XML 41 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 18.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In the normal course of its business and as a result of the extensive governmental regulation of the solid waste and E&P waste industries, the Company is subject to various judicial and administrative proceedings involving Canadian regulatory authorities as well as U.S. federal, state and local agencies. In these proceedings, an agency may subpoena the Company for records, or seek to impose fines on the Company or revoke or deny renewal of an authorization held by the Company, including an operating permit. From time to time, the Company may also be subject to actions brought by special interest or other groups, adjacent landowners or residents in connection with the permitting and licensing of landfills, transfer stations, and E&P waste treatment, recovery and disposal operations, or alleging environmental damage or violations of the permits and licenses pursuant to which the Company operates. In addition, the Company is a party to various claims and suits pending for alleged damages to persons and property, alleged violations of certain laws and alleged liabilities arising out of matters occurring during the normal operation of the Company’s business. Except as noted in the matters described below, as of September 30, 2018, there is no current proceeding or litigation involving the Company or its property that the Company believes could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site Allocation Process In November 2012, the Company’s subsidiary, Northwest Container Services, Inc. (“NWCS”), was named by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 (the “EPA”) as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”), along with more than 100 others, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or the “Superfund” law) with respect to the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site (the “LDW Site”). Listed on the National Priorities List in 2001, the LDW Site is a five-mile stretch of the Duwamish River flowing into Elliott Bay in Seattle, Washington. A group of PRPs known as the Lower Duwamish Working Group (“LDWG”) and consisting of the City of Seattle, King County, the Port of Seattle, and Boeing Company conducted a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the LDW Site. On December 2, 2014, the EPA issued its Record of Decision (the “ROD”) describing the selected clean-up remedy, and therein estimated that clean-up costs (in present value dollars as of November 2014) would total approximately $342,000. However, it is possible that additional costs could be incurred based upon various factors. The EPA estimates that it will take seven years to implement the clean-up. The ROD also requires ten years of monitoring following the clean-up, and provides that if clean-up goals have not been met by the end of this period, then additional clean-up activities, at additional cost, may be required at that time. Implementation of the clean-up will not begin until after the ongoing Early Action Area (“EAA”) clean-ups have been completed. Typically, costs for monitoring may be in addition to those expended for the clean-up. While three of the EAA clean-ups have been completed to date, some work remains to be done on three other EAAs. Implementation of the clean-up also must await additional baseline sampling throughout the LDW Site and the preparation of a remedial design for performing the clean-up. On April 27, 2016, the LDWG entered into a third amendment of its Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA (the “AOC 3”) in which it agreed to perform the additional baseline sediment sampling and certain technical studies needed to prepare the actual remedial design. The LDWG and EPA entered into a fourth amendment to the AOC in July 2018 primarily addressing development of a proposed remedy for the upper reach of the LDW Site, river mile 3 to river mile 5. On August 16, 2016, the EPA sent individual letters to each of the PRPs for the LDW Site, including NWCS, stating that it expects to initiate negotiations with all PRPs in early 2018 relating to a Remedial Design/Remedial Action (“RD/RA”) Consent Decree. An RD/RA Consent Decree provides for the cleanup of the entire site and is often referred to as a “global settlement.” In August 2014, NWCS entered into an Alternative Dispute Resolution Memorandum of Agreement with several dozen other PRPs and a neutral allocator to conduct a confidential and non-binding allocation of certain past response costs allegedly incurred at the LDW Site as well as the anticipated future response costs associated with the clean-up. The pre-remedial design work under the AOC 3 is now not expected to conclude until the end of 2019, and in March 2017, the PRPs provided the EPA with notice that the allocation is not scheduled to conclude until mid-2019. With recent extensions, the allocation is now scheduled to conclude in early 2020. In June 2017, attorneys for the EPA informed attorneys for several PRPs that the EPA expected to begin RD/RA negotiations in the late summer or early fall of 2018. Those negotiations have not been scheduled and there is no recent indication from the EPA regarding when they will begin. The Company cannot provide assurance that the EPA’s schedule can be met or will be adjusted. NWCS is defending itself vigorously in this confidential allocation process. At this point, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of the allocation process being completed as intended by the participating PRPs, its specific allocation, or the likelihood of the parties then negotiating a global settlement with the EPA. Thus, NWCS cannot reasonably determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter, including its potential liability. On February 11, 2016, NWCS received a letter (the “Letter”) from the United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”), describing certain investigatory activities conducted by the Elliott Bay Trustee Council (the “Council”). The Council consists of all of the natural resources trustees for the LDW Site as well as two nearby Superfund sites, the Harbor Island site and the Lockheed West site. The members of the Council include the United States, on behalf of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the Suquamish and Muckleshoot Indian Tribes (together, the “Trustees”). The Letter appears to allege that NWCS may be a potentially liable party that allegedly contributed to the release of hazardous substances that have injured natural resources at the LDW Site. Damages to natural resources are in addition to clean-up costs. The Letter, versions of which NWCS believes were sent to all or a group of the PRPs for the LDW Site, also notified its recipients of their opportunity to participate in the Trustees’ development of an Assessment Plan and the performance of a Natural Resources Damages Assessment (“NRDA”) in accordance with the Assessment Plan for both the LDW Site and the east and west waterways of the Harbor Island site. NWCS timely responded with correspondence to the NOAA Office of General Counsel, in which it declined the invitation at that time. NWCS does not know how other PRPs responded to the Letter, and has not received any further communication from NOAA or the Trustees. The Trustees have not responded to NWCS’ letter and NWCS is not aware of any further action by the Trustees with respect to the Assessment Plan and NRDA. At this point, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood or amount of an assessment of natural resource damages against NWCS in connection with this matter. Los Angeles County, California Landfill Expansion Litigation
| A. |  | Chiquita Canyon, LLC Lawsuit Against Los Angeles County
﻿ In October 2004, the Company’s subsidiary, Chiquita Canyon, LLC (“CCL”), then under prior ownership, filed an application (the “Application”) with the County of Los Angeles (the “County”) Department of Regional Planning (“DRP”) for a conditional use permit (the “CUP”) to authorize the continued operation and expansion of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill (the “Landfill”). The Landfill has operated since 1972, and as a regional landfill, accepted approximately three million tons of materials for disposal and beneficial use in 2016. The Application requested expansion of the existing waste footprint on CCL’s contiguous property, an increase in maximum elevation, creation of a new entrance and new support facilities, construction of a facility for the County or another third-party operator to host household hazardous waste collection events, designation of an area for mixed organics/composting, and other modifications. After many years of reviews and delays, upon the recommendation of County staff, the County’s Regional Planning Commission (the “Commission”) approved the Application on April 19, 2017, but imposed operating conditions, fees and exactions that substantially reduce the historical landfill operations and represent a large increase in aggregate taxes and fees. CCL objected to many of the requirements imposed by the Commission. Current estimates for new costs imposed on CCL under the CUP are in excess of $300,000. CCL appealed the Commission’s decision to the County Board of Supervisors, but the appeal was not successful. At a subsequent hearing, on July 25, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved the CUP. On October 20, 2017, CCL filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles a verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint against the County and the County Board of Supervisors captioned Chiquita Canyon, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, No. BS171262 (Los Angeles Co. Super Ct.) (the “Complaint”). The Complaint challenges the terms of the CUP in 13 counts generally alleging that the County violated multiple California and federal statutes and California and federal constitutional protections. CCL seeks the following relief: (a) an injunction and writ of mandate against certain of the CUP’s operational restrictions, taxes and fees, (b) a declaration that the challenged conditions are unconstitutional and in violation of state and federal statutes, (c) reimbursement for any such illegal fees paid under protest, (d) damages, (e) an award of just compensation for a taking, (f) attorney fees, and (g) all other appropriate legal and equitable relief. On December 6, 2017, the County filed a demurrer to the Complaint arguing that the Complaint is legally insufficient to proceed. At an initial trial-setting hearing on February 8, 2018, the Superior Court suggested that the Complaint should be amended to separate the claims seeking a writ of mandamus against the County. CCL filed its First Amended Complaint on March 23, 2018. The County filed its demurrer and motion to strike challenging portions of the First Amended Complaint on April 25, 2018. CCL filed its combined opposition to the demurrer and motion to strike on July 3, 2018. The County filed a combined reply brief on July 10, 2018. The hearing on the demurrer took place on July 17, 2018. The Court sustained the demurrer and granted the motion to strike. The effect of the Court’s rulings is to bar CCL from proceeding with its challenges to 14 of the 29 CUP conditions at issue in the litigation, including 13 operational conditions and CCL’s challenge to the $11,600 B&T Fee discussed below. The Court set a trial date of June 18, 2019 for the remaining mandamus claims. The Court granted CCL leave to amend its Complaint if CCL chose to pay the $11,600 B&T fee to allow a challenge to the B&T fee to proceed under the Mitigation Fee Act. CCL paid the $11,600 B&T fee on August 10, 2018 and filed its Second Amended Complaint on August 16, 2018, reflecting that the B&T fee had been paid under protest and allowing the challenges to the B&T fee to go forward. On September 14, 2018, CCL appealed to the California Court of Appeal the Superior Court’s July 17, 2018 decision barring the challenge to 13 operational conditions. On October 5, 2018, the Court of Appeal decided to hear CCL’s appeal and issued an order to show cause, setting a briefing schedule and calendaring oral argument for January 9, 2019. CCL will vigorously prosecute the lawsuit. However, at this point, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter.
| B. |  | CEQA Lawsuit Against Los Angeles County Challenging Environmental Review for Landfill Expansion
﻿ A separate lawsuit involving CCL and the Landfill was filed on August 24, 2017 by community activists alleging that the environmental review underlying the CUP was inadequate under state law. The Val Verde Civic Association, Citizens for Chiquita Canyon Landfill Compliance, and the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles against the County, naming CCL as the real party in interest. The lawsuit seeks to overturn the County’s approval of the CUP for the expansion of the Landfill and the certification of the final Environmental Impact Report, arguing that the report violates the California Environmental Quality Act. Pursuant to Condition No. 6 of the CUP, which requires CCL to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim or proceeding against the County brought by any third party to attack, set aside, void, or annul the CUP approval, CCL has agreed to reimburse the County for its legal costs associated with defense of the lawsuit. As the real party in interest, CCL has a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard in opposition to the petition for writ of mandate. The petitioners filed their Opening Brief with the court on September 27, 2018. CCL is scheduled to file its Opposition Brief with the court on November 28, 2018 and the petitioners are scheduled to file their Reply Brief on December 20, 2018. A trial date is scheduled for February 8, 2019. CCL intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit as the real party in interest. However, at this point, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter.
| C. |  | Solid Waste Management Fee Enforcement Order
﻿ On September 15, 2016, CCL received a letter from the County’s Department of Public Works (“DPW”), which alleged that from October 2011 to September 2014, CCL underpaid the County Solid Waste Management Fee in violation of the Los Angeles County Code. An invoice totaling more than $5,100, which included certain fees and penalties, was attached to the letter, with 30-day payment terms. DPW argues that the penalty continues to accrue, and as of July 31, 2018 the penalties were calculated by DPW at $3,079, for a total fee and penalty assessment of $5,515. On September 29, 2016, CCL submitted an initial response to the DPW letter. CCL filed a protective administrative appeal on October 13, 2016. DPW responded on July 27, 2017, after the CUP was approved, rejecting CCL’s arguments and stating its intention to proceed with an Enforcement Order if the outstanding invoice was not paid. CCL responded on August 25, 2017, addressing each point raised by DPW and reiterated its position that no additional fees were due. On August 30, 2017, DPW issued an Enforcement Order seeking payment of the Solid Waste Management Fee and the administrative penalties that had allegedly accrued through March 2015, together totaling more than $5,100. CCL filed a timely administrative appeal of the order on September 28, 2017. CCL negotiated with County Counsel to set a briefing schedule, hearing date for the appeal, and selection of a neutral hearing officer. A prehearing order was entered on July 9, 2018 by the hearing officer and CCL and DPW proceeded to exchange briefs, exhibits, and written testimony of witnesses. A two-day evidentiary hearing on DPW’s Enforcement Order occurred on September 11-12, 2018. Post-hearing briefing is underway. It is uncertain when a decision will be issued. CCL has a right to challenge in State court any decision of the hearing officer that is not supported by the law or substantial evidence. At this point, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter.
| D. |  | December 11, 2017 Notice of Violation Regarding Certain CUP Conditions.
﻿ The County, through its DRP, issued a Notice of Violation, dated December 11, 2017 (the “NOV”), alleging that CCL violated certain conditions of the CUP, including Condition 79(B)(6) of the CUP by failing to pay an $11,600 Bridge & Thoroughfare Fee (“B&T Fee”) that was purportedly due on July 25, 2017. The alleged B&T fee was ostensibly to fund the construction of transportation infrastructure in the area of the Landfill. At the time the NOV was issued, CCL had already contested the legality of the B&T fee in the October 20, 2017 Complaint filed against the County in Los Angeles County Superior Court. On January 12, 2018, CCL filed an appeal of the alleged violations in the NOV. Subsequently, CCL filed additional legal arguments and exhibits contesting the NOV. On March 6, 2018, a DRP employee designated as hearing officer sustained the NOV, including the $11,600 B&T fee, and imposed an administrative penalty in the amount of $83 and a noncompliance fee of $0.75. A written decision memorializing the hearing officer’s findings and order, dated July 10, 2018, was received by CCL on July 12, 2018. On April 13, 2018, CCL filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus against the County seeking to overturn the decision sustaining the NOV, contending that the NOV and decision are not supported by the facts or law. On June 22, 2018, Chiquita filed a Motion for Stay seeking to halt enforcement of the B&T fee and penalty and the accrual of any further penalties pending the resolution of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The motion was heard and denied by the Court on July 17, 2018. As explained above, the Court granted CCL leave to pay the $11,600 B&T fee and to amend its Complaint to reflect the payment under protest, allowing the challenge to the B&T fee to proceed. CCL paid the B&T fee on August 10, 2018, and also paid on that date the administrative penalty of $83 and a noncompliance fee of $0.75. As directed by the Court, CCL amended its Complaint in a Second Amended Complaint filed in the CUP action on August 16, 2018. The Court indicated that the NOV case would likely be tried in conjunction with the CUP case, set for June 18, 2019, and that the cases would be coordinated. At this point, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter. Florida Default Judgment On January 5, 2017, a state court in Miami, Florida entered a $10,000 final judgment (“Judgment”) against the Company’s subsidiary, Progressive Waste Solutions of FL, Inc. (“Progressive”), which is now known as Waste Connections of Florida, Inc. The Judgment was the result of a default against Progressive for failure to respond to or otherwise defend itself against a complaint filed on July 21, 2015, prior to the closing of the Progressive Waste acquisition. The Company and Progressive learned of the Judgment on March 6, 2018. On March 20, 2018, Progressive filed a motion to set aside judgment and requested that the trial court (1) allow the case to proceed on the merits, (2) stay any efforts to execute or collect on the Judgment, and (3) dissolve any and all writs of garnishment. The trial judge denied the motion on April 10, 2018. Progressive continues to vigorously defend itself from the Judgment. On May 2, 2018, Progressive filed an appeal of the April 10, 2018 order and posted a civil supersedeas bond to stop all efforts to collect on the Judgment pending the outcome of its appeal. The appeal has been fully briefed and is scheduled for oral argument on December 4, 2018. At this time, the Company is unable to express an opinion on the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome to Progressive or express an opinion on the amount or range of potential loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome. As a result, the Company has not accrued any liability for the Judgment. Town of Colonie, New York Landfill Expansion Litigation On April 16, 2014, the Town of Colonie filed an application (the “Application”) with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) to modify the Town’s then-current Solid Waste Management Facility Permit and for other related permits to authorize the development and operation of Area 7 of the Town of Colonie Landfill (the “Landfill”), which is located in Albany County, New York. DEC issued the requested permits on April 5, 2018 (the “Permits”). The Company’s subsidiary, Capital Region Landfills, Inc. (“CRL”), has been the sole operator of the Landfill since September 2011 pursuant to an operating agreement between CRL and the Town. On May 7, 2018, the Town of Halfmoon, New York, and five of its residents, commenced an Article 78 special proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Saratoga County, against DEC, the Town, CRL, and the Company (the “Halfmoon Proceeding”). On that same date, the Town of Waterford, New York, and eleven of its residents, also commenced an Article 78 special proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Saratoga County, against the same respondents (the “Waterford Proceeding”). On June 15, 2018, the Waterford Petitioners served an Amended Verified Petition, removing the Company as a respondent. The Halfmoon Petitioners served an Amended Verified Petition on July 5, 2018, retaining all originally-named parties. The Company has moved to dismiss the Halfmoon Amended Verified Petition and that motion is fully submitted to the court. The Petitioners allege that, in granting the Permits, DEC failed to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of New York’s Environmental Conservation Law and State Environmental Quality Review Act, and their implementing regulations. The Petitioners have asked the court to: annul the Permits and invalidate DEC’s Findings Statement, enjoin the Town and CRL from taking any action authorized by the Permits, require an issues conference and possibly an adjudicatory hearing before DEC can re-consider the Town’s permit application; remand all regulatory issues to a DEC Administrative Law Judge; and award costs and disbursements. The Waterford Petitioners have also requested reasonable attorneys’ fees. On July 13, 2018, the court granted a venue change motion filed by DEC, and ordered that the Halfmoon and Waterford Proceedings be transferred to the Supreme Court, Albany County. No return date has been established by the court, but Article 78 proceedings are intended to be resolved expeditiously, and generally without discovery. CRL’s opposition submissions, including its responsive pleadings, Memorandum of Law, and supporting Affidavits, were filed and served on or before July 25, 2018. On August 28, 2018, the Towns of Waterford and Halfmoon filed a motion seeking an order preliminarily enjoining during the pendency of the proceedings all activities relating to the expansion of the Landfill which are authorized by the Permits. On September 18, 2018, CRL and the Company filed and served Memoranda of Law in opposition to the preliminary injunction motion, with supporting Affidavits, and that motion is fully submitted to the court. CRL (and, if it remains a respondent, the Company), will vigorously oppose the Halfmoon and Waterford Proceedings. CRL believes that, in issuing the Permits, DEC followed the appropriate statutory and regulatory procedures and made a reasoned determination that is well-supported by the factual record. However, at this point, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in these proceedings. ﻿ ﻿

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