XML 41 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 19.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, 2020, 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 the 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. At the April 24, 2019 stakeholders meeting the LDWG projected completion of the remedial design for the upper reach could be completed by August 2024. In late September 2020, the EPA informed attorneys for several PRPs that the work may be completed by late 2023 or early 2024. On August 16, 2016, the EPA sent individual letters to each of the PRPs for the LDW Site, including NWCS, stating that it expected 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 was not expected to conclude until the end of 2019, and in March 2017, the PRPs provided the EPA with notice that the allocation was not scheduled to conclude until mid-2019. Later extensions pushed the allocation conclusion date to early 2020 and the EPA was informed of that schedule. The allocation participants voted in June 2019 to extend the final allocation report deadline to July 2020. The EPA was informed of that change. In January 2020, the allocator informed the parties that the preliminary allocation report will be delayed and in May 2020 he advised the parties that he hoped to issue the preliminary report by the end of June 2020, but the report has not yet been issued. The final allocation report will be issued only after the allocator considers comments of the parties on the preliminary report. 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 did not occur. In September 2020, the EPA informed attorneys for several PRPs that the EPA intends to initiate settlement negotiations in 2021, and the EPA was informed of the delay in the issuance of the preliminary allocation report. 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. The Trustees released their Assessment Plan in March 2019. The Assessment Plan does not set forth a timeline for implementation. 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 two million tons of materials for disposal and beneficial use in 2018. 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 and motion to strike regarding portions of the Complaint, arguing that the Complaint was legally insufficient to proceed. After full briefing, the hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike regarding CCL’s First Amended Complaint took place on July 17, 2018. The Superior Court sustained the demurrer and granted the motion to strike. The effect of the Court’s rulings was 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 Superior 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 sought discretionary review by the California Court of Appeal of the Superior Court’s July 17, 2018 decision barring the challenge to 13 operational conditions. The Court of Appeal agreed to hear CCL’s appeal and on February 25, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued its decision, reversing the trial court orders that granted the County’s motion to strike and demurrer. The Court of Appeal ruled that CCL had adequately pled a claim that the County was equitably estopped from contending that CCL had forfeited its rights to challenge the legality of the 13 operational conditions. CCL’s Complaint sets forth that CCL relied on representations made by the County in 2017 that CCL could reserve its legal rights to challenge the CUP in a separate reservation of rights letter rather than the affidavit of acceptance of the CUP that the County compelled Chiquita to file. The Superior Court set an evidentiary hearing on the equitable estoppel issues for November 12, 2019. Discovery occurred on these issues in July through September 2019. Following full briefing and oral argument on November 12, 2019, the Superior Court issued its decision on November 13, 2019, finding that the County was estopped from contending that CCL has waived its rights to challenge the legality of the 13 operational conditions. The County sought interlocutory review of the Superior Court’s decision in the Court of Appeal, which denied the County’s petition on February 7, 2020. Following full briefing and oral argument on June 22, 2020 on six of CCL’s causes of action, the Superior Court issued its decision on July 2, 2020, granting CCL’s petition for writ of mandate in part and denying it in part. CCL prevailed with respect to 12 of the challenged conditions, many of which imposed new fees and exactions on the Landfill. Before entry of final judgment, the Superior Court will hear CCL’s remaining causes of action. A cause of action for a taking under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is the subject of a pending motion for leave to amend the Complaint. CCL is awaiting assignment to an individual calendar court for its remaining causes of action. Once the Superior Court has entered final judgment, CCL and the County will be permitted to appeal any adverse ruling to the California Court of Appeal. After entry of final judgment and resolution of any appeals, the Superior Court will issue a writ directing the County Board of Supervisors to set aside its decision on the permit with respect to 12 of the challenged conditions. The Board will be allowed to make additional findings to support four of those conditions and reconsider its permit decision in light of the Superior Court’s writ. CCL will continue to 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 and 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 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. Initial briefs were filed in 2018 and a trial date was set in February 2019, which was later rescheduled and held in August 2019. The court issued a final ruling on October 10, 2019 and a final judgment on December 4, 2019, denying the writ petition in full. One petitioner, Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment, appealed the judgment. All interested parties filed their briefs by July 1, 2020 and the County did not file an opposition brief. No amicus or “friend of the court” briefs were filed, so the case was fully briefed on July 1, 2020. The court has set oral argument for November 18, 2020.
| C. | 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 the May 28, 2019 trial setting conference referenced above where the trial of the CUP case was set for April 23, 2020, the Superior Court set the trial for the B&T fee/NOV case for June 25, 2020. However, following the rescheduling of the trial date for the CUP case, the Superior Court agreed to continue the trial date for the B&T fee/NOV case to October 20, 2020. At an August 20, 2020 status conference, the Superior Court again continued the trial date for the B&T fee/NOV case to January 14, 2021. The Superior Court’s July 2, 2020 decision in the CUP case upheld the B&T fee and addressed two other conditions that were also the subject of the NOV, which may impact the scope of the B&T fee/NOV case. CCL will continue to vigorously prosecute the lawsuit. However, at this point, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter. Town of Colonie, New York Landfill Expansion Litigation On April 16, 2014, the Town of Colonie (the “Town”) 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 4, 2018, the Town and CRL filed Verified Answers, including motions to dismiss the petitions, and the Company separately moved to dismiss the petitions. The Waterford Petitioners stipulated to removing the Company as a respondent when they filed an Amended Verified Petition on June 15, 2018. The Halfmoon Petitioners served an Amended Verified Petition on July 5, 2018, retaining all originally named parties, including the Company. The Petitioners alleged 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 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 also requested reasonable attorneys’ fees. On July 13, 2018, the Honorable Ann C. Crowell granted a venue change motion filed by DEC, and ordered that the Halfmoon Proceeding and the Waterford Proceeding be transferred to the Supreme Court, Albany County. 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, on September 24, 2018, the Towns of Waterford and Halfmoon filed a Reply Memorandum of Law in further support of their injunctive motion. The Honorable Debra J. Young denied the Petitioners’ motion for preliminary injunction on November 30, 2018. On January 23, 2019, the court held that the Petitioners lacked standing to maintain the proceedings and dismissed both the Waterford and Halfmoon Amended Verified Petitions in their entirety. In late February and early March 2019, the Waterford and Halfmoon Petitioners filed notices of appeal to the Appellate Division, Third Department, of both Judge Crowell’s decision to transfer the proceedings to Albany County and of Judge Young’s dismissal of the Amended Verified Petitions. On March 7, 2019, the Waterford Petitioners moved, with consent of the Halfmoon Petitioners, to consolidate the appeals. Respondents opposed the consolidation motion to the extent that it may result in inequitable briefing under the Appellate Division rules. On April 4, 2019, the Appellate Division, Third Department granted the consolidation motion “to the extent that the appeals shall be heard together and may be perfected upon a joint record on appeal.” On April 26, 2019, the Waterford Petitioners filed a motion with the Appellate Division, Third Department, seeking an order preliminarily enjoining construction activities or the acceptance of waste at the Landfill. The Company, CRL, and the Town of Colonie opposed the motion, which was summarily denied by the Third Department, Appellate Division on June 20, 2019. On June 25, 2019, the Waterford Petitioners filed their appellate brief and the joint record on appeal. The Halfmoon Petitioners filed their appellate brief on August 21, 2019. The Company, CRL, and the Town filed their joint appellee brief and supplemental appendix on November 20, 2019. On February 24, 2020, after receiving multiple filing extensions, DEC filed its appellee brief and supplemental appendix. The Waterford and Halfmoon Petitioners filed their reply briefs on March 10, 2020 and March 13, 2020, respectively. The Appellate Division, Third Department originally scheduled the appeals to be argued during the court’s May 2020 term. The appeals were adjourned as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. On September 14, 2020, the Appellate Division, Third Department held virtual oral argument in the appeals. The Company anticipates that the Appellate Division, Third Department will issue a decision in the appeals by the end of 2020 or shortly thereafter.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration