Good day everyone and welcome to Clean Harbors’ second quarter 2008 conference call. Today's call is being recorded. There will be an opportunity for questions and comments after the prepared remarks. At this time, if you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star two if you would like to remove your question from the queue. At this time, for opening remarks and introductions, I'd like to turn the call over to Mr. Bill Geary, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Clean Harbors. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you very much Operator. Good morning everyone thank you for joining us this morning. On the call with me today are Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alan S McKim, and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Jim Rutledge. Before we get started, I would like to remind everyone that matters we are discussing this morning and the information contained in the press release issued by the company today announcing our second quarter 2008 financial results that are not historical facts are considered forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements including predictions, estimates, expectations, and other forward-looking statements generally identifiable by the use of the words believes, hopes, expects, anticipates, plans to, estimates, projects, or similar expressions, are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially. Accordingly, participants in today's call are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements which reflect management's opinions only as of this date, August 6, 2008. Information on the potential factors and detailed risk that could affect the company's actual results of operations is included in the company’s filings with the SEC, including but not limited to our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, which was filed with the SEC on March 11, and our Form S-3, which was filed April 17, 2008. The company undertakes no obligation to revise or publicly release the results of any revision to the forward-looking statements made in our first quarter press release or this morning's conference call other than through the filings that will be made with the SEC concerning this reporting period. In addition, I would like to remind you that today's discussion will include references to the acronym EBITDA, which is earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure and is intended to serve as a complement to results provided in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Clean Harbors believes that such information provides an additional measurement and consistent historical comparison of the company's performance. A reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures is available in Clean Harbors’ second quarter news release. A copy of this release can be found on our Web site, cleanharbors.com. A copy has also been furnished as an 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission. And now I'd like to turn the call over to Alan for our quarterly review. Alan?

Thanks, Bill, and good morning, everyone. Clean Harbors delivered another quarter of strong results in Q2 with solid contributions across nearly all of our operations including a particularly a strong performance in our incineration business. Revenues for Q2 set a new quarterly record coming in at $265.3 million which is up 11% over last year. We also had a great quarter from a profitability point of view demonstrating the leverage of our network of assets our EBITDA grew more than double our revenue growth increasing 23% year over year to $43.4 million. I’ll provide some more insight into our EBITDA performance in a bit but first let’s discuss some of our growth drivers for Q2. Tech Services delivered a strong year-over-year growth in the quarter. As more companies continue to turn to Clean Harbors for their waste disposal needs, overall utilization at our incinerators which included the additional capacity rolled out in the first quarter of the year came in at approximately 88% for the second quarter despite scheduled maintenance that was performed at several of our facilities. US incinerators ran at high capacity achieving 94% utilization. As many of you know, running at that high level is optimal for both revenue and profits as it enables us to better manage the mix of materials we are incinerating and thereby further improving our margins. Incineration levels at our Canadian facility were not as strong coming in at approximately 75% for the quarter and this was primarily due to the comprehensive schedule maintenance at one of our sites which resulted in a $2 million investment and the plant was basically closed for the month of June as I mentioned during our first quarter call. In Q2 we made further progress on our plan to add at least 50,000 tons of incineration…

Thank you Alan and good morning everyone. As Alan mentioned, Clean Harbors completed another excellent performance this quarter generating record Q2 revenue of $265.3 million. This is an increase of 11% from $238.7 million in the year-ago quarter. Gross profit for the quarter grew to $86.9 million translating into a gross margin of 33%. This compares with a gross profit of $73.4 million and margin of nearly 31% in the year-ago quarter. Selling, general and administrative expenses were higher than anticipated in the quarter coming in at $43.5 million or 16.4% of revenue. This compares with 16% of revenue in Q2 of 2007. We had expected it to be closer to the 15.5% level. In Q2, we exceeded our internal targets for sales and as a result we accrued higher commissions and bonuses. Other factors behind our SG&A expenses in the quarter were higher legal costs primarily related to two legal matters, one of which we settled during the quarter as well as higher professional fees and costs associated with acquisition review work during the quarter. Accretion of environmental liabilities was $2.7 million in the quarter, compared with $2.6 million in Q2 of 2007. Depreciation and amortization expense rose to $10.8 million from $9 million in Q2 of ‘07 mainly due to acquisition-related additions. Q2 '08 operating income was $29.8 million, up 26% from the $23.6 million we reported in the second quarter last year. This was driven by our revenue growth along with a continued healthy mix of higher margin business in the quarter. We exceeded our EBITDA guidance for the quarter with Q2 '08 EBITDA coming in at approximately $43.4 million, or 16% of revenue. This compares with $35.2 million or 15% of revenue in Q2 of 2007. Despite higher operating expenses, our expanded growth this quarter enabled…

Thank you, sir. (Operator instructions) We will take our first question coming from of Ted Kundtz of Needham & Co. Ted Kundtz – Needham & Co.: Hello Alan and Jim, that’s a very strong quarter. Good to see it.

Thank you. Ted Kundtz – Needham & Co.: Couple of questions for you if I have got two. One, just on your EBITDA guidance for the year, if I look at what you have done so far and your forecast for Q3, it appears that the Q4 number would come down pretty decently to reach your guidance level. So, I wonder if you could comment on that. I assume you are just being conservative here, but I just wanted to see what your thoughts on the Q4 implications are?

Hi Ted, it is Jim. Again, as you know, our forecasting process is robust. We go through and basically when we do our guidance we put out there what we know we can do and there might be an element of conservatism in that but again what we are saying is with our annual guidance that we definitely see ourselves at the high end of that. Ted Kundtz – Needham & Co: Okay but is there any reason why fourth quarter would be coming down sort of significantly? It seasonally is sort of down a little bit I guess over in the past but not that much.

Yes. Usually with the winter months, there is a seasonable impact and it is tough to say just how the winter months, which as you know, affects our business the timing of when that all starts and weather. So, perhaps there is the little bit of an element of conservatism but generally there is some seasonal impact in the fourth quarter. Absolutely nothing like the seasonal impact that we see in the first quarter typically as you know but again there might be just a little bit of conservatism in there for that. Ted Kundtz – Needham & Co.: So, nothing fundamental?

Nothing fundamental. Ted Kundtz – Needham & Co.: Okay and then one other question. Could you talk about what you are seeing with some of these captives, how is that evolving, those captives some of those captives coming off market and turning to you guys?

We continue to see opportunities with that said and I think the timing of adding the capacity in our plants is coinciding nicely with some of the bidding opportunities we see out there today, so I think we are on track there. Ted Kundtz – Needham & Co.: Terrific, thanks very much.

Yes.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Larry Solow of CJS Securities. Larry Solow – CJS Securities: Hi, good morning guys.

Good morning. Larry Solow – CJS Securities: Could you briefly discuss on the capacity, first of all the Canadian project, the shutdown is that now complete?

Yes, that’s completed. It probably costs us about $900,000 in EBITDA also. We had anticipated about $400,000 or $500,000 but it is actually came in quite higher than that. That project took a little longer, we expected a little more than three weeks and ended up being a little bit more than four. But we are in good shape up there now, running and seeing the improvements that we had expected. Larry Solow – CJS Securities: Okay. So, I guess the $2 million was a capitalized expense that you referred to.

That $2 million was real assets that we added. We rebuilt our incinerator up there with brand new equipment. The $900,000 was purely a P&L loss that we took. Larry Solow – CJS Securities: Got you. Then could you just give, I think you said Site Services was up $10 million for the quarter, was that a sequential number or a year-over-year number?

That was year over year. Larry Solow – CJS Securities: Year over year, got you. Lastly, your guidance, did you guys do any work on the oil spill on the Mississippi?

Yes we are actually in the middle of that right now and implied in our guidance is roughly $5 million plus for Q3 with that. But, it is hard to predict what that total will be because it is underway right now but that’s about where we are conservatively estimating right now for Q3. Larry Solow – CJS Securities: Got you. Great. We look forward to seeing you next week at our conference. Thanks.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from David Manthey of Robert W. Baird. David Manthey – Robert W. Baird: Hi good morning.

Good morning. David Manthey – Robert W. Baird: I was wondering if you could talk about the comment you had earlier about acquisitions, review work and professional services, is that related to future acquisitions or is that sort of an ongoing expense? I had not heard you flag that before and I was wondering if that’s an unusual event.

Yes, that’s related to future acquisitions. When we did our equity offering, one of the key reasons for doing that was some opportunities that we see out there. So, we are in the throws of that kind of review right now. David Manthey – Robert W. Baird: Okay. Then in terms of paying down $50 million of the 11.25 notes, does this signal anything regarding the acquisition environment in terms of the size of potential targets out there or as you looked at that medium term would you think about refinancing that anyway to try to get the rate down from where it was?

It’s really refinancing it. The 11.25% rate, as you know obviously and implied by your question, is quite high and so we just wanted to get out of that. Clearly, it doesn’t throw any signal about the size of opportunities that we would be looking at because if it were large enough, we would definitely refinance it and still do a better rate than what we had. David Manthey – Robert W. Baird: Great, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Jonathan Ellis of Merrill Lynch. Jonathan Ellis – Merrill Lynch: Thanks and good morning guys.

Good morning. Jonathan Ellis – Merrill Lynch: I am wondering if you could talk a little bit about the landfill side of the business and specifically you mentioned that you are trying to walk away from some projects that carry lower margins and instituting some pricing discipline, can you talk a little bit about how your competitors are reacting to this move, whether they are trying to follow on the same path or still pricing aggressively for market share?

I think where we see our large projects historically is some real aggressive pricing and I don’t think that’s really changed. When we are looking at 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 ton projects today, we have seen some real aggressive pricing out there and quite frankly our landfill space is valuable and it is really looking at how much of that airspace do we want to use and what is a good return on our investment. And so we tried to do a good analysis of these projects as we beat [ph] them and in some cases we have not been successful in some of these projects knowing that we are going in with a much higher price but realizing that our space is valuable and we want to have it available for the good projects and the profitable projects out there. Jonathan Ellis – Merrill Lynch: Okay, great. Then maybe it came in one of the questions in a combined two in one here, can you talk a little bit about how the integration of Universal Environmental is going which you may have learned from that experience given it is the first Site Services acquisitions you’ve completed in over a decade and kind of following on that, the acquisition pipeline right now, what’s the mix between site services and Tech Services companies?

I think the Universal Environmental acquisition worked really well for us. We are enjoying some nice relationships, new relationships with some key clients in that market out there, the northern California market, we’ve benefitted from some recent spill activity in that market that we would not have had in the past. I would think overall, we are quite pleased with the team that we have out there and the work that they are doing. There are a lot of opportunities like Universal Environmental out there but equally opportunities on the Tech Services side for us, our preference is to acquire some companies that can help drive some volumes into these fixed cost facilities that we have, particularly (inaudible) incineration our focus is much more on the collection side and for those Site Services type of companies who have good waste customers, waste generation customers that can help us fill our sites up. Jonathan Ellis – Merrill Lynch: Great, thanks guys.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Rich Wesolowski of Sidoti & Company. Rich Wesolowski – Sidoti & Company: Thanks a lot. Good morning.

Good morning. Rich Wesolowski – Sidoti & Company: Is there any way you guys can quantify how much of the April price increase was reflected in this June quarter?

As you know, the price increase was effective in April but there are notice periods in contracts. So there certainly was some impact during the quarter but I think most of it we’ll see in the latter part of the year and into next year because our notice periods run from 90 days, 120 days depending upon the contract. Certainly new business is at the new prices. Rich Wesolowski – Sidoti & Company: Okay, so at the very least you would expect at least whatever contribution you got in June in the subsequent quarters.

Absolutely. Rich Wesolowski – Sidoti & Company: Okay. Then secondly, my understanding of the landfill business is that once you get to covering your fixed cost, any volume you drive through there be at low-margin business or high-margin business really exploits the operating leverage and I am trying to reconcile that notion with the very volatile volume changes that you report quarter to quarter with your landfill business,

Yes, I think Rich when you look at the landfill part of our disposable business, you are really talking about a combination of base business and project business and it really is the project business which is somewhere around half but it depends upon which quarter you are talking about because it is lumpy. You get sometimes delays in projects and sometimes you get large inflows of waste streams during particular quarters. So, it is a lumpy business and it is what causes that volatility if you will or lumpiness. It is not as volatile certainly like the emergency response which is not a big part of our business but there you see more volatile kind of activity where it is hard to predict and we tend to not even put that in our guidance unless we know about it. But on projects you will see a little bit of that lumpiness and as Alan pointed out, it is an ROI decision for us. We look at our landfills and we run a return on investment for each of them and we make decisions about projects and the bidding that we do to make sure that we get a good ROI for each particular landfill. I don’t know if that helps but that was just a little bit of background the way we look at it. Rich Wesolowski – Sidoti & Company: No it certainly helps. Finally just to clarify on a previous point, your actions to ditch lower margin projects in landfill is distinct from pricing increases that you have on other projects or you are just getting higher prices because of the improved mix?

When the base business is not there, that’s part of our normal business coming through from customers destined for landfill as you also see waste streams testing for incineration. So, there the pricing is with the normal increases that we have been talking about but the project business we make individual decisions about projects as they come in at the pricing level that we would be at. Rich Wesolowski – Sidoti & Company: Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Jamie Sullivan of RBC Capital Markets. Jamie Sullivan – RBC Capital Markets: Good morning, thanks.

Hi Jamie. Jamie Sullivan – RBC Capital Markets: Hi. Quick question on the M&A pipeline, can you just talk a little bit about some of that activity and how the opportunities are moving through and any changes there?

We continue to look at a number of opportunities. We have been spending quite a bit of time with our teams here doing due diligence on some key targets out there and we were optimistic that there will be some nice opportunity for us that will fit well with our business and our model here. Jamie Sullivan – RBC Capital Markets: Sure, what’s the pricing environment like for targets, reasonable?

It’s really all over the place. As we’ve said in the past, we not only look at their historical profitability about how does putting the two companies together reduce costs across the two businesses and how do we really leverage again our infrastructure across our targets. So, I would say that since the credit crisis a year ago in August, we have seen less private equity involvement in our industry and maybe valuations coming down and being more realistic, we did pass on quite a few at the end of last year simply because the expectations were much higher but we are seeing some things come back today that we think are a fair valuation for us. Jamie Sullivan – RBC Capital Markets: Okay great. Then just a quick question on the solvent recovery plant, do you think about those in terms of capacity and if so just what the capacity is today?

Sure. I would say that all three of them are probably less than 50% if we looked at it from a capacity utilization we have a lot of growth opportunity there. Although we have made some nice improvements but when we acquired them, they are profitable, they are doing well for us but we see a lot of upside on the solvent side. Jamie Sullivan – RBC Capital Markets: Great. Thank you.

Yes.

(Operator instructions) Our next question is coming from Rich Wesolowski of Sidoti & Company. Rich Wesolowski – Sidoti & Company: That was a pretty quick turnaround. Just want to circle back and ask you what your hearing on your weekly calls about the event driven landfill market for the next six months or so or at least as far as your forecast relative to what it would have been say two quarters ago.

I think it is up by – we have a very strong pipeline of event business for our landfills. We have got a great team in place that manages that side of our business for us and as Jim mentioned sometimes the timing pushes from one quarter to the other but we have a good book of business right now and we are excited about it both in the US and Canada quite frankly. Rich Wesolowski – Sidoti & Company: Okay. Then finally I know you had some atypical overhead or SG&A expenses in the quarter that propped it up a bit but it has been growing ahead of the sales rate for a full year now. Can you discuss how any of the cost containment efforts that you have going on noted in the press release is directed at that line item?

Yes, I guess if I were looking at the rest of the year, I would say that we’re probably going to be in about the 16% right at about that level as opposed to the 15.5% that we were previously talking about only because we do have activities going on centered around acquisition, review and so forth. I will note to you though that last year we had about $1,5 of credit in environmental liability in the first quarter of last year and that kind of brought the SG&A rate down a little bit last year. So, we are bringing it down but not by as much as we had earlier guided because of some of the activities that we have going on here. Rich Wesolowski – Sidoti & Company: Thanks again.

You are welcome.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Ted Kundtz of Needham & Company. Ted Kundtz – Needham & Co.: Hi, general question for you. Are there any thoughts about paying down more of the debt?

Yes, this is Ted? Ted Kundtz – Needham & Co.: Yes it is.

Hi Ted. Yes, the intention is to first get more visibility around what we will be doing on the acquisition front here rather than go straight out and do an amendment to our existing credit agreement to be able to go beyond that $50 million and do the other $41.5 million. We want to first see if we are going to be doing any refinancing of our entire credit agreement, say for example, if we were involved in significant acquisition activity, because it is expensive to do a (inaudible) these days and we think it is wiser right now to just give this a little more time. But clearly we want to get out of the high yield debt that we have right now. Ted Kundtz – Needham & Co.: Alan, just a follow-up for you, can you give us any sense of the likelihood of some acquisitions before year end? Is that putting you on a spot too much or –

Yes, I certainly think that we have enough opportunities far enough down the pipeline here that we hope that we will be seeing something this year but we don’t want to guarantee anything at this point until we know for sure. Ted Kundtz – Needham & Co.: I understand.

That’s certainly been our goal. We’ve been spending a lot of time in this area and that was one of the reasons for the secondary stock offering we did as you know. Ted Kundtz – Needham & Co.: Okay, thank you.

Okay.

At this time, we have reached the end of the Q&A session. I would now turn the conference back to management for any closing or additional remarks.

Okay, thanks very much for participating in our call this morning and we look forward to speaking with you at the end of our third quarter and updating you and your partners. Thank you.

This concludes our conference call. Thank you for joining us today.