XML 40 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

13. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS

Financial Surety Bonds

The Company uses financial surety bonds for a variety of corporate guarantees. The two largest uses of financial surety bonds are for municipal contract performance guarantees and asset closure and retirement requirements under certain environmental regulations. Environmental regulations require demonstrated financial assurance to meet final capping, closure and post-closure requirements for landfills. In addition to surety bonds, these requirements may also be met through alternative financial assurance instruments, including insurance, letters of credit and restricted cash and investment deposits.

At December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Company had provided customers and various regulatory authorities with surety bonds in the aggregate amounts of approximately $744,037 and $727,361, respectively, to secure its asset closure and retirement requirements and $556,570 and $482,262, respectively, to secure performance under collection contracts and landfill operating agreements.

The Company owns a 9.9% interest in a company that, among other activities, issues financial surety bonds to secure landfill final capping, closure and post-closure obligations for companies operating in the solid waste industry. The Company accounts for this investment under the cost method of accounting. There have been no identified events or changes in circumstances that may have a significant adverse effect on the carrying value of the investment. This investee company and the parent company of the investee have written financial surety bonds for the Company, of which $410,378 and $413,970 were outstanding as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. The Company’s reimbursement obligations under these bonds are secured by a pledge of its stock in the investee company.

Unconditional Purchase Obligations

At December 31, 2021, the Company’s unconditional purchase obligations consist of multiple fixed-price fuel purchase contracts under which it has 60.0 million gallons remaining to be purchased for a total of $151,733. These fuel purchase contracts expire on or before December 31, 2024. During the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, the Company paid $100,220, $93,813 and $73,269, respectively, under the respective fuel purchase contracts then outstanding.

As of December 31, 2021, future minimum purchase commitments, by calendar year, are as follows:


2022		$	98,655
2023			51,289
2024			1,789
		$	151,733

CONTINGENCIES

Environmental Risks

The Company expenses costs incurred to investigate and remediate environmental issues unless they extend the economic useful lives of the related assets. The Company records liabilities when it is probable that an obligation has been incurred and the amounts can be reasonably estimated. The remediation reserves cover anticipated costs, including remediation of environmental damage that waste facilities may have caused to neighboring landowners or residents as a result of contamination of soil, groundwater or surface water, including damage resulting from conditions existing prior

to the Company’s acquisition of such facilities. The Company’s estimates are based primarily on investigations and remediation plans established by independent consultants, regulatory agencies and potentially responsible third parties. The Company does not discount remediation obligations. At December 31, 2021 and 2020, the current portion of remediation reserves was $2,300 and $2,300, respectively, which is included in Accrued liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2021 and 2020, the long-term portion of remediation reserves was $20,483 and $19,121, respectively, which is included in Other long-term liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any substantial increase in the liabilities for remediation of environmental damage incurred by the Company could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Legal Proceedings

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. The Company uses $1,000 as a threshold (up from the previously required threshold of $300) for disclosing environmental matters involving potential monetary sanctions.

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 December 31, 2021, 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 that 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. 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 first to early 2020 and then to July 2020. The EPA was informed of those changes. The allocator issued his preliminary allocation report on June 28, 2021. The allocator is currently considering comments on the preliminary report, which the parties submitted in November 2021. The allocator may issue the final allocation report sometime in the next two months. In July 2021, the EPA was informed of the issuance of the preliminary allocation report in a telephone conference with allocation participants. In a telephone conference with allocation participants on December 14, 2021, the EPA stated its expectation that settlement negotiations would begin in the second half of 2022. 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 and a half million tons of materials for disposal and beneficial use in 2021. 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.

Extensive motions practice and an interlocutory appeal occurred in 2018 and 2019 over the permissible scope of CCL’s challenge to the CUP, specifically 13 operational conditions in the CUP. The Superior Court ruled in CCL’s favor 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 trial on CCL’s remaining causes of action is scheduled for August 1, 2022. 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. 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, described above under paragraph A (the “CUP lawsuit”).

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 was issued on July

10, 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 July 17, 2018, the Court granted CCL leave to pay the $11,600 B&T fee and to amend its Complaint in the CUP lawsuit to reflect the payment under protest, allowing the challenge to the B&T fee under the Mitigation Fee Act to proceed in the CUP lawsuit. CCL paid the B&T fee under protest on August 10, 2018, and also paid on that date the administrative penalty of $83 and a noncompliance fee of $0.75. The Court indicated that the NOV case would be coordinated with the CUP lawsuit. The NOV case has been continued multiple times as the CUP lawsuit was adjudicated; it is now set for trial on June 16, 2022. The Superior Court’s July 2, 2020 decision in the CUP lawsuit upheld the B&T fee against a Mitigation Fee Act challenge, 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.

Collective Bargaining Agreements

Twenty-two of the Company’s collective bargaining agreements have expired or are set to expire in 2022. The Company does not expect any significant disruption in its overall business in 2022 as a result of labor negotiations, employee strikes or organizational efforts.