XML 25 R13.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.7.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies |
6. | Commitments and Contingencies
Financial Instruments — We have obtained letters of credit, surety bonds and insurance policies and have established trust funds and issued financial guarantees to support tax-exempt bonds, contracts, performance of landfill final capping, closure and post-closure requirements, environmental remediation, and other obligations. Letters of credit generally are supported by our $2.25 billion revolving credit facility and other credit facilities established for that purpose. These facilities are discussed further in Note 3. Surety bonds and insurance policies are supported by (i) a diverse group of third-party surety and insurance companies; (ii) an entity in which we have a noncontrolling financial interest or (iii) wholly-owned insurance companies, the sole business of which is to issue surety bonds and/or insurance policies on our behalf. Management does not expect that any claims against or draws on these instruments would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. We have not experienced any unmanageable difficulty in obtaining the required financial assurance instruments for our current operations. In an ongoing effort to mitigate risks of future cost increases and reductions in available capacity, we continue to evaluate various options to access cost-effective sources of financial assurance. Insurance — We carry insurance coverage for protection of our assets and operations from certain risks including general liability, automobile liability, real and personal property, workers’ compensation, directors’ and officers’ liability, pollution legal liability and other coverages we believe are customary to the industry. Our exposure to loss for insurance claims is generally limited to the per incident deductible under the related insurance policy. Our exposure could increase if our insurers are unable to meet their commitments on a timely basis. We have retained a significant portion of the risks related to our general liability, automobile liability and workers’ compensation claims programs. “General liability” refers to the self-insured portion of specific third-party claims made against us that may be covered under our commercial General Liability Insurance Policy. For our self-insured retentions, the exposure for unpaid claims and associated expenses, including incurred but not reported losses, is based on an actuarial valuation or internal estimates. The accruals for these liabilities could be revised if future occurrences or loss development significantly differ from such valuations and estimates. We do not expect the impact of any known casualty, property, environmental or other contingency to have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Guarantees — In the ordinary course of our business, WM and WM Holdings enter into guarantee agreements associated with their subsidiaries’ operations. Additionally, WM and WM Holdings have each guaranteed all of the senior debt of the other entity. No additional liabilities have been recorded for these intercompany guarantees because all of the underlying obligations are reflected in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. See Note 14 for further information. We have also guaranteed the obligations and certain performance requirements of, and provided indemnification to, third parties as of June 30, 2017 in connection with both consolidated and unconsolidated entities, including agreements guaranteeing certain market value losses for approximately 850 homeowners’ properties adjacent to or near 22 of our landfills. Our indemnification obligations generally arise from divestitures and provide that we will be responsible for liabilities associated with our operations for events that occurred prior to the sale of the operations. Additionally, under certain of our acquisition agreements, we have provided for additional consideration to be paid to the sellers if established financial targets or other market conditions are achieved post-closing and we have recognized liabilities for these contingent obligations based on an estimate of the fair value of these contingencies at the time of acquisition. We do not currently believe that contingent obligations to provide indemnification or pay additional post-closing consideration in connection with our divestitures or acquisitions will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In December 2014, we sold our Wheelabrator business, which provides waste-to-energy services and manages waste-to-energy facilities and independent power production plants. Before the divestiture of our Wheelabrator business, WM had guaranteed certain operational and financial performance obligations of Wheelabrator and its subsidiaries in the ordinary course of business. In conjunction with the divestiture, certain WM guarantees of Wheelabrator obligations were terminated, but others continued and are now guarantees of third-party obligations. When possible, Wheelabrator seeks to have the applicable third-party beneficiaries release WM from these guarantees, but until such efforts are successful or the underlying financial commitments are restructured, WM has agreed to retain the guarantees and, in exchange, receive a credit support fee or other financial assurances guaranteed by a third-party financial institution to protect WM in the event of non-compliance by Wheelabrator. The most significant of these guarantees specifically define WM’s maximum financial obligation over the course of the relevant agreements. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, WM’s maximum future payments under these guarantees was $96 million. WM’s exposure under certain of the performance guarantees is variable and a maximum exposure is not defined. We have recorded the fair value of the operational and financial performance guarantees, some of which could extend through 2038, if not terminated, in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The estimated fair value of WM’s potential obligation associated with guarantees of Wheelabrator’s obligations (net of credit support fee or indemnification asset) as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 was $9 million and $11 million, respectively. We currently do not expect the financial impact of such operational and financial performance guarantees to materially exceed the recorded fair value. Environmental Matters — A significant portion of our operating costs and capital expenditures could be characterized as costs of environmental protection. The nature of our operations, particularly with respect to the construction, operation and maintenance of our landfills, subjects us to an array of laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. Under current laws and regulations, we may have liabilities for environmental damage caused by our operations, or for damage caused by conditions that existed before we acquired a site. In addition to remediation activity required by state or local authorities, such liabilities include potentially responsible party (“PRP”) investigations. The costs associated with these liabilities can include settlements, certain legal and consultant fees, as well as incremental internal and external costs directly associated with site investigation and clean-up. Estimating our degree of responsibility for remediation is inherently difficult. We recognize and accrue for an estimated remediation liability when we determine that such liability is both probable and reasonably estimable. Determining the method and ultimate cost of remediation requires that a number of assumptions be made. There can sometimes be a range of reasonable estimates of the costs associated with the likely site remediation alternatives identified in the environmental impact investigation. In these cases, we use the amount within the range that is our best estimate. If no amount within a range appears to be a better estimate than any other, we use the amount that is the low end of such range. If we used the high ends of such ranges, our aggregate potential liability would be approximately $115 million higher than the $245 million recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2017. Our ultimate responsibility may differ materially from current estimates. It is possible that technological, regulatory or enforcement developments, the results of environmental studies, the inability to identify other PRPs, the inability of other PRPs to contribute to the settlements of such liabilities, or other factors could require us to record additional liabilities. Our ongoing review of our remediation liabilities, in light of relevant internal and external facts and circumstances, could result in revisions to our accruals that could cause upward or downward adjustments to our balance sheet and income from operations. These adjustments could be material in any given period. As of June 30, 2017, we have been notified by the government that we are a PRP in connection with 76 locations listed on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA’s”) Superfund National Priorities List (“NPL”). Of the 76 sites at which claims have been made against us, 15 are sites we own. Each of the NPL sites we own was initially developed by others as a landfill disposal facility. At each of these facilities, we are working in conjunction with the government to evaluate or remediate identified site problems, and we have either agreed with other legally liable parties on an arrangement for sharing the costs of remediation or are working toward a cost-sharing agreement. We generally expect to receive any amounts due from other participating parties at or near the time that we make the remedial expenditures. The other 61 NPL sites, which we do not own, are at various procedural stages under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, known as CERCLA or Superfund. The majority of proceedings involving NPL sites that we do not own are based on allegations that certain of our subsidiaries (or their predecessors) transported hazardous substances to the sites, often prior to our acquisition of these subsidiaries. CERCLA generally provides for liability for those parties owning, operating, transporting to or disposing at the sites. Proceedings arising under Superfund typically involve numerous waste generators and other waste transportation and disposal companies and seek to allocate or recover costs associated with site investigation and remediation, which costs could be substantial and could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. At some of the sites at which we have been identified as a PRP, our liability is well defined as a consequence of a governmental decision and an agreement among liable parties as to the share each will pay for implementing that remedy. At other sites, where no remedy has been selected or the liable parties have been unable to agree on an appropriate allocation, our future costs are uncertain. In September 2016, the EPA announced a proposed remediation plan for the San Jacinto waste pits in Harris County, Texas, naming McGinnes Industrial Maintenance Corporation (“MIMC”), a subsidiary of WM, as a PRP. MIMC operated the waste pits from 1965 to 1966. In 1998, WM acquired the stock of the parent entity of MIMC. The remedy and remedial design plan for the site are not yet final. A notice and comment period with respect to the remedy closed on January 12, 2017. MIMC filed comments, detailing its disagreement with the proposed remedy put forth by the EPA and is continuing to focus on a solution that it believes best protects the environment and public health. MIMC’s ultimate liability could be materially different from current estimates. We remain an active participant in the EPA’s process established to evaluate and determine the appropriate remedy and remedial design plan for this site. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, our recorded liability for MIMC’s estimated share of the EPA’s proposed remedy was $45 million and $46 million, respectively. Item 103 of the SEC’s Regulation S-K requires disclosure of certain environmental matters when a governmental authority is a party to the proceedings, or such proceedings are known to be contemplated, unless we reasonably believe that the matter will result in no monetary sanctions, or in monetary sanctions, exclusive of interest and costs, of less than $100,000. The following matters are disclosed in accordance with that requirement. We do not currently believe that the eventual outcome of any such matters, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. On January 10, 2017, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) solid waste program advised us that it intends to seek civil penalties against the Grows North and Tullytown Landfills (“Grows/Tullytown”), located in southeast Pennsylvania and owned by indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries of WM, related to operational issues, including litter and leachate discharges. Additionally, we received notice on March 15, 2017 that the DEP clean water program also intends to seek civil penalties related to similar underlying events and operational issues at Grows/Tullytown. Our internal review of these matters is in process. Waste Management of Hawaii, Inc. (“WMHI”), an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of WM, may face civil claims from the Hawaii Department of Health and/or the EPA based upon water discharges at the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill, which WMHI operates for the city and county of Honolulu, following three major rainstorms in December 2010 and January 2011. On July 10, 2013, the EPA issued a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) to Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of WM, alleging violations of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act concerning acceptance of certain waste that was not permitted to be disposed of at the Metro Recycling & Disposal Facility in Franklin, Wisconsin. The parties are exchanging information and working to resolve the NOV. From time to time, we are also named as defendants in personal injury and property damage lawsuits, including purported class actions, on the basis of having owned, operated or transported waste to a disposal facility that is alleged to have contaminated the environment or, in certain cases, on the basis of having conducted environmental remediation activities at sites. Some of the lawsuits may seek to have us pay the costs of monitoring of allegedly affected sites and health care examinations of allegedly affected persons for a substantial period of time even where no actual damage is proven. While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these lawsuits, the ultimate resolution is often substantially uncertain due to the difficulty of determining the cause, extent and impact of alleged contamination (which may have occurred over a long period of time), the potential for successive groups of complainants to emerge, the diversity of the individual plaintiffs’ circumstances, and the potential contribution or indemnification obligations of co-defendants or other third parties, among other factors. Additionally, we often enter into agreements with landowners imposing obligations on us to meet certain regulatory or contractual conditions upon site closure or upon termination of the agreements. Compliance with these agreements inherently involves subjective determinations and may result in disputes, including litigation. Litigation — As a large company with operations across the United States and Canada, we are subject to various proceedings, lawsuits, disputes and claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. Many of these actions raise complex factual and legal issues and are subject to uncertainties. Actions that have been filed against us, and that may be filed against us in the future, include personal injury, property damage, commercial, customer, and employment-related claims, including purported state and national class action lawsuits related to: alleged environmental contamination, including releases of hazardous material and odors; sales and marketing practices, customer service agreements and prices and fees; and federal and state wage and hour and other laws. The plaintiffs in some actions seek unspecified damages or injunctive relief, or both. These actions are in various procedural stages, and some are covered, in part, by insurance. We currently do not believe that the eventual outcome of any such actions will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. WM’s charter and bylaws provide that WM shall indemnify against all liabilities and expenses, and upon request shall advance expenses to any person, who is subject to a pending or threatened proceeding because such person is or was a director or officer of the Company. Such indemnification is required to the maximum extent permitted under Delaware law. Accordingly, the director or officer must execute an undertaking to reimburse the Company for any fees advanced if it is later determined that the director or officer was not permitted to have such fees advanced under Delaware law. Additionally, the Company has direct contractual obligations to provide indemnification to each of the members of WM’s Board of Directors and each of WM’s executive officers. The Company may incur substantial expenses in connection with the fulfillment of its advancement of costs and indemnification obligations in connection with actions or proceedings that may be brought against its former or current officers, directors and employees. Multiemployer Defined Benefit Pension Plans — About 20% of our workforce is covered by collective bargaining agreements with various local unions across the United States and Canada. As a result of some of these agreements, certain of our subsidiaries are participating employers in a number of trustee-managed multiemployer defined benefit pension plans (“Multiemployer Pension Plans”) for the covered employees. In connection with our ongoing renegotiation of various collective bargaining agreements, we may discuss and negotiate for the complete or partial withdrawal from one or more of these Multiemployer Pension Plans. A complete or partial withdrawal from a Multiemployer Pension Plan may also occur if employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement vote to decertify a union from continuing to represent them. Any other circumstance resulting in a decline in Company contributions to a Multiemployer Pension Plan through a reduction in the labor force, whether through attrition over time or through a business event (such as the discontinuation or nonrenewal of a customer contract, the decertification of a union, or relocation, reduction or discontinuance of certain operations) may also trigger a complete or partial withdrawal from one or more of these pension plans. We do not believe that any future liability relating to our past or current participation in, or withdrawals from, the Multiemployer Pension Plans to which we contribute will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or liquidity. However, liabilities for future withdrawals could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or cash flows for a particular reporting period, depending on the number of employees withdrawn and the financial condition of the Multiemployer Pension Plan(s) at the time of such withdrawal(s). Tax Matters — We participate in the IRS’s Compliance Assurance Process, which means we work with the IRS throughout the year towards resolving any material issues prior to the filing of our annual tax return. Any unresolved issues as of the tax return filing date are subject to routine examination procedures. We are currently in the examination phase of IRS audits for the tax years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 and expect these audits to be completed within the next nine, 12, 18 and 30 months, respectively. We are also currently undergoing audits by various state and local jurisdictions for tax years that date back to 2009, with the exception of affirmative claims in a limited number of jurisdictions that date back to 2000. We maintain a liability for uncertain tax positions, the balance of which management believes is adequate. Results of audit assessments by taxing authorities are not currently expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration