XML 37 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2024

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 or sought 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 for disclosing environmental matters involving a governmental authority and 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 September 30, 2024, 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.

Jefferson Parish, Louisiana Landfill Litigation

Between June 2016 and December 31, 2020, one of the Company’s subsidiaries, Louisiana Regional Landfill Company (“LRLC”), conducted certain operations at a municipal solid waste landfill known as the Jefferson Parish Landfill (the “JP Landfill”), located in Avondale, Louisiana, near the City of New Orleans. LRLC’s operations were governed by an Operating Agreement entered into in May 2012 by LRLC under its previous name, IESI LA Landfill Corporation, and the owner of the JP Landfill, Jefferson Parish (the “Parish”). The Parish also holds the State of Louisiana permit for the operation of the JP Landfill. Aptim Corporation, and later River Birch, LLC, operated the landfill gas collection system at the JP Landfill under a separate contract with the Parish.

In July and August 2018, four separate lawsuits seeking class action status were filed against LRLC and certain other Company subsidiaries, the Parish, and Aptim Corporation in Louisiana state court, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, before Judge Susie Morgan in New Orleans. The court later consolidated the claims of the putative class action plaintiffs (the “Ictech-Bendeck” action). Beginning in December 2018, a series of 11 substantively identical mass actions were filed in Louisiana state court against LRLC and certain other Company subsidiaries, the Parish, and Aptim Corporation. The claims of the mass action plaintiffs were removed to and consolidated in federal court in the Eastern District of Louisiana, also before Judge Susie Morgan (the “Addison” action). On August 10, 2024, the Company’s subsidiaries and the Addison plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to settle the Addison plaintiffs’ claims against the Company; the Parish and Aptim Corporation also reached agreements in principle to settle the Addison action. On August 12, 2024, the court entered an order dismissing the Addison action without prejudice pending consummation of the settlement agreements.

The Ictech-Bendeck plaintiffs assert claims for damages from odors allegedly emanating from the JP Landfill. The consolidated putative class action complaint alleges that the JP Landfill released “noxious odors” into the plaintiffs’ properties and the surrounding community and asserts a range of liability theories—nuisance, negligence (since dismissed), and strict liability—against all defendants. The Ictech-Bendeck plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

The court held an eight-day trial on general causation during January and February 2022. On November 29, 2022, the court issued a 45-page decision on the general causation trial. The court concluded that all putative class plaintiffs established general causation—specifically that emissions and gases from the JP Landfill were capable of causing certain damages alleged by the plaintiffs. The court held that it only needed to determine the level of exposure necessary to result in injuries and that the level existed somewhere offsite, and that it was not required to delineate this level of exposure within a geographic area. The court did, however, limit the time period for damages, to between July 2017 and December 2019, and the types of alleged injuries for which the plaintiffs are able to seek damages, to headaches, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, sleep disruption, dizziness, fatigue, anxiety and worry, a decrease in quality of life, and loss of enjoyment or use of property.

After the general causation decision, extensive discovery occurred in 2023 and 2024. On May 15, 2024, the Ictech-Bendeck plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification, which the defendants opposed. Plaintiffs currently describe the putative class as Jefferson Parish residents suffering an injury as a result of exposure to odors from the Landfill between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019, in five proposed geographic sub-classes encompassing residents within a delineated area of Jefferson Parish that extends roughly five miles from the Landfill to the north and east. Counsel for the putative class asks the court to certify a class on liability and allocation issues and that specific causation be left for individual determinations after a class trial. Briefing on the class action plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was

completed on June 26, 2024. An evidentiary hearing on certain class certification issues is scheduled for December 9 and 10, 2024.

On August 8, 2024, Jefferson Parish and the Ictech-Bendeck plaintiffs notified the court and the other parties that they had reached an agreement in principle on settlement of the plaintiffs’ claims against the Parish. The court held a settlement conference on August 9, memorializing the terms of the plaintiffs’ settlement with the Parish, including a settlement amount of $4,500 to be paid by the Parish to the Ictech-Bendeck plaintiffs. The court must approve the proposed settlement after notice is sent to the proposed settlement class and a hearing on the fairness of the settlement terms.

The Company believes it has defenses to certification of the putative class actions and is continuing to vigorously defend itself; however, at this time, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome regarding the underlying claims in the class action, including the allocation of any potential liability among the Company, the Parish, and Aptim Corporation.

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 “CC Landfill”). The CC Landfill has operated since 1972, and as a regional landfill, accepted approximately 2.5 million tons of materials for disposal and beneficial use in 2023. The CC Landfill is the second largest landfill in the County and plays a vital role in the County’s ability to safely and quickly gather, process, and dispose of thousands of tons of waste, six days a week. A significant disruption in that function would be harmful to the County and the Company. 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 reduced the historical landfill operations and represented 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 (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.

Following extensive litigation in 2018 and 2019 on the permissible scope of CCL’s challenge, 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 CC Landfill. On October 11, 2022, CCL and the County entered into a settlement agreement that requires CCL to file a CUP modification application with the County embodying the terms of the settlement agreement. CCL filed the CUP modification application on November 10, 2022, an addendum to CCL’s environmental impact report in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act on January 12, 2024, and a revised addendum on September 30, 2024. The next steps contemplated by the settlement agreement include: completion of review by the County; scheduling the CUP modification application for a hearing before the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission; if appealed, a hearing before the County Board of Supervisors; and, upon approval by the County Board of Supervisors of the CUP modification application and satisfaction of certain other contingencies, CCL would dismiss this lawsuit.

At a meeting between the County and the Company on September 23, 2024, the County first stated that it would not be possible to complete the environmental review and present the CUP modification to the Regional Planning Commission in 2024. Absent approval of the modified CUP, beginning January 1, 2025, the CUP requires CCL to reduce its maximum annual solid waste tonnage capacity from approximately two million tons of solid waste per year to approximately one million tons of solid waste per year. CCL and the County are required under the settlement agreement to cooperate to take additional lawful and reasonable measures to effectuate the basic terms and goals of the settlement agreement, which include modifying this tonnage reduction to a gradual step-down in tonnage, and those efforts are underway. At this time, 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 CC 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 the noncompliance fee of $0.75. The court indicated that the NOV case would be coordinated with the CUP lawsuit. On October 11, 2022, CCL and the County entered into the settlement agreement, described above under paragraph A. If the CUP modification application is approved by the County and certain other contingencies are satisfied, CCL will dismiss this lawsuit. However, as described above, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter.

Elevated Temperature Landfill Event

Beginning in May 2023, the Company’s subsidiary, Chiquita Canyon, LLC (“CCL”), began receiving notices of violation (“NOVs”) from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) for alleged violations of Section 41700 of the California Health & Safety Code and SCAQMD Rule 402 based on complaints from the public of odors,

which SCAQMD inspectors stated that they verified were from the Chiquita Canyon Landfill (the “CC Landfill”). Each Rule 402 NOV alleges the CC Landfill is “discharging such quantities of air contaminants to cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to a considerable number of persons.” CCL’s retained expert consultants in Elevated Temperature Landfill (“ETLF”) events have attributed the odors and other impacts to an ETLF event that is occurring in a lined, non-active area of the CC Landfill.

Since May 2023, CCL has received approximately 275 NOVs for alleged violations of SCAQMD Rule 402. CCL has also received twelve additional NOVs from SCAQMD alleging violations of other SCAQMD rules and CCL’s Title V permit. Many of these additional NOVs appear related to the increase in liquids and landfill gas caused by the ETLF event.

On August 15, 2023, SCAQMD petitioned its Hearing Board for an Order for Abatement in Hearing Board Case No. 6177-4 to address the Rule 402 NOVs issued by SCAQMD inspectors as a result of the ETLF event. SCAQMD and CCL negotiated a Stipulated Order for Abatement (the “Stipulated Order”), which was issued by the Hearing Board on September 6, 2023. Modifications to the Stipulated Order were approved by the Hearing Board after hearings on January 16 and 17, 2024, March 21, 2024, April 24, 2024, and August 17, 20, and 27, 2024. The modified Stipulated Order contains 90 conditions. The continuation of the August 27, 2024 hearing is currently scheduled for November 13 and 14, 2024. For this continued hearing, SCAQMD is also considering pursuing additional mandates regarding the CC Landfill’s operations, including reductions in waste intake and curtailing hours of operation.

On November 22, 2023, CCL received an NOV from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Water Board”) for alleged violations of CCL’s Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R4-2018-0172, including the Monitoring and Reporting Program. The allegations relate to increased leachate production and leachate seeps caused by the ETLF event. CCL has received three more NOVs from the Water Board regarding alleged discharges, reporting, and other compliance violations. CCL has submitted full responses to each of the November 22, 2023, and January 24, March 28, and April 9, 2024 NOVs from the Water Board.

On June 27, 2024, CCL received a fifth NOV from the Water Board for alleged non-compliance with a March 20, 2024 Investigative Order issued by the Water Board pursuant to California Water Code §§ 13267 and 13383. CCL has provided a full response to the alleged violations.

On February 15 and March 29, 2024, CCL received two Summaries of Violations (“SOV”) from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”). The SOVs allege violations of California’s hazardous waste control laws and their implementing regulations related to three incidents in which offsite shipments of leachate, which tested above a regulatory threshold, were shipped to non-hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities. CCL has submitted full responses to both SOVs from DTSC.

On June 4, 2024, CCL received a Finding of Violation (“FOV”) from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, alleging violations of the New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAP”) for municipal solid waste landfills, the NSPS and NESHAP General Provisions, and certain conditions of CCL’s Title V permit. CCL has submitted a full response to the alleged violations.

At this time, CCL is not able to determine the likely penalties that the regulatory agencies will seek for these alleged violations, but they could be substantial. CCL also is incurring substantial costs in conjunction with efforts to address the ETLF event and any related impacts, including attendant air emissions, and to manage the increased production and changing composition of the liquids. At this time, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome of the resolution of these alleged violations, including the amount of penalties.

In addition to, and distinct from these alleged violations, CCL is seeking regulatory approvals to allow the use of new cells needed for waste disposal within the CC Landfill’s existing waste footprint permitted under the CUP. At this time, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of the outcome of these regulatory reviews.

Related Civil Litigation

Given the facts related to the ETLF event and the alleged violations described above, a number of civil lawsuits have been filed against CCL and other Company subsidiaries, including Chiquita Canyon, Inc., Waste Connections of California, Inc., Waste Connections Management Services Inc. and Waste Connections US, Inc. These began with Howse et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC, et al. (Los Angeles Co. Superior Court; filed September 5, 2023, removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. October 4, 2023). That case included class action claims, but in May 2024, those claims were dropped and the case continues as a mass tort case in federal district court. The Company is working to consolidate the additional civil lawsuits brought by over fifteen law firms in federal and state courts with the Howse case in federal court.

There are approximately 3,300 total plaintiffs in these civil lawsuits as of October 23, 2024, which includes some from cases filed but not yet served, and the Company expects additional complaints and plaintiffs in the future.

The claims in the ongoing cases allege, among other things, nuisance odors, chemical exposures and other torts, including private nuisance (continuing and permanent), public nuisance (continuing and permanent), negligence, negligence per se, strict liability for ultrahazardous activities, and a violation of Health and Safety Code § 41700. Plaintiffs seek damages for physical injury, fear of future physical injury, increased risk of future injury, including the need for medical monitoring, emotional distress, harm to real and personal property, medical expenses, relocation expenses, and punitive damages. Plaintiffs seek all costs of suits and attorneys’ fees. Some of the cases allege that officers and directors and/or agents of the Company’s subsidiaries had advance knowledge that failure to properly maintain and operate the CC Landfill would result in the sorts of harms that the plaintiffs allegedly suffered. Some of the cases seek injunctive relief to prevent further harm to the plaintiffs or to close the CC Landfill.

The additional cases include: Suggs et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC, et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed February 2, 2024, removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. March 25, 2024)‎; Siryani et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC, et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed March 27, 2024, removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. on April 29, 2024)‎; Adams Evans et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed April 15, 2014, removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. on July 5, 2024)‎; Aleksanyan et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal.; filed May 20, 2024); Jolene Acosta et al., v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed May 29, 2024, removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. on July 12, 2024); Quaiden Fenstermaker et. al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed May 29, 2024, removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. on July 13, 2024)‎; Briana Mejia et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed May 29, 2024, removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. on July 15, 2024); Araiza et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal.; filed June 3, 2024); Melineh Gasparians et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed June 10, 2024; removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. on September 4, 2024); Claudia Rivera et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed June 14, 2024, removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. on July 22, 2024)‎; Alejandra Suarez et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed June 20, 2024; removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. on July 29, 2024) ; ‎ Geon Hwang, et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal.; filed July 8, 2024); Anabel Austin, et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed July 9, 2024; removed to U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. on August 16, 2024); Isabell ‎Dolores Palomino et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal.; filed July 12, 2024); Stephanie Audish et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed July 16, 2024); Scott Benjamin Siegal et. al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed July 16, 2024); Alina Hakopyan et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed August 6, 2024); Kaiden Alim et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court, filed September 27, 2024); and Nicholas Difatta et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court, filed October 5, 2024). One law firm has also filed 359

individual cases in Los Angeles Superior Court, which the Company related and consolidated to that firm’s first filed case, Serieddine et al. v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC, et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court; filed January 8, 2024), so the cases can be collectively removed to federal court.

The Company is continuing to vigorously defend itself in these lawsuits; however, at this time, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome regarding the underlying claims.