.01) per basic and diluted share. The Company corrected the error for 2003 by restating the fourth quarter, which resulted in an increase in the previously reported cost of revenues of $255 thousand or a decrease of $0.01 per basic and diluted share.

        As further discussed in Note 21, "Loss on Refinancings," in the second quarter of 2004, the Company refinanced its then outstanding debt, redeemed its then outstanding Series C Preferred Stock and settled the related Embedded Derivative liability that resulted in net refinancing costs of $7.1 million.

        As further discussed in Note 18, "Redeemable Series C Preferred Stock," the Company had outstanding prior to June 30, 2004, 25,000 shares of Series C Convertible Preferred Stock which consisted of two components, namely, the Host Contract and an Embedded Derivative which reflected the right of the holders of the Series C Preferred Stock to convert into the Company's common stock on the terms set forth in the Series C Preferred Stock. The value of the Embedded Derivative was periodically marked to market which resulted in the inclusion of the following gains (losses) as a component of other income (expense):

Quarter Ended
   Amount
  
 
   (in thousands)

  
2004        
  First   $ 5,287  
  Second     (6,877 )

2003
 
 
 
 
  First   $ 17  
  Second     429  
  Third     8,748  
  Fourth     (9,573 )

F-77

        For the first quarter of 2003, the loss from operations of $0.7 million and the net loss of $7.2 million was a result of reduced revenues due to the seasonal nature of certain services, generally weak economic conditions, and the relatively short period of time that had passed since the Company's September 2002 acquisition of the Chemical Services Division of Safety-Kleen Corp. that precluded the Company from then eliminating duplicative costs that resulted from the acquisition.

        For the second quarter of 2003, the reduced level of income from operations of $0.3 million and the net loss of $6.8 million was a result of generally weak economic conditions, and the relatively short period of time that had passed since the Company's September 2002 acquisition of the Chemical Services Division of Safety-Kleen Corp. that precluded the Company from then eliminating duplicative costs that resulted from the acquisition.

        Earnings per share are computed independently for each of the quarters presented. Due to this, the 2004 quarterly basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share and the 2003 quarterly diluted loss per share do not equal the total computed for the year.

        The Company revised results for the first quarter of 2003 to reflect an increase of $58 thousand in previously reported cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of taxes. This change did not result in a change from previously reported basic and diluted loss per share of $(0.60).

(25) GUARANTOR AND NON-GUARANTOR SUBSIDIARIES

        As further described in Note 10, "Financing Arrangements," on June 30, 2004, $150.0 million of Senior Secured Notes were issued by the parent company, Clean Harbors, Inc., and were guaranteed by all of the parent's material subsidiaries organized in the United States. The notes are not guaranteed by the Company's Canadian and Mexican subsidiaries. The following presents condensed consolidating financial statements for the parent company, the guarantor subsidiaries and the non-guarantor subsidiaries, respectively.

        In addition, as part of the refinancing of the Company's debt, one of the parent's Canadian subsidiaries made a $91.7 million (U.S.) investment in the preferred stock of one of the parent's domestic subsidiaries and issued, in partial payment for such investment, a promissory note for $89.4 million (U.S.) payable to one of the parent's domestic subsidiaries. The dividend rate on such preferred stock is 11.125% per annum and the interest rate on such promissory note is 11.0% per annum. The effect of this transaction was to increase stockholders' equity of a U.S. guarantor subsidiary, to increase interest income of a U.S. guarantor subsidiary, to increase debt of a foreign non-guarantor subsidiary, and to increase interest expense of a foreign non-guarantor subsidiary.

F-78

'

        Following is the condensed consolidating balance sheet at December 31, 2004 (in thousands):

 
   Clean
Harbors, Inc.
   U.S. Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Domestic
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiary
   Foreign
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Consolidating
Adjustments
   Total
  
Assets:                                      
  Cash and cash equivalents   $ 76   $ 20,984   $ —   $ 10,021   $ —   $ 31,081  
  Marketable securities     10,000     6,800     —     —     —     16,800  
  Accounts receivable, net     9     100,547     —     20,330     —     120,886  
  Unbilled accounts receivable     —     2,817     —     2,560     —     5,377  
  Intercompany receivables     17,139     —     8     6,050     (23,197 )   —  
  Deferred costs     —     3,965     —     958     —     4,923  
  Prepaid expenses     2,951     9,957     —     499     —     13,407  
  Supplies inventories     —     9,656     —     662     —     10,318  
  Properties held for sale     —     8,849     —     —     —     8,849  
  Property, plant and equipment, net     —     156,905     —     23,621     —     180,526  
  Deferred financing costs     8,935     —     —     15     —     8,950  
  Goodwill, net     —     19,032     —     —     —     19,032  
  Permits and other intangibles, net     —     55,236     —     25,227     —     80,463  
  Investments in subsidiaries     133,504     44,385     —     91,654     (269,543 )   —  
  Deferred tax asset     —     —     —     676     —     676  
  Intercompany note receivable     —     99,717     —     3,701     (103,418 )   —  
  Other assets     —     1,560     —     1,854     —     3,414  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Total assets   $ 172,614   $ 540,410   $ 8   $ 187,828   $ (396,158 ) $ 504,702  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity:                                      
  Uncashed checks   $ —   $ 4,769   $ —   $ 1,773   $ —   $ 6,542  
  Accounts payable     —     57,716     —     12,647     —     70,363  
  Accrued disposal costs     —     1,630     —     1,402     —     3,032  
  Deferred revenue     —     17,236     —     4,824     —     22,060  
  Other accrued expenses     8,675     28,890     —     3,489     —     41,054  
  Income taxes payable     1,078     310     —     914     —     2,302  
  Intercompany payables     —     23,197     —     —     (23,197 )   —  
  Closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities     —     166,211     —     15,057     —     181,268  
  Long-term obligations     148,122     —     —     —     —     148,122  
  Capital lease obligations     —     4,160     —     847     —     5,007  
  Other long-term liabilities     —     —     —     13,298     —     13,298  
  Intercompany note payable     3,701     —     —     99,717     (103,418 )   —  
  Accrued pension cost     —     —     —     616     —     616  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Total liabilities     161,576     304,119     —     154,584     (126,615 )   493,664  

Stockholders' Equity:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Series B convertible preferred stock     1     —     —     —     —     1  
    Common stock     143     —     —     2,236     (2,236 )   143  
    Additional paid-in capital     62,165     206,787     —     4,049     (210,836 )   62,165  
    Accumulated other comprehensive income     8,667     14,473     —     (1,632 )   (12,841 )   8,667  
    Retained earnings (deficit)     (59,938 )   15,031     8     28,591     (43,630 )   (59,938 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
      Total stockholders' equity     11,038     236,291     8     33,244     (269,543 )   11,038  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total liabilities and stockholders' equity   $ 172,614   $ 540,410   $ 8   $ 187,828   $ (396,158 ) $ 504,702  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

F-79

        Following is the condensed consolidating balance sheet at December 31, 2003 (in thousands):

 
   Clean
Harbors, Inc.
   U.S. Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Domestic
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiary
   Foreign
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Consolidating
Adjustments
   (Restated)
Total
  
Assets:                                      
  Cash and cash equivalents   $ —   $ 5,313   $ 14   $ 1,004   $ —   $ 6,331  
  Accounts receivable, net     —     97,255     —     17,174     —     114,429  
  Unbilled accounts receivable     —     7,030     —     2,446     —     9,476  
  Intercompany receivables     2,056     —     305     213     (2,574 )   —  
  Deferred costs     —     4,587     —     808     —     5,395  
  Prepaid expenses     1,597     6,699     —     286     —     8,582  
  Supplies inventories     —     8,522     —     496     —     9,018  
  Properties held for sale     —     12,690     —     —     —     12,690  
  Property, plant and equipment, net     —     150,755     —     15,787     —     166,542  
  Restricted cash and cash equivalents     88,817     —     —     —     —     88,817  
  Deferred financing costs     6,277     —     —     20     —     6,297  
  Goodwill, net     —     19,032     —     —     —     19,032  
  Permits and other intangibles, net     —     58,840     —     20,971     —     79,811  
  Investments in subsidiaries     116,767     —     —     —     (116,767 )   —  
  Intercompany note receivable     —     —     —     24,209     (24,209 )   —  
  Deferred tax asset     —     —     —     6,772     —     6,772  
  Other assets     —     5,045     —     1,922     —     6,967  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Total assets   $ 215,514   $ 375,768   $ 319   $ 92,108   $ (143,550 ) $ 540,159  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Liabilities, Redeemable Convertible Preferred Stock and Stockholders' Equity:                                      
  Uncashed checks   $ —   $ 5,139   $ —   $ 844   $ —   $ 5,983  
  Revolving credit facility     33,493     —     —     1,798     —     35,291  
  Accounts payable     —     50,813     —     9,798     —     60,611  
  Accrued disposal costs     —     1,492     —     529     —     2,021  
  Deferred revenue     —     18,644     —     4,155     —     22,799  
  Other accrued expenses     1,710     29,250     17     2,880     —     33,857  
  Income taxes payable     203     221     —     2,199     —     2,623  
  Intercompany payables     —     2,574     —     —     (2,574 )   —  
  Closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities     —     169,191     —     13,940     —     183,131  
  Long-term obligations     147,209     —     —     —     —     147,209  
  Capital lease obligations     —     4,167     —     452     —     4,619  
  Other long-term liabilities     9,572     —     —     8,483     —     18,055  
  Intercompany note payable     —     24,209     —     —     (24,209 )   —  
  Accrued pension cost     —     —     —     633     —     633  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Total liabilities     192,187     305,700     17     45,711     (26,783 )   516,832  
Redeemable Series C Convertible Preferred Stock     15,631     —     —     —     —     15,631  

Stockholders' Equity:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Series B convertible preferred stock     1     —     —     —     —     1  
    Common stock     139     —     300     —     (300 )   139  
    Additional paid-in capital     63,642     90,413     —     24,987     (115,400 )   63,642  
    Accumulated other comprehensive income     6,452     —     —     6,452     (6,452 )   6,452  
    Retained earnings (deficit)     (62,538 )   (20,345 )   2     14,958     5,385     (62,538 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
      Total stockholders' equity     7,696     70,068     302     46,397     (116,767 )   7,696  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total liabilities, redeemable convertible preferred stock and stockholders' equity   $ 215,514   $ 375,768   $ 319   $ 92,108   $ (143,550 ) $ 540,159  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

F-80

        Following is the consolidating statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2004 (in thousands):

 
   Clean
Harbors, Inc.
   U.S. Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Domestic
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiary
   Foreign
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Consolidating
Adjustments
   Total
  
Revenues   $ —   $ 530,124   $ 61   $ 129,056   $ (16,022 ) $ 643,219  
Cost of revenues (exclusive of items shown separately below)     —     395,727     12     85,072     (15,973 )   464,838  
Selling, general and administrative expenses     35     82,980     43     21,500     (49 )   104,509  
Accretion of environmental liabilities     —     9,702     —     692     —     10,394  
Depreciation and amortization     —     21,086     —     3,008     —     24,094  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) from operations     (35 )   20,629     6     18,784     —     39,384  
Other income (expense)     (1,590 )   245     —     —     —     (1,345 )
Equity in earnings of subsidiaries     35,761     7,843     —     —     (43,604 )   —  
(Loss) on refinancing     (7,099 )   —     —     —     —     (7,099 )
Intercompany dividend income (expense)     —     —     —     5,411     (5,411 )   —  
Intercompany interest income (expense)     —     5,223     —     (5,223 )   —     —  
Interest (expense), net     (23,475 )   1,478     —     (300 )   —     (22,297 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes     3,562     35,418     6     18,672     (49,015 )   8,643  
Provision for income taxes     962     42     —     5,039     —     6,043  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss)   $ 2,600   $ 35,376   $ 6   $ 13,633   $ (49,015 ) $ 2,600  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

F-81

        Following is the consolidating statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2003 (in thousands):

 
   Clean
Harbors, Inc.
   U.S. Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Domestic
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiary
   Foreign
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Consolidating
Adjustments
   (Restated)
Total
  
Revenues   $ —   $ 509,266   $ 50   $ 116,393   $ (14,740 ) $ 610,969  
Cost of revenues (exclusive of items shown separately below)     —     393,334     8     74,804     (14,685 )   453,461  
Selling, general and administrative expenses     314     86,852     54     21,265     (55 )   108,430  
Accretion of environmental liabilities     —     10,558     —     556     —     11,114  
Depreciation and amortization     —     22,401     —     4,081     —     26,482  
Restructuring     —     (124 )   —     —     —     (124 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) from operations     (314 )   (3,755 )   (12 )   15,687     —     11,606  
Other income (expense)     (94 )   —     —     —     —     (94 )
Equity in earnings of subsidiaries     4,982     —     —     —     (4,982 )   —  
Interest (expense), net     (22,167 )   (1,301 )   —     (256 )   —     (23,724 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle     (17,593 )   (5,056 )   (12 )   15,431     (4,982 )   (12,212 )
Provision for income taxes     7     182     (4 )   5,137     —     5,322  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle     (17,600 )   (5,238 )   (8 )   10,294     (4,982 )   (17,534 )
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of tax     —     169     —     (103 )   —     66  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss)   $ (17,600 ) $ (5,407 ) $ (8 ) $ 10,397   $ (4,982 ) $ (17,600 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

        Following is the consolidating statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2002 (in thousands):

 
   Clean
Harbors, Inc.
   U.S. Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Domestic
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiary
   Foreign
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Consolidating
Adjustments
   (Restated)
Total
  
Revenues   $ —   $ 317,311   $ 50   $ 35,926   $ (3,154 ) $ 350,133  
Cost of revenues (exclusive of items shown separately below)     —     232,835     3     22,738     (3,107 )   252,469  
Selling, general and administrative expenses     166     56,335     47     5,017     (47 )   61,518  
Accretion of environmental liabilities     —     1,147     —     52     —     1,199  
Depreciation and amortization     —     14,621     —     887     —     15,508  
Restructuring     —     750     —     —     —     750  
Other acquisition costs     —     5,406     —     —     —     5,406  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income from operations     (166 )   6,217     —     7,232     —     13,283  
Other income (expense)     129     —     —     —     —     129  
(Loss) on refinancing     (21,266 )   (3,392 )   —     —     —     (24,658 )
Equity in earnings of subsidiaries     6,037     —     —     —     (6,037 )   —  
Interest (expense), net     (13,231 )   (182 )   —     (1 )   —     (13,414 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes     (28,497 )   2,643     —     7,231     (6,037 )   (24,660 )
Provision for income taxes     (50 )   1,167     —     2,670     —     3,787  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss)   $ (28,447 ) $ 1,476   $ —   $ 4,561   $ (6,037 ) $ (28,447 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

F-82

        Following is the condensed consolidating statement of cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2004 (in thousands):

 
   Clean
Harbors, Inc.
   U.S. Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Domestic
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiary
   Foreign
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Consolidating
Adjustments
   Total
  
        Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities   $ 30,062   $ 51,040   $ (14 ) $ 14,976   $ (43,604 ) $ 52,460  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash flows from investing activities:                                      
  Additions to property, plant and equipment     —     (21,017 )   —     (5,326 )   —     (26,343 )
  Cost of restricted investments purchased     (4,390 )   —     —     —     —     (4,390 )
  Proceeds from sales of restricted investments     93,207     —     —     —     —     93,207  
  Purchases of marketable securities     (80,925 )   (9,800 )   —     —     —     (90,725 )
  Sales of marketable securities     70,925     3,000     —     —     —     73,925  
  Proceeds from sale of fixed assets     —     2,184     —     —     —     2,184  
  Increase in permits     —     (227 )   —     —     —     (227 )
  Investment in subsidiaries     (35,761 )   (7,843 )   —     (90,320 )   133,924     —  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities     43,056     (33,703 )   —     (95,646 )   133,924     47,631  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash flows from financing activities:                                      
  Repayments on Senior Loans     (107,209 )   —     —     —     —     (107,209 )
  Issuance of Senior Secured Notes     148,045     —     —     —     —     148,045  
  Net repayments under revolving credit facility     (33,492 )   —     —     (1,676 )   —     (35,168 )
  Redemption of Series C Preferred Stock     (25,000 )   —     —     —     —     (25,000 )
  Change in uncashed checks     —     (370 )   —     789     —     419  
  Proceeds from exercise of stock options     386     —     —     —     —     386  
  Dividend payments on preferred stock     (2,187 )   —     —     —     —     (2,187 )
  Deferred financing costs incurred     (10,289 )   —     —     —     —     (10,289 )
  Proceeds from employee stock purchase plan     487     —     —     —     —     487  
  Payments of capital leases     —     (1,296 )   —     (180 )   —     (1,476 )
  Repayment of Subordinated Loans     (40,000 )   —     —     —     —     (40,000 )
  Intercompany note     —     (90,320 )   —     90,320     —     —  
  Issuance of preferred stock     —     90,320     —     —     (90,320 )   —  
  Debt extinguishment payments     (3,420 )   —     —     —     —     (3,420 )
  Cash paid in lieu of warrants     (363 )   —     —     —     —     (363 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities     (73,042 )   (1,666 )   —     89,253     (90,320 )   (75,775 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents     76     15,671     (14 )   8,583     —     24,316  
Effect of exchange rate change on cash     —     —     —     434     —     434  
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year     —     5,313     14     1,004     —     6,331  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year   $ 76   $ 20,984   $ —   $ 10,021   $ —   $ 31,081  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

F-83

        Following is the condensed consolidating statement of cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2003 (in thousands):

 
   Clean
Harbors, Inc.
   U.S. Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Domestic
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiary
   Foreign
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Consolidating
Adjustments
   Total
  
        Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities   $ 19,279   $ 6,447   $ (8 ) $ 18,121   $ (4,982 ) $ 38,857  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash flows from investing activities:                                      
  Acquisition of CSD assets     7,890     —     —     —     —     7,890  
  Additions to property, plant and equipment     —     (32,186 )   —     (2,646 )   —     (34,832 )
  Cost of restricted investments purchased     (34,881 )   —     —     —     —     (34,881 )
  Investment in subsidiaries     (4,982 )   —     —     —     4,982     —  
  Proceeds from sales of restricted investments     6,317     256     —     —     —     6,573  
  Proceeds from sale of fixed assets     —     2,239     —     13     —     2,252  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities     (25,656 )   (29,691 )   —     (2,633 )   4,982     (52,998 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash flows from financing activities:                                      
  Repayments on Senior Loans     (7,791 )   —     —     —     —     (7,791 )
  Net borrowings under revolving credit facility     15,784     —     —     1,666     —     17,450  
  Intercompany notes     —     24,209     —     (24,209 )   —     —  
  Change in uncashed checks     —     (2,094 )   —     782     —     (1,312 )
  Proceeds from exercise of stock options     520     —     —     —     —     520  
  Dividend payments on preferred stock     (974 )   —     —     —     —     (974 )
  Deferred financing costs incurred     (1,704 )   —     —     (23 )   —     (1,727 )
  Proceeds from employee stock purchase plan     542     —     —     —     —     542  
  Payments on capital leases     —     (789 )   —     (50 )   —     (839 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities     6,377     21,326     —     (21,834 )   —     5,869  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Decrease in cash and cash equivalents     —     (1,918 )   (8 )   (6,346 )   —     (8,272 )
Effect of exchange rate change on cash     —     —     —     921     —     921  
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year     —     7,231     22     6,429     —     13,682  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year   $ —   $ 5,313   $ 14   $ 1,004   $ —   $ 6,331  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

F-84

        Following is the condensed consolidating statement of cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2002 (in thousands):

 
   Clean
Harbors, Inc.
   U.S. Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Domestic
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiary
   Foreign
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Consolidating
Adjustments
   Total
  
        Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities   $ (13,421 ) $ 15,692   $ (1 ) $ 9,416   $ (6,037 ) $ 5,649  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash flows from investing activities:                                      
  Acquisition of CSD assets     (34,330 )   (7,415 )   —     (2,472 )   —     (44,217 )
  Additions to property, plant and equipment     —     (11,981 )   —     (479 )   —     (12,460 )
  Cost of restricted investments purchased     (60,256 )   —     —     —     —     (60,256 )
  Investment in subsidiaries     (6,037 )   —     —     —     6,037     —  
  Proceeds from sales of restricted investments     —     792     —     —     —     792  
  Proceeds from sale of fixed assets     —     402     —     —     —     402  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities     (100,623 )   (18,202 )   —     (2,951 )   6,037     (115,739 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash flows from financing activities:                                      
  Issuance of Senior Loans     115,000     —     —     —     —     115,000  
  Net borrowings under revolving credit facility     17,709     —     —     —     —     17,709  
  Issuance of preferred stock and embedded derivative     25,000     —     —     —     —     25,000  
  Issuance costs of preferred stock     (2,891 )   —     —     —     —     (2,891 )
  Payments on long-term obligations     (21,424 )   —     —     —     —     (21,424 )
  Change in uncashed checks     —     3,049     —     —     —     3,049  
  Proceeds from exercise of stock options     982     —     —     —     —     982  
  Dividend payments on preferred stock     (536 )   —     —     —     —     (536 )
  Deferred financing costs incurred     (8,222 )   —     —     —     —     (8,222 )
  Proceeds from employee stock purchase plan     274     —     —     —     —     274  
  Issuance of Subordinated Loans     40,000     —     —     —     —     40,000  
  Repayment of Subordinated Notes     (35,000 )   —     —     —     —     (35,000 )
  Borrowings on Term Notes     3,200     —     —     —     —     3,200  
  Debt extinguishment payments     (20,048 )   —     —     —     —     (20,048 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Net cash provided by financing activities     114,044     3,049     —     —     —     117,093  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents     —     539     (1 )   6,465     —     7,003  
Effect of exchange rate change on cash     —     —     —     (36 )   —     (36 )
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year     —     6,692     23     —     —     6,715  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year   $ —   $ 7,231   $ 22   $ 6,429   $ —   $ 13,682  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

F-85


CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

SCHEDULE II

VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS

For the Three Years Ended December 31, 2004

(in thousands)

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
   Balance
Beginning
Of Period
   Additions
Charged to
Operating
Expense
   Deductions
From
Reserves(a)
   Balance
End of
Period
2002   $ 1,698   $ 842   $ 152   $ 2,388
2003   $ 2,388   $ 2,439   $ 1,255   $ 3,572
2004   $ 3,572   $ 1,232   $ 1,081   $ 3,723
(a)
Amounts deemed uncollectible, net of recoveries.

Sales Allowance
    
    
    
   Balance
End of
Period
2002   $ 1,725
2003   $ 1,376
2004   $ 1,602

F-86


CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

ASSETS
Unaudited
(in thousands)

 
   June 30, 2005
   December 31, 2004
Current assets:            
  Cash and cash equivalents   $ 50,248   $ 31,081
  Marketable securities     —     16,800
  Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $2,657 and $3,723, respectively     122,460     120,886
  Unbilled accounts receivable     6,894     5,377
  Deferred costs     3,953     4,923
  Prepaid expenses     10,473     13,407
  Supplies inventories     11,143     10,318
  Deferred tax asset     184     188
  Income tax receivable     1,444     —
  Properties held for sale     8,633     8,849
   
 
      Total current assets     215,432     211,829
   
 
Property, plant, and equipment:            
  Land     13,959     13,992
  Landfill assets     10,581     6,396
  Buildings and improvements     92,255     90,045
  Vehicles     14,673     12,879
  Equipment     196,759     191,348
  Furniture and fixtures     2,281     2,283
  Construction in progress     9,709     13,635
   
 
      340,217     330,578
  Less—accumulated depreciation and amortization     161,273     150,052
   
 
      178,944     180,526
   
 
Other assets:            
  Deferred financing costs     8,298     8,950
  Goodwill     19,032     19,032
  Permits and other intangibles, net of accumulated depreciation of $25,332 and $22,557, respectively     78,086     80,463
  Deferred tax asset     480     488
  Other     3,498     3,414
   
 
      109,394     112,347
   
 
      Total assets   $ 503,770   $ 504,702
   
 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-87


CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
Unaudited
(dollars in thousands)

 
   June 30, 2005
   December 31, 2004
  
Current liabilities:              
  Uncashed checks   $ 4,609   $ 6,542  
  Current portion of capital lease obligations     1,625     1,522  
  Accounts payable     66,794     70,363  
  Accrued disposal costs     2,841     3,032  
  Deferred revenue     17,697     22,060  
  Other accrued expenses     42,272     41,054  
  Current portion of closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities     13,886     14,258  
  Income taxes payable     736     2,302  
   
 
 
      Total current liabilities     150,460     161,133  
   
 
 
Other liabilities:              
  Closure and post-closure liabilities, less current portion of $2,776 and $2,930, respectively     23,888     22,721  
  Remedial liabilities, less current portion of $11,110 and $11,328, respectively     137,616     144,289  
  Long-term obligations     148,204     148,122  
  Capital lease obligations, less current portion     3,585     3,485  
  Other long-term liabilities     13,057     13,298  
  Accrued pension cost     598     616  
   
 
 
      Total other liabilities     326,948     332,531  
   
 
 
Commitments and contingent liabilities              

Redeemable Series C redeemable preferred stock and dividends and accretion on preferred stock, $.01 par value: authorized 0 and 25,000 shares, respectively; issued and outstanding—none
 
 
—
 
 
—
 

Stockholders' equity:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Preferred stock, $.01 par value:              
    Series A convertible preferred stock; Authorized 0 and 894,585 shares, respectively; issued and outstanding—none     —     —  
    Series B convertible preferred stock; Authorized 156,416 shares; issued and outstanding 70,000 shares (liquidation preference of $3.5 million)     1     1  
  Common stock, $.01 par value:              
    Authorized 40,000,000 and 20,000,000 shares, respectively; issued and outstanding 15,364,211 and 14,327,224 shares, respectively     154     143  
  Additional paid-in capital     66,008     62,165  
  Accumulated other comprehensive income     7,925     8,667  
  Accumulated deficit     (47,726 )   (59,938 )
   
 
 
      Total stockholders' equity     26,362     11,038  
   
 
 
      Total liabilities, redeemable convertible preferred stock and stockholders' equity   $ 503,770   $ 504,702  
   
 
 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-88


CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
Unaudited
(in thousands except per share amounts)

 
   Six Months Ended
June 30,
  
 
   2005
   2004
  
Revenues   $ 338,876   $ 304,388  
Cost of revenues (exclusive of items shown separately below)     244,981     223,302  
Selling, general and administrative expenses     49,669     50,998  
Accretion of environmental liabilities     5,250     5,207  
Depreciation and amortization     14,354     11,661  
   
 
 
Income from operations     24,622     13,220  
Other income (expense), net     510     (1,104 )
Loss on refinancing     —     (7,099 )
Interest (expense), net of interest income of $258 and $480 for the quarter and year-to-date ending 2005 and $227 and $498 for the quarter and year-to- date ending 2004, respectively     (11,907 )   (10,801 )
   
 
 
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes     13,225     (5,784 )
Provision for income taxes     1,013     3,526  
   
 
 
Net income (loss)     12,212     (9,310 )
Redemption of Series C Preferred Stock and dividends and accretion on preferred stocks     140     11,616  
   
 
 
Net income (loss) attributable to common shareholders   $ 12,072   $ (20,926 )
   
 
 
Earnings (loss) per share:              
  Basic earnings (loss) attributable to common shareholders   $ .81   $ (1.49 )
   
 
 
  Diluted earnings (loss) attributable to common shareholders   $ .71   $ (1.49 )
   
 
 
Weighted average common shares outstanding     14,913     14,002  
   
 
 
Weighted average common shares outstanding plus potentially dilutive common shares     17,142     14,002  
   
 
 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-89


CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Unaudited
(in thousands)

 
   Six Months Ended
June 30,
  
 
   2005
   2004
  
Cash flows from operating activities:              
  Net income (loss)   $ 12,212   $ (9,310 )
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:              
  Depreciation and amortization     14,354     11,661  
  Allowance for doubtful accounts     (372 )   479  
  Amortization of deferred financing costs     739     1,558  
  Accretion of environmental liabilities     5,250     5,207  
  Amortization of debt discount     83     —  
  Loss (gain) on sale of fixed assets     54     (486 )
  Stock options expensed     47     —  
  Loss on refinancing     —     7,099  
  Loss on embedded derivative     —     1,590  
  Foreign currency gain on intercompany transactions     (404 )   (600 )
  Changes in assets and liabilities:              
Accounts receivable     (1,465 )   259  
    Unbilled accounts receivable     (1,567 )   1,159  
    Deferred costs     952     (54 )
    Prepaid expenses     2,928     (1,477 )
    Supplies inventories     (837 )   (776 )
    Other assets     (122 )   (1,170 )
    Accounts payable     (5,399 )   (945 )
    Closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities     (11,311 )   (5,715 )
    Deferred revenue     (4,273 )   699  
    Accrued disposal costs     (164 )   464  
    Other accrued expenses     1,299     2,878  
    Income taxes payable/receivable, net     (2,970 )   2,510  
   
 
 
      Net cash provided by operating activities     9,034     15,030  
   
 
 
Cash flows from investing activities:              
  Additions to property, plant and equipment     (6,980 )   (12,887 )
  Proceeds from sales of restricted investments     —     89,294  
  Cost of restricted investments purchased     —     (4,390 )
  Increase in permits     (892 )   —  
  Sales of marketable securities     16,800     —  
  Proceeds from sales of fixed assets     375     665  
   
 
 
      Net cash provided by investing activities     9,303     72,682  
   
 
 
Cash flows from financing activities:              
  Repayments on Senior Loans     —     (107,209 )
  Issuance of Senior Secured Notes     —     148,045  
  Repayments of Subordinated Loans     —     (40,000 )
  Net repayments under revolving credit facility     —     (35,168 )
  Redemption of Series C Convertible Preferred Stock     —     (25,000 )
  Change in uncashed checks     (1,887 )   (1,104 )
  Proceeds from exercise of stock options     3,691     155  
  Deferred financing costs incurred     (86 )   (10,164 )
  Proceeds from employee stock purchase plan     256     247  
  Dividend payments on preferred stock     (140 )   (1,963 )
  Payments on capital leases     (888 )   (730 )
  Cash paid in lieu of warrants     —     (363 )
  Debt extinguishment payments     —     (3,420 )
   
 
 
      Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities     946     (76,674 )
   
 
 
Increase in cash and cash equivalents     19,283     11,038  
Effect of exchange rate change on cash     (116 )   20  
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period     31,081     6,331  
   
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period   $ 50,248   $ 17,389  
   
 
 
Supplemental information:              
Non cash investing and financing activities:              
  Stock dividend on preferred stock   $ —   $ 224  
  New capital lease obligations   $ 1,107   $ 1,469  

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-90

CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
Unaudited
(in thousands)

 
   Series B
Preferred Stock
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
  
 
   Common Stock
    
    
    
    
    
  
 
    
    
    
   Retained
Earnings/
(Accumulated
Deficit)
    
  

 
 
Number of
Shares
 
$0.01 Par
Value
 
Number of
Shares
 
$0.01 Par
Value
 
Additional
Paid-in Capital
 
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
 
Accumulated Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
 
Total
Stockholders'
Equity
 
Balance at December 31, 2004   70   $ 1   14,327   $ 143   $ 62,165     —   $ 8,667   $ (59,938 ) $ 11,038  
  Net income   —     —   —     —     —   $ 12,212     —     12,212     12,212  
  Foreign currency translation   —     —   —     —     —     (742 )   (742 )   —     (742 )
                             
                   
  Comprehensive loss   —     —   —     —     —   $ 11,470     —     —     —  
                             
                   
  Series B preferred stock dividends   —     —   —     —     (140 )         —     —     (140 )
  Exercise of warrants   —     —   420     4     (4 )         —     —     —  
  Stock option expense   —     —   —     —     47           —     —     47  
  Exercise of stock options   —     —   594     5     3,686           —     —     3,691  
  Employee stock purchase plan   —     —   23     2     254           —     —     256  
   
 
 
 
 
       
 
 
 
Balance at June 30, 2005   70   $ 1   15,364   $ 154   $ 66,008         $ 7,925   $ (47,726 ) $ 26,362  
   
 
 
 
 
       
 
 
 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-91


CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(1) Basis of Presentation

        The accompanying consolidated interim financial statements include the accounts of Clean Harbors, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively, "Clean Harbors" or the "Company") and have been prepared on a basis consistent with the annual financial statements and pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and, in the opinion of management, include all adjustments which, except as described elsewhere herein, are of a normal recurring nature, necessary for a fair presentation of the financial position, results of operations, and cash flows for the periods presented. The results for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of results for the entire year. The financial statements presented herein should be read in connection with the financial statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.

        The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires the Company's management to make certain estimates and assumptions. These estimates and assumptions affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of the contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements. These estimates and assumptions will also affect the reported amounts of certain revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ materially based on any changes in the estimates and assumptions that the Company uses in the preparation of its financial statements. Additionally, the estimates and assumptions used in determining landfill airspace amortization rates per cubic yard, capping, closure and post-closure liabilities as well as environmental remediation liabilities require significant engineering and accounting input. The Company reviews these estimates and assumptions on an ongoing basis. In many circumstances, the ultimate outcome of these estimates and assumptions may not be known for decades into the future. Actual results could differ materially from these estimates and assumptions due to changes in environmental-related regulations or future operational plans, and the inherent imprecision associated with estimating matters so far into the future.

        Certain reclassifications have been made in the prior period's Consolidated Financial Statements to conform to the presentation for the period ended June 30, 2005.

(2) Acquisition

        As more fully described in the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, the Company purchased from Safety-Kleen Services, Inc. (the "Seller") and certain of the Seller's domestic subsidiaries substantially all of the assets of the Chemical Services Division (the "CSD") of Safety-Kleen Corp. ("Safety-Kleen"), effective September 7, 2002. The sale included the operating assets of certain of the Seller's subsidiaries in the United States and the stock of five of the Seller's subsidiaries in Canada.

        In accordance with the Acquisition Agreement between the Seller and the Company dated February 22, 2002, as amended through September 6, 2002, the Company purchased the assets of the CSD for $26.6 million in net cash, and incurred direct costs related to the transaction of $9.7 million for a total purchase price of $36.3 million. In addition, the Company assumed with the transaction certain environmental liabilities then valued at $184.5 million.

F-92


(3) Significant Accounting Policies

        The Company recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred or services have been rendered, the price is fixed or determinable, and collection is reasonably assured.

        The Company provides a wide range of environmental services through two major segments: Technical Services and Site Services. Technical Services involve (i) services for collection, transportation and logistics management, (ii) services for the categorizing, packaging and removal of laboratory chemicals (Cleanpack®), and (iii) services related to the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes. Site Services involve a wide range of services to maintain industrial facilities and process equipment, as well as clean up or contain actual or threatened releases of hazardous materials into the environment. Revenues for all services with the exception of services for the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste are recorded as services are rendered. Revenues for disposing of hazardous waste are recognized upon completion of wastewater treatment, landfill or incineration of the waste at a Company-owned site or when the waste is shipped to a third party for processing and disposal. Revenues from waste that is not yet completely processed and the related costs are deferred until services are completed. Revenue is recognized on contracts with retainage when services have been rendered and collectability is reasonably assured.

        The Company leases rolling stock, equipment, real estate and office equipment under operating leases. Certain real estate leases contain rent holidays and rent escalation clauses. Most of our real estate lease agreements include renewal periods at the Company's option. The Company recognizes rent holiday periods and scheduled rent increases on a straight-line basis over the lease term beginning with the date the Company takes possession of the leased space.

        As further described in Note 4, "Significant Accounting Policies," under item (m) "Closure and Post Closure Liabilities," in the Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2005, effective January 1, 2003, the Company adopted Statement of Accounting Standards "SFAS" No. 143, "Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations." The following disclosure enhances the previously made disclosures.

        The Company uses an inflation rate published by the US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics that excludes the more volatile items of food and energy.

        For the asset retirement obligations incurred in 2005 and 2004, the Company estimated its credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate by adjusting the then current yield based on market prices of its $150 million Senior Secured Notes by the difference between the yield of a US treasury note of the same duration as the Senior Secured Notes and the yield on the 30 year U.S. Treasury Bond.

F-93

        Prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 143, the Company accrued the cost of financial assurance relating to both landfill and non-landfill closure and to both landfill and non-landfill post-closure care, if required, under SFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies." Under SFAS No. 143, financial assurance is no longer included as a component of closure or post-closure costs. SFAS No. 143 requires the cost of financial assurance to be expensed as incurred, and SFAS No. 143 requires the cost of financial assurance to be considered in the determination of the credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate.

        Non-landfill closure costs include costs required to dismantle and decontaminate certain structures and other costs incurred during the closure process. Post-closure costs, if required, include associated maintenance and monitoring costs and financial assurance costs as required by the closure permit. Post-closure periods are performance-based and are not generally specified in terms of years in the closure permit, but may generally range from 10 to 30 years. The requirement to incur non-landfill closure and post-closure costs arise with the commencement of facility operations. Previous to the implementation of SFAS No. 143, the Company expensed non-landfill closure and post-closure costs when the decision was made to close a facility.

        The Company records its non-landfill closure and post-closure liability by (i) estimating the current cost of closing a non-landfill facility and the post closure care of that facility, if required, based upon the closure plan that the Company is required to follow under its operating permit, or in the event the facility operates with a permit that does not contain a closure plan, based upon legally enforceable closure commitments made by the Company to various governmental agencies, (ii) using probability scenarios as to when in the future operations may cease, (iii) inflating the current cost of closing the non-landfill facility on a probability weighted basis using the inflation rate to the time of closing under each probability scenario, and (iv) discounting the future value of each closing scenario back to the present using the credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate. Prior to the implementation of SFAS No. 143, these obligations were expensed in the period that a decision was made to close a facility.

        The Company applies Accounting Principles Board ("APB") Opinion No. 25 and related Interpretations in accounting for its stock-based employee compensation plans. SFAS No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation" defines a fair value method of accounting for stock options and other equity instruments. Under the fair value method, compensation cost is measured at the grant date based on the fair value of the award and is recognized over the service period, which is usually the vesting period. The Company has elected to continue to apply the accounting provisions of APB Opinion No. 25 for stock options. Accordingly, no stock-based employee compensation cost is reflected in net income, as all options granted under those plans have an exercise price equal to the market value of the underlying common stock on the date of grant. Had compensation cost for the Company's stock option grants been determined based on the fair value at the grant dates, as calculated in accordance with SFAS No. 123, the Company's net income (loss) attributable to common shareholders and earnings (loss) per common share for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2005 and

F-94

2004, would approximate the pro forma amounts as compared to the amounts reported (dollars in thousands except for per share amounts):

 
   Six Months Ended
June 30,
  
 
   2005
   2004
  
Net income (loss) attributable to common shareholders   $ 12,072   $ (20,926 )
Deduct: Total stock-based employee compensation expense determined under fair value based method for all awards net of related tax effects     842     1,008  
   
 
 
Pro forma net income (loss) attributable to common shareholders   $ 11,230   $ (21,934 )
   
 
 
Earnings (loss) per share:              
  Basic as reported   $ 0.81   $ (1.49 )
  Basic pro forma   $ 0.75   $ (1.57 )
  Diluted as reported   $ 0.71   $ (1.49 )
  Diluted pro forma   $ 0.66   $ (1.57 )

        In December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 123 (revised 2004), "Share-Based Payment." SFAS No. 123(R) replaces SFAS No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation," and supercedes APB Opinion No. 25, "Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees." SFAS No. 123(R) requires companies to report compensation cost relating to share-based payment transactions to be recognized in financial statements. That cost will be measured based upon the fair value of the equity or liability instruments issued. On March 29, 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") issued Staff Accounting Bulletin 107, "Share-Based Payment," that expresses the views of the SEC staff regarding the application of SFAS No. 123(R). The Company is studying the Statement and the Bulletin. The Statement will increase compensation expense starting January 1, 2006.

        In March 2005, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 47 ("FIN 47"), "Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations." FIN 47 clarifies that the term "conditional asset retirement obligation" as used in SFAS No. 143, "Accounting for Assets Retirements Obligations," refers to a legal obligation to perform an asset retirement activity in which the timing and or method of settlement are conditional on a future event that may or may not be within the control of the entity. Furthermore, the uncertainty about the timing and or method of settlement of a conditional asset retirement obligations should be factored into the measurement of the liability when sufficient information exists. FIN 47 clarifies that an entity is required to recognize the liability for the fair value of a conditional asset when incurred if the liability's fair value can be reasonably estimated. The Company is studying FIN 47 and has not determined what effect, if any, FIN 47 will have on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company will implement FIN 47 effective January 1, 2006.

(4) Marketable Securities

        As of December 31, 2004, the Company held $16.8 million in marketable securities. During the six-month period ended June 30, 2005, the Company liquidated these securities realizing no gain or loss.

F-95


(5) Properties Held For Sale

        As part of its plan to integrate the activities of the CSD into its operation, the Company determined that certain acquired properties were no longer needed for its operations. The Company decided to sell these acquired properties; accordingly, the acquired surplus properties were transferred to properties held for sale. In the allocation of the purchase price of the CSD acquisition, the Company valued properties held for sale at the current appraised market value less estimated selling costs. In addition, subsequent to the completion of purchase accounting, the Company identified several additional properties that were no longer needed for its operations. These properties were transferred to properties held for sale at the lower of their net book value or current appraised market value less estimated selling costs. Properties held for sale include only those properties that the Company believes can be sold within the next twelve months based on current market conditions and the asking price. The Company cannot provide assurance that such sales will be completed within that period or that the proceeds from properties held for sale will equal their carrying value.

        During the six-month period ended June 30, 2005, the Company sold one of the properties for $0.3 million, net of selling costs. The sale resulted in a $5 thousand gain. For the six-month period ended June 30, 2004, the Company sold one of the properties for $0.6 million, net of selling costs. The sale resulted in a $0.2 million gain that is included in other income (expense).

(6) Financing Arrangements

        The following table is a summary of the Company's financing arrangements:

 
   June 30,
2005
   December 31,
2004
 
   (in thousands)
Revolving Facility with a financial institution, bearing interest at either the U.S. or Canadian prime rate (6.00% and 4.25%, respectively, at June 30, 2005) or the Eurodollar rate (3.34% at June 30, 2005), depending on the currency of the underlying loan, plus 1.50%, collateralized by accounts receivable   $ —   $ —
Senior Secured Notes, bearing interest at 11.25%, collateralized by a second-priority lien on substantially all of the Company's assets within the United Sates except for accounts receivable     150,000     150,000
   
 
      150,000     150,000
Less unamortized issue discount     1,796     1,878
Less obligations classified as current     —     —
   
 
  Long-term obligations   $ 148,204   $ 148,122
   
 

F-96

        As described in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, the Company has outstanding a $30.0 million revolving credit facility (the "Revolving Facility") and $150.0 million of eight-year Senior Secured Notes (the "Senior Secured Notes"). In addition to such financings, the Company has established a synthetic letter of credit facility (the "Synthetic LC Facility") whereby the Company may obtain up to $90.0 million of letters of credit as described below.

        The principal terms of the Senior Secured Notes, the Revolving Facility, and the Synthetic LC Facility are as follows:

        Senior Secured Notes.    The Senior Secured Notes were issued under an Indenture dated June 30, 2004 (the "Indenture"). The Senior Secured Notes bear interest at 11.25% and mature on July 15, 2012. The Senior Secured Notes were issued at a $2.0 million discount that resulted in an effective yield of 11.5%. Interest is payable semiannually in cash on each January 15 and July 15.

        The Indenture provides for certain covenants, the most restrictive of which requires the Company, within 120 days after the close of each twelve-month period ending on June 30 of each year (beginning June 30, 2005) to apply an amount equal to 50% of the period's Excess Cash Flow (as defined below) to either prepay, repay, redeem or purchase its first-lien obligations under the Revolving Facility and Synthetic LC Facility or to make offers ("Excess Cash Flow Offers") to repurchase all or part of the then outstanding Senior Secured Notes at an offering price equal to 104% of their principal amount plus accrued interest. "Excess Cash Flow" is defined in the Indenture as Consolidated EBITDA (as defined in the Indenture) less interest expense, all taxes paid or accrued in the period, capital expenditures made in cash during the period, and all cash spent on environmental monitoring, remediation or relating to environmental liabilities of the Company.

        Excess Cash Flow for the twelve months ended June 30, 2005 was $29.5 million. The Company will within 120 days following June 30, 2005 offer to repurchase Senior Secured Notes in the amount of 50% of the Excess Cash Flow generated during the twelve-month period ending June 30, 2005. However, at June 30, 2005, the Company had no outstanding first-lien obligations which were then payable under its Revolving Facility or Synthetic LC Facility and, during the six-month period ended June 30, 2005, the market price of the Senior Secured Notes was consistently in excess of the 104% of principal amount at which the Company is required and permitted by the Indenture and the Credit Agreement to make Excess Cash Flow Offers for outstanding Senior Secured Notes. It therefore now appears unlikely that any holders of Senior Secured Notes will accept an Excess Cash Flow Offer made in accordance with the Indenture and the Credit Agreement unless the trading price of the Senior Secured Notes declines prior to the time in 2005 at which the Company will make such an offer. To the extent the Note holders do not accept an Excess Cash Flow Offer based on the Excess Cash Flow earned through June 30, 2005, such Excess Cash Flow will not be included in the amount of Excess Cash Flow earned in subsequent periods. However, the Indenture's requirement to make Excess Cash Flow Offers in respect of Excess Cash Flow earned in subsequent twelve-month periods will remain in effect.

        Revolving Facility.    Both the Revolving Facility and the Synthetic LC Facility were established under a Loan and Security Agreement dated June 30, 2004 (the "Credit Agreement") among the Company, Fleet Capital Corporation as agent for the Revolving Lenders thereunder, Credit Suisse First Boston as agent for the letter of credit facility lenders (the "LC Facility Lenders") thereunder, and certain other parties. The Revolving Facility allows the Company to borrow up to $30.0 million in cash,

F-97


based upon a formula of eligible accounts receivable. This total is separated into two lines of credit, namely a line for the Company and its U.S. subsidiaries equal to $24.7 million and a line for the Company's Canadian subsidiaries of $5.3 million. The Revolving Facility also allows the Company to have issued up to $10.0 million of letters of credit, with the outstanding amount of such letters of credit reducing the maximum amount of borrowings permitted under the Revolving Facility. At June 30, 2005, the Company had no borrowings and $1.2 million of letters of credit outstanding under the Revolving Facility, and the Company had approximately $28.8 million available to borrow. Amounts outstanding under the Revolving Facility bear interest at an annual rate of either the U.S. or Canadian prime rate or the Eurodollar rate (depending on the currency of the underlying loan) plus 1.50%. The Credit Agreement requires the Company to pay an unused line fee of 0.125% per annum on the unused portion of the Revolving Facility. The Revolving Facility matures on June 30, 2009.

        Under the Credit Agreement, the Company is required to maintain a maximum Leverage Ratio (as defined below) of no more than 2.50 to 1.0 for the four-quarter periods ended June 30, 2005 through March 31, 2006. The maximum leverage ratio is then reduced in approximately equal increments to no more than 2.30 to 1.0 for the four-quarter period ending December 31, 2008, and to no more than 2.25 to 1.0 for each succeeding quarter. The Leverage Ratio is defined as the ratio of the consolidated indebtedness of the Company to its Consolidated EBITDA (as defined in the Credit Agreement) achieved for the latest four-quarter period. For the four-quarter period ended June 30, 2005, the Leverage Ratio was 1.55 to 1.0, which was within covenant.

        The Company is also required under the Credit Agreement to maintain a minimum Interest Coverage Ratio (as defined below) of not less than 2.70 to 1.0 for the four-quarter periods ended June 30, 2005 through December 31, 2005. The minimum interest coverage ratio then decreases in approximately equal increments, to not less than 2.85 to 1.0 for the four-quarter period ending December 31, 2007, and not less than 3.00 to 1.0 for each succeeding four-quarter period. The Interest Coverage Ratio is defined as the ratio of the Company's Consolidated EBITDA to its consolidated interest expense. For the four-quarter period ended June 30, 2005, the Interest Coverage Ratio was 3.78 to 1.0, which was within covenant.

        The Company is also under the Credit Agreement required to maintain a fixed charge coverage ratio of not less than 1.0 to 1.0 for each four-quarter period. For the period ended June 30, 2005, the Company's fixed charge coverage ratio was 2.12 to 1.0, which was within covenant.

        Synthetic LC Facility.    The Synthetic LC Facility provides that Credit Suisse First Boston (the "LC Facility Issuing Bank") will issue up to $90.0 million of letters of credit at the Company's request. The LC Facility requires that the LC Facility Lenders maintain a cash account (the "Credit-Linked Account") to collateralize the Company's outstanding letters of credit. Should any such letter of credit be drawn in the future and the Company fails to satisfy its reimbursement obligation, the LC Facility Issuing Bank would be entitled to draw upon the appropriate portion of the $90.0 million in cash which the LC Facility Lenders under the Credit Agreement have deposited into the Credit-Linked Account. Acting through the LC Facility Agent, the LC Facility Lenders would then have the right to exercise their rights as first-priority lien holders (second-priority as to receivables) on substantially all of the assets of the Company and its domestic subsidiaries. The Company has no right, title or interest in the Credit-Linked Account established under the Credit Agreement for purposes of the Synthetic LC Facility. The Company is required to pay (i) a quarterly participation fee at the annual rate of 5.35% on the average daily balance in the Credit-Linked Account and (ii) a quarterly fronting fee at the

F-98


annual rate of 0.30% of the average daily aggregate amount of letters of credit outstanding under the Synthetic LC Facility. At June 30, 2005, letters of credit outstanding under the Synthetic LC facility were $89.2 million. The term of the Synthetic LC Facility will expire on June 30, 2009.

        The Company defines Adjusted EBITDA (a measure not defined under generally accepted accounting principles) as the term "EBITDA" is defined under the Loan and Security Agreement dated June 30, 2004. This definition is net income (loss) plus accretion of environmental liabilities, depreciation and amortization, net interest expense, provision for (benefit from) income taxes, non-recurring severance charges, other non-recurring refinancing-related expenses, change in value of embedded derivative, and gain (loss) on sale of fixed assets.

        The Company's management considers Adjusted EBITDA to be a measurement of performance, which provides useful information to both management and investors. Adjusted EBITDA should not be considered an alternative to net income or loss or other measurements under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Because Adjusted EBITDA is not calculated identically by all companies, our measurements of Adjusted EBITDA may not be comparable to similarly titled measures reported by other companies.

        The following is a reconciliation of net income to Adjusted EBITDA for the six months ended June 30, 2005:

Net income   $ 12,212  
Accretion of environmental liabilities     5,250  
Depreciation and amortization     14,354  
Interest expense, net     11,907  
Provision for income taxes     1,013  
Other income     (510 )
   
 
Adjusted EBITDA   $ 44,226  
   
 

F-99

        The following reconciles Adjusted EBITDA to cash provided for operations for the six months ended June 30, 2005:

Adjusted EBITDA   $ 44,226  
  Interest expense     (11,907 )
  Provision for income taxes     (1,013 )
  Allowance for doubtful accounts     (372 )
  Amortization of deferred financing costs     739  
  Amortization of debt discount     83  
  Other income     510  
  Foreign currency (gain) on intercompany transactions     (404 )
  Changes in assets and liabilities, net of acquisition        
    Accounts receivable     (1,465 )
    Unbilled accounts receivable     (1,567 )
    Deferred costs     952  
    Prepaid expenses     2,928  
    Accounts payable     (5,399 )
    Closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities     (11,311 )
    Deferred revenue     (4,273 )
    Other accrued expenses     1,299  
    Income taxes payable     (2,970 )
    Other, net     (1,022 )
   
 
Net cash provided by operating activities   $ 9,034  
   
 

(7) Legal Proceedings

        The Company's waste management services are continuously regulated by federal, state, provincial and local laws enacted to regulate discharge of materials into the environment, remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater or otherwise protect the environment. This ongoing regulation results in the Company frequently becoming a party to judicial or administrative proceedings involving all levels of governmental authorities and other interested parties. The issues involved in such proceedings generally relate to applications for permits and licenses by the Company and conformity with legal requirements, alleged violations of existing permits and licenses or requirements to clean up contaminated sites. At June 30, 2005, the Company was involved in various proceedings, the principal of which are described below, relating primarily to activities at or shipments to and/or from the Company's waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Substantially all of the Company's legal proceedings liabilities are environmental liabilities and, as such, are included in the tables of changes to remedial liabilities disclosed as part of Footnote 9, Remedial Liabilities, on page F-116.

        Effective September 7, 2002 (the "Closing Date"), the Company purchased from Safety-Kleen Services, Inc. and certain of its domestic subsidiaries (collectively, the "Sellers") substantially all of the assets of the Chemical Services Division (the "CSD") of Safety-Kleen Corp. ("Safety-Kleen"). The

F-100

Company purchased the CSD assets pursuant to a sale order (the "Sale Order") issued by the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court") which had jurisdiction over the Chapter 11 proceedings involving the Sellers, and the Company therefore took title to the CSD assets without assumption of any liability (including pending or threatened litigation) of the Sellers except as expressly provided in the Sale Order. However, under the Sale Order (which incorporated by reference certain provisions of the Acquisition Agreement between the Company and Safety-Kleen Services, Inc.), the Company became subject to certain legal proceedings involving the CSD assets for three reasons as described below. As of June 30, 2005, the Company had reserves of $34.1 million (substantially all of which the Company had established as part of the purchase price for the CSD assets) relating to the Company's estimated potential liabilities in connection with such legal proceedings which were then pending. The Company also estimates that it is "reasonably possible" as that term is defined in SFAS No.5 (more than remote but less than likely), that the amount of such total liabilities could be up to $3.0 million greater than such $34.1 million. Because all of the Company's reasonably possible additional losses relating to legal liabilities relate to remedial liabilities, the reasonably possible additional losses for legal liabilities are reflected in the tables of reasonably possible additional losses in Note 9, "Remedial Liabilities." The Company periodically adjusts the aggregate amount of such reserves when such potential liabilities are paid or otherwise discharged or additional relevant information becomes available to the Company.

        The first reason for the Company becoming subject to certain legal proceedings in connection with the acquisition of the CSD assets is that, as part of the CSD assets, the Company acquired all of the outstanding capital stock of certain Canadian subsidiaries (the "CSD Canadian Subsidiaries") formerly owned by the Sellers (which subsidiaries were not part of the Sellers' bankruptcy proceedings), and the Company therefore became subject to the legal proceedings (which include the Ville Mercier Legal Proceedings described below) in which the Canadian Subsidiaries were then involved. The second reason is that, on the Closing Date for the CSD assets, there were ongoing legal proceedings (which include the FUSRAP Legal Proceedings described below), which directly involved certain of the CSD assets of which the Company became the owner and operator. While the Company did not agree to be responsible for damages or other liabilities of the Sellers relating to such proceedings, these proceedings might nevertheless affect the future operation of those CSD assets. The third reason is that, as part of the purchase price for the CSD assets, the Company agreed with the Sellers that the Company would indemnify the Sellers against certain current and future liabilities of the Sellers under applicable federal and state environmental laws including, in particular, the Sellers' share of certain cleanup costs payable to governmental entities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("Superfund Act") or analogous state Superfund laws. As described below, the Company and the Sellers are not in complete agreement at this time as to the scope of the Company's indemnity obligations under the Sale Order and the Acquisition Agreement with respect to certain Superfund liabilities of the Sellers.

        The principal legal proceedings related to the Company's acquisition of the CSD assets are as follows. While, as described below, the Company has established reserves for certain of these matters, there can be no guarantee that any ultimate liability the Company incurs for any of these matters will not exceed (or be less than) the amount of the current reserves or that the Company will not incur other material expenditures.

F-101


        Ville Mercier Legal Proceedings.    One of the CSD Canadian Subsidiaries (the "Mercier Subsidiary") owns and operates a hazardous waste incinerator in Ville Mercier, Quebec (the "Mercier Facility"). A property owned by the Mercier Subsidiary adjacent to the current Mercier Facility is now contaminated as a result of actions dating back to 1968, when the Quebec government issued to the unrelated company which then owned the Mercier Facility two permits to dump organic liquids into lagoons on the property. By 1972, groundwater contamination had been identified, and the Quebec government provided an alternate water supply to the municipality of Ville Mercier.

        In 1999, Ville Mercier and three neighboring municipalities filed separate legal proceedings against the Mercier Subsidiary and certain related companies together with certain former officers and directors, as well as against the Government of Quebec. The lawsuits assert that the defendants are jointly and severally responsible for the contamination of groundwater in the region, which the plaintiffs claim was caused by contamination from the former Ville Mercier lagoons and which they claim caused each municipality to incur additional costs to supply drinking water for their citizens since the 1970's and early 1980's. The four municipalities claim a total of $1.6 million (CDN) as damages for additional costs to obtain drinking water supplies and seek an injunctive order to obligate the defendants to remediate the groundwater in the region. The Quebec Government also sued the Mercier Subsidiary to recover approximately $17.4 million (CDN) of alleged past costs for constructing and operating a treatment system and providing alternative drinking water supplies. The Mercier Subsidiary continues to assert that it has no responsibility for the groundwater contamination in the region.

        Because the continuation of such proceedings by the Mercier Subsidiary, which the Company now owns, would require the Company to incur legal and other costs and the risks inherent in any such litigation, the Company, as part of its integration plan for the CSD assets, decided to vigorously review options which will allow the Company to establish harmonious relations with the local communities, resolve the adversarial situation with the Provincial government and spare continued legal costs. Based upon the Company's review of likely settlement possibilities, the Company now anticipates that as part of any such settlement it will likely agree to assume at least partial responsibility for remediation of certain environmental contamination and certain prior costs. At June 30, 2005, the Company had accrued $10.6 million for remedial liabilities and associated legal costs relating to the Ville Mercier Legal Proceedings.

        FUSRAP Legal Proceedings.    As part of the CSD assets, the Company acquired a hazardous waste landfill in Buttonwillow, California (the "Buttonwillow Landfill"). During 1998 and 1999, the Seller's subsidiary which then owned the Buttonwillow Landfill (the "Buttonwillow Seller") accepted and disposed in the Buttonwillow Landfill certain construction debris (the "FUSRAP Wastes") that originated at a site in New York that was part of the federal Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ("FUSRAP"). FUSRAP was created in the mid-1970s in an attempt to manage various sites around the country contaminated with residual radioactivity from activities conducted by the Atomic Energy Commission and the United States military during World War II. The FUSRAP Wastes are primarily construction and demolition debris exhibiting low-activity residual radioactivity that were shipped to the Buttonwillow Landfill by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

F-102

        The California Department of Health Services ("DHS") claimed in a letter to the Buttonwillow Seller delivered in 1999 that the Buttonwillow Seller did not lawfully accept the FUSRAP Wastes under applicable California law and regulations. Both DHS and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") filed claims in the Sellers' bankruptcy proceedings preserving the right of those agencies to claim penalties for damages against the Buttonwillow Seller and possibly seeking to compel removal of the FUSRAP Wastes from the Buttonwillow Landfill. However, aside from the letter to the Buttonwillow Seller and the filing of the proofs of claim in the Sellers' bankruptcy proceedings, the California agencies have not commenced any enforcement proceedings relating to the Buttonwillow Landfill. Both the Company and the Sellers believe that the FUSRAP Wastes were properly, safely and lawfully disposed of at the Buttonwillow Landfill under all applicable laws and regulations, and the Company would vigorously resist any efforts to require that such wastes be removed if either of the California agencies should in the future initiate any enforcement action for this purpose. The Company now estimates that the cost of removing the FUSRAP Wastes from the Buttonwillow Landfill would be approximately $6.9 million. However, the Company has not accrued any costs of removing the FUSRAP Wastes because the Company believes that, in the event the California agencies were in the future to initiate any enforcement action, only a remote possibility exists that a final order would be issued requiring the Company to remove such wastes.

        Indemnification of Certain CSD Superfund Liabilities.    The Company's agreement with the Sellers under the Acquisition Agreement and the Sale Order to indemnify the Sellers against certain cleanup costs payable to governmental entities under federal and state Superfund laws now relate primarily to (i) two properties included in the CSD assets which are either now subject or proposed to become subject to Superfund proceedings, (ii) certain potential liabilities which the Sellers might incur in the future in connection with an incinerator formerly operated by Marine Shale Processors, Inc. to which the Sellers shipped hazardous wastes, and (iii) 35 active Superfund sites owned by third parties where the Sellers have been designated as Potentially Responsible Parties ("PRPs"). As described below, there are also four other Superfund sites owned by third parties where the Sellers have been named as PRPs or potential PRPs and for which the Sellers have sent demands for indemnity to the Company since the Closing Date. In the case of the two properties referenced above which were included in the CSD assets, the Company is potentially directly liable for cleanup costs under applicable environmental laws because of the Company's ownership and operation of such properties since the Closing Date. In the case of Marine Shale Processors and the 35 other third-party sites referenced above, the Company does not have direct liability for cleanup costs but may have an obligation to indemnify the Sellers, to the extent provided in the Acquisition Agreement and the Sale Order, against the Sellers' share of such cleanup costs which are payable to governmental entities.

        Federal and state Superfund laws generally impose strict, and in certain circumstances, joint and several liability for the costs of cleaning up Superfund sites not only upon the owners and operators of such sites, but also upon persons or entities which in the past have either generated or shipped hazardous wastes which are present on such sites. The Superfund laws also provide for liability for damages to natural resources caused by hazardous substances at such sites. Accordingly, the Superfund laws encourage PRPs to agree to share in specified percentages of the aggregate cleanup costs for Superfund sites by entering into consent decrees, settlement agreements or similar arrangements. Non-settling PRPs may be liable for any shortfalls in government cost recovery and may be liable to other PRPs for equitable contribution. Under the Superfund laws, a settling PRP's financial liability could increase if the other settling PRPs were to become insolvent or if additional or more severe

F-103


contamination were discovered at the relevant site. In estimating the amount of those Sellers' liabilities at those Superfund sites where one or more of the Sellers has been designated as a PRP and as to which the Company believes that it has potential liability under the Acquisition Agreement and the Sale Order, the Company therefore reviewed any existing consent decrees, settlement agreements or similar arrangements with respect to those sites, the Sellers' negotiated volumetric share of liability (where applicable), the Company's prior knowledge of the relevant sites, and the Company's general experience in dealing with the cleanup of Superfund sites.

        Properties Included in CSD Assets.    The CSD assets acquired by the Company include an active service center located at 2549 North New York Street in Wichita, Kansas (the "Wichita Property"). The Wichita Property is one of several properties located within the boundaries of a 1,400-acre state-designated Superfund site in an old industrial section of Wichita known as the North Industrial Corridor Site. Along with numerous other PRPs, the Sellers executed a consent decree relating to such site with the EPA, and the Company is continuing its ongoing remediation program for the Wichita Property in accordance with that consent decree. Also included within the CSD assets acquired by the Company are rights under an indemnification agreement between the Sellers and a prior owner of the Wichita Property, which the Company anticipates but cannot guarantee will be available to reimburse certain such cleanup costs.

        The CSD assets also include a former hazardous waste incinerator and landfill in Baton Rouge, Louisiana ("BR Facility") currently undergoing remediation pursuant to an order issued by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. In December 2003, the Company received an information request from the federal EPA pursuant to the Superfund Act concerning the Devil's Swamp Lake Site ("Devil's Swamp") in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. On March 8, 2004, the EPA proposed to list Devil's Swamp on the National Priorities List for further investigations and possible remediation. Devil's Swamp includes a lake located downstream of an outfall ditch where wastewaters and stormwaters have been discharged from the BR Facility, as well as extensive swamplands adjacent to it. Contaminants of concern cited by the EPA as a basis for listing the site include substances of the kind found in wastewaters discharged from the BR Facility in past operations. While the Company's ongoing corrective actions at the BR Facility may be sufficient to address the EPA's concerns, there can be no assurance that additional action will not be required and that the Company will not incur material costs. The Company cannot now estimate its potential liability for Devil's Swamp; accordingly, the Company has accrued no liability for remediation of Devil's Swamp beyond what was already accrued pertaining to the ongoing corrective actions and amounts sufficient to cover certain projected legal fees and related expenses.

        Marine Shale Processors.    Beginning in the mid-1980s and continuing until July 1996, Marine Shale Processors, Inc., located in Amelia, Louisiana ("Marine Shale"), operated a kiln which incinerated waste producing a vitrified aggregate as a by-product. Marine Shale contended that its operation recycled waste into a useful product, i.e., vitrified aggregate, and therefore was exempt from regulation under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act ("RCRA") and permitting requirements as a hazardous waste incinerator under applicable federal and state environmental laws. The EPA contended that Marine Shale was a "sham-recycler" subject to the regulation and permitting requirements as a hazardous waste incinerator under RCRA, that its vitrified aggregate by-product was a hazardous waste, and that Marine Shale's continued operation without required permits was illegal. Litigation between the EPA and Marine Shale began in 1990 and continued until July 1996 when the U.S. Fifth Circuit

F-104


Court of Appeals ordered Marine Shale to shutdown its operations. During the course of its operation, Marine Shale produced thousands of tons of aggregate, some of which was sold as fill material at various locations in the vicinity of Amelia, Louisiana, but most of which was stockpiled on the premises of the Marine Shale facility. Almost all of this aggregate has since been moved to a nearby site owned by an affiliate of Marine Shale, known as Recycling Park, Inc. In accordance with a court order authorizing the movement of this material to this off-site location, all of the materials located at Recycling Park, Inc. comply with the land disposal restrictions of RCRA. Approximately 7,000 tons of aggregate remain on the Marine Shale site. Moreover, as a result of past operations, soil and groundwater contamination may exist on the Marine Shale facility and the Recycling Park, Inc. site.

        Although the Sellers never held an equity interest in Marine Shale, the Sellers were among the largest customers of Marine Shale in terms of overall incineration revenue. Based on a plan to settle obligations that was established at the time of the acquisition, the Company obtained more complete information as to the potential status of the Marine Shale facility and the Recycling Park, Inc. site as a Superfund site or sites, the potential costs associated with possible removal and disposal of some or all of the vitrified aggregate and closure and remediation of the Marine Shale facility and the Recycling Park, Inc. site, and the respective shares of other identified potential PRPs on a volumetric basis. Accordingly, the Company determined in the third quarter of 2003 that the remedial liabilities and associated legal costs were then probable and estimable and recorded liabilities for the Company's estimate of the Sellers' proportionate share of environmental cleanup costs potentially payable to governmental entities under federal and/or state Superfund laws. At June 30, 2005, the Company had accrued $13.4 million of reserves relating to potential cleanup costs for the Marine Shale facility and the Recycling Park, Inc. site.

        On December 24, 2003, the Sellers' plan of reorganization became effective under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. If the EPA or the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality ("LDEQ") were in the future to designate the Marine Shale facility and/or the Recycling Park, Inc. site as a Superfund site or sites, the Sellers might assert that they are not responsible for potential cleanup costs associated with such site or sites, and the Company might assert that under the Sale Order the Company is not obligated to pay or reimburse cleanup and related costs associated with such site or sites. The Company cannot now provide assurances with respect to any such matters which, in the event the EPA or the LDEQ were in the future to designate the Marine Shale facility and/or the Recycling Park, Inc. site as a Superfund site or sites, would need to be resolved by future events, negotiations and, if required, legal proceedings.

        Third Party Superfund Sites.    Prior to the Closing Date, the Sellers had generated or shipped hazardous wastes, which are present on an aggregate of 35 sites owned by third parties, which have been designated as federal or state Superfund sites and at which the Sellers, along with other parties, had been designated as PRPs. Under the Acquisition Agreement and the Sale Order, the Company agreed with the Sellers that the Company would indemnify the Sellers against the Sellers' share of the cleanup costs payable to governmental entities in connection with those 35 sites, which were listed in Exhibit A to the Sale Order (the "Listed Third Party Sites"). At 29 of the Listed Third Party Sites, the Sellers had addressed, prior to the Company's acquisition of the CSD assets in September 2002, the Sellers' cleanup obligations to the federal and state governments and to other PRPs by entering into consent decrees or other settlement agreements or by participating in ongoing settlement discussions or site studies and, in accordance therewith, the PRP group is generally performing or has agreed to

F-105


perform the site remediation program with government oversight. With respect to one of those 29 Listed Third Party Sites, certain developments have occurred since the Company's purchase of the CSD assets as described in the following two paragraphs. Of the six remaining Listed Third Party Sites, the Company on behalf of the Sellers is contesting with the governmental entities and PRP groups involved liability at two sites, has settled the Sellers' liability at one site, confirmed that the Sellers were ultimately not named as PRPs at one site, and plans to fund participation by the Sellers as settling PRPs at three sites. With respect to the 35 Listed Third Party Sites, the Company had reserves of $17.9 million at June 30, 2005.

        With respect to one of those 35 sites (the "Helen Kramer Landfill Site"), the Sellers had entered (prior to the Sellers commencing their bankruptcy proceeding in June 2000) into settlement agreements with certain members of the PRP group which agreed to perform the cleanup of that site in accordance with a consent decree with governmental entities, in return for which the Sellers received a conditional release from such governmental entities. Following the Sellers' commencement of their bankruptcy proceeding, the Sellers failed to satisfy their payment obligations to those PRPs under those settlement agreements.

        In November 2003, certain of those PRPs made a demand directly on the Company for the Sellers' share of the cleanup costs incurred by the PRPs with respect to the Helen Kramer Landfill Site. However, at a hearing in the Bankruptcy Court on January 6, 2004 on a motion by those PRPs seeking an order that the Company was liable to such PRPs under the terms of the Sale Order, the Bankruptcy Court declined to hear the motion on the ground that those PRPs (which are not governmental entities) have no right to seek direct payment from the Company for any portion of the cleanup costs which they have incurred in connection with that site. The Company's legal position is that when the Sellers' plan of reorganization became effective in December 2003, the Sellers likely were discharged from their obligations to those PRPs for that site. The Sellers have never made an indemnity request upon the Company for any obligations relating to that site. The PRPs have indicated their intention to pursue additional recourse against the Company, but the Company filed in February 2005 a complaint with the Bankruptcy Court seeking sanctions against the PRPs for contempt of the injunction in the Sale Order against those PRPs' efforts to proceed directly against the Company, and that matter is still pending. On April 20, 2005, the Company's general counsel advised the Company that its exposure to liability for the Sellers' obligations with respect to the Helen Kramer Landfill Site are no longer "probable," and the Company therefore reversed a $1.9 million reserve which the Company had established with respect to those potential liabilities in connection with the Company's acquisition of the CSD assets. The reversal of the $1.9 million reserve was recorded to selling, general and administrative expenses.

        By letters to the Company dated September 22 and 28, 2004, and January 22 and 28, 2005, the Sellers identified, in addition to the 35 Listed Third Party Sites, four additional sites owned by third parties which the EPA or a state environmental agency has designated as a Superfund site or potential Superfund site and at which one or more of the Sellers have been named as a PRP or potential PRP. In those letters, the Sellers asserted that the Company has an obligation to indemnify the Sellers for their share of the potential cleanup costs associated with such four additional sites. The Company has responded to such letters from the Sellers by stating that, under the Sale Order, the Company has no obligation to reimburse the Sellers for any cleanup and related costs (if any), which the Sellers may incur in connection with such four additional sites. The Company intends to assist the Sellers in providing information now in the Company's possession with respect to such four additional sites and

F-106


to participate in negotiations with the government agencies and PRP groups involved. In addition, at one of those four additional sites, the Company may have some liability independently of the Sellers' involvement with that site, and the Company may also have certain defense and indemnity rights under contractual agreements for prior acquisitions relating to that site. Accordingly, the Company is now investigating that site further. However, the Company now believes that it has no liabilities with respect to the potential cleanup of those four additional sites that are both probable and estimable at this time, and the Company has therefore not established any reserves for any potential liabilities of the Sellers in connection therewith. It is expressly the Company's legal position that it is not liable at any of the four sites for any and/or all of the Sellers' liabilities. In any event, at one site the potential liability of the Seller(s) is de minimis and a settlement has already been offered to the Seller(s) to that effect, and at one site the Company believes that the Seller(s) shipped no wastes or substances into the site and therefore the Seller(s) have no liability. For the other two sites, the Company cannot estimate the amount of the Sellers' liabilities, if any, at this time, and that irrespective of whatever liability the Seller(s) may or may not have, the Company reaffirms its position that it does not have any liability for any of the four sites including these two particular sites.

        Inactive Third Party Superfund Sites.    In addition to the Superfund sites owned by third parties described in the preceding paragraphs, the Sellers have also been identified as PRPs at several other federal or state Superfund sites owned by third parties that the Company believes are now inactive with respect to the Sellers. The inactive sites generally involve the shipment by the Sellers of a de minimis amount of wastes to such sites and prior consent decrees, settlement agreements or similar arrangements providing for minimal payment obligations by the Sellers. De minimis agreements generally are intended to settle all claims for small PRPs and such agreements have limited "re-opener" provisions. At certain other inactive sites, the Sellers have disclaimed any liability by advising the governmental entities involved that the Sellers had not shipped any wastes to those sites. The Company has not established reserves for any of the inactive sites because the Company believes that the Sellers' cleanup liabilities with respect to those sites have already been resolved and that, under the Sale Order, the Company would not be responsible for such liabilities in any event.

        In addition to the legal proceedings related to the acquisition of the CSD assets described above, subsequent to the acquisition in September 2002 various plaintiffs which are represented by the same law firm have filed three lawsuits based in part upon allegations relating to ownership and operation of a deep injection well facility near Plaquemine, Louisiana which Clean Harbors Plaquemine, LLC ("CH Plaquemine"), one of the Company's subsidiaries, acquired as part of the CSD assets. The first such lawsuit was filed in December 2003 in the 18th Judicial District Court in Iberville Parish, Louisiana, against CH Plaquemine under the citizen suit provisions of the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act. The lawsuit alleges that the facility is in violation of state law by disposing of hazardous waste into an underground injection well that the plaintiffs allege is located within the banks or boundaries of a body of surface water within the jurisdiction of the State of Louisiana. The lawsuit also focuses on a "new area of concern" at the facility, which the plaintiffs allege is a source of contamination, which will require environmental remediation and/or restoration. The lawsuit also alleges that CH Plaquemine's former facility manager made false representations and failed to disclose material information to the regulators about the facility after CH Plaquemine acquired it in September 2002. The plaintiffs seek an order declaring the facility to be located within the banks or boundaries of a body of surface water

F-107

under state law, payment of civil penalties of $27,500 per violation per day from and after November 17, 2003, and an additional penalty of $1.0 million for damages to the environment, plus interest. The plaintiffs also seek an order requiring the facility to remove all waste disposed of since September of 2002, and in general, to conduct an investigation into and remediate the alleged contamination at the facility, as well as damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage, natural resources damages, costs of litigation, and attorney's fees. On January 14, 2005, the state district court judge granted the plaintiffs' petition for a preliminary (or temporary) injunction restraining the subsidiary from disposing of hazardous waste in the injection well. On January 18, 2005 (the next day the court was again open for business) CH Plaquemine filed a motion seeking to stay the preliminary injunction, which the same judge granted. The legal effect of the stay order was to allow the facility to continue normal business operations and to continue injecting hazardous waste, pending an appeal. In accordance with the stay order that was granted in favor of the subsidiary, CH Plaquemine has appealed the court's initial ruling granting the preliminary (or temporary) injunction to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal in Baton Rouge, and that appeal is presently pending.

        In February 2005 this same group of plaintiffs sent notice to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality that they intended to file a second citizen suit. In April 2005, the second citizen suit petition was filed naming Clean Harbors, Inc. ("CHI"), Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. ("CHESI"), and an employee of CHESI as defendants. The second citizen suit alleges that CHI, CHESI and the CHESI employee are liable for conduct based upon claims that are substantially similar in nature to those filed against CH Plaquemine in the original citizen suit and also alleges that CHI and CHESI are liable for certain aspects of the operations of CH Plaquemine under the lawsuit's so-called "Single Business Entity Doctrine." This second lawsuit seeks civil penalties of $10,000 per day per violation from an unspecified date. Both CHI and CHESI have filed motions to dismiss the suit against them.

        In June 2005, the same plaintiff's lawyers who filed the two lawsuits described immediately above filed a petition to add CHI, CHESI, CH Plaquemine and the two (one former, one current) employee defendants, to a lawsuit commenced in 1996 against the former owner of the site. While the allegations of that suit are slightly different from the two lawsuits described above, CHI and CHESI are again named in the petition as defendants based largely on the so-called "Single Business Entity Doctrine." This third lawsuit also names as defendants certain former owners and operators of the facility and the insurance company that currently provides environmental impairment liability insurance coverage for the facility, and seeks unspecified damages and attorney's fees.

        The Company believes that all three of these lawsuits are without merit, and is vigorously defending against the claims made. The Company further believes that, since its acquisition by CH Plaquemine, the Plaquemine facility has been and now is in full compliance with its operating permits and all applicable state laws, and that any alleged contamination in the "new area of concern" complained of by the plaintiffs was and is already being addressed under the corrective action provisions of its RCRA operating permit. In addition, the Company believes that many of the plaintiffs' claims relate to actions or omissions allegedly taken or caused prior to September 2002 by third parties that formerly owned and/or operated, or generated or shipped waste to, the Plaquemine facility for which the Company has no legal responsibility under the Sale Order. Prior to June 30, 2005, the Company had incurred legal expenses in connection with defending against these three lawsuits that satisfied the $1.0 million deductible on the Company's environmental impairment liability insurance applicable to the Plaquemine facility. Because the Company believes the claims against CH

F-108


Plaquemine, CHI and CHESI in the three lawsuits are without merit and that the Company has adequate insurance to cover any future liabilities associated with such lawsuits, the Company does not now maintain any reserves associated with the three Plaquemine lawsuits.

        In addition to the legal proceedings in which the Company became involved as a result of its acquisition of the CSD assets, the Company is also involved in certain legal proceedings, which have arisen for other reasons. The principal such legal proceedings include certain Superfund proceedings relating to sites owned by third parties where the Company (or a predecessor) has been named a PRP, certain regulatory proceedings, and litigation involving the former holders of the Company's subordinated notes.

        The Company has been named as a PRP at 28 sites that are not related to the CSD acquisition. Fourteen of these sites involve two subsidiaries, which the Company acquired from ChemWaste, a former subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. As part of that acquisition, ChemWaste agreed to indemnify the Company with respect to any liability of those two subsidiaries for waste disposed of before the Company acquired them. Accordingly, Waste Management is paying all costs of defending those two Company subsidiaries in those 14 cases, including legal fees and settlement costs.

        The Company's subsidiary which owns the Bristol, Connecticut facility is involved in one of the 28 Superfund sites. As part of the acquisition of that facility, the seller and its now parent company, Cemex, S.A., agreed to indemnify the Company with respect to any liability for waste disposed of before the Company acquired the facility, which would include any liability arising from Superfund sites.

        Eleven of the 28 Superfund sites involve subsidiaries acquired by the Company, which had been designated as PRPs with respect to such sites prior to acquisition of such subsidiaries by the Company. Some of these sites have been settled, and the Company believes its ultimate liability with respect to the remaining such sites will not be material to the Company's result of operations, cash flow from operations or financial position.

        As of June 30, 2005, the Company had reserves of $0.2 million for cleanup of Superfund sites not related to the CSD acquisition at which either the Company or a predecessor has been named as a PRP. However, there can be no guarantee that the Company's ultimate liabilities for these sites will not materially exceed this amount or that indemnities applicable to any of these sites will be available to pay all or a portion of related costs.

        Kimball Facility.    On April 2, 2003, Region VII of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA Region VII") in Kansas City, Kansas, served a Complaint, Compliance Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing ("CCO") on the Company's subsidiary, which operates an incineration facility in Kimball, Nebraska. The CCO stems from an inspection of the Kimball facility between April 8 and 10, 2002. Thereafter, EPA Region VII issued a Notice of Violation ("NOV") for certain alleged violations of RCRA. The Company responded to the NOV by letter and contested the allegations.

F-109

After extensive settlement negotiations, on February 23, 2004, the Company and EPA Region VII executed a Consent Agreement and Final Order that included a Supplemental Environmental Project ("SEP"). The Company will be required to perform and account for the SEP in accordance with the EPA's SEP Policy. The SEP will involve cleaning out chemicals from high school laboratories, art departments and other campus locations, with all such work to be performed by the Company's own trained field chemists. The SEP will also include the proper packaging, labeling, manifesting, transportation, and ultimately disposal, recycling or re-use of these chemicals at the hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities owned and operated by the Company's subsidiaries, in lieu of the payment of any further civil penalties. The Company will have two years to complete the performance of the SEP, and any remaining amounts then still owed and outstanding will have to be paid in cash at that time, as calculated pursuant to a sliding scale formula that reduces the amount of cash that will be owed as more of the environmental services are rendered over the two-year period. At June 30, 2005, the Company had accrued $132 thousand for its SEP liability.

        Chicago Facility.    By letter dated January 16, 2004, Region V of the EPA ("EPA Region V") in Chicago, Illinois notified the Company that EPA Region V believes the Company's Chicago, Illinois facility may be in violation of the National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations Subpart FF regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act and that EPA Region V may seek injunctive relief and civil penalties for these alleged violations. The alleged violations pertain to total annual benzene quantity determinations and reporting, provisions of individual waste stream identification and emissions control information, and treatment and control requirements for the benzene waste streams. EPA Region V is seeking a fine of $325 thousand. The Company believes that its Chicago facility complies in all material respects with these regulations and has engaged in ongoing settlement discussions with EPA Region V to resolve the issues described in the letter from EPA Region V without litigation. The Company believes that the cost of resolving this matter will not be material to the Company's results of operations or financial position.

        Chicago Facility.    On February 12, 2004, the Company's subsidiary which owns the Chicago facility was notified by the Illinois Attorney General's Office that an enforcement action was being initiated against such facility. The enforcement action alleges that the Chicago facility has violated its operating permit, certain Illinois Pollution Control Board regulations, and allegedly applicable provisions of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ("NESHAPs"). The Illinois Attorney General's Office announced that it was seeking $170 thousand in penalties. Legal and compliance representatives of the Company have held discussions with the Illinois Attorney General's Office and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and anticipate that a Supplemental Environmental Project will be negotiated that will substantially reduce the cash component of the penalty in exchange for agreeing to the installation of equipment upgrades at the facility designed to address and control air emissions from operations. These negotiations are ongoing, and although significant progress has been made, there can be no assurance that a settlement can be reached or that the penalty will be reduced.

        Aragonite, Utah Facility.    In February 2005, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") issued a Notice of Violation and Compliance Order ("NOVCO") No. 0405013 against the Clean Harbors Aragonite, LLC incinerator, transfer station and storage facility located near Aragonite, Utah ("CH Aragonite"). The NOVCO pertains to hazardous waste compliance inspections conducted

F-110


from October 2003 through September 2004 at CH Aragonite. CH Aragonite filed a detailed and comprehensive response to the NOVCO in April 2005. The DEQ assessed a proposed penalty of $129,860 and the Company is continuing to negotiate for a reduction in the fine.

        London, Ontario Facility.    Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc., and one of the Company's Canadian subsidiaries, Clean Harbors Canada, Inc., received a summons alleging a number of regulatory offenses under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act as a result of a fire in October 2003 at a Clean Harbors Canada, Inc., waste transfer facility in London, Ontario. A worker at the facility received serious injuries as a result of the fire. The initial appearance on this matter occurred on November 22, 2004. The Company has not yet determined whether to defend the charges or attempt to negotiate a settlement. The Company has not accrued any liability associated with this matter because any potential liability is not now estimable.

        Summons To Respond to Environment Canada.    On July 15, 2005 a Summons was received by the Company's Lambton Facility in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada requiring the Company to appear in an Ontario Court on September 19, 2005 to answer charges alleging that at various times between January, 2003 and June 2004, the Company failed to provide manifest copies to Environment Canada within three days after the manifest is provided to the first authorized carrier and failure to provide an inspector with outstanding manifests; importation of environmentally hazardous waste without an authorized carrier; and failure to submit notice information to the Minister. Such alleged failures if true, would be contrary to: section 7(o) of the Export and Import of Hazardous Waste Regulations; section 272 (1)(a) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, c-33; paragraph 3(1) of the Environmental Emergency Regulations; section 32 (a) of the Export and Import of Hazardous Waste Regulations; section 30(a) of the Export and Import of Hazardous Wastes Regulations and section 13(1)(a) of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.

        At this time the information concerning this proceeding is in its preliminary stages and the Company expects to learn additional details concerning the alleged charges when counsel for the Company appear at the court proceeding on September 19, 2005.

        Litigation Involving Former Holders of Subordinated Notes.    On April 30, 2001, the Company issued to John Hancock Life Insurance Company, Special Value Bond Fund, LLC, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and certain other institutional lenders (collectively, the "Lenders") $35.0 million of 16% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2008 (the "Subordinated Notes") as part of the Company's refinancing of all its then outstanding indebtedness. Under the Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of April 12, 2001, between the Company and the Lenders (the "Purchase Agreement"), the Company was also required to pay a $350 thousand closing fee and issue to the Lenders warrants for an aggregate of 1,519,020 shares of the Company's common stock (the "Warrants") exercisable at any time prior to April 30, 2008 at an exercise price of $.01 per share. The Purchase Agreement contained covenants limiting (with certain exceptions) the Company's ability to acquire other businesses or incur additional indebtedness without the consent of a majority in interest of the Lenders. The Purchase Agreement also provided that, if the Company should elect to prepay the Subordinated Notes prior to maturity, the Company would be obligated to pay a prepayment penalty which, in the case of a prepayment prior to April 30, 2004, would include a so-called "Make Whole Amount" computed using a discount rate 2.5% above the then current yield on United States government securities of equal maturity to the

F-111

Subordinated Notes. The Purchase Agreement also provided that, if the Company should default on any of the terms of the Purchase Agreement including the covenants described above, the Lenders would have the right to call the Subordinated Notes for payment at an amount equal to the principal, accrued interest and the so-called "Make Whole Amount" then in effect.

        During several months prior to the Company's acquisition of the CSD assets effective September 7, 2002, the Company sought the Lenders' cooperation with respect to such acquisition and to include the Lenders in a refinancing of the Company's outstanding debt (which might involve leaving the Subordinated Notes outstanding or refinancing them). The Lenders, however, ultimately refused to provide any such cooperation. The Company thus notified the Lenders that it was proceeding with the acquisition of the CSD assets, which would be a violation of certain covenants in the Purchase Agreement, and the Lenders then called the Subordinated Notes for payment, including principal, interest and the "Make Whole Amount" of $16,991,129, an amount equal to 48.5% of the principal amount of the Subordinated Notes. In response to the Lenders' demand, the Company immediately paid in full the amount demanded, while notifying the Lenders that it was paying the "Make Whole Amount" under protest. It is the Company's position that if the payment to the Lenders is not deemed to be voluntary and the 48.5% "Make Whole Amount" is deemed unconscionable, the "Make-Whole Amount" is likely to be held unenforceable under Massachusetts case law.

        Shortly after the closing of the acquisition of the CSD assets, the Company wrote to the Lenders demanding a return of the prepayment penalty, in response to which, on September 27, 2002, the Lenders filed a complaint in the Superior Court in Norfolk County, Massachusetts asking the Court to determine the prepayment penalty to be valid and enforceable. On October 1, 2002, the Company filed a complaint in the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court in Suffolk County, Massachusetts seeking a declaratory judgment that the "Make Whole Amount" is an unenforceable penalty and seeking an order for the return of the amount paid as a penalty, less the Lenders' actual damages (if any), plus interest and costs. In the case of certain of the Lenders, the Company also seeks a judgment that those Lenders' receipt of their share of the "Make Whole Amount," the closing payment and the fair value of the Warrants constitutes a violation of applicable Massachusetts usury laws. The Company filed a motion seeking to consolidate both legal proceedings in the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which motion was granted. Discovery in the proceedings was completed and all parties served and filed motions for summary judgment. On March 15, 2004, the Court granted summary judgment for the Lenders ruling that the "Make Whole Amount" was enforceable, and on May 15, 2004 the court ordered the Company pay $323 thousand to the Lenders for legal and expert cost reimbursement. The Company has appealed the Court's rulings, and the Lenders have cross-appealed as to the amount of legal and expert cost reimbursement. The Appeals Court heard the appeals on March 5, 2005, but a decision by the Court is not expected for several months. The Company has not accrued the Lenders' legal and expert costs because the Company now believes that such payment is not probable.

F-112


(8) Closure and Post-closure Liabilities

        Reserves for closure and post-closure obligations are as follows (in thousands):

 
   June 30, 2005
   2004
December 31,
Landfill facilities:            
Cell closure   $ 16,180   $ 14,959
Facility closure     1,877     1,726
Post-closure     2,407     2,203
   
 
      20,464     18,888

Non-landfill retirement liability:
 
 
 
 
 
 
Facility closure     6,200     6,763
   
 
      26,664     25,651
Less obligation classified as current     2,776     2,930
   
 
Long-term closure and post-closure liability   $ 23,888   $ 22,721
   
 

        All of the landfill facilities included in the table above are active as of June 30, 2005.

        Anticipated payments at June 30, 2005 (based on current estimated costs) and anticipated timing of necessary regulatory approvals to commence work on closure and post-closure activities for each of the next five years and thereafter are as follows (in thousands):

Periods ending December 31,
    
  
Remaining six months 2005   $ 1,122  
2006     3,734  
2007     5,295  
2008     7,036  
2009     2,922  
Thereafter     206,345  
   
 
Undiscounted closure and post-closure liabilities     226,454  
Less: Reserves to be provided (including discount of $119.3 million) over remaining site lives     (199,790 )
   
 
Present value of closure and post-closure liabilities   $ 26,664  
   
 

F-113

        The changes to closure and post-closure liabilities for the six months ended June 30, 2005 are as follows (in thousands):

 
   December 31,
2004
   New Asset
Retirement
Obligations
   Accretion
   Changes in
Estimate
Charged to
Statement of
Operations
   Other
Changes in
Estimates
   Currency
Translation,
Reclassificatio
ns and Other
   Payments
   June 30,
2005
Landfill retirement liability   $ 18,888   $ 476   $ 1,372   $ (153 ) $ —   $ (10 ) $ (109 ) $ 20,464
Non-landfill retirement liability     6,763     —     403     43     —     (2 )   (1,007 )   6,200
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total   $ 25,651   $ 476   $ 1,775   $ (110 ) $ —   $ (12 ) $ (1,116 ) $ 26,664
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

        The following table presents the change in remaining highly probable airspace from December 31, 2004 through June 30, 2005 (in thousands):

 
   Highly Probable
Airspace
(Cubic Yards)
  
Remaining capacity at December 31, 2004   28,454  
Consumed during six months ended June 30, 2005   (319 )
   
 
Remaining capacity at June 30, 2005   28,135  
   
 

        Asset retirement obligations incurred in 2005 are being discounted at the credit-adjusted risk-free rate of 10.25% and inflated at a rate of 2.16%.

        As of December 31, 2004, there were three unpermitted expansions included in the Company's landfill accounting model, which represents 32.4% of the Company's remaining airspace at that date. Of these expansions, two do not represent exceptions to the Company's established criteria. In March 2004, the Chief Financial Officer approved and the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors reviewed the inclusion of 7.8 million cubic yards of unpermitted airspace in highly probable airspace because it was determined that the airspace was highly probable even though the permit application will not be submitted within the next year. All of the other criteria were met for the inclusion of this airspace in highly probable airspace. Had the Company not included the 7.8 million cubic yards of unpermitted airspace in highly probable airspace, operating expense for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 would have been higher by $136 thousand and $271 thousand, respectively.

(9) Remedial Liabilities

        Remedial liabilities are obligations to investigate, alleviate or eliminate the effects of a release (or threat of a release) of hazardous substances into the environment and may also include corrective action under RCRA. The Company's operating subsidiaries' remediation obligations can be further characterized as Legal, Superfund, Long-term Maintenance and One-Time Projects. Legal liabilities are typically comprised of litigation matters that can involve certain aspects of environmental cleanup and can include third party claims for property damage or bodily injury allegedly arising from or caused by

F-114


exposure to hazardous substances originating from Company activities or operations, or in certain cases, from the actions or inactions of other persons or companies. Superfund liabilities are typically claims alleging that the Company is a potentially responsible party and/or is potentially liable for environmental response, removal, remediation and cleanup costs at/or from either an owned or third party site. As described in Note 7, "Legal Proceedings," Superfund liabilities also include certain Superfund liabilities to governmental entities for which the Company is potentially liable to reimburse the Sellers in connection with the Company's 2002 acquisition of the CSD assets from Safety-Kleen Corp. Long-term Maintenance includes the costs of groundwater monitoring, treatment system operations, permit fees and facility maintenance for discontinued operations. One-Time Projects include the costs necessary to comply with regulatory requirements for the removal or treatment of contaminated materials.

        SFAS No. 143 applies to asset retirement obligations that arise from ordinary business operations. The Company became subject to almost all of its remedial liabilities as part of the acquisition of the CSD assets from Safety-Kleen Corp., and the Company believes that the remedial obligations did not arise from normal operations. Remedial liabilities to which the Company became subject in connection with the acquisition of the CSD assets have been and will continue to be inflated using the inflation rate at the time of acquisition (2.4%) until the expected time of payment, then discounted at the risk-free interest rate at the time of acquisition (4.9%). Remedial liabilities incurred subsequent to the acquisition and remedial liabilities that existed prior to the acquisition have been and will continue to be recorded at the estimated current value of the liability, which is usually neither increased for inflation nor reduced for discounting.

        The Company records environmental-related accruals for remedial obligations at both its landfill and non-landfill operations. See Note 4 in the Annual Report filed on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 for further discussion of the Company's methodology for estimating and recording these accruals.

        Reserves for remedial obligations are as follows (in thousands):

 
   June 30,
2005
   December 31,
2004
Remedial liabilities for landfill sites   $ 4,840   $ 4,985
Remedial liabilities for discontinued facilities not now used in active conduct of the Company's business     92,459     95,116
Remedial liabilities (including Superfund) for non-landfill open sites     51,427     55,516
   
 
      148,726     155,617
Less obligation classified as current     11,110     11,328
   
 
Long-term remedial liability   $ 137,616   $ 144,289
   
 

F-115

        Anticipated payments (based on current estimated costs) and anticipated timing of necessary regulatory approvals to commence work on remedial activities for each of the next five years and thereafter are as follows (in thousands):

Periods ending December 31,
    
  
Remaining six months 2005   $ 5,719  
2006     10,990  
2007     10,882  
2008     11,745  
2009     11,507  
Thereafter     140,310  
   
 
Undiscounted remedial liabilities     191,153  
Less: Discount     (42,427 )
   
 
Present value of remedial liabilities   $ 148,726  
   
 

        The anticipated payments for Long-term Maintenance range from $4.2 million to $6.3 million per year over the next five years. Spending on One-Time Projects for the next five years ranges from $3.7 million to $5.9 million per year with an average expected payment of $5.3 million per year. Legal and Superfund liabilities payments are expected to be between $0.4 million and $2.3 million per year for the next five years. These estimates are managed on a daily basis, reviewed at least quarterly, and adjusted as additional information becomes available.

        The changes to remedial liabilities for the six months ended June 30, 2005 are as follows (in thousands):

 
   December 31,
2004
   Accretion
   Changes in
Estimate
Recorded to
Statement of
Operations
   Currency
Translation,
Reclassifications
and Other
   Payments
   June 30,
2005
Remedial liabilities for landfill sites   $ 4,985   $ 107   $ (92 ) $ (36 ) $ (124 ) $ 4,840
Remedial liabilities for discontinued sites not now used in the active conduct of the Company's business     95,116     2,168     (3,240 )   (30 )   (1,555 )   92,459
Remedial liabilities (including Superfund) for non-landfill operations     55,516     1,200     (4,144 )   (148 )   (997 )   51,427
   
 
 
 
 
 
Total   $ 155,617   $ 3,475   $ (7,476 ) $ (214 ) $ (2,676 ) $ 148,726
   
 
 
 
 
 

        Included in the $7.5 million change in estimate recorded to the statement of operations is the $1.9 million reversal of the Helen Kramer landfill site reserve as described in Note 7, "Legal Proceedings;" a $2.1 million reduction for financial assurance for remedial liabilities that was driven by the renegotiation of financial assurance for closure and post-closure care for one of the Company's facilities and the Company's improved financial performance; and a net $3.5 million benefit due to (i) the discounting effect of delays in certain remedial projects, (ii) cost reductions negotiated with vendors, and (iii) a pattern of historical spending being less than previously expected and reserved. Of

F-116


the $7.5 million benefit recorded for the six months ended June 30, 2005, $5.3 million of the benefit was recorded to selling, general and administrative expenses.

        Estimation of Certain Preacquisition Contingencies    SFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies," requires that an estimated loss from a loss contingency be accrued and recorded as a liability if it is both probable and estimable, but the Statement does not permit a company acquiring assets to record as part of the purchase price those assumed liabilities which are not both probable and estimable. As described in Note 7, "Legal Proceedings," under the headings "Ville Mercier Legal Proceedings" and "Marine Shale Processors," as of December 31, 2002 the Company was unable to estimate the amount of potential remedial liabilities in connection with the facility and sites which are the subject of these proceedings, but, as part of the integration plan of the CSD acquisition, the Company committed to obtaining the data required so that the Company could record such potential liabilities as adjustments to the purchase price. Sufficient additional information on these proceedings was obtained prior to the first anniversary to allow the Company to record these potential liabilities as adjustments to the purchase price for the CSD assets in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States. Accordingly, additional discounted environmental liabilities were recorded as part of the purchase price in the quarter ended September 30, 2003. At June 30, 2005, the Company had recorded reserves of $13.4 million and $10.6 million relating to Marine Shale Processors and the Ville Mercier Legal Proceedings, respectively.

        Remedial liabilities, including Superfund liabilities    As described in the tables above under "Reserves for remedial obligations," the Company had as of June 30, 2005 a total of $148.7 million of estimated liabilities for remediation of environmental contamination, of which $4.8 million related to the Company's landfills and $143.9 million related to non-landfill facilities (including Superfund sites owned by third parties). The Company periodically evaluates potential remedial liabilities at sites that it owns or operates or to which the Company or the Sellers of the CSD assets (or the respective predecessors of the Company or the Sellers) transported or disposed of waste, including 56 Superfund sites as of June 30, 2005. The Company periodically reviews and evaluates sites requiring remediation, including Superfund sites, giving consideration to the nature (i.e., owner, operator, arranger, transporter or generator) and the extent (i.e., amount and nature of waste hauled to the location, number of years of site operations or other relevant factors) of the Company's (or the Sellers') alleged connection with the site, the extent (if any) to which the Company believes it may have an obligation to the Sellers to indemnify cleanup costs in connection with the site, the regulatory context surrounding the site, the accuracy and strength of evidence connecting the Company (or the Sellers) to the location, the number, connection and financial ability of other named and unnamed PRPs and the nature and estimated cost of the likely remedy. Where the Company concludes that it is probable that a liability has been incurred, provision is made, based upon management's judgment and prior experience, for the Company's best estimate of the liability.

        Remediation liabilities are inherently difficult to estimate. Estimating remedial liabilities requires that the existing environmental contamination be understood. There is a risk that the actual quantities of contaminants differ from the results of the site investigation, and there is a risk that contaminants exist that have not been identified by the site investigation. In addition, the amount of remedial liabilities recorded is dependent on the remedial method selected. There is a risk that funds will be expended on a remedial solution that is not successful, which could result in the additional incremental

F-117


costs of an alternative solution. Such estimates, which are subject to change, are subsequently revised if and when additional information becomes available.

        In connection with the Company's acquisition of the CSD assets, the Company performed extensive due diligence to estimate accurately the aggregate liability for remedial liabilities to which the Company became potentially liable as a result of the acquisition. Those remedial liabilities relate to the active and discontinued hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities which the Company acquired as part of the CSD assets and 35 Superfund sites owned by third parties for which the Company agreed to indemnify certain remedial liabilities owed or potentially owed by the Sellers and payable to governmental entities. In the case of each such facility and site, the Company's estimate of remediation liabilities involved an analysis of such factors as: (i) the nature and extent of environmental contamination (if any), (ii) the terms of applicable permits and agreements with regulatory authorities as to cleanup procedures and whether modifications to such permits and agreements will likely need to be negotiated, (iii) the cost of performing anticipated cleanup activities based upon current technology, and (iv) in the case of Superfund and other sites where other parties will also be responsible for a portion of the cleanup costs, the likely allocation of such costs and the ability of such other parties to pay their share. Based upon the Company's analysis of each of the above factors in light of currently available facts and legal interpretations, existing technology, and presently enacted laws and regulations, the Company estimates that its aggregate liabilities as of June 30, 2005 (as calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States) for future remediation relating to all of its owned or leased facilities and the Superfund sites for which the Company has current or potential liability is approximately $148.7 million. The Company also estimates that it is "reasonably possible" as that term is defined in SFAS No. 5 ("more than remote but less than likely"), that the amount of such total liabilities could be up to $22.0 million greater than such $148.7 million. Future changes in either available technology or applicable laws or regulations could affect such estimates of environmental liabilities. Since the Company's satisfaction of the liabilities will occur over many years and in some cases over periods of 30 years or more, the Company cannot now reasonably predict the nature or extent of future changes in either available technology or applicable laws or regulations and the impact that those changes, if any, might have on the current estimates of environmental liabilities.

        The following tables show, respectively, (i) the amounts of such estimated liabilities associated with the types of facilities and sites involved and (ii) the amounts of such estimated liabilities associated with each facility or site which represents at least 5% of the total and with all other facilities and sites as a group.

F-118


        Estimates Based on Type of Facility or Site (dollars in thousands):

Type of Facility or Site
   Discounted Remedial
Liability
   % of Total
   Discounted
Reasonably Possible
Additional Losses
Facilities now used in active conduct of the Company's business (16 facilities)   $ 36,293   24.4 % $ 7,616
Discontinued CSD facilities not now used in active conduct of the Company's business but acquired because assumption of remedial liabilities for such facilities was part of the purchase price for CSD assets (16 facilities)     92,283   62.0     11,191
Superfund sites owned by third parties on which wastes generated or shipped by the Sellers (or their predecessors) are present (18 sites)     17,929   12.1     1,661
Sites for which the Company had liabilities prior to the acquisition of CSD assets (4 Superfund sites and 7 other sites)     2,221   1.5     1,491
   
 
 
Total   $ 148,726   100.0 % $ 21,959
   
 
 

        Estimates Based on Amount of Potential Liability (dollars in thousands):

Location
   Type of Facility or Site
   Discounted
Remedial Liability
   % of Total
   Discounted
Reasonably
Possible
Additional
Losses
Baton Rouge, LA   Closed incinerator and landfill   $ 37,824   25.4 % $ 5,319
Bridgeport, NJ   Closed incinerator     27,537   18.6     3,363
Marine Shale Processors   Potential third party Superfund site     13,413   9.0     1,368
Mercier, Quebec   Open incineration facility and legal proceedings     11,317   7.6     1,149
Roebuck, SC   Closed incinerator     9,523   6.4     834
San Jose, CA   Open treatment, storage, or disposal facility     7,480   5.0     844
Various   All other incinerators, landfills, wastewater treatment facilities and service centers (35 facilities)     36,899   24.8     8,598
Various   All other Superfund sites (each representing less than 5% of total liabilities) owned by third parties on which wastes generated or shipped by either the Company or the Sellers (or their predecessors) are present (21 sites)     4,733   3.2     484
       
 
 
Total       $ 148,726   100.0 % $ 21,959
       
 
 

F-119

        Revisions to remedial reserve requirements may result in upward or downward adjustments to income from operations in any given period. The Company believes that its extensive experience in the environmental services business, as well as its involvement with a large number of sites, provides a reasonable basis for estimating its aggregate liability. It is reasonably possible that legal, technological, regulatory or enforcement developments, the results of environmental studies or other factors could necessitate the recording of additional liabilities and/or the revision of currently recorded liabilities that could be material. The impact of such future events cannot be estimated at the current time.

(10) Other Income

        For the three months ended June 30, 2005, other expense of $(0.1) million consisted of net losses on the sale of fixed assets. For the six months ended June 30, 2005 other income of $0.5 consisted primarily of a gain relating to the settlement of an insurance claim.

        As described in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, the Company issued $25.0 million of Series C Preferred Stock on September 10, 2002. The Company determined that the Series C Preferred Stock should be recorded on the Company's financial statements as though the Series C Preferred Stock consisted of two components, namely (i) a non-convertible redeemable preferred stock (the "Host Contract") with a 6% annual dividend, and (ii) an embedded derivative (the "Embedded Derivative") which reflected the right of the holders of the Series C Preferred Stock to convert into the Company's common stock on the terms set forth in the Series C Preferred Stock. The Company recorded in other long-term liabilities the $9.3 million initial fair value of the Embedded Derivative and periodically marked that value to market. As of June 30, 2004, the market value of the Embedded Derivative was determined to be $11.2 million and the Company recorded expense of $6.9 million and $1.6 million for the three-and six-month periods ended June 30, 2004, respectively, to reflect such adjustment. On June 30, 2004, the Company redeemed the Series C Preferred Stock and settled the Embedded Derivative liability. The settlement of the Embedded Derivative liability will result in no additional other income (expense) being recorded in future periods related to the Embedded Derivative.

(11) Loss on Refinancing

        As further discussed in Note 6, the Company previously had outstanding a $100.0 million three-year revolving credit facility (the "Revolving Credit Facility"), $115.0 million of three-year non-amortizing term loans (the "Senior Loans"), $40.0 million of five-year non-amortizing subordinated loans (the "Subordinated Loans"), Series C Convertible Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value (the "Series C Preferred Stock") and the related embedded derivative (the "Embedded Derivative") which reflected the right of the holders of the Series C Preferred Stock to convert into the Company's common stock on the terms set forth in the Series C Preferred Stock. On June 30, 2004, the Company repaid the Revolving Credit Facility, the Senior Loans and the Subordinated Loans, redeemed the Series C Convertible Preferred Stock and settled the related Embedded Derivative liability. The Company recorded refinancing expenses, net of $7.1 million during the three-month period ended June 30, 2004. Such expenses consisted of a write-off of deferred financing costs of $5.3 million, prepayment penalties of $3.1 million, and other expenses of $0.3 million. These expenses were partially offset by the gain on the settlement of the Embedded Derivative of $1.6 million.

F-120


(12) Income Taxes

        SFAS 109, "Accounting for Income Taxes," requires that a valuation allowance be established when, based on an evaluation of available evidence, it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. Accordingly, at June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, the Company continued to maintain a full valuation allowance against the Company's net U.S. deferred tax assets. The actual realization of the net operating loss carryforwards and other tax assets depend on having future taxable income of the appropriate character prior to their expiration. The Company will continue to re-evaluate the need for this valuation allowance in light of all available evidence including projections of future operating results.

        The Company had approximately $45.2 million of net operating loss carryforwards at December 31, 2004. During the three (six) month period ending June 30, 2005, the Company does not expect any significant changes to the year end net operating loss carryforward, primarily due to book income being offset by tax deductions for non qualified stock options and other timing differences.

(13) Earnings (Loss) Per Share

        The following is a calculation of basic and diluted income (loss) per share computations (in thousands except for per share amounts) for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004:

 
   Six Months Ended June 30, 2005
 
   Income
(Numerator)
   Shares
(Denominator)
   Share
Per
Net income   $ 12,212          
Less preferred stock dividends     (140 )        
   
         
Basic earnings attributable to common shareholders   $ 12,072   14,913   $ 0.81
   
         
Net income   $ 12,212   2,229      
   
 
     
Diluted earnings attributable to common shareholders   $ 12,212   17,142   $ 0.71
   
 
 
 
   Six Months Ended June 30, 2004
  
 
   Income
(Numerator)
   Shares
(Denominator)
   Per Share
  
Net loss   $ (9,310 )          
Less redemption of Series C preferred stock and dividends and accretion on preferred stock     11,616            
   
           
Basic and diluted loss attributable to common shareholders   $ (20,926 ) 14,002   $ (1.49 )
   
 
 
 

        For the six-month period ended June 30, 2005, the dilutive effect of all outstanding warrants, options (except for 21 thousand options) and Series B Preferred Stock is included in the above calculation. Because the effects would be anti-dilutive for that period, the above computation of diluted earnings attributable to common shareholders exclude the effect of the assumed exercise of 21 thousand stock options for the six-month period ended June 30, 2005.

        Because the effects would be anti-dilutive for the six-month period ended June 30, 2004, the above computations of diluted loss per share for that period exclude the assumed exercise of warrants issued in connection with the redemption of the Series C Convertible Preferred Stock into 2.8 million shares

F-121


of common stock, the assumed exercise of 1.7 and 1.9 million stock options, and the assumed conversion of the Series B Preferred Stock into 0.3 million shares of common stock.

(14) Redemption of Series C Redeemable Preferred Stock and Dividends and Accretion on Preferred Stock

        As more fully described in Note 18 of the Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2004, the Company redeemed 25,000 shares of Series C Preferred Stock on June 30, 2004. For the six- month period ended June 30, 2005, redemption of Series C Redeemable Preferred Stock and dividends and accretion on preferred stocks consisted of dividends on the Company's Series B Convertible Preferred Stock of $70 thousand and $140 thousand, respectively.

        For the six-month period ended June 30, 2004, redemption of Series C Redeemable Preferred Stock and dividends and accretion on preferred stocks consisted of the following: redemption of the Series C Redeemable Preferred Stock of $9.9 million, dividends on preferred stocks of $1.0 million, and amortization of preferred stock discount and issuance costs of $0.7 million.

(15) Stockholders' Equity

        On February 11, 2005, the Company issued an aggregate of 420,571 shares of its common stock. The shares were issued upon cashless exercise of warrants for an aggregate of 717,060 shares with an exercise price of $8.00 per share. In connection with the cashless exercise, the warrant holders surrendered their rights under the warrants for the balance of an aggregate of 296,489 shares of common stock. Other than the surrender of such rights under the warrants, the warrant holders paid no consideration in connection with the issuance, and the Company received no proceeds from the issuance.

        On May 18, 2005, the Company filed a Restated Articles of Organization with the Massachusetts Secretary of State. As a result, the authorized shares of common stock increased from 20,000,000 to 40,000,000, the authorized shares of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock decreased from 894,585 to zero and the authorized shares of Series C Convertible Preferred Stock decreased from 25,000 to zero. The Company's current authorized number of shares is 40,000,000 for common stock and 1,080,415 for preferred stock (of which 156,416 have been designated as Series B Convertible Preferred Stock).

        Dividends on the Company's Series B Convertible Preferred Stock are payable on the 15th day of January, April, July and October, at the rate of $1.00 per share, per quarter. Under the terms of the Series B Preferred Stock, the Company can elect to pay dividends in cash or in common stock with a market value equal to the amount of the dividends payable. The dividends due on January 15 and April 15, 2005 were paid in cash. However, because of loan covenant restrictions then in place, the Company issued 12,531 and 15,255 shares of its common stock, respectively, in payment of the January 15 and April 15, 2004 dividend requirements.

(16) Segment Reporting

        Segment information has been prepared in accordance with SFAS No. 131, "Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information." Performance of the segments is evaluated on several factors, of which the primary financial measure is operating income before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization, restructuring, non-recurring severance charges, (gain) loss on disposal of

F-122


assets held for sale, and other (income) expense ("Adjusted EBITDA Contribution"). Such definition of "Adjusted EBITDA" is the same as the definition of "Consolidated EBITDA" used in the Company's current credit agreement and indenture for convenant compliance purposes. Transactions between the segments are accounted for at the Company's estimate of fair value based on similar transactions with outside customers. In general, SFAS No. 131 requires that business entities report selected information about operating segments in a manner consistent with that used for internal management reporting.

        The Company has two reportable segments: Technical Services and Site Services.

        Technical Services include:

        These services are provided through a network of service centers where a fleet of trucks, rail or other transport is dispatched to pick up customers' waste either on a pre-determined schedule or on demand, and then to deliver waste to a permitted facility. From the service centers, chemists can also be dispatched to a customer location for the collection of chemical waste for disposal.

        Site Services provide highly skilled experts utilizing specialty equipment and resources to perform services, such as industrial maintenance, surface remediation, groundwater restoration, site and facility decontamination, emergency response, site remediation, PCB disposal, oil disposal, analytical testing services, information management services and personnel training. The Company offers outsourcing services for customer environmental management programs as well, and provides analytical testing services, information management and personnel training services.

        The Company markets these services through its sales organizations and, in many instances, services in one area of the business support or lead to work in other service lines. Expenses associated with the sales organizations are allocated based on external revenues by segment.

        The operations not managed through the Company's two operating segments are presented herein as "Corporate Items." Corporate item revenues consist of two different operations where the revenues are insignificant and represents approximately one-tenth of one percent of the Company's total revenue. Corporate item cost of revenue represents certain central services that are not allocated to the segments for internal reporting purposes. Corporate item selling, general and administrative expenses include typical corporate items such as legal, accounting and other items of a general corporate nature that are not allocated to the Company's two segments.

        The following tables reconcile revenues from direct revenue to third party revenue for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004. The Company analyzes results of operations based on

F-123


direct revenues because the Company believes that these revenues and related expenses best reflect the management of operations.

 
   For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2005
  
 
   Technical Services
   Site Services
   Corporate Items
   Totals
  
Direct revenue   $ 238,341   $ 100,272   $ 263   $ 338,876  
Intersegment expenses     161,090     30,126     565     191,781  
   
 
 
 
 
Gross revenues     399,431     130,398     828     530,657  
Intersegment revenues     (174,624 )   (16,807 )   (350 )   (191,781 )
   
 
 
 
 
Third party revenues   $ 224,807   $ 113,591   $ 478   $ 338,876  
   
 
 
 
 
 
   For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2004
  
 
   Technical Services
   Site Services
   Corporate Items
   Totals
  
Direct revenue   $ 229,221   $ 74,284   $ 883   $ 304,388  
Intersegment expenses     166,388     28,701     712     195,801  
   
 
 
 
 
Gross revenues     395,609     102,985     1,595     500,189  
Intersegment revenues     (179,931 )   (14,483 )   (1,387 )   (195,801 )
   
 
 
 
 
Third party revenues   $ 215,678   $ 88,502   $ 208   $ 304,388  
   
 
 
 
 

F-124

        The following table presents information used by management by reported segment. Revenues from Technical and Site Services consist principally of external revenue from customers. Transactions between the segments are accounted for at the Company's estimate of fair value based on similar transactions with outside customers. Corporate Items revenues consist of revenues for miscellaneous services that are not part of a reportable segment. The Company does not allocate interest expense, income taxes, depreciation, amortization, accretion of environmental liabilities, non-recurring severance charges, (gain) loss on disposal of assets held for sale, and other (income) expense to segments. Certain reporting units have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation.

 
   For the Six Months Ended June 30,
  
 
   2005
   2004
  
Revenue:              
  Technical Services   $ 224,807   $ 215,678  
  Site Services     113,591     88,502  
  Corporate Items     478     208  
   
 
 
    Total     338,876     304,388  
   
 
 
Cost of Revenues:              
  Technical Services     154,086     146,399  
  Site Services     88,804     72,164  
  Corporate Items     2,091     4,739  
   
 
 
    Total     244,981     223,302  
   
 
 
Selling, General & Administrative Expenses:              
  Technical Services     24,654     23,045  
  Site Services     10,744     8,604  
  Corporate Items     14,271     18,207  
   
 
 
    Total     49,669     49,856  
   
 
 
Adjusted EBITDA:              
  Technical Services     46,067     46,234  
  Site Services     14,043     7,734  
  Corporate Items     (15,884 )   (22,738 )
   
 
 
    Total     44,226     31,230  
   
 
 
Reconciliation to Consolidated Statement of Operations:              
  Accretion of environmental liabilities     5,250     5,207  
  Depreciation and amortization     14,354     11,661  
  Non-recurring severance     —     16  
  Other non-recurring refinancing-related expenses     —     1,126  
   
 
 
Income from operations     24,622     13,220  
Gain (loss) on sale of fixed assets     (54 )   486  
Change in value of embedded derivative     —     (1,590 )
Other income (expense)     564     —  
Loss on refinancing     —     (7,099 )
Interest (expense), net     (11,907 )   (10,801 )
   
 
 
    Income (loss) before provision for income taxes   $ 13,225   $ (5,784 )
   
 
 

F-125

        The following table presents the total assets by reported segment (in thousands):

 
   June 30, 2005
   December 31, 2004
Site Services   $ 23,053   $ 19,452
Technical Services     271,884     277,678
Corporate Items     208,833     207,572
   
 
Total   $ 503,770   $ 504,702
   
 

        The following table presents the total assets by geographical area (in thousands):

 
   June 30, 2005
   December 31, 2004
United States   $ 420,897   $ 412,301
Canada     82,873     92,401
   
 
Total   $ 503,770   $ 504,702
   
 

        Corporate items consist of the following (in thousands):

 
   June 30,
2005
   December 31,
2004
Cash   $ 45,380   $ 42,904
Accounts receivable, net     120,164     119,327
Prepaid expenses     4,901     7,204
Property held for sale     8,405     8,834
PPE, net     16,352     16,318
Deferred financing costs     8,298     8,950
Deferred taxes     664     675
Other     4,670     3,360
   
 
Total   $ 208,834   $ 207,572
   
 

(17) Guarantor and Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries

        As further described in Note 6, "Financing Arrangements," the Senior Secured Notes were issued by the parent company, Clean Harbors, Inc., and were guaranteed by all of the parent's material subsidiaries organized in the United States. The Notes are not guaranteed by the Company's Canadian and Mexican subsidiaries. The following presents condensed consolidating financial statements for the parent company, the guarantor subsidiaries and the non-guarantor subsidiaries, respectively.

        In addition, as part of the refinancing of the Company's debt in June 2004, one of the parent's Canadian subsidiaries made a $91.7 million (U.S.) investment in the preferred stock of one of the parent's domestic subsidiaries and issued, in partial payment for such investment, a promissory note for $89.4 million (U.S.) payable to one of the parent's domestic subsidiaries. The dividend rate on such preferred stock is 11.125% per annum and the interest rate on such promissory note is 11.0% per annum. The effect of this transaction was to increase stockholders' equity of a U.S. guarantor

F-126


subsidiary, to increase interest income of a U.S. guarantor subsidiary, to increase debt of a foreign non-guarantor subsidiary, and to increase interest expense of a foreign non-guarantor subsidiary.

        Following is the condensed consolidating balance sheet at June 30, 2005 (in thousands):

 
   Clean Harbors,
Inc.
   U.S. Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Foreign
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Consolidating
Adjustments
   Total
  
Assets:                                
  Cash and cash equivalents   $ 10,201   $ 34,531   $ 5,516   $ —   $ 50,248  
  Accounts receivable, net     21     102,001     20,438     —     122,460  
  Unbilled accounts receivable     —     4,721     2,173     —     6,894  
  Intercompany receivables     8,936     —     2,801     (11,737 )   —  
  Deferred costs     —     3,204     749     —     3,953  
  Prepaid expenses     2,128     7,888     457     —     10,473  
  Supplies inventories     —     10,556     587     —     11,143  
  Income tax receivable     —     —     1,444     —     1,444  
  Properties held for sale     —     8,420     213     —     8,633  
  Property, plant and equipment, net     —     155,877     23,067     —     178,944  
  Deferred financing costs     8,286     —     12     —     8,298  
  Goodwill, net     —     19,032     —     —     19,032  
  Permits and other intangibles, net     —     54,150     23,936     —     78,086  
  Investments in subsidiaries     156,792     41,119     91,654     (289,565 )   —  
  Deferred tax asset     —     —     664     —     664  
  Intercompany note receivable     —     97,911     3,701     (101,612 )   —  
  Other assets     —     1,427     2,071     —     3,498  
   
 
 
 
 
 
    Total assets   $ 186,364   $ 540,837   $ 179,483   $ (402,914 ) $ 503,770  
   
 
 
 
 
 
Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity:                                
  Uncashed checks   $ —   $ 2,814   $ 1,795   $ —   $ 4,609  
  Accounts payable     —     55,417     11,377     —     66,794  
  Accrued disposal costs     —     1,565     1,276     —     2,841  
  Deferred revenue     —     13,931     3,766     —     17,697  
  Other accrued expenses     7,932     31,075     3,265     —     42,272  
  Income taxes payable     165     369     202     —     736  
  Intercompany payables     —     11,737     —     (11,737 )   —  
  Closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities     —     160,106     15,284     —     175,390  
  Long-term obligations     148,204     —     —     —     148,204  
  Capital lease obligations     —     4,456     754     —     5,210  
  Other long-term liabilities     —     —     13,057     —     13,057  
  Intercompany note payable     3,701     —     97,911     (101,612 )   —  
  Accrued pension cost     —     —     598     —     598  
   
 
 
 
 
 
    Total liabilities     160,002     281,470     149,285     (113,349 )   477,408  

Stockholders' Equity:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Series B convertible preferred stock     1     —     —     —     1  
  Common stock     154     —     2,236     (2,236 )   154  
  Additional paid-in capital     66,008     201,248     4,049     (205,297 )   66,008  
  Accumulated other comprehensive income     7,925     13,730     (568 )   (13,162 )   7,925  
  Retained earnings (deficit)     (47,726 )   44,389     24,481     (68,870 )   (47,726 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
    Total stockholders' equity     26,362     259,367     30,198     (289,565 )   26,362  
   
 
 
 
 
 
Total liabilities and stockholders' equity   $ 186,364   $ 540,837   $ 179,483   $ (402,914 ) $ 503,770  
   
 
 
 
 
 

F-127

        Following is the condensed consolidating balance sheet at December 31, 2004 (in thousands):

 
   Clean Harbors,
Inc.
   U.S. Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Domestic
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiary
   Foreign
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Consolidating
Adjustments
   Total
  
Assets:                                      
  Cash and cash equivalents   $ 76   $ 20,984   $ —   $ 10,021   $ —   $ 31,081  
  Marketable securities     10,000     6,800     —     —     —     16,800  
  Accounts receivable, net     9     100,547     —     20,330     —     120,886  
  Unbilled accounts receivable     —     2,817     —     2,560     —     5,377  
  Intercompany receivables     17,139     —     8     6,050     (23,197 )   —  
  Deferred costs     —     3,965     —     958     —     4,923  
  Prepaid expenses     2,951     9,957     —     499     —     13,407  
  Supplies inventories     —     9,656     —     662     —     10,318  
  Properties held for sale     —     8,849     —     —     —     8,849  
  Property, plant and equipment, net     —     156,905     —     23,621     —     180,526  
  Deferred financing costs     8,935     —     —     15     —     8,950  
  Goodwill, net     —     19,032     —     —     —     19,032  
  Permits and other intangibles, net     —     55,236     —     25,227     —     80,463  
  Investments in subsidiaries     133,504     44,385     —     91,654     (269,543 )   —  
  Deferred tax asset     —     —     —     676     —     676  
  Intercompany note receivable     —     99,717     —     3,701     (103,418 )   —  
  Other assets     —     1,560     —     1,854     —     3,414  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Total assets   $ 172,614   $ 540,410   $ 8   $ 187,828   $ (396,158 ) $ 504,702  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity:                                      
  Uncashed checks   $ —   $ 4,769   $ —   $ 1,773   $ —   $ 6,542  
  Accounts payable     —     57,716     —     12,647     —     70,363  
  Accrued disposal costs     —     1,630     —     1,402     —     3,032  
  Deferred revenue     —     17,236     —     4,824     —     22,060  
  Other accrued expenses     8,675     28,890     —     3,489     —     41,054  
  Income taxes payable     1,078     310     —     914     —     2,302  
  Intercompany payables     —     23,197     —     —     (23,197 )   —  
  Closure, post-closure and remedial liabilities     —     166,211     —     15,057     —     181,268  
  Long-term obligations     148,122     —     —     —     —     148,122  
  Capital lease obligations     —     4,160     —     847     —     5,007  
  Other long-term liabilities     —     —     —     13,298     —     13,298  
  Intercompany note payable     3,701     —     —     99,717     (103,418 )   —  
  Accrued pension cost     —     —     —     616     —     616  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Total liabilities     161,576     304,119     —     154,584     (126,615 )   493,664  

Stockholders' Equity:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Series B convertible preferred stock     1     —     —     —     —     1  
  Common stock     143     —     —     2,236     (2,236 )   143  
  Additional paid-in capital     62,165     206,787     —     4,049     (210,836 )   62,165  
  Accumulated other comprehensive income     8,667     14,473     —     (1,632 )   (12,841 )   8,667  
  Retained earnings (deficit)     (59,938 )   15,031     8     28,591     (43,630 )   (59,938 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Total stockholders' equity     11,038     236,291     8     33,244     (269,543 )   11,038  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Total liabilities and stockholders' equity   $ 172,614   $ 540,410   $ 8   $ 187,828   $ (396,158 ) $ 504,702  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

F-128

        Following is the consolidating statement of operations for the six months ended June 30, 2005 (in thousands):

 
   Clean Harbors,
Inc.
   U.S. Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Foreign
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Consolidating
Adjustments
   Total
  
Revenues   $ —   $ 283,390   $ 62,532   $ (7,046 ) $ 338,876  
Cost of revenues (exclusive of items shown separately below)     —     208,395     43,632     (7,046 )   244,981  
Selling, general and administrative expenses     47     39,672     9,950     —     49,669  
Accretion of environmental liabilities     —     4,861     389     —     5,250  
Depreciation and amortization     —     12,040     2,314     —     14,354  
   
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) from operations     (47 )   18,422     6,247     —     24,622  
Other income (expense)     565     (63 )   8     —     510  
Interest (expense), net     (11,794 )   (66 )   (47 )   —     (11,907 )
Equity in earnings of subsidiaries     24,038     5,938     —     (29,976 )   —  
Intercompany dividend income (expense)     —     —     5,538     (5,538 )   —  
Intercompany interest income (expense)     —     5,342     (5,342 )   —     —  
   
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes     12,762     29,573     6,404     (35,514 )   13,225  
Provision for income taxes     550     215     248     —     1,013  
   
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss)   $ 12,212   $ 29,358   $ 6,156   $ (35,514 ) $ 12,212  
   
 
 
 
 
 

        Following is the consolidating statement of operations for the six months ended June 30, 2004 (in thousands):

 
   Clean Harbors,
Inc.
   U.S. Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Domestic
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiary
   Foreign
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Consolidating
Adjustments
   Total
  
Revenues   $ —   $ 251,542   $ 61   $ 60,221   $ (7,436 ) $ 304,388  
Cost of revenues (exclusive of items shown separately below)     —     191,441     12     39,235     (7,386 )   223,302  
Selling, general and administrative expenses     —     41,543     43     9,462     (50 )   50,998  
Accretion of environmental liabilities     —     4,870     —     337     —     5,207  
Depreciation and amortization     —     10,340     —     1,321     —     11,661  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income from operations     —     3,348     6     9,866     —     13,220  
Other income (expense)     (1,590 )   486     —     —     —     (1,104 )
Equity in earnings of subsidiaries     10,906     —     —     —     (10,906 )   —  
Loss on refinancing     (7,099 )   —     —     —     —     (7,099 )
Interest income (expense), net     (11,646 )   1,024     —     (179 )   —     (10,801 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes     (9,429 )   4,858     6     9,687     (10,906 )   (5,784 )
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes     (119 )   147     1     3,497     —     3,526  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss)   $ (9,310 ) $ 4,711   $ 5   $ 6,190   $ (10,906 ) $ (9,310 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

F-129

        Following is the condensed consolidating statement of cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2005 (in thousands):

 
   Clean Harbors, Inc.
   U.S. Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Foreign
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Consolidating
Adjustments
   Total
  
  Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities   $ 20,442   $ 17,129   $ 1,439   $ (29,976 ) $ 9,034  
   
 
 
 
 
 
Cash flows from investing activities:                                
  Additions to property, plant and equipment     —     (5,921 )   (1,059 )   —     (6,980 )
  Increase in permits     —     (892 )   —     —     (892 )
  Sales of marketable securities     10,000     6,800     —     —     16,800  
  Proceeds from sale of fixed assets     —     367     8     —     375  
  Proceeds from (payment of) return of capital     —     10,265     (10,265 )   —     —  
  Investment in subsidiaries     (24,038 )   (5,938 )   —     29,976     —  
   
 
 
 
 
 
    Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities     (14,038 )   4,681     (11,316 )   29,976     9,303  
   
 
 
 
 
 
Cash flows from financing activities:                                
  Change in uncashed checks     —     (1,955 )   68     —     (1,887 )
  Proceeds from exercise of stock options     3,691     —     —     —     3,691  
  Dividend payments on preferred stock     (140 )   —     —     —     (140 )
  Deferred financing costs incurred     (86 )   —     —     —     (86 )
  Proceeds from employee stock purchase plan     256     —     —     —     256  
  Payments of capital leases     —     (786 )   (102 )   —     (888 )
  Dividends (paid) received     —     (5,522 )   5,522     —     —  
   
 
 
 
 
 
    Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities     3,721     (8,263 )   5,488     —     946  
   
 
 
 
 
 
Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents     10,125     13,547     (4,389 )   —     19,283  
Effect of exchange rate change on cash     —     —     (116 )   —     (116 )
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period     76     20,984     10,021     —     31,081  
   
 
 
 
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period   $ 10,201   $ 34,531   $ 5,516   $ —   $ 50,248  
   
 
 
 
 
 

F-130

        Following is the condensed consolidating statement of cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2004 (in thousands):

 
   Clean Harbors, Inc.
   U.S. Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Domestic
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiary
   Foreign
Non-Guarantor
Subsidiaries
   Consolidating
Adjustments
   Total
  
  Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities   $ (834 ) $ 19,547   $ (14 ) $ 7,237   $ (10,906 ) $ 15,030  
Cash flows from investing activities:                                      
  Additions to property, plant and equipment     —     (10,719 )   —     (2,168 )   —     (12,887 )
  Proceeds from sale of restricted investments     89,294     —     —     —     89,294        
  Cost of restricted investments purchased     (4,390 )   —     —     —     —     (4,390 )
  Investment in subsidiaries     (10,906 )   —     —     —     10,906     —  
  Proceeds from sale of fixed assets     —     665     —     —     —     665  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities     73,998     (10,054 )   —     (2,168 )   10,906     72,682  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash flows from financing activities:                                      
  Repayments on Senior Loans     (107,209 )   —     —     —     —     (107,209 )
  Repayments of Subordinated Loans     (40,000 )   —     —     —     —     (40,000 )
  Net repayments under revolving credit facility     (33,492 )   —     —     (1,676 )   —     (35,168 )
  Change in uncashed checks     —     (1,556 )   —     452     —     (1,104 )
  Deferred financing costs incurred     (10,164 )   —     —     —     —     (10,164 )
  Proceeds from exercise of stock options     155     —     —     —     —     155  
  Dividend payments on preferred stock     (1,963 )   —     —     —     —     (1,963 )
  Proceeds from employee stock purchase plan     247     —     —     —     —     247  
  Payments on capital leases     —     (633 )   (97 )   —     (730 )      
  Issuance of Senior Secured Notes     148,045     —     —     —     —     148,045  
  Redemption of Series C Convertible Preferred Stock     (25,000 )   —     —     —     —     (25,000 )
  Cash paid in lieu of warrants     (363 )   —     —     —     —     (363 )
  Debt extinguishment payments     (3,420 )   —     —     —     —     (3,420 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Net cash used in financing activities     (73,164 )   (2,189 )   —     (1,321 )   —     (76,674 )
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents     —     7,304     (14 )   3,748     —     11,038  
Effect of exchange rate change on cash     —     —     —     20     —     20  
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period     —     5,313     14     1,004     —     6,331  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period   $ —   $ 12,617   $ —   $ 4,772   $ —   $ 17,389  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

F-131


PART II

INFORMATION NOT REQUIRED IN THE PROSPECTUS


Item 20.    Indemnification of Directors and Officers

        Sections 8.51 and 8.52 of the Massachusetts Business Corporation Act, as amended, give Massachusetts corporations the power to indemnify each of their present and former officers or directors under certain circumstances if such person acted in good faith and in a manner which he or she reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interest of the corporation. In its Restated Articles of Organization and By-Laws, the Registrant provides for such indemnification of its officers and directors to the extent permitted by law. Reference is made to Article 6 of the Registrant's Restated Articles of Organization filed as Exhibit 3.1A to the Registrant's Report on Form 8-K dated May 18, 2005, and Article VII of the Registrant's Amended and Restated By-Laws filed as Exhibits 3.4B to the Registrant's Report on Form 8-K dated April 4, 2005, and incorporated herein by reference, for the applicable provisions regarding the indemnification of directors and officers.

        The Registrant also maintains director and officer liability insurance which provides for protection of its directors and officers against liabilities and costs which they may incur in such capacities, including liabilities arising under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.


Item 21.    Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules

        


Item 22.    Undertakings

        The undersigned Registrant hereby undertakes:

        (1)   To file, during any period in which offers or sales are being made, a post-effective amendment to this registration statement:

II-1

provided, however, that paragraphs (1)(i) and (1)(ii) do not apply if the registration statement is on Form S-3, Form S-8 or Form F-3, and the information required to be included in a post-effective amendment by those paragraphs is contained in periodic reports filed with or furnished to the Commission by the Registrant pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that are incorporated by reference in the registration statement.

        (2)   That, for the purpose of determining any liability under the Securities Act of 1933, each such post-effective amendment shall be deemed to be a new registration statement relating to the securities offered therein, and the offering of such securities at the time shall be deemed to be the initial bona fide offering thereof.

        (3)   To remove from registration by means of a post-effective amendment any of the securities being registered which remain unsold at the termination of the offering.

        Insofar as indemnification for liabilities arising under the Securities Act of 1933 may be permitted to directors, officers and controlling persons of the Registrant pursuant to the foregoing provisions, or otherwise, the Registrant has been advised that in the opinion of the Commission such indemnification is against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act of 1933 and is, therefore, unenforceable. In the event that a claim for indemnification against such liabilities (other than the payment by the Registrant of expenses incurred or paid by a director, officer or controlling person of the Registrant in the successful defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such director, officer or controlling person in connection with the securities being registered, the Registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act of 1933 and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issue.

        The undersigned Registrant hereby undertakes to respond to requests for information that is incorporated by reference into the Prospectus pursuant to Items 4, 10(b), 11, or 13 of this form, within one business day of receipt of such request, and to send the incorporated documents by first class mail or other equally prompt means. This undertaking also includes information contained in documents filed subsequent to the effective date of the registration statement through the date of responding to the request.

        The undersigned Registrant hereby undertakes that, for purposes of determining any liability under the Securities Act of 1933, each filing of the Registrant's annual report pursuant to section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and where applicable, each filing of an employee benefit plan's annual report pursuant to section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) that is incorporated by reference into the registration statement shall be deemed to be a new registration statement relating to the securities offered herein, and the offering of such securities at that time shall be deemed to be the initial bona fide offering thereof.

        The undersigned Registrant hereby undertakes to supply by means of a post-effective amendment all information concerning a transaction, and the company being acquired involved therein, that was not the subject of and included in the registration statement when it became effective.

        The undersigned Registrant hereby undertakes as follows: that prior to any public reoffering of the securities registered hereunder through use of a prospectus which is a part of this registration statement, by any person or party who is deemed to be an underwriter within the meaning of Rule 145(c), the undersigned undertakes that such reoffering prospectus will contain the information called for by the applicable registration form with respect to reofferings by persons who may be deemed underwriters, in addition to the information called for by the other items of the applicable form.

        The undersigned Registrant hereby undertakes that every prospectus: (i) that is filed pursuant to the immediately preceding paragraph or (ii) that purports to meet the requirements of Section 10(a)(3)

II-2


of the Securities Act of 1933 and is used in connection with an offering of securities subject to Rule 415, will be filed as a part of an amendment to the registration statement and will not be used until such amendment is effective, and that, for purposes of determining any liability under the Securities Act of 1933, each such post-effective amendment shall be deemed to be a new registration statement relating to the securities offered therein, and the offering of such securities at that time shall be deemed to be the initial bona fide offering thereof.

II-3


REGISTRANT SIGNATURES

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the Registrant has duly caused this Amendment to Registration Statement to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, in the Town of Braintree, Commonwealth of Massachusetts on this 31st day of August, 2005.

    Clean Harbors, Inc.

 
 
By:
/s/  ALAN S. MCKIM      
Alan S. McKim
 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, this Amendment to Registration Statement has been signed by the following persons in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

Signature
   Title
   Date

/s/  ALAN S. MCKIM      
Alan S. McKim
 
Chairman of the Board Of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer
 
August 31, 2005

/s/  JAMES M. RUTLEDGE      
James M. Rutledge
 
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 
August 31, 2005

/s/ CARL d. PASCHETAG
Carl d. Paschetag
 
Treasurer, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
 
August 31, 2005

JOHN D. BARR*
John D. Barr
 
Director
 
August 31, 2005

JOHN P. DEVILLARS*
John P. DeVillars
 
Director
 
August 31, 2005

DANIEL J. MCCARTHY*
Daniel J. McCarthy
 
Director
 
August 31, 2005

JOHN T. PRESTON*
John T. Preston
 
Director
 
August 31, 2005

ANDREA ROBERTSON*
Andrea Robertson
 
Director
 
August 31, 2005

THOMAS J. SHIELDS*
Thomas J. Shields
 
Director
 
August 31, 2005
         

II-4


LORNE R. WAXLAX*
Lorne R. Waxlax
 
Director
 
August 31, 2005
*By:   /s/ CARL d. PASCHETAG
Carl d. Paschetag,
Attorney-in-fact		    

II-5


GUARANTOR REGISTRANT SIGNATURES

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the undersigned Guarantor Registrants have duly caused this Amendment to Registration Statement to be signed on their behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, in the Town of Braintree, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on this 31st day of August, 2005.


 
 
 
 
    Altair Disposal Services, LLC
Baton Rouge Disposal, LLC
Bridgeport Disposal, LLC
Clean Harbors Andover, LLC
Clean Harbors Antioch, LLC
Clean Harbors Aragonite, LLC
Clean Harbors Arizona, LLC
Clean Harbors Baton Rouge, LLC
Clean Harbors BDT, LLC
Clean Harbors Buttonwillow, LLC
Clean Harbors Chattanooga, LLC
Clean Harbors Coffeyville, LLC
Clean Harbors Colfax, LLC
Clean Harbors Deer Trail, LLC
Clean Harbors Florida, LLC
Clean Harbors Grassy Mountain, LLC
Clean Harbors Kansas, LLC
Clean Harbors Laurel, LLC
Clean Harbors Lone Mountain, LLC
Clean Harbors Los Angeles, LLC
Clean Harbors of Texas, LLC
Clean Harbors Pecatonica, LLC
Clean Harbors Plaquemine, LLC
Clean Harbors PPM, LLC
Clean Harbors Reidsville, LLC
Clean Harbors San Jose, LLC
Clean Harbors Tennessee, LLC
Clean Harbors Westmorland, LLC
Clean Harbors White Castle, LLC
Crowley Disposal, LLC
Disposal Properties, LLC
GSX Disposal, LLC
Hilliard Disposal, LLC
Northeast Casualty Real Property, LLC
Roebuck Disposal, LLC
Sawyer Disposal Services, LLC
Service Chemical, LLC
Tulsa Disposal, LLC

 
 
By:
/s/  ERIC W. GERSTENBERG      
Eric W. Gerstenberg, President

II-6

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, this Amendment to Registration Statement has been signed by the following persons in the capacities respecting each of the foregoing Guarantor Registrants and on the dates indicated.

Signature
   Title
   Date

 
 
 
 
 
/s/  ERIC GERSTENBERG      
Eric Gerstenberg		   President and Chief Executive Officer   August 31, 2005

/s/ CARL d. PASCHETAG
Carl d. Paschetag
 
Treasurer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
 
August 31, 2005

STEPHEN H. MOYNIHAN*
Stephen H. Moynihan
 
Manager
 
August 31, 2005

/s/ CARL d. PASCHETAG
Carl d. Paschetag
 
Manager
 
August 31, 2005

WILLIAM J. GEARY*
William J. Geary
 
Manager
 
August 31, 2005
*By:   /s/ CARL d. PASCHETAG
Carl d. Paschetag,
Attorney-in-fact		    

II-7


GUARANTOR REGISTRANT SIGNATURE

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the undersigned Guarantor Registrant has duly caused this Amendment to Registration Statement to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, in the Town of Braintree, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on this 31st day of August, 2005.


 
 
 
 
    CH International Holdings, Inc.

 
 
By:
/s/  JERRY E. CORRELL      
Jerry E. Correll, President

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, this Amendment to Registration Statement has been signed by the following persons in the capacities respecting the foregoing Guarantor Registrant and on the dates indicated.

Signature
   Title
   Date

 
 
 
 
 

/s/  JERRY E. CORRELL      
Jerry E. Correll
 
President and Chief Executive Officer
 
August 31, 2005

/s/  JERRY E. CORRELL      
Jerry E. Correll
 
Treasurer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
 
August 31, 2005

/s/  ALAN S. MCKIM      
Alan S. McKim
 
Director
 
August 31, 2005

II-8


GUARANTOR REGISTRANT SIGNATURES

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the undersigned Guarantor Registrants have duly caused this Amendment to Registration Statement to be signed on their behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, in the Town of Braintree, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on this 31st day of August, 2005.


 
 
 
 
    Clean Harbors Disposal Services, Inc.
Clean Harbors Lone Star Corp.
Clean Harbors (Mexico), Inc.
Clean Harbors of Baltimore, Inc.
Clean Harbors of Braintree, Inc.
Clean Harbors of Connecticut, Inc.
Clean Harbors of Natick, Inc.
Clean Harbors Services, Inc.
Spring Grove Resource Recovery, Inc.

 
 
By:
/s/  ERIC W. GERSTENBERG      
Eric W. Gerstenberg, President

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, this Amendment to Registration Statement has been signed by the following persons in the capacities respecting each of the foregoing Guarantor Registrants and on the dates indicated.

Signature
   Title
   Date

 
 
 
 
 
/s/  ERIC D. GERSTENBERG      
Eric D. Gerstenberg		   President and Chief Executive Officer   August 31, 2005

/s/ CARL d. PASCHETAG
Carl d. Paschetag
 
Treasurer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
 
August 31, 2005

/s/  ALAN S. MCKIM      
Alan S. McKim
 
Director
 
August 31, 2005

II-9


GUARANTOR REGISTRANT SIGNATURE

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the undersigned Guarantor Registrant has duly caused this Amendment to Registration Statement to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, in the Town of Braintree, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on this 31st day of August, 2005.


 
 
 
 
    Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.

 
 
By:
/s/  ALAN S. MCKIM      
Alan S. McKim, President

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, this Amendment to Registration Statement has been signed by the following persons in the capacities respecting the foregoing Guarantor Registrant and on the dates indicated.

Signature
   Title
   Date

 
 
 
 
 
/s/  ALAN S. MCKIM      
Alan S. McKim		   President and Chief Executive Officer   August 31, 2005

/s/  JAMES M. RUTLEDGE      
James M. Rutledge
 
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 
August 31, 2005

/s/ CARL d. PASCHETAG
Carl d. Paschetag
 
Treasurer and Chief Accounting Officer
 
August 31, 2005

/s/  ALAN S. MCKIM      
Alan S. McKim
 
Director
 
August 31, 2005

II-10


GUARANTOR REGISTRANT SIGNATURES

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the undersigned Guarantor Registrants have duly caused this Amendment to Registration Statement to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, in the Town of Braintree, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on this 31st day of August, 2005.


 
 
 
 
    Clean Harbors Kingston Facility Corporation
Murphy's Waste Oil Service, Inc.

 
 
By:
/s/  GENE COOKSON      
Gene Cookson, President

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, this Amendment to Registration Statement has been signed by the following persons in the capacities respecting each of the foregoing Guarantor Registrants and on the dates indicated.

Signature
   Title
   Date

 
 
 
 
 
/s/  GENE COOKSON      
Gene Cookson		   President and Chief Executive Officer   August 31, 2005

/s/ CARL d. PASCHETAG
Carl d. Paschetag
 
Treasurer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
 
August 31, 2005

/s/  ALAN S. MCKIM      
Alan S. McKim
 
Director
 
August 31, 2005

II-11


GUARANTOR REGISTRANT SIGNATURE

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the undersigned Guarantor Registrant has duly caused this Amendment to Registration Statement to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, in the Town of Braintree, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on this 31st day of August, 2005.


 
 
 
 
    Harbor Management Consultants, Inc.

 
 
By:
/s/  ALAN S. MCKIM      
Alan S. McKim, President

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, this Amendment to Registration Statement has been signed by the following persons in the capacities respecting the foregoing Guarantor Registrant and on the dates indicated.

Signature
   Title
   Date

 
 
 
 
 
/s/  ALAN S. MCKIM      
Alan S. McKim		   President and Chief Executive Officer   August 31, 2005

/s/ CARL d. PASCHETAG
Carl d. Paschetag
 
Treasurer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
 
August 31, 2005

/s/  ALAN S. MCKIM      
Alan S. McKim
 
Director
 
August 31, 2005

II-12


GUARANTOR REGISTRANT SIGNATURES

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the undersigned Guarantor Registrants have duly caused this Amendment to Registration Statement to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, in the Town of Braintree, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on this 31st day of August, 2005.


 
 
 
 
    Clean Harbors Deer Park, L.P.
Clean Harbors LaPorte, L.P.
Harbor Industrial Services Texas, L.P.

 
 
By:
Clean Harbors of Texas LLC, as General Partner

 
 
By:
/s/  ERIC W. GERSTENBERG      
Eric W. Gerstenberg, President

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, this Amendment to Registration Statement has been signed by the following persons in the capacities respecting the General Partner of each of the foregoing Guarantor Registrants and on the dates indicated.

Signature
   Title
   Date

 
 
 
 
 
/s/  ERIC W. GERSTENBERG      
Eric W. Gerstenberg		   President and Chief Executive Officer   August 31, 2005

/s/ CARL d. PASCHETAG
Carl d. Paschetag
 
Manager, Treasurer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
 
August 31, 2005

STEPHEN H. MOYNIHAN*
Stephen H. Moynihan
 
Manager
 
August 31, 2005

WILLIAM J. GEARY*
William J. Geary
 
Manager
 
August 31, 2005
*By:   /s/ CARL d. PASCHETAG
Carl d. Paschetag
Attorney-in-fact		    

II-13


GUARANTOR REGISTRANT SIGNATURE

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the undersigned Guarantor Registrant has duly caused this Amendment to Registration Statement to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, in the Town of Braintree, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on this 31st day of August, 2005.


 
 
 
 
    Clean Harbors Financial Services Company

 
 
By:
/s/  STEPHEN H. MOYNIHAN      
Stephen H. Moynihan, Trustee

 
 
By:
/S/ CARL d. PASCHETAG
Carl d. Paschetag, Trustee

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, this Amendment to Registration Statement has been signed by the following persons in the capacities respecting the foregoing Guarantor Registrant and on the dates indicated.

Signature
   Title
   Date

 
 
 
 
 
/s/  STEPHEN H. MOYNIHAN      
Stephen H. Moynihan		   Trustee and Chief Executive Officer   August 31, 2005

/S/ CARL d. PASCHETAG
Carl d. Paschetag
 
Trustee and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
 
August 31, 2005

II-14


 EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit No.
   Description of Exhibit
3.1A   Restated Articles of Organization of Clean Harbors, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1A to the Registrant's Report on Form 8-K dated May 18, 2005 (file 0-16379)).
3.4B   Amended and Restated By-Laws of Clean Harbors, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.4B to the Registrant's Report on Form 8-K dated April 4, 2005 (file 0-16379)).
4.1   Indenture, dated as of June 30, 2004, by and among Clean Harbors, Inc., the Guarantors named therein and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, relating to the 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012, including the form of 111/4% Senior Secured Note (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.32 to the Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (file 0-16379)).
4.2   Security Agreement dated as of June 30, 2004 among Clean Harbors, Inc., various subsidiaries of Clean Harbors, Inc., U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for the Second Lien Note Creditors and Credit Suisse First Boston as Collateral Agent and LC Facility Administrative Agent (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.29 to the Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (file 0-16379)).
4.3   Registration Rights Agreement dated as of June 30, 2004 by and among Credit Suisse First Boston LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co., and Clean Harbors, Inc. and the subsidiaries of Clean Harbors, Inc. party thereto (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.31 to the Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (file 0-16379)).
5.1*   Opinion of Davis, Malm & D'Agostine, P.C.
10.1   Loan and Security Agreement dated as of June 30, 2004 by and among Credit Suisse First Boston as Administrative Agent under the LC Facility, Fleet Capital Corporation as Administrative Agent and Sole Arranger under the Revolving Facility, Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P. as Syndication Agent under the LC Facility, Credit Suisse First Boston as Documentation Agent under the LC Facility, Credit Suisse First Boston and Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P. as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Lead Bookrunners under the LC Facility, the other financial institutions party thereto from time to time as Lenders, Clean Harbors, Inc. and the subsidiaries of Clean Harbors, Inc. party thereto as Borrowers and the Guarantors named therein as Guarantors (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.28 to the Registrant's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the Quarterly Period ended June 30, 2004 (File 0-16379)).
10.2   Amendment No.1 to Loan and Security Agreement dated as of July 20, 2004 by and among Credit Suisse First Boston as Administrative Agent under the LC Facility, Fleet Capital Corporation as Administrative Agent and Sole Arranger under the Revolving Facility, Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P. as Syndication Agent under the LC Facility, Credit Suisse First Boston as Documentation Agent under the LC Facility, Credit Suisse First Boston and Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P. as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Lead Bookrunners under the LC Facility, the other financial institutions party thereto from time to time as Lenders, Clean Harbors, Inc. and the subsidiaries of Clean Harbors, inc. party thereto as Borrowers and the Guarantors named therein as Guarantors (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.28A to the Registrant's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the Quarterly Period ended June 30, 2004 (File 0-16379)).
12.1*   Statement regarding computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges.
23.1*   Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
23.2*   Consent of Davis, Malm & D'Agostine, P.C. (included in Exhibit 5.1).
24†   Powers of Attorney (See pages II-5 through II-15 of this Registration Statement as originally filed).
     

II-15

25.1†   Statement of Eligibility and Qualification under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 of U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, on Form T-1, relating to the 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012.
99.1*   Revised Form of Letter of Transmittal.
99.2*   Revised Form of Notice of Guaranteed Delivery.
99.3*   Revised Form of Letter to Registered Holders and DTC Participants.
99.4*   Revised Form of Letter to Clients.
99.5†   Form of Guidelines for Certification of Taxpayer Identification Number on Substitute Form W-9.
*
Filed herewith.

†
Previously filed under this Registration Statement.

II-16



QuickLinks

Registrant Guarantors
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
The Exchange Offer
RISK FACTORS
DISCLOSURE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
INDUSTRY AND MARKET DATA
USE OF PROCEEDS
CAPITALIZATION
SELECTED HISTORICAL CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA
MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
BUSINESS
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
MANAGEMENT
CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS
DESCRIPTION OF REVOLVING CREDIT AND SYNTHETIC LETTER OF CREDIT FACILITIES
THE EXCHANGE OFFER
DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW NOTES
UNITED STATES FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSIDERATIONS
PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION
LEGAL MATTERS
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
EXCHANGE AGENT
WHERE YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS ASSETS (dollars in thousands)
CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS LIABILITIES, REDEEMABLE CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY (dollars in thousands)
CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (in thousands except per share amounts)
CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (in thousands)
CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES SCHEDULE II VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS For the Three Years Ended December 31, 2004 (in thousands)
CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS ASSETS Unaudited (in thousands)
CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY Unaudited (dollars in thousands)
CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS Unaudited (in thousands except per share amounts)
CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS Unaudited (in thousands)
CLEAN HARBORS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
PART II INFORMATION NOT REQUIRED IN THE PROSPECTUS
REGISTRANT SIGNATURES
GUARANTOR REGISTRANT SIGNATURES
GUARANTOR REGISTRANT SIGNATURE
GUARANTOR REGISTRANT SIGNATURES
GUARANTOR REGISTRANT SIGNATURE
GUARANTOR REGISTRANT SIGNATURES
GUARANTOR REGISTRANT SIGNATURE
GUARANTOR REGISTRANT SIGNATURES
GUARANTOR REGISTRANT SIGNATURE
EXHIBIT INDEX

                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1

                                                  DAVIS, MALM & D'AGOSTINE, P.C.
                                                                ONE BOSTON PLACE
                                                                BOSTON, MA 02108
                                                               TEL. 617-367-2500

                                August 31, 2005


Clean Harbors, Inc. and the
   Guarantors listed on Exhibit A
1501 Washington Street
Braintree, MA  02184

Re: Registration Statement on Form S-4

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         You are seeking to register under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, $150,000,000 principal amount of 11 1/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012
(the "New Notes") of Clean Harbors, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the
"Company"), and the related Guarantees of the Company's subsidiaries (the
"Guarantors") which are listed as Registrant Guarantors in the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 (File No. 333-126193) which you have filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission"). Such Registration
Statement, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto and as it may hereafter be
further amended, is referred to hereafter as the "Registration Statement", and
the form of prospectus included in, or filed under, the Registration Statement
is referred to hereafter as the "Prospectus." The New Notes and the Guarantees
(collectively, the "New Securities") will be issued under the Indenture dated as
of June 30, 2004 (the "Indenture") among the Company, the Guarantors and U.S.
Bank National Association, as Trustee. As described in the Prospectus, you
propose to offer the New Securities to the holders of the Company's $150,000,000
principal amount of outstanding 11 1/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012 (the "Old
Notes") in exchange for the Old Notes and the related guarantees of the
Guarantors (collectively, the "Old Securities"). You have requested that we
furnish to you an opinion as to the legality and enforceability of the New
Securities, which opinion will be filed as an Exhibit to the Registration
Statement.

         We have examined the Old Securities, the proposed form of the New
Securities, the Indenture, the organization documents of the Company and the
Guarantors, as amended, copies of votes of the Boards of Directors (or
equivalent managers) of the Company and the Guarantors, the Registration
Statement and the Exhibits thereto, and such other documents as we deemed
pertinent. We have also made such examination of law as we have felt necessary
in order to render this opinion.



Clean Harbors, Inc. and the
  Guarantors listed on Exhibit A
August 31, 2005
Page 2

         As to certain factual matters relevant to this opinion, we have relied
conclusively upon originals or copies, certified or otherwise identified to our
satisfaction, of such records, agreements, documents and instruments, including
certificates or comparable documents of officers of the Company and the
Guarantors and certificates of public officials, as we have deemed appropriate
as a basis for the opinion hereinafter set forth. Except to the extent expressly
set forth herein, we have made no independent investigation with regard to
matters of fact, and we do not express any opinion as to matters of fact that
might have been disclosed by independent verification. In rendering our opinion
set forth below, we have assumed, without independent verification, (i) the
genuineness of all signatures, (ii) the legal capacity of all natural persons,
(iii) the authenticity of all documents submitted to us as originals, (iv) the
conformity to the original documents of all documents submitted to us as
conformed, facsimile, photostatic or electronic copies, (v) that the form of the
New Securities will conform to that included in the Indenture, and (vi) the due
authorization, execution and delivery of the Indenture by the Trustee and of the
exchange documentation described in the Prospectus by the holders of the Old
Securities.

         Based upon and subject to the foregoing, we are of the opinion that,
upon (i) the issuance of an appropriate order by the Commission allowing the
Registration Statement to become effective and (ii) due execution of the New
Securities by the Company and the Guarantors, due authentication thereof by the
Trustee in accordance with the Indenture, and issuance and delivery thereof in
exchange for the Old Securities as contemplated by the Registration Statement,
the New Securities will be validly issued and will constitute legally binding
obligations of the Company and the Guarantors entitled to the benefits of the
Indenture and enforceable against the Company and the Guarantors in accordance
with their terms subject to (a) applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation,
reorganization, moratorium, usury, fraudulent conveyance and other laws relating
to or affecting the rights and remedies of creditors generally, (b) general
equitable principles, regardless of whether the issue of enforceability is
considered in a proceeding in equity or at law, and (c) concepts of good faith
and fair dealing, materiality and reasonableness. Furthermore, we express no
opinion as to the availability of any equitable or specific remedy, or as to the
successful assertion of any equitable defense, upon any breach of any agreements
or documents or obligations referred to herein, inasmuch as the availability of
such remedies or defenses may be subject to the discretion of a court.

          We are providing this opinion to you for your use in connection with
the Registration Statement and the transactions contemplated by the Registration
Statement, and this opinion may



Clean Harbors, Inc. and the
  Guarantors listed on Exhibit A
August 31, 2005
Page 3

not be used or relied upon by any other person or for any other purpose without
our express written consent, except that you may file a copy of this opinion
with the Commission as an Exhibit to the Registration Statement as described
below. The only opinion rendered by us consists of those matters set forth in
the preceding paragraph, and no opinion may be implied or inferred beyond the
opinion expressly stated.

         We hereby consent that this opinion may be filed as an Exhibit to the
Registration Statement and to the use of our name under the heading "Legal
Matters" in the Prospectus.

                                         Very truly yours,

                                         DAVIS, MALM & D'AGOSTINE, P.C.


                                         By:      /S/ C. MICHAEL MALM
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                  C. Michael Malm,
                                                  Managing Director
CMM/JDC



Clean Harbors, Inc. and the
  Guarantors listed on Exhibit A
August 31, 2005
Page 4
                                    Exhibit A




                                             
Altair Disposal Services, LLC                   Clean Harbors (Mexico), Inc.
Baton Rouge Disposal, LLC                       Clean Harbors of Baltimore, Inc.
Bridgeport Disposal, LLC                        Clean Harbors of Braintree, Inc.
CH International Holdings, Inc.                 Clean Harbors of Connecticut, Inc.
Clean Harbors Andover, LLC                      Clean Harbors of Natick, Inc.
Clean Harbors Antioch, LLC                      Clean Harbors of Texas, LLC
Clean Harbors Aragonite, LLC                    Clean Harbors Pecatonica, LLC
Clean Harbors Arizona, LLC                      Clean Harbors Plaquemine, LLC
Clean Harbors Baton Rouge, LLC                  Clean Harbors PPM, LLC
Clean Harbors BDT, LLC                          Clean Harbors Reidsville, LLC
Clean Harbors Buttonwillow, LLC                 Clean Harbors San Jose, LLC
Clean Harbors Chattanooga, LLC                  Clean Harbors Services, Inc.
Clean Harbors Coffeyville, LLC                  Clean Harbors Tennessee, LLC
Clean Harbors Colfax, LLC                       Clean Harbors Westmorland, LLC
Clean Harbors Deer Park, L.P.                   Clean Harbors White Castle, LLC
Clean Harbors Deer Trail, LLC                   Crowley Disposal, LLC
Clean Harbors Disposal Services, Inc.           Disposal Properties, LLC
Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.      GSX Disposal, LLC
Clean Harbors Financial Services Company        Harbor Industrial Services Texas, L.P.
Clean Harbors Florida, LLC                      Harbor Management Consultants, Inc.
Clean Harbors Grassy Mountain, LLC              Hilliard Disposal, LLC
Clean Harbors Kansas, LLC                       Murphy's Waste Oil Service, Inc.
Clean Harbors Kingston Facility                 Northeast Casualty Real Property, LLC
Corporation                                     Roebuck Disposal, LLC
Clean Harbors LaPorte, L.P.                     Sawyer Disposal Services, LLC
Clean Harbors Laurel, LLC                       Service Chemical, LLC
Clean Harbors Lone Mountain, LLC                Spring Grove Resource Recovery, Inc.
Clean Harbors Lone Star Corp.                   Tulsa Disposal, LLC
Clean Harbors Los Angeles, LLC

QuickLinks -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document


EXHIBIT 12.1

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
CLEAN HARBORS, INC.
Offer to Exchange 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012
Registered under the Securities Act of 1933 for
All Outstanding Unregistered 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012
Pursuant to the Prospectus dated                        , 2005

 
   For the Six
Months Ended
June 30,
   For the Year Ended December 31,
  
 
    
   (Restated)
2003
   (Restated)
2002
   (Restated)
2001
   (Restated)
2000
  
 
   2005
   2004
   2004
  
 
   (Dollars in thousands)

  
Income (loss) from operations before income taxes   $ 13,225   $ (5,784 ) $ 8,643   $ (12,212 ) $ (24,660 ) $ 7,689   $ 5,601  

Add (Subtract):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Capitalized interest     —     (1,289 )   (1,922 )   —     —     —     —  
Amortization of capitalized interest     —     —     24     —     —     —     —  
Fixed charges (see calculation below)     13,330     15,026     31,985     29,496     16,326     12,494     11,258  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) from operations before income taxes as adjusted   $ 26,555   $ 7,953   $ 38,730   $ 17,284   $ (8,334 ) $ 20,183   $ 16,859  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Fixed charges:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interest expense, net   $ 11,907   $ 10,801   $ 22,297   $ 23,724   $ 13,414   $ 10,724   $ 9,795  
Interest income     480     498     692     1,003     478     21     10  
Capitalized interest     —     1,289     1,922     —     —     —     —  
Amortization of capitalized interest     —     —     (24 )   —     —     —     —  
Portion of rents representative of an interest factor     791     686     1,414     1,706     1,143     1,096     1,005  
Preferred stock dividend     152     1,752     5,684     3,063     1,291     653     448  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fixed Charges   $ 13,330   $ 15,026   $ 31,985   $ 29,496   $ 16,326   $ 12,494   $ 11,258  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(1).     2.0 x   —     1.2 x   —     —     1.6 x   1.5 x
(1)
During the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the six months ended June 30, 2004, earnings were not sufficient to cover fixed charges and the deficiency for such periods was $12.212 million, $24.660 million, and $5.784 million, respectively.



QuickLinks


QuickLinks -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document


EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

        We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form S-4 of Clean Harbors, Inc. of our report dated March 31, 2005 with respect to our opinion relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule and April 29, 2005 with respect to our opinions relating to internal control over financial reporting of Clean Harbors, Inc., which appears in such Registration Statement. We also consent to references to us under the headings "Controls and Procedures" and "Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm" in such Registration Statement.

/s/  PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP    
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
August 31, 2005



QuickLinks


QuickLinks -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document


EXHIBIT 99.1

        LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

CLEAN HARBORS, INC.

Offer to Exchange 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012
Registered under the Securities Act of 1933 for
All Outstanding Unregistered 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012

Pursuant to the Prospectus dated                        , 2005

To: U.S. Bank National Association, Exchange Agent

By Hand or Overnight Courier:   By Facsimile Transmission:

U.S. Bank National Association
60 Livingston Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55107
Attn: Specialized Finance, 2nd Floor
 
(651) 495-8158
(for Eligible Institutions Only)
U.S. Bank National Association
Attn: Specialized Finance, 2nd Floor

For inquiries and confirmations:
(800) 934-6802

        DELIVERY OF THIS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO AN ADDRESS OTHER THAN AS SET FORTH ABOVE, OR TRANSMISSION OF INSTRUCTIONS VIA FACSIMILE OTHER THAN AS SET FORTH ABOVE, WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A VALID DELIVERY. YOU SHOULD READ THE INSTRUCTIONS ACCOMPANYING THIS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL BEFORE COMPLETING IT.

        The undersigned acknowledges receipt of the prospectus dated                        , 2005 (the "Prospectus"), of Clean Harbors,  Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the "Company"), and this letter of transmittal (the "Letter of Transmittal"), which together constitute the Company's offer (the "Exchange Offer") to exchange an aggregate principal amount of up to $150,000,000 of its 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012 (the "New Notes") registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for a like principal amount of the Company's issued and outstanding unregistered 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012 (the "Old Notes"). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the same meanings given them in the Prospectus. The Exchange Offer is subject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in the Prospectus including, without limitation, the right of the Company to waive, subject to applicable laws, conditions. In the event of any conflict between the Letter of Transmittal and the Prospectus, the Prospectus shall govern.

        The terms of the New Notes are substantially identical (including principal amount, interest rate and maturity) to the terms of the Old Notes for which they may be exchanged pursuant to the Exchange Offer, except that the New Notes are registered under the Securities Act and do not contain transfer restrictions or provisions for certain specified liquidated damages in connection with the failure to comply with the registration covenant. For each Old Note accepted for exchange, the holder of such Old Note will receive a New Note having a principal amount equal to that of the surrendered Old

1


Note. The New Notes will bear interest from the last interest payment date of the Old Notes to occur prior to the issue date of the New Notes. Interest on the New Notes will accrue at the rate of 11.25% per annum and will be payable semi-annually in arrears on each January 15 and July 15, commencing on January 15, 2006. The New Notes will mature on July 15, 2012.

        The Company reserves the right, at any time or from time to time, to extend the Exchange Offer at its discretion, in which event the term "Expiration Date" shall mean the latest time and date to which the Exchange Offer is extended. The Company shall notify the holders of the Old Notes of any extension promptly as practicable by oral or written notice thereof. However, in no event shall the Exchange Offer be consummated unless all conditions, other than those dependent upon receipt of any required governmental approval, have been satisfied or waived prior to the expiration of the exchange offer or any extension thereof and, if the Company elects to waive any condition, the Company must announce that decision in a manner reasonably calculated to inform the holders of the Old Notes of the waiver.

        PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL AND THE PROSPECTUS CAREFULLY BEFORE CHECKING ANY BOX BELOW. THE INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDED IN THIS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL MUST BE FOLLOWED. QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE OR FOR ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE PROSPECTUS, THIS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL AND THE NOTICE OF GUARANTEED DELIVERY MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE EXCHANGE AGENT. SEE INSTRUCTION 11.

        The undersigned has completed, executed and delivered this Letter of Transmittal to indicate the action the undersigned desires to take with respect to the Exchange Offer.

2

        List below the Old Notes to which this Letter of Transmittal relates. If the space provided below is inadequate, list the certificate numbers and principal amount of Old Notes on a separate signed schedule and affix the schedule to this Letter of Transmittal.


DESCRIPTION OF OLD NOTES

Name(s) and Address(s) of Registered Holder(s)
(Please fill in, if blank, exactly as name(s) appear
on certificates)
   Certificate
Number(s)*
   Aggregate
Amount of
Old Notes
   Principal Amount Tendered**

            
            
            
            
        Total        
*   Need not be completed if Old Notes are being tendered by book-entry transfer.
**   Unless otherwise indicated in this column, ALL of the Old Notes represented by the certificates will be deemed to have been tendered. See Instruction 2. Old Notes tendered must be in denominations of principal amount of $1,000 and any integral multiple thereof. See Instruction 1.
o
CHECK HERE IF TENDERED OLD NOTES ARE BEING DELIVERED BY BOOK-ENTRY TRANSFER MADE TO THE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE EXCHANGE AGENT WITH DTC AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:

o
CHECK HERE IF TENDERED OLD NOTES ARE BEING DELIVERED PURSUANT TO A NOTICE OF GUARANTEED DELIVERY PREVIOUSLY SENT TO THE EXCHANGE AGENT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
o
CHECK HERE IF YOU ARE A BROKER-DEALER AND WISH TO RECEIVE 10 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE PROSPECTUS AND 10 COPIES OF ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS THERETO.

3


PLEASE READ THE ACCOMPANYING INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY

Ladies and Gentlemen:

        Upon the terms and subject to the conditions of the Exchange Offer, the undersigned hereby tenders to the Company the aggregate principal amount of Old Notes indicated above. Subject to, and effective upon, the acceptance for exchange of the Old Notes tendered hereby, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers to, or upon the order of, the Company all right, title and interest in and to such Old Notes as are being tendered hereby.

        The undersigned hereby represents and warrants that the undersigned has full power and authority to tender, sell, assign and transfer the Old Notes tendered hereby and that the Company will acquire good and unencumbered title thereto, free and clear of all liens, restrictions, charges and encumbrances and not subject to any adverse claim when the same are accepted by the Company. The undersigned further represents that (i) it will acquire the New Notes in the ordinary course of its business, (ii) it has no arrangements or understandings with any person to participate in a distribution of the New Notes within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and (iii) it is not an "affiliate" of the Company within the meaning of Rule 405 under the Securities Act.

        The undersigned also acknowledges that this Exchange Offer is being made by the Company based upon the Company's understanding of an interpretation by the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") as set forth in no-action letters issued to third parties, that the New Notes issued in exchange for the Old Notes pursuant to the Exchange Offer may be offered for resale, resold and otherwise transferred by holders thereof (other than any such holder that is an "affiliate" of the Company within the meaning of Rule 405 under the Securities Act), without compliance with the registration and prospectus delivery provisions of the Securities Act, provided that: (i) such New Notes are acquired in the ordinary course of such holder's business; (ii) such holders are not engaged in, and do not intend to engage in, a distribution of the New Notes and have no arrangement or understanding with any person to participate in the distribution of the New Notes; and (iii) such holders are not affiliates of the Company within the meaning of Rule 405 under the Securities Act. However, the staff of the Commission has not considered the Exchange Offer in the context of a request for a no-action letter, and there can be no assurance that the staff of the Commission would make a similar determination with respect to the Exchange Offer as in other circumstances.

        Any broker-dealer and any holder who has an arrangement or understanding with any person to participate in the distribution of New Notes may not rely on the applicable interpretations of the staff of the Commission. Consequently, these holders must comply with the registration and prospectus delivery requirements of the Securities Act in connection with any secondary resale transaction. If the undersigned is a broker-dealer, it acknowledges that the staff of the Commission considers broker-dealers that acquired Old Notes directly from the Company, but not as a result of market-making activities or other trading activities, to be making a distribution of the New Notes.

        If the undersigned is a broker-dealer that will receive New Notes for its own account in exchange for Old Notes acquired by such broker-dealer as a result of market-making activities or other trading activities, it acknowledges that it will deliver a prospectus in connection with any resale of such New Notes; however, by so acknowledging and by delivering a prospectus, the undersigned will not be deemed to admit that it is an "underwriter" within the meaning of the Securities Act.

        The undersigned will, upon request, execute and deliver any additional documents deemed by the Company to be necessary or desirable to complete the sale, assignment and transfer of the Old Notes tendered hereby. All authority conferred or agreed to be conferred in this Letter of Transmittal and every obligation of the undersigned hereunder shall be binding upon the successors, assigns, heirs, personal representatives, executors, administrators, trustees in bankruptcy and other legal representatives of the undersigned and shall not be affected by, and shall survive, the death or

4


incapacity of the undersigned. This tender may be withdrawn only in accordance with the procedures set forth in "The Exchange Offer—Withdrawal of Tenders" section of the Prospectus.

        Unless otherwise indicated herein in the box entitled "Special Issuance Instructions" below, please issue the New Notes in the name of the undersigned or, in the case of a book-entry delivery of Old Notes, please credit the book-entry account indicated above maintained at DTC. Similarly, unless otherwise indicated under the box entitled "Special Delivery Instructions" below, please send the New Notes (and, if applicable, substitute certificates representing Old Notes for any Old Notes not exchanged) to the undersigned at the address shown above in the box entitled "Description of Old Notes."

        THE UNDERSIGNED, BY COMPLETING THE BOX ENTITLED "DESCRIPTION OF OLD NOTES" ABOVE AND SIGNING THIS LETTER, WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE TENDERED THE OLD NOTES AS SET FORTH IN SUCH BOX ABOVE.

5

Name(s):       
(Please Type or Print)
        
(Please Type or Print)

Address:
 
    

 
 
    
(Including Zip Code)

(Complete accompanying Substitute Form W-9)


(DTC Account Number, if applicable)

Name(s):       
(Please Type or Print)

 
 
    
(Please Type or Print)

Address:
 
    

 
 
    
(Including Zip Code)

        IMPORTANT: THIS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL, OR A FACSIMILE HEREOF, OR AN AGENT'S MESSAGE (TOGETHER WITH THE CERTIFICATES FOR OLD NOTES OR A BOOK-ENTRY CONFIRMATION AND ALL OTHER REQUIRED DOCUMENTS OR THE NOTICE OF GUARANTEED DELIVERY) MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE EXCHANGE AGENT PRIOR TO 12:00 MIDNIGHT, NEW YORK CITY TIME, ON THE EXPIRATION DATE.

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL CAREFULLY BEFORE
COMPLETING ANY BOX ABOVE.

6

PLEASE SIGN HERE
(TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL TENDERING HOLDERS)
(Complete accompanying Substitute Form W-9 on reverse side)
         
         

x:
 
 
 
, 2005
 

x:
 
 
 
, 2005
 
    (Signature(s) of Owner(s))   (Date)
    Area Code and Telephone Number:  

        If a holder is tendering any Old Notes, this Letter of Transmittal must be signed by the registered holder(s) as the name(s) appear(s) on the certificate(s) for the Old Notes or by any person(s) authorized to become registered holder(s) by endorsements and documents transmitted herewith. If any signature is by a trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, attorney-in-fact, officer of a corporation or other person acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity, please set forth full title. See Instruction 4.

Name(s):       

    
(Please Type or Print)

Capacity:
 
    

Address:
 
    

    
(Including Zip Code)

(Name of Eligible Institution Guaranteeing Signatures)

(Address (including zip code) and Telephone Number (including area code) of firm)

(Authorized Signatures)

(Printed Name)

(Title)

Dated:
 
                                                           , 2005

7

INSTRUCTIONS

FORMING PART OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE OFFER TO EXCHANGE
Registered 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012 for
Outstanding Unregistered 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012
of Clean Harbors, Inc.

        1.    Delivery of this Letter of Transmittal and Old Notes; Guaranteed Delivery Procedures.    A holder of Old Notes may tender the same by (i) properly completing and signing this Letter of Transmittal or a facsimile thereof (all references in the Prospectus to the Letter of Transmittal shall be deemed to include a facsimile thereof) and delivering the same, together with the certificate or certificates, if applicable, representing the Old Notes being tendered and any required signature guarantees and any other documents required by this Letter of Transmittal, to the Exchange Agent at its address set forth above on or prior to the Expiration Date, or (ii) complying with the procedure for book-entry transfer described below, or (iii) complying with the guaranteed delivery procedures described below. Old Notes tendered hereby must be in denominations of principal amount of $1,000 and any integral multiple thereof.

        The Exchange Agent will make a request to establish an account with respect to the Old Notes at The Depositary Trust Company, or DTC, for purposes of the Exchange Offer promptly after the date of the Prospectus. Any financial institution that is a participant in DTC's system, including Euroclear and Clearstream, may make book-entry delivery of Old Notes by causing DTC to transfer such Old Notes into the Exchange Agent's account at DTC in accordance with DTC's Automated Tender Offer Program procedures for such transfer. However, although delivery of Old Notes may be effected through book-entry transfer at DTC, an Agent's Message (as defined in the next paragraph) in connection with a book-entry transfer and any other required documents, must, in any case, be transmitted to and received by the Exchange Agent at the address specified on the cover page of this Letter of Transmittal on or prior to the Expiration Date or the guaranteed delivery procedures described below must be compiled with.

        A Holder may tender Old Notes that are held through DTC by transmitting its acceptance through DTC's Automatic Tender Offer Program ("ATOP"), for which the transaction will be eligible, and DTC will then edit and verify the acceptance and send an Agent's Message to the Exchange Agent for its acceptance. The term "Agent's Message" means a message transmitted by DTC to, and received by, the Exchange Agent and forming part of the book-entry confirmation, which states that DTC has received an express acknowledgment from the participant tendering the Old Notes that such participant has received the Letter of Transmittal and agrees to be bound by the terms of the Letter of Transmittal, and that the Company may enforce such agreement against such participant. Delivery of an Agent's Message will also constitute an acknowledgment from the tendering DTC participant that the representations and warranties set forth in this Letter of Transmittal are true and correct.

        DELIVERY OF THE AGENT'S MESSAGE BY DTC WILL SATISFY THE TERMS OF THE EXCHANGE OFFER AS TO EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL BY THE PARTICIPANT IDENTIFIED IN THE AGENT'S MESSAGE. DTC PARTICIPANTS MAY ALSO ACCEPT THE EXCHANGE OFFER BY SUBMITTING A NOTICE OF GUARANTEED DELIVERY THROUGH ATOP.

8

        Holders of Old Notes whose certificates for Old Notes are not immediately available or who cannot deliver their certificates and all other required documents to the Exchange Agent on or prior to the Expiration Date, or who cannot complete the procedure for book-entry transfer on a timely basis, may tender their Old Notes pursuant to the guaranteed delivery procedures set forth in "The Exchange Offer—Guaranteed Delivery Procedures" section of the Prospectus. Pursuant to such procedures,

        THE METHOD OF DELIVERY OF THIS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL, THE OLD NOTES AND ALL OTHER REQUIRED DOCUMENTS, OR BOOK-ENTRY TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION OF AN AGENT'S MESSAGE BY A DTC PARTICIPANT, ARE AT THE ELECTION AND RISK OF THE TENDERING HOLDERS. INSTEAD OF DELIVERY BY MAIL, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT HOLDERS USE AN OVERNIGHT OR HAND DELIVERY SERVICE. IN ALL CASES, SUFFICIENT TIME SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ASSURE TIMELY DELIVERY TO THE EXCHANGE AGENT BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE. NO LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL OR OLD NOTES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE COMPANY OR DTC. HOLDERS MAY REQUEST THEIR RESPECTIVE BROKERS, DEALERS, COMMERCIAL BANKS, TRUST COMPANIES OR NOMINEES TO EFFECT THE TENDERS FOR SUCH HOLDERS. SEE "THE EXCHANGE OFFER" SECTION OF THE PROSPECTUS.

        2.    Partial Tenders; Withdrawals.    If less than all of the Old Notes evidenced by a submitted certificate are to be tendered, the tendering holder(s) should fill in the aggregate principal amount of Old Notes tendered in the box entitled "Description of Old Notes—Principal Amount Tendered." A newly issued certificate for the Old Notes submitted but not tendered will be sent to such holder as soon as practicable after the Expiration Date. All Old Notes delivered to the Exchange Agent will be deemed to have been tendered unless otherwise clearly indicated.

        If not yet accepted, a tender pursuant to the Exchange Offer may be withdrawn at any time prior to 12:00 midnight, New York City time, on the Expiration Date.

        For a withdrawal to be effective:

9

        Any notice of withdrawal must:

        The Exchange Agent will return the properly withdrawn Old Notes without cost to the holder promptly following receipt of the notice of withdrawal. If Old Notes have been tendered pursuant to the procedure for book-entry transfer, any notice of withdrawal must specify the name and number of the account at the book-entry transfer facility to be credited with the withdrawn Old Notes or otherwise comply with the book-entry transfer facility's procedures. All questions as to the validity, form and eligibility, including time of receipt, of any notice of withdrawal will be determined by the Company, in its sole discretion, and such determination will be final and binding on all parties.

        3.    Tender by Holder.    Except in limited circumstances, only a DTC participant listed on a DTC securities position listing may tender Old Notes in the Exchange Offer. Any beneficial owner of Old Notes who is not the registered holder and is not a DTC participant and who wishes to tender should arrange with such registered holder to execute and deliver this Letter of Transmittal on such beneficial owner's behalf or must, prior to completing and executing this Letter of Transmittal and delivering his, her or its Old Notes, either make appropriate arrangements to register ownership of the Old Notes in such beneficial owner's name or obtain a properly completed bond power from the registered holder or properly endorsed certificates representing such.

        4.    Signatures on this Letter of Transmittal, Bond Powers and Endorsements; Guarantee of Signatures.    If this Letter of Transmittal is signed by the registered holder of the Old Notes tendered hereby, the signature must correspond exactly with the name as written on the face of the certificates without alteration, enlargement or any change whatsoever.

        If any tendered Old Notes are owned of record by two or more joint owners, all such owners must sign this Letter of Transmittal.

        If any tendered Old Notes are registered in different names on several certificates, it will be necessary to complete, sign and submit as many separate copies of this Letter of Transmittal as there are different registrations of certificates.

        When this Letter of Transmittal is signed by the registered holder (including any participant in DTC, whose name appears on a security position listing as the owner of the Old Notes) of the Old Notes specified herein and tendered hereby, no endorsements of certificates or separate bond powers are required. If, however, the New Notes are to be issued to a person other than the registered holder, then endorsements of any certificates transmitted hereby or separate bond powers are required. Signatures on such certificate(s) must be guaranteed by an Eligible Institution (as defined below).

        If this Letter of Transmittal is signed by a person other than the registered holder or holders of any Old Notes specified therein, such certificate(s) must be endorsed by such registered holder(s) or accompanied by separate written instruments of transfer or endorsed in blank by such registered holder(s) exchange in form satisfactory to the Company and duly executed by the registered holder, in either case signed exactly as such registered holder(s) name or names appear(s) on the Old Notes.

        If this Letter of Transmittal or any certificates of Old Notes or separate written instruments of transfer or exchange are signed or endorsed by trustees, executors, administrators, guardians,

10


attorneys-in-fact, officers of corporations or others acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity, such persons should so indicate when signing and, unless waived by the Company, evidence satisfactory to the Company of their authority to so act must be submitted with this Letter of Transmittal.

        Signature on a Letter of Transmittal or a notice of withdrawal, as the case may be, must be guaranteed by an Eligible Institution unless the Old Notes tendered pursuant thereto are tendered (i) by a registered holder (including any participant in DTC, whose name appears on a security position listing as the owner of the Old Notes) who has not completed the box entitled "Special Payment Instructions" or "Special Delivery Instructions" on this Letter of Transmittal or (ii) for the account of an Eligible Institution. In the event that signatures on this Letter of Transmittal or a notice of withdrawal, as the case may be, are required to be guaranteed, such guarantee must be by a member firm of a registered national securities exchange or of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., a commercial bank or trust company having an office or correspondent in the United States, or an "eligible guarantor institution" within the meaning of Rule 17Ad-15 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (each of the foregoing an "Eligible Institution").

        5.    Special Issuance and Delivery Instructions.    Tendering holders of Old Notes should indicate in the applicable box the name and address to which New Notes issued pursuant to the Exchange Offer are to be issued or sent, if different from the name or address of the person signing this Letter of Transmittal. In the case of issuance in a different name, the employer identification or social security number of the person named must also be indicated. Holders tendering Old Notes by book-entry transfer may request that Old Notes not exchanged be credited to such account maintained at DTC as such holder may designate hereon. If no such instructions are given, such Old Notes not exchanged will be returned to the name or address of the person signing this Letter of Transmittal.

        6.    Taxpayer Identification Number.    Federal income tax law generally requires that a tendering holder whose Old Notes are accepted for exchange must provide the Company (as payor) with such holder's correct Taxpayer Identification Number ("TIN") on the Substitute Form W-9 below or otherwise establish a basis for exemption from backup withholding. If such holder is an individual, the TIN is his or her social security number. If the Company is not provided with the TIN or an adequate basis for an exemption, such tendering holder may be subject to a penalty of at least $50 imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. In addition, the holder of New Notes may be subject to backup withholding on all reportable payments made after the exchange. The backup withholding rate currently is 28%.

        Certain holders are not subject to these backup withholding and reporting requirements. See the enclosed Guidelines of Certification of Taxpayer Identification Number on Substitute Form W-9 (the "W-9 Guidelines") for additional instructions.

        Under the federal income tax laws, payments that may be made by the Company on account of New Notes issued pursuant to the Exchange Offer may be subject to backup withholding (currently at a 28% rate). To prevent backup withholding, each tendering holder of Old Notes must provide its correct TIN by completing the "Substitute Form W-9" set forth below, certifying that the holder is a U.S. person (including a U.S. resident alien), that the TIN provided is correct (or that such holder is awaiting a TIN) and that (i) the holder is exempt from backup withholding, (ii) the holder has not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service that such holder is subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends or (iii) the Internal Revenue Service has notified the holder that such holder is no longer subject to backup withholding. If the tendering holder of Old Notes is a nonresident alien or foreign entity not subject to backup withholding, such holder must give the Company a completed Form W-8BEN, Certificate of Foreign Status. These forms may be obtained from the Exchange Agent. If the Old Notes are in more than one name or are not in the name of the actual owner, such holder should consult the W-9 Guidelines for information on which TIN to report. If such holder does not have a TIN, such holder should consult the W-9 Guidelines for instructions on

11


applying for a TIN, check the box in Part 2 of the Substitute Form W-9, write "applied for" in lieu of its TIN and complete the Certificate of Awaiting Taxpayer Identification Number. Note: checking this box or writing "applied for" on the form means that such holder has already applied for a TIN or that such holder intends to apply for one in the near future. If a holder checks the box in Part 2 of the Substitute Form W-9 or writes "applied for" on that form, backup withholding at the applicable rate will nevertheless apply to all reportable payments made to such holder. If such a holder furnishes its TIN to the Company within 60 days, however, any amounts so withheld shall be refunded to such holder. If, however, the holder has not provided the Company with its TIN within such 60-day period, the Company will remit such previously retained amounts to the IRS as backup withholding.

        Backup withholding is not an additional Federal income tax. Rather, the Federal income tax liability of persons subject to backup withholding will be reduced by the amount of tax withheld. If withholding results in overpayment of taxes, a refund may be obtained from the Internal Revenue Service.

        7.    Transfer Taxes.    Holders who tender their Old Notes for exchange will not be obligated to pay any transfer taxes in connection therewith. If, however, New Notes are to be delivered to, or are to be issued in the name of, any person other than the registered holder of the Old Notes tendered hereby, or if tendered Old Notes are registered in the name of any person other than the person signing this Letter of Transmittal, or if a transfer tax is imposed for any reason other than the exchange of Old Notes in connection with the Exchange Offer, the amount of any such transfer taxes (whether imposed on the registered holder or any other persons) will be payable by the tendering holder. If satisfactory evidence of payment of such taxes or exemption therefrom is not submitted herewith, the amount of such transfer taxes will be billed directly to such tendering holder.

        Except as provided in this Instruction 7, it will not be necessary for transfer tax stamps to be affixed to the Old Notes specified in this Letter of Transmittal.

        8.    Waiver of Conditions.    The Company reserves the right to waive satisfaction of any or all conditions enumerated in the Prospectus.

        9.    No Conditional Tenders.    No alternative, conditional, irregular or contingent tenders will be accepted. All tendering holders of Old Notes, by execution of this Letter of Transmittal, shall waive any right to receive notice of the acceptance of their Old Notes for exchange.

        Neither the Company, the Exchange Agent nor any other person is obligated to give notice of any defect or irregularity with respect to any tender of Old Notes nor shall any of them incur any liability for failure to give any such notice.

        10.    Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Old Notes.    Any holder whose Old Notes have been mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed should contact the Exchange Agent at the address indicated above for further instructions.

        11.    Requests for Assistance or Additional Copies.    Questions relating to the procedure for tendering, as well as requests for additional copies of the Prospectus and this Letter of Transmittal, should be directed to the Exchange Agent, at the address indicated above.

12

TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL TENDERING HOLDERS
(See Instruction 6)

PAYOR'S NAME: CLEAN HARBORS, INC.

SUBSTITUTE

FORM W-9
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Payor's Request for Taxpayer Identification Number ("TIN") and Certification
 
Part 1 — PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR TIN IN THE BOX AT RIGHT AND CERTIFY BY SIGNING AND DATING BELOW. For individuals, this is your Social Security Number (SSN). For sole proprietors or if your account is in more than one name, see the Instructions in the enclosed Guidelines. For other entities, it is your Employer Identification Number (EIN). If you do not have a number, see how to get a TIN in the enclosed Guidelines.
 
TIN:
Social Security Number


OR
Employer Identification Number
   
    Part 2 — TIN Applied For o
Name:    
Business name, if different from above:
Address (number, street, and apt. or suite no.):
City, State, and Zip Code:
Status (Individual, Corporation, Partnership, Other):
CERTIFICATION—UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I CERTIFY THAT:

(1)    the number shown on this form is my correct Taxpayer Identification Number (or I am waiting for a number to be issued to me),

(2)    I am not subject to backup withholding because (a) I am exempt from backup withholding, (b) I have not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (the "IRS") that I am subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (c) the IRS has notified me that I am no longer subject to backup withholding, and

(3)    I am a U.S. person (including a U.S. resident alien).

Signature:
 
    
 
Date:
 
    
           

You must cross out item (2) of the above certification if you have been notified by the IRS that you are subject to backup withholding because of underreporting of interest or dividends on your tax returns and you have not been notified by the IRS that you are no longer subject to backup withholding.

NOTE: FAILURE TO COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS FORM MAY RESULT IN A $50 PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND BACKUP WITHHOLDING MAY APPLY TO ANY PAYMENTS MADE TO YOU ON ACCOUNT OF THE NEW NOTES. PLEASE REVIEW THE ENCLOSED GUIDELINES FOR CERTIFICATION OF TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ON SUBSTITUTE FORM W-9 FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS.

13

YOU MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING CERTIFICATE IF YOU CHECKED
THE BOX IN PART 2 OF SUBSTITUTE FORM W-9.
CERTIFICATE OF AWAITING TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

            I certify under penalties of perjury that a taxpayer identification number has not been issued to me, and either (a) I have mailed or delivered an application to receive a taxpayer identification number to the appropriate Internal Revenue Service Center or Social Security Administration Office or (b) I intend to mail or deliver an application in the near future. I understand that if I do not provide a taxpayer identification number by the time of payment, a percentage (currently 28%) of all reportable payments made to me thereafter will be withheld until I provide a number and such retained amounts will be remitted to the Internal Revenue Service as backup withholding.

Signature:       
   Date:       

14



QuickLinks

PLEASE READ THE ACCOMPANYING INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY

QuickLinks -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document


EXHIBIT 99.2

NOTICE OF GUARANTEED DELIVERY
CLEAN HARBORS, INC.

Offer to Exchange 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012
registered under the Securities Act of 1933 for
All Outstanding Unregistered 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012

        This form or one substantially equivalent hereto must be used to accept the Exchange Offer of Clean Harbors, Inc. (the "Company") made pursuant to the prospectus dated                         , 2005 (the "Prospectus"), and the enclosed Letter of Transmittal (the "Letter of Transmittal") if certificates for Old Notes of the Company are not immediately available or if the procedure for book-entry transfer cannot be completed on a timely basis or time will not permit all required documents to reach the Company prior to 12:00 midnight, New York City time, on the Expiration Date of the Exchange Offer. Such form may be delivered or transmitted by facsimile transmission, mail or hand delivery to U.S. Bank National Association (the "Exchange Agent") as set forth below. In addition, in order to utilize the guaranteed delivery procedure to tender Old Notes pursuant to the Exchange Offer, a completed, signed and dated Letter of Transmittal (or facsimile thereof) must also be received by the Exchange Agent prior to 12:00 midnight, New York City time, on the Expiration Date. Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the Prospectus or the Letter of Transmittal.

        THE EXCHANGE OFFER WILL EXPIRE AT 12:00 MIDNIGHT, NEW YORK CITY TIME, ON                        , 2005, UNLESS EXTENDED (SUCH DATE AND TIME, AS IT MAY BE EXTENDED, THE "EXPIRATION DATE"). TENDERS MAY BE WITHDRAWN PRIOR TO 12:00 MIDNIGHT,
NEW YORK CITY TIME, ON THE EXPIRATION DATE.

To: U.S. Bank National Association, Exchange Agent

By Hand or Overnight Courier:

U.S. Bank National Association
Corporate Trust Services
60 Livingston Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55107
Attn: Specialized Finance, 2nd Floor		   By Facsimile Transmission:

(651) 495-8158
(For Eligible Institutions Only)
U.S. Bank National Association
Corporate Trust Services
Attn: Specialized Finance, 2nd Floor

For inquiries and confirmations:

(800) 934-6802

        DELIVERY OF THIS INSTRUMENT TO AN ADDRESS OTHER THAN AS SET FORTH ABOVE, OR TRANSMISSION OF INSTRUCTIONS VIA FACSIMILE OTHER THAN AS SET FORTH ABOVE, WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A VALID DELIVERY.

        This form is not to be used to guarantee signatures. If a signature on a Letter of Transmittal is required to be guaranteed by an Eligible Institution under the instructions thereto, such signature guarantee must appear in the applicable space provided in the signature box in the Letter of Transmittal.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

        Upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Prospectus and the accompanying Letter of Transmittal, the undersigned hereby tenders to the Company the principal amount of Old Notes set forth below, pursuant to the guaranteed delivery procedure described in "The Exchange Offer—Guaranteed Delivery Procedures" section of the Prospectus.

        The undersigned understands that tenders of Old Notes will be accepted only in authorized denominations. The undersigned understands that tenders of Old Notes pursuant to the Exchange Offer may not be withdrawn after 12:00 midnight, New York City time, on the Expiration Date. Tenders of Old Notes may be withdrawn if the Exchange Offer is terminated or as otherwise provided in the Prospectus.

        All authority herein conferred or agreed to be conferred by this Notice of Guaranteed Delivery shall survive the death or incapacity of the undersigned and every obligation of the undersigned under this Notice of Guaranteed Delivery shall be binding upon the successors, assigns, heirs, personal representatives, executors, administrators, trustees in bankruptcy and other legal representatives of the undersigned.

Principal Amount of Old Notes Tendered:*   If Old Notes will be delivered by book-entry
transfer, provide account number.

$

 
Account Number:
 

Certificate Nos. (if available):
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 

Total Principal Amount Represented by Old Notes Certificate(s):
 
 
 
 

$

 
 
 
 
*
Must be in denominations of principal amount of $1,000 and any integral multiple thereof.

PLEASE SIGN HERE


x
 

x
 
Signature(s) of Owner(s) or authorized Signatory

Area Code and Telephone Number:
 

 
Date:
 

2

Must be signed by the holder(s) of Old Notes as the name(s) of such holder(s) appear(s) on the certificate(s) for the Old Notes or on a security position listing, or by person(s) authorized to become registered holder(s) by endorsement and documents transmitted with this Notice of Guaranteed Delivery. If any signature is by a trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, attorney-in-fact, officer of a corporation or other person acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity, such person must set forth his or her full title below and furnish evidence of his or her authority as provided in the Letter of Transmittal.

Please print name(s) and address(es)


Name(s):
 

Capacity:
 

Address(es):
 


3


GUARANTEE

        The undersigned, a member of a registered national securities exchange, or a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., or a commercial bank trust company having an office or correspondent in the United States, or an "eligible guarantor institution" within the meaning of Rule 17Ad-15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, hereby guarantees that the certificates representing the principal amount of Old Notes tendered hereby in proper form for transfer, or timely confirmation of the book-entry transfer of such Old Notes into the Exchange Agent's account at U.S. Bank National Association pursuant to the procedures set forth in "The Exchange Offer—Guaranteed Delivery Procedures" section of the Prospectus, together with a properly completed and duly executed Letter of Transmittal (or facsimile thereof) with any required signature guarantee and any other documents required by the Letter of Transmittal, will be received by the Exchange Agent at the address set forth above, within three New York Stock Exchange trading days after the Expiration Date.

Name of Firm:  
Authorized Signature


Address:

 



 

Name:

 

(Please Type or Print)

 
 
 
 
Title:
 

Zip Code:
 

 
 
 
 

Area Code and Tel. No.:
 

 
Date:
 

NOTE: DO NOT SEND CERTIFICATES FOR OLD NOTES WITH THIS FORM. CERTIFICATES FOR OLD NOTES SHOULD ONLY BE SENT WITH YOUR LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.

4



QuickLinks

GUARANTEE

QuickLinks -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document


EXHIBIT 99.3

BROKER DEALER LETTER

CLEAN HARBORS, INC.

Offer to Exchange 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012
registered under the Securities Act of 1933 for
All Outstanding Unregistered 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012

To: Brokers, Dealers, Commercial Banks, Trust Companies and Other Nominees:

        Clean Harbors, Inc. (the "Company") is offering to exchange (the "Exchange Offer"), upon and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the prospectus dated                        , 2005 (the "Prospectus"), and the enclosed Letter of Transmittal (the "Letter of Transmittal"), its 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012 which have been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), for its outstanding unregistered 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012 (the "Old Notes"). The Exchange Offer is being made in order to satisfy certain obligations of the Company contained in the Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of June 30, 2004 among the Company, the Guarantors (as defined therein) and the Purchasers (as defined therein).

        We are requesting that you contact your clients for whom you hold Old Notes regarding the Exchange Offer. For your information and for forwarding to your clients for whom you hold Old Notes registered in your name or in the name of your nominee, or who hold Old Notes registered in their own names, we are enclosing the following documents:

        YOUR PROMPT ACTION IS REQUESTED. THE EXCHANGE OFFER WILL EXPIRE AT 12:00 MIDNIGHT, NEW YORK CITY TIME, ON                        , 2005, UNLESS EXTENDED BY THE COMPANY ("THE EXPIRATION DATE"). THE OLD NOTES TENDERED PURSUANT TO THE EXCHANGE OFFER MAY BE WITHDRAWN AT ANY TIME BEFORE 12:00 MIDNIGHT, NEW YORK CITY TIME, ON THE EXPIRATION DATE.

        The Company will not pay any fee or commission to any broker or dealer or to any other person (other than the Exchange Agent for the Exchange Offer). The Company will pay all transfer taxes, if any, applicable to the exchange of Old Notes pursuant to the Exchange Offer, on the transfer of Old Notes to it, except as otherwise provided in Instruction 7 of the enclosed Letter of Transmittal. The Company may reimburse brokers, dealers, commercial banks, trust companies and other nominees for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in forwarding copies of the Prospectus, Letter of Transmittal and related documents to the beneficial owners of the Old Notes and in handling or forwarding tenders for exchange.


        To participate in the Exchange Offer, a duly executed and properly completed Letter of Transmittal (or facsimile thereof), with any required signature guarantees and any other required documents, should be sent to the Exchange Agent and certificates representing the Old Notes should be delivered to the Exchange Agent, all in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Letter of Transmittal and the Prospectus.

        If holders of Old Notes wish to tender, but it is impracticable for them to forward their certificates for Old Notes prior to the expiration of the Exchange Offer or to comply with the book-entry transfer procedures on a timely basis, a tender may be effected by following the guaranteed delivery procedures described in the Prospectus under "The Exchange Offer—Guaranteed Delivery Procedures."

        Any inquiries you may have with respect to the Exchange Offer, or requests for additional copies of the enclosed materials should be directed to the Exchange Agent for the Old Notes, at its address set forth on the front of the Letter of Transmittal.

NOTHING HEREIN OR IN THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS SHALL CONSTITUTE YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON AS AN AGENT OF THE COMPANY OR THE EXCHANGE AGENT, OR AUTHORIZE YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON TO USE ANY DOCUMENT OR MAKE ANY STATEMENTS ON BEHALF OF EITHER OF THEM WITH RESPECT TO THE EXCHANGE OFFER, EXCEPT FOR STATEMENTS EXPRESSLY MADE IN THE PROSPECTUS OR THE LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.

Enclosures



QuickLinks


QuickLinks -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document


EXHIBIT 99.4

CLIENT LETTER

CLEAN HARBORS, INC.

Offer to Exchange 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012
Registered under the Securities Act of 1933 for
All Outstanding Unregistered 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012

To Our Clients:

        Enclosed for your consideration is a prospectus dated                        , 2005 (the "Prospectus"), and the enclosed Letter of Transmittal (the "Letter of Transmittal"), relating to the offer (the "Exchange Offer") of Clean Harbors, Inc. (the "Company") to exchange its 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012, which have been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for its outstanding unregistered 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012 (the "Old Notes"), upon the terms and subject to the conditions described in the Prospectus. The Exchange Offer is being made in order to satisfy certain obligations of the Company contained in the Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of June 30, 2004 among the Company, the Guarantors (as defined therein) and the Purchasers (as defined therein).

        This material is being forwarded to you as the beneficial owner of the Old Notes carried by us in your account but not registered in your name. A tender of such Old Notes may only be made by us as the holder of record and pursuant to your instructions.

        Accordingly, we request instructions as to whether you wish us to tender on your behalf the Old Notes held by us for your account, pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the enclosed Prospectus and Letter of Transmittal.

        Your instructions should be forwarded to us as promptly as possible in order to permit us to tender the Old Notes on your behalf in accordance with the provisions of the Exchange Offer. The Exchange offer will expire at 12:00 midnight, New York City time, on                        , 2005, unless extended by the Company (the "Expiration Date"). Any Old Notes tendered pursuant to the Exchange Offer may be withdrawn at any time before 12:00 midnight, New York City time, on the Expiration Date.

        The Exchange Offer is not conditioned upon any minimum number of Old Notes being tendered.

        Your attention is directed to the following:

        IF YOU WISH TO TENDER YOUR OLD NOTES, PLEASE SO INSTRUCT US BY COMPLETING, EXECUTING AND RETURNING TO US THE INSTRUCTION FORM ON THE BACK OF THIS LETTER. The Letter of Transmittal is furnished to you for information only and may not be used directly by you to tender Old Notes.

        If we do not receive written instructions in accordance with the procedures presented in the Prospectus and the Letter of Transmittal, we will not tender any of the Old Notes in your account. Unless a specific contrary instruction is given in the space provided, your signature(s) hereon shall constitute an instruction to us to tender all the Old Notes held by us in your account.

        Please carefully review the enclosed material as you consider the Exchange Offer.

INSTRUCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE EXCHANGE OFFER

        The undersigned acknowledge(s) receipt of your letter and the enclosed material referred to therein relating to the Exchange Offer made by Clean Harbors, Inc. with respect to its Old Notes.

        This will instruct you to tender the Old Notes held by you for the account of the undersigned, upon and subject to terms and conditions set forth in the Prospectus and the related Letter of Transmittal.

        Please tender the Old Notes held by you for the account of the undersigned as indicated below:

-->
The aggregate face amount of Old Notes held by you for the account of the undersigned is (fill in amount):


$                                        of 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012.

-->
With respect to the Exchange Offer, the undersigned hereby instructs you (check appropriate box):

o
To TENDER the following Old Notes held by you for the account of the undersigned (insert principal amount of Old Notes to be tendered (if any)):


$                                        of 111/4% Senior Secured Notes due 2012.

o
NOT to TENDER any Old Notes held by you for the account of the undersigned.

Name of beneficial owner(s) (please print):

Signature(s):

Address:

Telephone Number:

Taxpayer Identification or Social Security Number:

Date:



QuickLinks


                                                  DAVIS, MALM & D'AGOSTINE, P.C.
                                                                ONE BOSTON PLACE
                                                                BOSTON, MA 02108
                                                               TEL. 617-367-2500

                              August 31, 2005


Securities and Exchange Commission
Division of Corporation Finance
Washington, DC  20549

Attention: Edward M. Kelly, Senior Counsel

RE:  Clean Harbors, Inc. and Registrant Guarantors
     Registration Statement on Form S-4
     File No. 333-126193

     Clean Harbors, Inc.
     Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 and
     Subsequent Exchange Act Reports
     File No. 0-16379

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     On behalf of Clean Harbors, Inc. (the "Company") and its subsidiaries
listed as Registrant Guarantors (the "Guarantors") in the Registration Statement
on Form S-4 described above, there is herewith transmitted electronically for
filing Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (the "Amendment") relating
to the proposed exchange offer of registered 11 1/4% Senior Secured Notes due
2012 (the "new notes") for the Company's similar unregistered notes (the "old
notes") now outstanding. To assist review of the Amendment by the Commission's
staff, we are delivering to Edward M. Kelly, Senior Counsel, three printed
copies of the Amendment with exhibits. Each of those copies is marked to show
changes from the Registration Statement as originally filed, except for the
exhibits and the unaudited financial statements for the six months ended June
30, 2005 which appear on pages F-87 through F-131 of the Amendment and replace
in their entirety the unaudited financial statements for the three months ended
March 31, 2005 which were included in the Registration Statement as originally
filed.

     The Company responds as described below to each of the comments on the
Registration Statement in the letter dated July 25, 2005 (the "Comment Letter")
from Pamela A. Long, Assistant Director. Each such comment and related response
has the same number as in the Comment Letter, but the page numbers in the
responses have been updated to the relevant page numbers in the revised
preliminary prospectus included in the Amendment.



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 2


1.   Please tell us your intentions for the preliminary proxy statement that was
     last revised on January 16, 2003. If you intend to withdraw the proxy
     statement, file separate correspondence on the EDGAR system to that effect.

RESPONSE: By letter dated August 25, 2005, filed with the Commission under
EDGAR, the Company has withdrawn the preliminary proxy statement last revised on
January 16, 2003. Such proxy statement is no longer relevant since the Company
redeemed on June 30, 2004 all of its previously outstanding Series C Convertible
Preferred Stock which was the subject of that proposed proxy statement.

2.   If applicable, comments on the S-4 are comments on the 10-K and subsequent
     Exchange Act reports and vice versa. As applicable, address comments below
     in future filings under the Exchange Act.

RESPONSE: As described below in this letter with respect to those comments which
relate to the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2004 and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005,
the Company has modified the corresponding disclosures in the prospectus and in
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (which is
incorporated by reference into the prospectus). The Company will also address
such comments in the reports which the Company subsequently files under the
Exchange Act.

3.   We note that you are registering the new notes in reliance on our position
     enunciated in EXXON CAPITAL HOLDING CORPORATION (available April 13, 1989),
     MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED (available June 5, 1991), and SHEARMAN
     AND STERLING (available July 2, 1993). Provide a supplemental letter on the
     letterhead of Clean Harbors, Inc. or Clean Harbors signed by an officer
     before the S-4's effectiveness:

          -    stating that you are registering the exchange offer in reliance
               on our position in those letters, and

          -    including the statements and representations substantially in the
               form presented in the MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED and
               SHEARMAN AND STERLING letters.

RESPONSE: A supplemental letter from Carl Paschetag, Vice President and
Treasurer of the Company, containing the statements and representations
specified in this comment is being filed as correspondence with the Amendment.

4.   We note that you intend to file by amendment the legality opinion. Allow us
     sufficient time to review the opinion before requesting acceleration of the
     registration statement's effectiveness.



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 3


RESPONSE: The legality opinion of Davis, Malm & D'Agostine, P.C., is filed as
Exhibit 5.1 to the Amendment.

5.   On page 1 and throughout the document where you discuss EBITDA, discuss
     also your net income (loss) as calculated and presented according to GAAP.
     See Item 10(e)(1)(i)(A)) of Regulation S-K.

RESPONSE: Page 1 of the prospectus now deletes the EBITDA disclosure. The
disclosures of Adjusted EBITDA (see response to comments 17, 26 and 27 below)
which appear as part of the "Summary Historical Consolidated Financial Data"
(pages 10 and 12-14) and "Selected Historical Consolidated Financial Data"
(pages 27 and 29-31) also contain the Company's net income (loss) as determined
in accordance with GAAP for each of the periods for which Adjusted EBITDA is
presented and a reconciliation of each Adjusted EBITDA number to both net income
(loss) and cash flow from operations as determined in accordance with GAAP. In
other places in the prospectus where EBITDA is discussed, such discussion
generally focuses either on the Company's compliance with the covenants in its
current credit agreement and indenture which are based upon "Consolidated
EBITDA" (as such term is defined in the Company's current credit agreement and
indenture in the same manner as "Adjusted EBITDA" is defined in footnotes (8) on
pages 12 and 29 of the prospectus) or the relative performance of the segments
of the Company's business to overall performance.

6.   We note that you refer to third parties throughout the filing, including
     the financial statements' notes. For example, refer to "independent
     appraisal firm" on page 35, "Tillinghast Towers Perrin" on page 74, and
     "legal counsel" on pages 104 and 109. If you refer to third parties, you
     need to identify them and obtain their consent. Otherwise, you should
     delete all references to third parties. SEE Rule 436 of Regulation C under
     the Securities Act.

RESPONSE: Except for disclosures relating to specified matters for which
consents from the relevant third parties are filed as exhibits to the
Registration Statement, the prospectus deletes references to actuaries, legal
counsel and other experts.

7.   Explain the meaning of any abbreviation or acronym when introduced in the
     registration statement. For example, refer to "PRPs" in the first full
     paragraph on page 60.

RESPONSE: In connection with each initial use of an abbreviation or acronym (and
in connection with subsequent uses to the extent the Company believes such
restatement will be helpful to investors), the prospectus defines the relevant
abbreviation or term.

PROSPECTUS' OUTSIDE FRONT COVER PAGE

8.   Identify the guarantees as securities that you are offering with the notes
     by way of this prospectus.



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 4


RESPONSE: The first paragraph of the prospectus' cover page has been expanded to
add the specified disclosure.

9.   Refer to the fourth bullet point. Confirm for us that the offer will be
     open for a full 20 business days. At present, it appears that the offer
     could be open for less than the required 20 business days because the offer
     expires at 5:00 P.M. instead on midnight on what may ultimately be the
     twentieth business day after it begins. SEE Rule 14d-l(g)(3) under the
     Exchange Act and Q&A 8 in Release No. 34-16623, March 5,1980. We note the
     disclosure in the second bullet point on page 117.

RESPONSE: To ensure that the exchange offer will be open for a full 20 business
days, the disclosures throughout the prospectus and exhibits have been changed
to provide that the offer will expire on midnight rather than 5:00 p.m. on the
last such day.

10.  Delete the word "generally" in the fifth bullet point because the word
     "generally" may imply that investors cannot rely on the disclosure. Also
     delete the word "generally" under "Tax Consequences" on page 9 and under
     "Sale or Exchange of Notes" on page 176 and the language "for general
     information" in the bold type paragraph on page 178 for the same reason.

RESPONSE: The specified changes have been made on the cover page and pages 6,
179 and 182 of the prospectus.

11.  Remove any information not required by Item 501 of Regulation S-K and not
     key to an investment decision.

RESPONSE: The prospectus' cover page has been revised to delete information
which the Company believes is not required by Item 501 of Regulation S-K or key
to an investment decision.

12.  Except for footnotes, the typeface should be uniform throughout the
     document. Currently, the type on the prospectus' outside front cover page
     appears too small. Please revise.

RESPONSE: The typeface on the prospectus' outside cover page and throughout the
Amendment is at least ten points, except for footnotes which are at least eight
points.

13.  Move all information except that required by Item 2 of Form S-4 after
     "Table of Contents" on pages ii-iv so that it follows the summary and risk
     factors sections. SEE Item 502 and 503(c) of Regulation S-K.

RESPONSE: The section entitled "Available Information" has been renamed "Where
You Can Find Additional Information" and moved to page 184 of the prospectus.
The sections entitled



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 5


"Disclosure Regarding Forward-Looking Statements" and "Industry Market Data"
have been moved to pages 24 and 25 of the prospectus.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION, PAGE II

14.  It appears that you are providing disclosure under Item 10 of Form S-4. If
     so, please revise to include all documents required to be incorporated by
     Item 11 of Form S-4.

RESPONSE: The list of documents incorporated by reference on page 184 of the
prospectus has been expanded to include the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2004, all other reports which the Company has
filed under the Exchange Act subsequent to December 31, 2004, and all reports
subsequently filed under the Exchange Act during the exchange offer.

INDUSTRY AND MARKET DATA, PAGE IV

15.  Amend this paragraph's language to remove the implication that you are
     disclaiming responsibility for information that you have chosen to include
     in the prospectus.

RESPONSE: The specified language now on page 25 of the prospectus has been
modified to state that the Company believes the industry and market data
included in the prospectus which the Company has obtained from third party
sources is accurate.

PROSPECTUS SUMMARY, PAGE 1

16.  The summary is much too detailed and includes information about Clean
     Harbors and its business that is repeated essentially word for word on
     pages 75-80. We note particularly the subsections on Clean Harbors'
     competitive strengths and business strategy. The emphasis on those features
     or aspects without a discussion of corresponding risks also leaves the
     summary somewhat unbalanced. Revise so that the summary highlights in a
     brief overview the key aspects or features of Clean Harbors and its
     business, eliminating the two subsections mentioned. SEE Item 503(a) of
     Regulation S-K.

RESPONSE: The summary has been shortened and the subsections entitled "Our
Competitive Strengths" and "Our Business Strategy" deleted.

17.  Ensure that the information that you retain is balanced. For example, you
     disclose revenue and EBITDA for the 12 month period ended March 31, 2005,
     but you do not disclose that earnings were insufficient to cover fixed
     charges during the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002. Further,
     disclosure in footnote (8) on page 15 states that "Previous definitions of
     EBITDA were based on financial arrangements then in place and varied
     somewhat from the current definition of EBITDA."



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 6


RESPONSE: The disclosure formerly on page 1 as to EBITDA for the 12-month period
ended March 31, 2005 has been deleted. The disclosures of "Other Financial Data"
(which include both the ratio of earnings to fixed charges and Adjusted EBITDA)
on pages 10 and 27 and in footnotes (7) and (8) thereto on pages 12-14 and 29-31
point out that, during the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the six
months ended June 30, 2004, earnings were not sufficient to cover fixed charges.
The disclosures as to Adjusted EBITDA in those pages and footnotes now use a
consistent definition of Adjusted EBITDA for all periods presented, and include
reconciliations of the Adjusted EBITDA numbers to both net income (loss) and
cash flow from operations as determined in accordance with GAAP for each of the
relevant periods. Please also see the responses to comments 5, 26 and 27.

18.  Identify the notes' initial purchasers under "Background" on page 6.

RESPONSE: The section entitled "Background" on page 4 has been expanded to
provide the names of the initial purchasers of the old notes.

19.  Provide the book value of the collateral as of the date of the most recent
     balance sheet included in the prospectus. Also disclose the maximum amount
     of first-lien obligations that you are permitted to incur.

RESPONSE: The section entitled "Ranking" on pages 7-8 has been expanded to
disclose the maximum amount of first-lien obligations which the Company may have
outstanding. The section entitled "Security" on page 8 has been expanded to
disclose the book value of the assets which secure the notes on a second-lien
basis and which (along with certain other assets which do not secure the notes)
also secure the first-lien obligations.

20.  We assume that the reference to "this offering circular" under "Optional
     Redemption" on page 11 is inadvertent. Please revise.

RESPONSE: The reference under "Optional Redemption" on page 8 has been corrected
from "offering circular" to "prospectus."

21.  Revise "Change of Control" on page 11 to disclose that if there is a change
     of control, Clean Harbors may have insufficient financial resources or may
     be unable to arrange financing to repurchase the notes.

RESPONSE: The section entitled "Change of Control" on page 8 has been expanded
to state that the Company may then not be able to finance a repurchase of the
notes either through available cash or new financing and that the Company's
revolving credit and letter of credit facilities prohibit such a repurchase
without the consent of the lenders under such agreements.



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 7


RISK FACTORS, PAGE 18

22.  Many risk factors' captions or headings state merely a fact or describe an
     event that may occur in the future or are too vague to describe adequately
     the risk that follows. For example, refer to the first, second, fourth,
     fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth,
     fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth,
     twentieth, twenty-first, and twenty-second risk factors. State succinctly
     the risk that follows from the fact or uncertainty.

RESPONSE: Each of the risk factors has been revised to state more succinctly the
adverse consequences which may result to the Company and the holders of the
notes if the specified events or conditions should occur in the future.

23.  Avoid generic conclusions in the risk factors' captions or headings and in
     the risk factors' discussions such as Clean Harbors' results of operations,
     business, and financial condition would or could be materially and
     adversely affected or would or could be harmed. For example, refer to the
     third and nineteenth risk factors. Rather, explain specifically what the
     risk's consequences or effects are for Clean Harbors and its investors.

RESPONSE: Each of the risk factors has been revised to avoid generic conclusions
and explain more clearly the adverse consequences which may result to the
Company and holders of the notes if the specified events or conditions should
occur in the future.

24.  Some risk factors include language like "we cannot assure, "we can not
     assure," "we cannot guarantee," and "we cannot provide assurance." For
     example, refer to the second, third, fifth, sixth, ninth, tenth,
     fourteenth, and nineteenth risk factors. Since the risk is the situation
     described and not your inability to assure or guarantee, revise.

RESPONSE: Each of the risk factors has been revised to remove terms such as "we
can not assure" and explain more clearly the actual or potential event or
condition which gives rise to the risk.

25.  In the fifth factor, quantify your debt service obligations.

RESPONSE: The fifth risk factor on page 16 now states the aggregate amounts
which the Company incurred during 2004 and the six months ended June 30, 2005,
and anticipates incurring during the entire 2005 for interest on debt and fee
obligations on letters of credit.

SELECTED HISTORICAL CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA, PAGE 28

26.  Since you have adjusted EBITDA for charges other than interest, taxes,
     depreciation, and amortization expenses you should revise your title to
     reflect that fact. Refer to Question 14 in the June 13, 2003 FAQ on
     Non-GAAP Financial Measures.



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 8


RESPONSE: For each disclosure in the prospectus of an amount of EBITDA, the
title has been changed to "Adjusted EBITDA." Furthermore, as described above in
the response to comment 5, the principal of such disclosures contain both the
definition of "Adjusted EBITDA" and reconciliations of each such number to both
net income (loss) and cash flow from operations and determined in accordance
with GAAP for the relevant periods.

27.  Since the EBITDA amounts presented on page 16 for the years ended December
     31, 2002 and December 31, 2003 do not agree to amounts presented in Note 23
     to the financial statements, it appears that you are disclosing two
     different amounts of EBITDA. Explain why you have two different amounts and
     why you believe that both are useful to investors. Also revise the titles
     so that you are not using the same title for both amounts.

RESPONSE: As explained in Note (8) on pages 12 and 29, the amounts of Adjusted
EBITDA now shown for each of the specified periods in the "Summary Historical
Consolidated Financial Data" and "Summary Historical Consolidated Financial
Data" and the reconciliations of such amounts to both net income (loss) and cash
flow from operations on pages 13-14 and 30-31 have been calculated using a
consistent definition of "Adjusted EBITDA," which is the same as the definition
of "Consolidated EBITDA" in the Company's current credit agreement and indenture
each dated as of June 30, 2004. The Company believes that this presentation is
helpful to investors because it reflects changes in the Company's performance
throughout all of the specified periods using a consistent definition of
"Adjusted EBITDA." The Company has also revised the presentation of EBITDA in
Note 23 of the financial statements for the three years ended December 31, 2004
on page F-74 to be consistent with Adjusted EBITDA presented for the years ended
December 31, 2002 and 2003 on pages 12 and 29. Note 23 to the Company's
previously reported financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2003
and 2002, presented EBITDA numbers based on the definitions of "Consolidated
EBITDA" in the Company's credit agreements as then in effect, which differed
slightly from the definition of "Consolidated EBITDA" in the Company's current
credit agreement and indenture. However, the adjustments which have been made
for this purpose in revised Note 23 to the previously reported EBITDA numbers
represent only less than one-half of one percent for the year ended December 31,
2003, and less than one-tenth of one percent for the year ended December 31,
2002.

MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES, PAGE 36

28.  Expand your discussion of critical accounting policies to address these
     items:

     -    Indicate whether you have discussed your critical accounting estimates
          with your audit committee.



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 9


RESPONSE: Page 35 of the prospectus now states that management discusses each of
the critical accounting estimates with the Audit Committee of the Company's
Board of Directors prior to each release of the Company's annual financial
statements.

     -    Provide a quantitative discussion of changes in your overall financial
          performance if you were to assume that the accounting estimates were
          changed by using reasonably possible near term changes in the most
          material assumptions underlying the accounting estimates or by using
          the reasonably possible range of the accounting estimates. For
          example, we would expect to see a detailed discussion of the
          significant assumptions used in arriving at your closure and
          post-closure obligations. This discussion should include the inflation
          and discount rates used and the impact on your financial results if
          you assumed changes in these assumptions.

RESPONSE: The disclosure as to the accounting estimates respecting
"Environmental Liabilities" on page 37 has been expanded as follows:

     "As of June 30, 2005, we had recorded discounted remedial liabilities of
     $148.7 million. We also estimate that it is "reasonably possible" as that
     term is defined in SFAS No. 5 ("more than remote but less than likely"),
     that the amount of such remedial liabilities could be up to $22.0 million
     greater than such $148.7 million."

     The disclosure as to the accounting estimates respecting "Legal Matters" on
page 38 has been expanded as follows:

     "We also estimate that it is "reasonably possible" as that term is defined
     in SFAS No.5 (more than remote but less than likely), that the amount of
     such total liabilities could be up to $3.0 million greater than such $ 34.1
     million. Because all of our reasonably possible additional losses relating
     to legal liabilities relate to remedial liabilities, the reasonably
     possible additional losses for legal proceedings liabilities are reflected
     in the tables of reasonably possible additional losses under the heading
     "Environmental Liabilities" below."

     With respect to the accounting estimates respecting "Accounting for
Landfills" referenced on pages 36-37 and further described on pages 52-59, the
Company believes that its most significant risk, the risk of a significant
reduction in highly probable airspace, is adequately disclosed and that it is
not practicable to provide an estimate or range of estimate for the loss that
could be incurred. Furthermore, the Company believes that it is not helpful to
investors to quantify the estimated effects of changes in inflation or discount
rates, since any near-term change in inflation or discount rates used would only
affect asset retirement obligations incurred in the current year and would not
be material to the financial statements. Inflation rates used for



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 10


landfill volume consumed during the years ended December 31, 2004, and December
31, 2003, and the six months ended June 30, 2005, were 1.15%, 2.00%, and 2.16%,
respectively. Discount rates for the same periods were 12.50%, 14.00%, and
10.25%.

     -    Provide a quantitative and qualitative discussion of any material
          changes made to the accounting estimates in the effect on your overall
          financial performance.

     SEE Release Nos. 33-8040, 33-8098, and 33-8350.

RESPONSE: The principal changes in accounting estimates which have affected the
Company's financial statements over the periods covered by the Management's
Discussion and Analysis relate to changes in estimates relating to
"Environmental Liabilities" and "Insurance Expense." The disclosure as to
changes in estimates relating to "Environmental Liabilities" on pages 37-38 has
been expanded as follows:

     "Net reductions in our estimates of environmental liabilities resulted in
     increases to our reported results of operations of $3.3 million, $ 0.3
     million and $7.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003,
     and the six months ended June 30, 2005, respectively."

     The disclosure as to change in accounting estimates relating to "Insurance
Expense" on page 38 has been expanded as follows:

     "The effect of the restatement was to increase cost of revenues by $0.3
     million for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002."

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS, PAGE 39

29.  Enhance your MD&A disclosures by including these items:

     -    Quantify the impact of each factor when multiple factors contribute to
          material fluctuations in a line item. For material fluctuations in net
          sales, discuss the extent to which the fluctuation is due to pricing,
          volumes sold, or the introduction of new products.

     -    Discuss the nature of the items included in corporate revenues and
          cost of revenues. Also discuss and quantify the reasons for the
          fluctuations in corporate items.

     SEE Item 303(a) of Regulation S-K.

RESPONSE: The discussions of "Results of Operations" on page 39-51 now disclose
the quantitative impact of each factor where multiple factors were involved. For
material



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 11


fluctuations in net sales, the reasons for the fluctuations are described. The
descriptions of the nature of items included in corporate revenues, cost of
revenues and selling, general and administrative items have also been expanded.

ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES, PAGE 50

30.  You state that landfill assets are amortized and closure and post-closure
     costs are accrued as airspace is consumed. Disclose the rates that you used
     for the amortization of landfill and post-closure costs during each period
     presented. If applicable, discuss the reasons for material fluctuations.

RESPONSE: The following statement has been added to the description of
"Environmental Liabilities" on page 56 and, with minor revisions, to Note 4,
"Significant Accounting Policies" on page F-23:

     "In 2003 and 2004 we reduced closure and post-closure liabilities as a
     result of increasing highly probable landfill airspace. After acquiring
     landfills as part of the CSD assets from Safety-Kleen in 2002, our
     management identified new business opportunities that made possible the
     expansion, and further utilization, of the assets that the previous owners
     had believed to be exhausted. The resulting increase in airspace was
     accounted for by reducing landfill retirement liabilities (due to delaying
     the closure and post-closure expenditures) and by correspondingly reducing
     landfill assets by $11.6 million and $1.2 million for the years ended
     December 31, 2003 and 2004 respectively. See the tables of changes to
     closure and post-closure liabilities below."

     "We calculate the rates we use to amortize landfill assets based upon the
     dollar value of estimated final liabilities, the surveyed remaining
     airspace of the landfill, and the time estimated to consume the remaining
     airspace. Consequently, rates vary for each landfill and for each asset
     category, and we recalculate them each year. During the years ended
     December 31, 2004, and 2003, we depreciated landfill assets at average
     rates of $0.39 and $2.62 per cubic yard, respectively. The change in the
     amortization rate of landfill assets resulted primarily from the $11.6
     million reduction in landfill retirement liability described immediately
     above."

     A similar statement has been added on page 58 and, with minor revisions, to
Note 12, "Closure and Post-Closure Liabilities" on page F-49 and, in addition,
the following statement has been added on page 58 with respect to inflation:

     "We calculate the rates we use to accrue closure and post-closure costs as
     a function of the dollar value of estimated final liabilities, the surveyed



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 12


     remaining airspace of the landfill, and the time estimated to consume the
     remaining airspace. Consequently, rates vary for each landfill and for each
     asset category, and we recalculate them each year. During the years ended
     December 31, 2004, and 2003, we accrued asset retirement obligations at
     average rates of $1.23 and $1.46 per cubic yard, respectively. The changes
     in the accrual rate of asset retirement obligations resulted primarily
     from the $11.6 million reduction in landfill retirement liability
     described immediately above."

31.  Provide a rollforward of landfill assets for each period presented.

RESPONSE: Pages 55-56 and F-23 now provide a rollforward of landfill assets for
the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003.

32.  Since the 7.8 million cubic yards of unpermitted airspace included in
     probable airspace did not meet your established criteria for determining if
     unpermitted airspace should be included in probable airspace, disclose the
     impact of including this airspace on your income from operations for each
     period presented. Also disclose the reasons for not having submitted the
     permit application and when you intend to submit the permit application.

RESPONSE: The following statement has been added to "Environmental Liabilities"
on page 54 and (with minor modifications) to Note 4, "Significant Accounting
Policies" on page F-22:

     "Had we not included the 7.8 million cubic yards of unpermitted airspace in
     highly probable airspace, operating expense for year ended December 31,
     2004, and for the six months ended June 30, 2005 would have been higher by
     $439 thousand and $271 thousand, respectively."

33.  Since the changes in estimates resulted in a reduction of closure and
     post-closure liabilities of approximately 12% during the year ended
     December 31, 2004 and 19% during the year ended December 31, 2003, disclose
     the facts and circumstances that led to these changes in your estimates.
     Also disclose how the "other changes in estimates" are reflected in your
     financial statements.

RESPONSE: The following statement has been added to "Environmental Liabilities"
on page 56 and (with minor modifications) to page 58 and Note 4, "Significant
Accounting Policies" on page F-23, and Note 12, "Closure and Post-Closure
Liabilities" on page F-49:

     "In 2003 and 2004 we reduced closure and post-closure liabilities as a
     result of increasing highly probable landfill airspace. After acquiring
     landfills as part of the CSD assets from Safety-Kleen in 2002, our
     management identified new business opportunities that made possible the



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 13


     expansion, and further utilization, of the assets that the previous owners
     had believed to be exhausted. The resulting increase in airspace was
     accounted for by reducing landfill retirement liabilities (due to delaying
     the closure and post-closure expenditures) and by correspondingly reducing
     landfill assets by $11.6 million and $1.2 million for the years ended
     December 31, 2003 and 2004 respectively. See the tables of changes to
     closure and post-closure liabilities below."

CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING, PAGE 73

34.  You state that "except as otherwise discussed elsewhere in this prospectus,
     there have not been any changes in the Company's internal control over
     financial reporting." Remove this wording, and disclose in this section all
     changes in your internal control over financial reporting that occurred
     during your last fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is
     reasonably likely to materially affect your internal control over financial
     reporting. SEE Item 308(c) of Regulation S-K.

RESPONSE: On page 75, the words "elsewhere in this prospectus" have been revised
to read "below under 'Remediation of Material Control Weakness,'". As described
under that caption, the Company changed during the first quarter of 2005 its
internal control over accounting for self-insured workers' compensation and
motor vehicle liability reserves in order to use an actuarial-based method. That
change is the only change since December 31, 2004 in internal control over
financial reporting which materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting.

BUSINESS, PAGE 76

35.  State the duration of Clean Harbors' three patents under "Intellectual
     Property" on page 90. SEE Item 101(c)(l)(iv) of Regulation S-K.

RESPONSE: Page 92 of the prospectus has been revised to state the expiration
dates of those patents.

36.  State in the first full paragraph on page 106 the amount of reserves that
     Clean Harbors has established to cover its estimated legal costs for the
     lawsuit against Clean Harbors Plaquemine, LLC. Specify the known or
     estimated amount of civil penalties that the plaintiffs are seeking in the
     lawsuit.

RESPONSE: The description on pages 108-109 of the three lawsuits which have
now been brought against various Clean Harbors companies involving the
Plaquemine facility has been revised to provide the additional information.



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 14


37.  If true, indicate in the second full paragraph on page 109 that the Norfolk
     Superior Court and the Suffolk Superior Court are located in the state of
     Massachusetts.

RESPONSE: The description on page 112 of the litigation involving the former
holders of the Company's subordinated notes has been revised to state that
Norfolk and Suffolk Counties are in Massachusetts and to update that disclosure
to describe a recent development in that litigation.

THE EXCHANGE OFFER, PAGE 116

38.  Revise the language "as soon as practicable" so that it reads "promptly" in
     the first and eighth paragraphs under "Terms of the Exchange" on pages
     118-119. Similarly, revise the third paragraph under "Expiration Date;
     Extensions; Amendments" on page 120, the ninth paragraph under "Procedures
     for Tendering" on page 122, the third paragraph under "Withdrawal of
     Tenders" on page 125, and the second paragraph on page 10 of exhibit 99.1.
     SEE Rule 14e-1(c) under the Exchange Act.

RESPONSE: The specified changes have been made on pages 122,123,126 and 128 of
the prospectus and page 1 of revised exhibit 99.1.

EXPIRATION DATE; EXTENSIONS; AMENDMENTS, PAGE 120

39.  You state in the first bullet point that you reserve the right to delay
     accepting any old notes. Clarify in what circumstances you will delay
     acceptance. For example, if you are referring to the right to delay
     acceptance only due to an extension of the exchange offer, so state.
     Confirm for us that any delay will be consistent with Rule 14e-1(c) under
     the Exchange Act.

RESPONSE: The first bullet point on page 123 has been revised to clarify that
the Company's right to delay accepting any old notes would be due only to an
extension by the Company of the term of the exchange offer. The Company hereby
confirms that, if the Company should elect to extend the exchange offer, it
would comply with Rule 14e-1(c) under the Exchange Act

40.  You state in the second bullet point and in first full paragraph on page 2
     of exhibit 99.1 that you reserve the right to extend the exchange offer.
     Advise us how oral notice of any extension is reasonably calculated to
     reach registered holders of the outstanding notes or otherwise satisfies
     the requirements of Rule 14e-1(d) under the Exchange Act.

RESPONSE: If the Company were to extend the exchange offer, it would give notice
of such extension in accordance with Rule 14e-1(d) under the Exchange Act. Page
123 of the prospectus has been revised to provide that any such notification
would include a release to a financial news service not later than 9:00 a.m.,
Eastern time on the business day after the previously scheduled effective date.
Depending upon the circumstances, the Company might also use additional methods
of notification.



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 15


41.  Clarify that you will make a public announcement of any extension of the
     exchange offer no later than 9:00 A.M. Eastern time on the next business
     day after the scheduled expiration date as required by Rule 14e-d(1) under
     the Exchange Act. Confirm that you will disclose the approximate number of
     notes tendered to date with your public announcement of an extension as
     required by Rule 14e-1(d) under the Exchange Act.

RESPONSE: As described in the response to comment 40, page 123 of the prospectus
has been revised to provide that any public announcement of an extension of the
exchange offer would be given by making a release to a financial news service
not later than 9:00 a.m., Eastern time on the business day after the previously
scheduled extension date. The Company hereby confirms that, in accordance with
Rule 14e-1(d) under the Exchange Act, any such notice would also disclose the
approximate number of notes tendered to date.

42.  You state in the third bullet point that you reserve the right to terminate
     the exchange offer if in your "sole judgment" a condition is not satisfied.
     We do not object to the imposition of conditions in a tender offer,
     provided that they are not within the direct or indirect control of the
     offeror and are specific and capable of objective verification when
     satisfied. Thus, we suggest that you revise the bullet point to clarify
     that Clean Harbors will make its determination in its "reasonable
     discretion" or "reasonable judgment." Similarly, revise the last bullet
     point under "Conditions to the Exchange Offer" on page 120 and the second
     paragraph on page 121.

RESPONSE: The fourth bullet point under "Expiration Date; Extensions;
Amendments" on page 123 and the second and third full paragraphs on page 124
have been revised to clarify that the Company's right to determine whether each
condition to the exchange offer has been satisfied is in the reasonable
discretion or reasonable judgment of the Company.

43.  We note the disclosure in the fourth bullet point that you reserve the
     right to amend the exchange offer's terms. Revise to indicate that if there
     is a material change in the offer, including the waiver of a material
     condition, you will extend the offering period if necessary so that at
     least five business days remain in the offer following notice of the
     material change.

RESPONSE: The fifth bullet point under "Expiration Date; Extensions; Amendments"
on page 123 has been revised to state that, if the Company makes a material
change in the exchange offer (including a waiver of a material condition), the
Company will extend the offering period if necessary so that at least five
business days remain in the offering period following notice of the material
change.

CONDITIONS TO THE EXCHANGE OFFER, PAGE 120

44.  We note the disclosure in the first bullet point that Clean Harbors has
     reserved the right not to accept notes for exchange if it determines that
     the offer would violate applicable



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 16


     law or our interpretations. Revise to indicate that all conditions to the
     offer other than those subject to governmental approval must be satisfied
     or waived before the exchange offer's expiration, not merely before
     acceptance of the outstanding notes for exchange.

RESPONSE: The first paragraph under "Conditions to the Exchange Offer" on pages
123-124 has been revised by changing the words "before the acceptance of the
old notes" to read "before the exchange offer's expiration or receipt of any
required governmental approval."

45.  You state in the first paragraph on page 121 that you may assert or waive
     the conditions "at any time" and "at any time and from time to time." We
     believe that this statement may suggest conditions to the exchange offer
     may be waived or asserted after the exchange offer's expiration. Revise the
     disclosure to make clear that all conditions to the exchange offer other
     than those dependent upon receipt of necessary governmental approvals must
     be satisfied or waived before the exchange offer's expiration. Similarly,
     revise the fifth full paragraph on page 122 and the first full paragraph on
     page 2 of exhibit 99.1.

RESPONSE: In response to this comment and comment 46 below, the following
sentence has been added to the first full paragraph on page 124, the carryover
paragraph on pages 125-126, and (with appropriate modifications to certain
capitalized terms) to the first full paragraph on page 2 of exhibit 99.1:
"However, in no event shall the exchange offer be consummated unless all
conditions, other than those dependant upon receipt of any required governmental
approval, have been satisfied or waived prior to the expiration of the exchange
offer or any extension thereof and, if we elect a waive any condition, we must
announce that decision in a manner reasonably calculated to inform the
noteholders of the waiver."

46.  You state in the first paragraph on page 121 that "A failure on our part to
     exercise any of the above rights shall not constitute a waiver of that
     right." You may not waive implicitly an offer condition by failing to
     assert it. If you decide to waive a condition, you must announce expressly
     the decision in a manner reasonably calculated to inform noteholders of the
     waiver. Please revise.

RESPONSE: Please see the response to comment 45 above.

DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW NOTES, PAGE 126

47.  Revise language in this section's third paragraph's second sentence on page
     127 that can be read to imply that investors do not have rights under the
     United States federal securities laws about the notes' description in the
     prospectus.

RESPONSE: The third sentence in the third paragraph on page 130 has been
expanded to clarify that noteholders would have rights arising under United
States securities laws to the



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 17


extent that the following description of the terms of the indenture and the
notes were inaccurate in any material respect.

NO PERSONAL LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS AND STOCKHOLDERS,
PAGE 149

48.  Revise to clarify that any agreement to waive the requirements of the
     United States federal securities laws is void under section 14 of the
     Securities Act.

RESPONSE: This section on page 152 has been expanded to state that the specified
waiver and release would not apply to any liabilities arising under the United
States federal securities laws since any agreement to waive the requirements of
such laws would be void under Section 14 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

CERTAIN DEFINITIONS

49.  This subsection defines some terms whose meanings are readily understood or
     are apparent from the context. Review this subsection and eliminate
     unnecessarily defined terms. Examples include terms like "Bankruptcy Law,"
     " Board of Directors," "Commission," "Exchange Act," "GAAP," and "Person."

RESPONSE: In response to this comment, the "Certain Definitions" section has
been shortened by deleting some terms whose meanings are likely to be readily
understood by the note holders. However, the Company believes that some terms
should be retained where the definition is helpful to such holders. In
particular, while investors would readily understand that "GAAP" refers to
generally accepted accounting principles, the defined term refers to those
principles as in effect on June 30, 2004 (the date of the indenture and on which
the notes were originally issued), and compliance with the covenants in the
indenture will therefore be determined in accordance with those principles as
opposed to such changed principles as may evolve over the period while the notes
are outstanding. Similarly, the term "Person" has a meaning quite different than
that used in normal speech, since that term refers not only to natural persons
but also to entities of all types.

CERTAIN UNITED STATES FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSIDERATIONS, PAGE 175

50.  Revise to refer to "material" rather than "certain" or "certain material"
     United States federal income tax consequences in this section's caption or
     heading and this section's first sentence.

RESPONSE: The word "certain" has been deleted throughout on page 178, and the
references are now to "material" tax consequences.

51.  Under "The Exchange Offer" on page 179, explain why you are unable to
     provide "will not" and "will have" conclusions rather than "should not" and
     "should have" conclusions



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 18


     on the United States federal income tax consequences of the exchange offer.
     Disclose any resulting risks to noteholders.

RESPONSE: Under "The Exchange Offer" on page 180, the word "should" has been
changed to "will".

52.  Delete the statement that the discussion is for general information only.
     This language may suggest that you do not have full responsibility under
     the federal securities laws for this discussion.

RESPONSE: Page 182 deletes the statement that the discussion is for general
information only.

LEGAL MATTERS, PAGE 179

53.  Clarify that counsel will opine on enforceability of the obligations of
     Clean Harbors guarantors under the notes.

RESPONSE: The "Legal Matters" section on page 183 of the prospectus has been
expanded to clarify that the opinion of Davis, Malm & D'Agostine, P.C. (Exhibit
5.1 to the Registration Statement) relates to both the validity and
enforceability of the new notes and the guarantees thereof by the Guarantors.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, PAGE F-4

54.  Disclose separately balances billed to customers under retainage
     provisions. Also state the amounts that are expected to be collected after
     one year, and, if practical, when the amounts of retainage are expected to
     be collected by year. SEE Rule 5-02(3)(c) of Regulation S-X.

RESPONSE: The Company believes the balances billed to customers under retainage
provisions (less than $1.0 million for each balance sheet presented) are
immaterial to the financial statements. The Company expects to collect all
retainage balances currently outstanding within one year, and will continue to
monitor retainage and make any appropriate additional disclosures if or when
required.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, PAGE F-6

55.  Revise your description of the cost of revenues line item to clarify, if
     appropriate, that it is exclusive of depreciation expense. SEE SAB Topic
     11:B.

RESPONSE: The description of the cost of revenues line item on page F-6 has been
revised in accordance with SAB Topic 11:B.



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 19


NOTE 4. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, PAGE F-14

56.  You state on page 45 that depreciation and amortization expense of $24.1
     million for 2004 decreased from $26.5 million for 2003 due to changes in
     estimates in landfill lives and changes in useful lives of certain assets.
     Provide the disclosures required by paragraph 33 of APB 30.

RESPONSE: Under "Depreciation and Amortization" on page 46 of "Management's
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and
on pages F-16 and F-17 of Note 4, "Significant Accounting Principles," the
following disclosure has been added:

     "Depreciation and amortization expense of $24.1 million for 2004 decreased
     from $26.5 million for 2003 due to changes in estimates in landfill lives
     and changes in estimates in useful lives of certain assets of $3.5 million,
     which was offset by an increase in depreciation and amortization due to
     capital additions. The impact of the changes in estimate on dilutive loss
     per share for the year ended December 31, 2004 was a decrease in the loss
     of $0.25 per common share."

57.  You state on page 1 in the description of your services that your technical
     services involve the transport, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste.
     Disclose how you recognize revenue related to each of these services and
     how your revenue recognition policy conforms to SAB Topic 13:A.

RESPONSE: Please see the response to comment 60 below about certain additional
disclosures that have been made.

     The Company records revenue for transportation services provided to
customers upon the completion of delivery of those services. Revenues related to
the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste is deferred until the waste is (i)
incinerated at one of the Company's facilities, (ii) placed into a cell at one
of the Company's hazardous waste landfill facilities, (iii) discharged into a
sewer system after treatment at one of the Company's wastewater facilities, or
(iv) injected into the Company's deep injection well.

     SAB Topic 13:A lists four criteria that must be met for revenue to be
recognized: (1) persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, (2) services have
been rendered, (3) the seller's price to the buyer is fixed or determinable, and
(5) collectibility is reasonably assured. The Company meets these criteria for
the recognition of its revenues. Almost every invoice rendered to a customer for
the Company's services requires the Company's employees to go to customer
locations for the performance of some or all of the services rendered. The fact
that the Company's employees are admitted to customer sites to perform services
indicates that a persuasive arrangement exists with the customer. At a customer
location, the Company's employees perform a variety of services which almost
always require that a representative of the customer sign manifests, worksheets,
change orders and/or other documents which further evidences that a persuasive
arrangement exists. The Company recognizes revenues only as services are
rendered and not prior to performance. The pricing to the customer is fixed and



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 20


determinable based on quotes, contracts, rate sheets provided to the customer or
based upon a historical relationship with the customer. As a matter of practice,
the Company does not perform services unless the Company believes that it will
be paid. The Company provides allowances for bad debts and/or sales allowances
in those circumstances where collection is in doubt.

58.  Tell us more about your sales contracts with your customers, including
     whether they are generally for multiple services. Tell us what
     considerations you have given to EITF 00-21 in recognizing revenue.

RESPONSE: The Company often provides multiple services to a single customer
because the Company is a vertically integrated service provider. The Company
provides a wide range of environmental services through two major segments:
Technical Services and Site Services. Technical Services involve (i) services
for collection, transportation and logistics management, (ii) services for the
categorizing, packaging and removal of laboratory chemicals (Cleanpack(R)), and
(iii) services related to the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes. Site
Services involve a wide range of services to maintain industrial facilities and
process equipment, as well as clean up or contain actual or threatened releases
of hazardous materials into the environment. Revenues for all services with the
exception of services for the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste are
recorded as services are rendered. Revenues for disposing of hazardous waste are
recognized upon completion of wastewater treatment, landfill or incineration of
the waste at a Company-owned site or when the waste is shipped to a third party
for processing and disposal. The Company competes against many competitors that
provide one or more of the services that the Company provides. Each one of the
services that the Company offers can be provided on a stand-alone basis or
bundled with other services. Because each service the Company offers is provided
on a stand-alone basis, the Company is able to reference market (fair value)
rates when developing quotes to its customers. Under the Company's service
arrangements, performance of the Company's undelivered services are probable and
are substantially under the control of the Company.

59.  You state that you recognize revenue when waste is shipped to a third party
     for processing and disposal. Tell us how this policy complies with SAB
     Topic 13:A. Demonstrate specifically how you have substantially
     accomplished the services that you are obligated to perform under the terms
     of your customer arrangements.

RESPONSE: The Company's standard Environmental Services and Waste Disposal
Agreement with the Company's customers includes the following:

     "Title, risk of loss and all other incidents of ownership to the waste
     materials shall be transferred from Customer to Clean Harbors at the time
     Clean Harbors takes possession of and removes waste materials from the
     place of transfer, or at the time Clean Harbors accepts delivery of the
     waste materials at its TSD facility, whichever is applicable."

The Company's standard Waste Disposal Agreement that the Company enters into
with companies to which the Company sends waste includes the following:

     "Title, risk of loss and all other incidents of ownership to the waste
     materials shall be transferred from Clean Harbors to Contractor at the
     time Contractor takes possession of and removes waste materials from the
     place of transfer, or at the time Contractor accepts delivery of the
     waste materials at its TSD facility, whichever is applicable."





Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 21


     The Company believes that when the Company receives waste from its
customers that it accepts title to that waste and assumes the liability for
disposing of the waste. The Company also believes that its customers perceive
the transaction the same way because its customers are almost always willing to
pay the Company's invoices for waste disposal upon receipt of the invoice rather
than upon treatment or disposal of the waste. The Company believes that when it
contracts with a vendor to dispose of the waste the vendor likewise accepts
title to the waste and the liability transfers to the vendor. Because the
Company believes that it no longer has title to the waste nor a direct liability
associated with the waste, the Company believes that its earnings process is
complete and that it is appropriate to recognize the revenue at the time of
title transfer. Although there is some difference between the transfer of title
to an asset and the acceptance of a liability, the Company believes that the
basic concepts of SAB 13:A can be applied to the transfer of a liability to a
vendor. In all cases, the Company believes that a persuasive evidence of an
arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the price is fixed or determinable,
and payment is reasonably assured.

     The relationship between the Company and its waste disposal vendors is not
that of general contractor and sub-contractor. In a relationship between a
contractor and sub-contractor, the contractor manages the sub-contractor in
order to perform the project to the customer's requirements. The relationship
between the Company and its disposal vendors is the same as that as between a
company and its supplier where revenue is recognized as title to goods delivered
is transferred.

60.  You state that revenues from waste that is not yet completely processed and
     the related costs are deferred until the services are completed. You state
     also that revenues from cost plus, fixed fee, and fixed unit price
     contracts relating to site services, CleanPack services, and transportation
     services costs are recorded as costs are incurred or units are completed
     and include estimated fees earned according to terms of the contracts.
     Disclose the accounting literature that you are using in accounting for
     these types of revenues. Also tell us how you determined that it was
     appropriate for you to use this literature.



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 22


RESPONSE: The Company has revised the description of its revenue recognition
policy in order to make the policy more understandable to the reader and added
the revised disclosure to Note 4(b) on page F-15 and Note 3(a) on page F-93, as
follows:

     "The Company recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement
     exists, delivery has occurred or services have been rendered, the price is
     fixed or determinable, and collection is reasonably assured."

     "The Company provides a wide range of environmental services through two
     major segments: Technical Services and Site Services. Technical Services
     involve (i) services for collection, transportation and logistics
     management, (ii) services for the categorizing, packaging and removal of
     laboratory chemicals (Cleanpack(R)), and (iii) services related to the
     treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes. Site Services involve a wide
     range of services to maintain industrial facilities and process equipment,
     as well as clean up or contain actual or threatened releases of hazardous
     materials into the environment. Revenues for all services with the
     exception of services for the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste are
     recorded as services are rendered. Revenues for disposing of hazardous
     waste are recognized upon completion of wastewater treatment, landfill or
     incineration of the waste at a Company-owned site or when the waste is
     shipped to a third party for processing and disposal. Revenues from waste
     that is not yet completely processed and the related costs are deferred
     until services are completed. Revenue is recognized on contracts with
     retainage when services have been rendered and collectibility is reasonably
     assured."

     The Company recognizes revenue in accordance with EITF No. 00-21, Revenue
Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables and SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin
No. 101, Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements.

(j) PROPERTY, PLANT, AND EQUIPMENT, PAGE F-16

61.  Break out the vehicles and equipment line item into smaller and more
     meaningful components. Disclose separately the range of useful lives for
     each new category presented. For categories that still have very broad
     useful lives, you should discuss separately the types of assets that fall
     in each part of the range.

RESPONSE: Page F-17 of the prospectus now breaks out the vehicles and equipment
line into two lines and includes the range of useful lives for those two
categories. Page F-17 also now includes a category for land improvements and the
useful life for such category.



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 23


(m) CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE LIABILITIES, PAGE F-17

62.  You state that the reductions in some asset retirement obligations were
     partly offset by closure and post-closure obligations recorded for
     operating non-landfill facilities. Provide a general description of these
     new obligations for non-landfill facilities, including when these
     obligations arose, how you previously accounted for them, and how you
     arrive at the estimated amounts to record.

RESPONSE: Note 4(n) on page F-24 and Note 3(c) on page F-94 now state as
follows:

     "The Company records its non-landfill closure and post-closure liability by
     (i) estimating the current cost of closing a non-landfill facility and the
     post closure care of that facility, if required, based upon the closure
     plan that the Company is required to follow under its operating permit, or
     in the event the facility operates with a permit that does not contain a
     closure plan, based upon legally enforceable closure commitments made by
     the Company to various governmental agencies, (ii) using probability
     scenarios as to when in the future operations may cease, (iii) inflating
     the current cost of closing the non-landfill facility on a probability
     weighted basis using the inflation rate to the time of closing under each
     probability scenario, and (iv) discounting the future value of each closing
     scenario back to the present using the credit-adjusted risk-free interest
     rate. Non-landfill closure and post-closure obligations arise when the
     Company commences operations. Prior to the implementation of SFAS No. 143,
     these obligations were expensed in the period that a decision was made to
     close a facility."

63.  Disclose how you were previously accounting for financial assurance costs.
     Refer to the accounting literature that you used. Clarify how SFAS 143
     impacted your accounting of these costs.

RESPONSE: Note 4(n) on page F-19 and, with modifications, Note 3(c) on page F-94
now state as follows:

     "Prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 143, the Company accrued the cost of
     financial assurance relating to both landfill and non-landfill closure and
     to both landfill and non-landfill post-closure care, as required, under
     SFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies." Under SFAS No. 143, financial
     assurance is no longer included as a component of closure or post-closure
     costs. SFAS No. 143 requires the cost of financial assurance to be expensed
     as incurred, and SFAS No. 143 requires the cost of financial assurance to
     be considered in the determination of the credit-adjusted risk-free
     interest rate."



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 24


64.  Disclose what benchmark(s) you use to arrive at the estimated rates of
     inflation. Tell us the benchmark rate(s) for each period, and explain the
     reasons for any differences between the benchmark rate(s) and the inflation
     rates that you used.

RESPONSE: Note 4(n) on page F-19 and Note 3(c) on page F-93 now state as
follows:

     "The Company uses an inflation rate published by the US Department of Labor
     Bureau of Labor Statistics that excludes the more volatile items of food
     and energy."

     There are no differences between the benchmark rates and the inflation
rates previously disclosed in Forms 10-K or Forms 10-Q. For the years ended
December 31, 2004, and 2003, and for the six months ended June 30, 2005,
inflation rates employed for volumes consumed were, respectively, 1.15%, 2.00%,
and 2.16%.

65.  Disclose how you arrive at the credit-adjusted, risk-free interest rate for
     each period presented. Discuss the assumptions used in arriving at this
     rate.

RESPONSE: Note 4(n) on page F-19 now states as follows:

     "For the asset retirement obligations incurred in 2004, the Company
     estimated its credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate by adjusting the then
     current yield based on market prices of its $150 million Senior Secured
     Notes by the difference between the yield of a US treasury note of the same
     duration as the Senior Secured Notes and the yield on the 30 year U.S.
     Treasury Bond. For the asset retirement obligations incurred in 2003 and
     for the initial application of SFAS No. 143, the Company estimated its
     credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate by adjusting the then current yield
     on intermediate term debt of companies whose debt was then similarly rated
     by the rating agencies by the difference between the yield of a US treasury
     note of the same duration as the average maturity on the intermediate term
     debt and the yield on the 30 year U.S. Treasury Bond."

     The Company believes that the closure and post-closure liabilities are very
long-term in nature and that these liabilities should be tied to interest rates
for 30 year bonds; however, 30 year bonds are not issued by companies with
credit ratings similar to those of Clean Harbors. According to its SFAS No 143
Policy for 2003, the Company estimated its credit-adjusted risk-free interest
rate by observing the interest rates that companies of similar credit standing
are charged in the intermediate loan markets (loans of 5 to 10 years) and
adjusted this rate by the adding or subtracting the difference between the 30
year treasury bond rate and the rate of the appropriate intermediate treasury
note. In June 2004, the Company issued $150 million of Senior Secured Notes. The
Company now has better information as to its cost to borrow in the intermediate
loan market. Thus, the Company's stated policy has been slightly modified based



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 25


on the better available information. On December 31, 2004, the Senior Secured
Notes were trading at 112%, which resulted in a yield to maturity at that time
of 9.29%. This market rate of interest was then adjusted by taking the
difference between the interest rate for a treasury security of the same
duration and the rate on the 30-year bond.

NOTE 11, LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS, PAGE F-34

66.  Similar to the disclosures provided for remedial liabilities in Note 13,
     clarify whether you have concluded that additional losses in excess of
     amounts accrued for environmental matters are reasonably possible. If so,
     give an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss or state that such
     an estimate cannot be made. Provide a rollforward of the accruals recorded
     for general environmental matters for each period presented. For any
     individually material sites, provide the amount accrued and the reasonably
     possible additional losses. SEE SAB Topic 5:Y and SFAS 5.

RESPONSE: Note 11 on page F-36 and, with modifications, Note 7 on page F-101 now
state as follows:

     "The Company also estimates that it is "reasonably possible" as that term
     is defined in SFAS No.5 (more than remote but less than likely), that the
     amount of such total liabilities could be up to $3.0 million greater than
     such $35.4 million. Because all of the Company's reasonably possible
     additional losses relating to legal liabilities relate to remedial
     liabilities, the reasonably possible additional losses for legal
     liabilities are reflected in the tables of reasonably possible additional
     losses in Note 13, "Remedial Liabilities." The Company periodically adjusts
     the aggregate amount of such reserves when such potential liabilities are
     paid or otherwise discharged or additional relevant information becomes
     available to the Company."

     The following statement has also been included in Note 11 on page F-36 and,
with modifications, in Note 7 on page F-100:

     "Substantially all of the Company's legal proceedings liabilities are
     environmental liabilities and, as such, are included in the tables of
     changes to remedial liabilities disclosed as part of Footnote 13,
     Remedial Liabilities, on pages F-52 and F-53."

67.  For the matters in which you are not in complete agreement at this time on
     the scope of your indemnity obligations, clarify how you considered the
     lack of agreements in arriving at the amounts accrued. Disclose the
     estimated amount of liabilities that have not been recorded related to
     these indemnity obligations.



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 26


RESPONSE: Page F-107 (and, with modifications, pages F-42) now state:

     "However, the Company now believes that it has no liabilities that are both
     probable and estimable at this time, with respect to the potential cleanup
     of those four additional sites [which are the subject of the additional
     indemnity claims asserted by Safety-Kleen], and the Company has therefore
     not established any reserves for any potential liabilities of the Sellers
     in connection therewith. It is expressly the Company's legal position that
     it is not liable at any of the four sites for any and/or all of the
     Sellers' liabilities. In any event, at one site the potential liability of
     the Seller(s) is de minimis and a settlement has already been offered to
     the Seller(s) to that effect, and at one site the Company believes that the
     Seller(s) shipped no wastes or substances into the site and therefore the
     Seller(s) have no liability. For the other two sites, the Company cannot
     estimate the amount of the Sellers' liabilities, if any, at this time, and
     that irrespective of whatever liability the Sellers may or may not have,
     the Company reaffirms its position that it does not have any liability for
     any of the four sites including these two particular sites."

NOTE 15, COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
LEASES, PAGE F-54

68.  Explain to us the reasons for the difference between the rent incurred over
     the last year and the annual minimum lease payments due over the next five
     years. For example, your rent expense was $32,300,000 in 2004 compared to
     non-cancellable lease amounts of $9,104,000 due in 2005. In your
     explanation, address any contingent rental amounts, cancelable leases, and
     leases with duration of less than one year incurred during the 2004 fiscal
     year. Also disclose how you account for (a) step rent provisions and
     escalation clauses and (b) capital improvement funding and other lease
     concessions that may be present in your leases. If, as we assume, they are
     taken into account in computing your minimum lease payments and the minimum
     lease payments are recognized on a straight line basis over the minimum
     lease term, the note should so state.

RESPONSE: Note 4(l) on page F-18 and Note 3(b) on page F-93 now state as
follows:

     "The Company leases rolling stock, equipment, real estate and office
     equipment under operating leases. Certain real estate leases contain rent
     holidays and rent escalation clauses. Most of the Company's real estate
     lease agreements include renewal periods at the Company's option. The
     Company recognizes rent holiday periods and scheduled rent increases on a
     straight-line basis over the lease term beginning with the date the Company
     takes possession of the leased space."



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 27


     Primarily to support its Site Service segment, the Company leases a wide
variety of equipment for short periods of time (i.e., for a day, week or month).
Under the accounting rules these rent payments fall under the definition an
operating lease. L10.112(c) of the Current Text states the following:

     "For all operating leases, rental expense for each period for which an
     income statement is presented, with separate amounts for minimum rentals,
     contingent rentals, and sublease rentals. Rental payments under leases with
     terms of a month or less or less that were not renewed need not be
     included."

     The difference between the rent expense for 2004 of $32,300,000 and the
non-cancelable lease amount due in 2005 of $9,104,000 consisted almost entirely
of rent payments on these short term rentals. The Company has chosen to include
in its disclosure of rent expense the expense relating to the short-term
rentals.

     If our assumption is incorrect, tell us how your accounting complies with
     SFAS 13 and FTB 88-1.

RESPONSE: The Company believes as discussed above that its accounting is in
compliance with SFAS No. 13 and FTB 88-1.

NOTE 18. REDEEMABLE SERIES C PREFERRED STOCK, PAGE F-60

69.  Tell us more about your accounting of the redeemable series C preferred
     stock. Address specifically these items with reference to the appropriate
     accounting literature:

     -    Tell us how you determined it was originally appropriate to record the
          series C preferred stock into two components.

RESPONSE: The Company determined that the conversion option embedded in the
Redeemable Series C Convertible Preferred Stock needed to be bifurcated pursuant
to paragraph 12 of SFAS No. 133. Specifically, paragraph 12 has three criteria
that if met would require a derivative embedded in a host contract to be
bifurcated. The first criteria that "the economic characteristics and risks of
the embedded derivative instrument are not closely related to the economic
characteristics of the host contract" was met because the economic
characteristics of the conversion option embedded in the Series C Preferred
Stock which had equity characteristics was not closely related to the economic
characteristics of its debt host (the $25 million Redeemable Series C Preferred
Stock with a 6% dividend - the "Host Contract"). The second criteria was met
because the Company was unable to identify any accounting literature that would
allow the "hybrid instrument" to be remeasured at fair value and therefore "the
contract ("the hybrid instrument") that embodies both the embedded derivative
instrument and the host contract is not remeasured at fair value under otherwise
applicable generally accepted accounting



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 28


principles with changes in fair value reported in earnings as they occur." The
third criteria for "a separate instrument with the same terms as the embedded
derivative instrument [which] would, pursuant to paragraphs 6-11, be a
derivative instrument subject to the requirements of this Statement" was met
because the embedded derivative met the requirements of paragraphs 6-11.

     In making this assessment, the Company considered whether the conversion
option would be eligible for the scope exception of FAS 133 stipulated in
paragraph 11a relating to derivatives indexed to a company's own stock and
whether such derivative would be classified in equity. To determine whether the
conversion option would meet the paragraph 11a scope exception, the Company
considered the guidance in EITF 00-19 "Accounting for Derivative Financial
Instruments Indexed to, and Potentially Settled in, a Company's Own Stock". In
assessing the conversion option under the criteria of EITF 00-19, since the
conversion option was subject to a potential reset provision (which could adjust
the number of shares to be delivered), the Company concluded that the conversion
option was embedded in a non-conventional convertible debt instrument. As a
result, all the provisions of EITF 00-19 were required to be considered to
determine whether or not the conversion option was required to be bifurcated. In
assessing the conversion option under the criteria in EITF 00-19, the Company
determined that it might be forced to cash settle the conversion option because
the Company could not then register common shares under the rules of the
Commission (because of the absence of audited statements of operations for the
CSD). The conversion option was therefore not eligible for the paragraph 11a
scope exception, and therefore it was required to be bifurcated under FAS 133
and recorded at fair value with changes in its fair value recorded currently in
earnings.

     To identify the host contract and the embedded derivative, the Company then
followed the guidance of paragraph 61 (l) of FAS 133. Because the Series C
Preferred Stock was a cumulative fixed-rate preferred stock that had a mandatory
conversion feature, the Company concluded that the instrument was more akin to
debt than to an equity instrument. The Company then concluded, in accordance
with paragraph 61 (k) of FAS 133, that because the changes in the fair value of
an equity instrument and the interest rates on the debt instrument were not
clearly and closely related, the embedded derivative (that is, the conversion
option) must be separated from the debt host in the Series C Preferred Stock.

     -    Tell us how you determined the appropriate amortization period for the
          preferred stock discount and the issuance costs of the redeemable
          preferred stock and how you determined that it was appropriate to
          accrete these amounts to additional paid-in-capital.

RESPONSE: The Company accounted for the preferred stock discount and the
issuance costs in accordance with Staff Accounting Bulletin Topic 3C. Under the
interpretive response, that Topic states:



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 29


     "Where fair value at date of issue is less than the mandatory redemption
     amount, the carrying value shall be increased by periodic accretions, using
     the interest method, so that the carrying amount will equal the mandatory
     redemption amount at the mandatory redemption date. The carrying amount
     shall be further periodically increased by amounts representing dividends
     not currently declared or paid, but which will be payable under the
     mandatory redemption features, or for which ultimate payment is not solely
     within the control of the registrant. Each type of increase in carrying
     amount shall be effected by charges against retained earnings or, in the
     absence of retained earnings, by charges against paid-in capital."

     The Company determined that the appropriate amortization period for
amortizing the preferred stock discount and the issuance costs was from the date
of issuance through the mandatory redemption date.

     -    Tell us specific factors that led to the change in value of the
          embedded derivative from December 31, 2003 to March 31, 2004 and from
          March 31, 2004 to June 30, 2004. Your explanation should refer to any
          relevant assumptions used in the Black-Scholes model.

RESPONSE: Volatility for all periods was fairly consistent at 90+%. The key
inputs into the Black-Scholes model for the periods ended December 31, 2003,
March 31, 2004 and June 30, 2004 were as follows:




                                         December 31, 2003     March 31, 2004     June 30, 2004
                                                                             
Number of common shares subject to               3,267,745          3,316,761         3,369,830
conversion rights

Common stock market value                            $8.91              $7.41             $9.35



     The number of common shares subject to the conversion rights under the
Black-Scholes model increased over time because the Company was not paying
dividends on the Series C Preferred Stock in cash; rather, those dividends
accrued and compounded. While the strike price of the conversion rights remained
constant at $8.00 per common share for all periods, the market value of the
common stock fluctuated significantly above and below the conversion price,
which resulted in large fluctuations in the value of the embedded derivative.

     -    Provide a detailed explanation of your accounting of the redemption of
          the series C preferred stock. Your explanation should discuss your
          accounting for the settlement of the embedded derivative and the
          valuation and accounting of the warrants issued.



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 30


RESPONSE: The Company amortized the issuance costs and the discount, and accrued
the dividends on the Series C Preferred Stock through June 30, 2004. This
resulted in a balance on June 30, 2004 just prior to the redemption of
$17,159,330 which included $1,963,070 of accrued dividends. The Company
negotiated the redemption price of the host with the holders of the Series C
Preferred Stock. The parties agreed to redeem the host for the sum of
$25,000,000 plus accrued dividends. The Company paid the accrued dividends, and
the Company redeemed the Series C Preferred Stock for $25,000,000. The carrying
value of the Series C Preferred Stock of $17,159,330 less the accrued dividends
of $1,963,070 less the $25,000,000 paid to redeem the Series C Preferred Stock
resulted in a "loss" $9,803,740 that was recorded to additional paid-in capital.

     The value of the embedded derivative as determined using the Black-Scholes
model was $11,163,077 as of the close of business on June 29, 2004, the day
prior to the redemption. The Company negotiated the redemption price of the
conversion option with the holders. As of June 30, 2004, the holders of the
Series C Preferred Stock were entitled under the terms of the Series C Preferred
Stock to then convert the Series C Preferred Stock into 3,369,830 shares of
common stock at a conversion price of $8.00 per share. The holders agreed to
settle part of the embedded derivative for cash in the amount of $362,500, and
the holders agreed to accept 2,775,000 common stock purchase warrants with an
exercise price of $8.00 per share. The value of the 2,775,000 warrants under the
Black-Scholes model of $9,192,612 was recorded to additional paid-in capital.
Since the holders accepted 594,830 fewer warrants than they were entitled to
under the terms of the Series C Preferred Stock in exchange for $362,500 paid in
cash, the Company recognized a gain on the settlement of the embedded derivative
that was recorded as a component of loss on refinancing of $1,607,965.

NOTE 23. SEGMENT REPORTING, PAGE F-69

70.  Disclose total assets for each reportable segment, and provide a
     reconciliation of the total reportable segments' assets to your
     consolidated assets as of each balance sheet date presented. Refer to
     paragraphs 27-32 of SFAS 131.

RESPONSE: Page F-76 now provides additional disclosure for total assets for each
reportable segment and geographical area for each balance sheet date presented.

71.  Disclose the types of amounts included in corporate revenues, cost of
     revenues, and selling, general and administrative expenses for each period
     presented. Also disclose why these amounts were not allocated to the other
     reportable segments. If any amounts are the elimination or reversal of
     transactions between reportable segments, present them separately. Also
     disclose what identifiable assets are included in the corporate assets
     amount as of each balance sheet date. SEE paragraphs 31 and 32 of SFAS 131.

RESPONSE: Pages F-74-76 now disclose the types of amounts included in corporate
revenues, cost of revenues, and selling, general and administrative expenses.
The corporate items are



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 31


managed separately and deemed to be insignificant to the total company and are
therefore not allocated to other reportable segments. A separate table which
discloses inter-segment transactions between reportable segments has also been
added. In addition, Note 23 now includes the detail of Corporate asset amounts
as of each balance sheet date.

NOTE 24. QUARTERLY DATA (UNAUDITED), PAGE F-72

72.  Disclose the reasons for the loss from operations in the first quarter of
     2003, the low profitability in the second quarter of 2003, and the net
     losses during these periods. SEE Item 302(a)(3) of Regulation S-K.

RESPONSE: Page F-78 now states as follows:

     "For the first quarter of 2003, the loss from operations of $0.7 million
     and the net loss of $7.2 million was a result of reduced revenues due to
     the seasonal nature of certain services, generally weak economic
     conditions, and the relatively short period of time that had passed since
     the Company's September 2002 acquisition of the Chemical Services Division
     of Safety-Kleen Corp. that precluded the Company from then eliminating
     duplicative costs that resulted from the acquisition."

     "For the second quarter of 2003, the reduced level of income from
     operations of $0.3 million and the net loss of $6.8 million was a result of
     generally weak economic conditions, and the relatively short period of time
     that had passed since the Company's September 2002 acquisition of the
     Chemical Services Division of Safety-Kleen Corp. that precluded the Company
     from then eliminating duplicative costs that resulted from the
     acquisition."

SCHEDULE II. VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS, PAGE F-81

73.  Since revenue allowance is a critical accounting estimate, disclose changes
     in the revenue allowance in schedule II. Alternatively, tell us where these
     disclosures have been provided. SEE Rule 5-04 of Regulation S-X.

RESPONSE: Schedule II now includes the sales allowance at December 31, 2002,
2003 and 2004. While the Company has developed a methodology for estimating its
sales allowance at a point in time, due to certain limitations of its billing
system, the Company is unable to provide a rollforward of the allowance. The
Company will endeavor to make the necessary changes to its billing systems in
the future so that it can report changes to the sales allowance over time.



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 32


UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT MARCH 31, 2005

74.  As applicable, address the accounting comments above in your interim
     financial statements.

RESPONSE: The Company has reflected all applicable comments in its June 30, 2005
financial statements included both within the prospectus and the Company's Form
10-Q Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2005.

EXHIBITS

75.  Include an exhibit index immediately before the exhibits.

RESPONSE: Pages II-15 and II-16 of the Amendment contains an Exhibit Index.

EXHIBIT 23.1

76.  The independent public accounting firm must consent also to being named in
     the registration statement. SEE Rule 436 of Regulation C under the
     Securities Act, and revise.

RESPONSE: Exhibit 23.1 to the Amendment contains the consent of
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP to being named under "Controls and Procedures" and
"Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm" in the prospectus included in
the Registration Statement.

SIGNATURES

77.  Clean Harbors Deer Park, L.P. as a registrant guarantor also must sign the
     registration statement. Further, the registration statement must be signed
     by a majority of the board of directors of any corporate general partner
     signing the registration statement. SEE instruction 1 for signatures on
     Form S-4, and revise.

RESPONSE: Page II-13 to the amendment adds Clean Harbors Deer Park, L.P. as a
registrant guarantor signing the Registration Statement. As in the case of Clean
Harbors LaPorte, L.P. and Harbor Industrial Services Texas, L.P., Clean Harbors
Deer Park, L.P. is a limited partnership whose sole general partner is Clean
Harbors of Texas LLC. Clean Harbors of Texas LLC has therefore signed the
Registration Statement on behalf of Clean Harbors Deer Park, L.P. and each of
those other two limited partnerships, and the executive officers and managers of
Clean Harbors of Texas LLC have signed the Registration Statement in those
respective capacities.

     In light of the substantial number of comments in the Comment Letter, the
Company and the Guarantors will defer filing a request for acceleration of the
effectiveness of the Registration Statement until such time as the Commission's
staff has had an opportunity to review the Amendment and the specific responses
to each of the comments set forth above in this letter. If



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 33


the staff advise that the Amendment and this letter adequately respond to such
comments, the Company and the Guarantors will then file a request for
acceleration. As described in the Comment Letter, the Company and the Registrant
Guarantors will acknowledge in such letter that (i) should the Commission or the
staff acting by delegated authority declare the Registration Statement
effective, it does not foreclose the Commission from taking any action of the
filing, (ii) the action of the Commission or the staff acting by delegated
authority in declaring the Registration Statement effective does not relieve the
Company from its full responsibility for the adequacy and accuracy of the
disclosure in the Registration Statement, and (iii) the Company may not assert
the staff's comments and the declaration of the Registration Statement's
effectiveness as a defense in any proceedings initiated by the Commission or any
person under the United States' federal securities laws. The Company will also
confirm in such letter that they are aware of their responsibilities under the
Securities Act and the Exchange Act as they relate to the proposed public
offering of the securities specified in the Registration Statement.

     Please contact either the undersigned or C. Michael Malm of this firm
should you have any questions or requests for additional information with
respect to this filing. Thank you for your assistance.

                                                Very truly yours,

                                                /s/ John D. Chambliss

                                                John D. Chambliss


cc:  Alan S. McKim, Chairman
     James M. Rutledge, Executive Vice President
     Carl d. Paschetag, Vice President and Treasurer
     C. Michael Malm, Esq.



                               CLEAN HARBORS, INC.
                             1501 WASHINGTON STREET
                         BRAINTREE, MASSACHUSETTS 02185
                                TEL. 781-849-1800

                                                August 31, 2005

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:  Registration Statement on Form S-4
     File No. 333-126193

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     Clean Harbors, Inc. (the "Company") and certain of the Company's
subsidiaries (the "Guarantors") have filed the registration statement described
above in connection with a proposed exchange offer (the "Exchange Offer")
pursuant to which the Company and the Guarantors will offer to exchange up to
$150.0 million principal amount of the Company's 11 1/4% Senior Secured Notes
due 2012 and related guarantees by the Guarantors (collectively, the "Exchange
Securities") registered under such registration statement in exchange for a like
principal amount of the Company's outstanding 11 1/4% Senior Secured Notes due
2012 and related guarantees (collectively, the "Initial Securities"). The
Company and the Guarantors are registering the Exchange Securities for purposes
of the Exchange Offer in reliance on the position taken by the Commission's
staff in EXXON CAPITAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION (available April 13, 1989), MORGAN
STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED (available June 5, 1991), SHERMAN AND STERLING
(available July 2, 1993), and similar letters.

     In connection with the Exchange Offer, the Company, on its own behalf and
on behalf of the Guarantors, represents as follows:

     1.   The Company and the Guarantors have not entered into any arrangement
or understanding with any person to distribute the Exchange Securities to be
received in the Exchange Offer and, to the Company's and the Guarantors' best
information and belief, each person participating in the Exchange Offer will be
acquiring the Exchange Securities in its ordinary course of business and has no
arrangement or understanding with any person to participate in the distribution
of the securities to be received in the Exchange Offer.

     2.   The Company will make each person participating in the Exchange Offer
aware (through the Exchange Offer prospectus and the transmittal letter provided
to each current holder of the Initial Securities) (i) that if the Exchange Offer
is being registered for the purpose of secondary resales, any securityholder
using the Exchange Offer to participate in a distribution of the Exchange
Securities to be acquired in the registered Exchange Offer (1) may not rely on
the staff position enunciated in EXXON CAPITAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION (available
April 13, 1989) or similar letters and (2) must comply with the registration and
prospectus delivery requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection
with a secondary resale transaction, and (ii) that any broker-dealer who holds
Initial Securities



Securities and Exchange Commission
August 31, 2005
Page 2


acquired for its account as a result of market-making or other trading
activities, and who receives Exchange Securities in exchange for such Initial
Securities pursuant to the Exchange Offer, may be a statutory underwriter and
must deliver a prospectus meeting the requirements of the Securities Act as
described in (1) above in connection with any resale of such Exchange
Securities. The Company and the Guarantors acknowledge that such a secondary
resale transaction should be covered by an effective registration statement
containing the selling securityholder information required by Item 507 of
Regulation S-K.

     3.   The Company will include in the transmittal letter to be executed by
the exchange offeree in order to participate in the Exchange Offer
representations to the effect that (i) by accepting the Exchange Offer, the
exchange offeree represents to the Company that it is not engaged in, and does
not intend to engage in, a distribution of the Exchange Securities, and (ii) if
the exchange offeree is a broker-dealer holding Initial Securities acquired for
its own account as a result of market-making activities or other trading
activities, such exchange offeree acknowledges that it will deliver a prospectus
meeting the requirements of the Securities Act in connection with any resale of
Exchange Securities received in respect of such Initial Securities pursuant to
the Exchange Offer, provided, however, that by so acknowledging and by
delivering a prospectus, an exchange offeree which is a broker-dealer will not
be deemed to admit that it is an "underwriter" within the meaning of the
Securities Act.

                                    Very truly yours,

                                    Clean Harbors, Inc.


                                    By:    /s/ Carl d. Paschetag
                                        ---------------------------------
                                           Carl d. Paschetag,
                                           Vice President and Treasurer