XML 61 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings In the ordinary course of our business and as a result of the extensive governmental regulation of the solid waste industry, we are subject to various judicial and administrative proceedings involving state and local agencies. In these proceedings, an agency may seek to impose fines or to revoke or deny renewal of an operating permit held by us. From time to time, we 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 and transfer stations, or allegations of environmental damage or violations of the permits and licenses pursuant to which we operate. In addition, we may be named defendants in 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 ordinary operation of a waste management business. In accordance with FASB ASC 450 - Contingencies, we accrue for legal proceedings, inclusive of legal costs, when losses become probable and reasonably estimable. As of the end of each applicable reporting period, we review each of our legal proceedings to determine whether it is probable, reasonably possible or remote that a liability has been incurred and, if it is at least reasonably possible, whether a range of loss can be reasonably estimated under the provisions of FASB ASC 450-20. In instances where we determine that a loss is probable and we can reasonably estimate a range of loss we may incur with respect to such a matter, we record an accrual for the amount within the range that constitutes our best estimate of the possible loss. If we are able to reasonably estimate a range, but no amount within the range appears to be a better estimate than any other, we record an accrual in the amount that is the low end of such range. When a loss is reasonably possible, but not probable, we will not record an accrual, but we will disclose our estimate of the possible range of loss where such estimate can be made in accordance with FASB ASC 450-20. Environmental Remediation Liability (including related litigation) We are subject to liability for environmental damage, including personal injury and property damage, that our solid waste, recycling and power generation facilities may cause to neighboring property owners, particularly as a result of the contamination of drinking water sources or soil, possibly including damage resulting from conditions that existed before we acquired the facilities. We may also be subject to liability for similar claims arising from off-site environmental contamination caused by pollutants or hazardous substances if we or our predecessors arrange or arranged to transport, treat or dispose of those materials. The following matters represent our material outstanding claims. Southbridge Recycling & Disposal Park, Inc. In October 2015, our Southbridge Recycling and Disposal Park, Inc. (“SRD”) subsidiary reported to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“MADEP”) results of analysis of samples collected pursuant to our existing permit from private drinking water wells located near the Town of Southbridge, Massachusetts (“Town”) Landfill (“Southbridge Landfill”), which was operated by SRD and later closed in November 2018 when Southbridge Landfill reached its final capacity. Those results indicated the presence of contaminants above the levels triggering notice and response obligations under MADEP regulations. In response to those results, we have been carrying out an Immediate Response Action pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 21E (the "Charlton 21E Obligations") pursuant to state law. Further, we have implemented a plan to analyze and better understand the groundwater near the Southbridge Landfill and we are investigating with the objective of identifying the source or sources of the elevated levels of contamination measured in the well samples. If it is determined that some or all of the contamination originated at the Southbridge Landfill, we will work with the Town (the Southbridge Landfill owner and the former operator of an unlined portion of the Southbridge Landfill, which was used prior to our operation of a double-lined portion of the Southbridge Landfill commencing in 2004) to evaluate and allocate the liabilities related to the Charlton 21E Obligations. In July 2016, we sent correspondence to the Town pursuant to Chapter 21E of Massachusetts General Laws demanding that the Town reimburse us for the environmental response costs we had spent and that the Town be responsible for all such costs in the future, as well as any other costs or liabilities resulting from the release of contaminants from the unlined portion of the Southbridge Landfill. The Town responded in September 2016, denying that the Southbridge Landfill is the source of such contamination, and claiming that if it is, that we may owe an indemnity to the Town pursuant to the Operating Agreement between us and the Town dated May 29, 2007, as amended. We entered into a Tolling Agreement with the Town to delay any further administrative or legal actions until our work with MADEP more specifically defines the parties’ responsibilities for the Charlton 21E Obligations, if any. Please see below for further discussion of our relationship with the Town regarding the Charlton 21E Obligations. In February 2016, we and the Town received a Notice of Intent to Sue under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") from a law firm purporting to represent residents proximate to the Southbridge Landfill (“Residents”), indicating its intent to file suit against us on behalf of the Residents alleging the groundwater contamination originated from the Southbridge Landfill. In February 2017, we received an additional Notice of Intent to Sue from the National Environmental Law Center under the Federal Clean Water Act ("CWA") and RCRA (collectively the “Acts”) on behalf of Environment America, Inc., d/b/a Environment Massachusetts, and Toxics Action Center, Inc., which have referred to themselves as the Citizen Groups. The Citizen Groups alleged that we had violated the Acts, and that they intended to seek appropriate relief in federal court for those alleged violations. On or about June 9, 2017, a lawsuit was filed against us, SRD and the Town in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “Massachusetts Court”) by the Citizen Groups and the Residents alleging violations of the Acts (the “Litigation”), and demanding a variety of remedies under the Acts, including fines, remediation, mitigation and costs of litigation, and remedies for violations of Massachusetts civil law related to personal and property damages, including remediation, diminution of property values, compensation for lost use and enjoyment of properties, enjoinment of further operation of the Southbridge Landfill, and costs of litigation, plus interest on any damage award, on behalf of the Residents. We believe the Litigation to be factually inaccurate, and without legal merit, and we and SRD are vigorously defending the Litigation. Nevertheless, we believe it is reasonably possible that a loss will occur as a result of the Litigation although an estimate of loss cannot be reasonably provided at this time. We also continue to believe the Town should be responsible for costs or liabilities associated with the Litigation relative to alleged contamination originating from the unlined portion of the Southbridge Landfill, although there can be no assurance that we will not be required to incur some or all of such costs and liabilities. In December 2017, we filed a Motion to Dismiss the Litigation, and on October 1, 2018, the Massachusetts Court granted our Motion to Dismiss, and accordingly, dismissed the Citizen Groups claims under the Acts. The Massachusetts Court has retained jurisdiction of the Residents claims. The Citizen Groups intend to appeal the Massachusetts Court’s decision to grant our Motion to Dismiss. The Residents moved for a stay of their case until the Citizen Groups appealed. We opposed the stay and in March 2019, the Massachusetts Court denied the Residents motion for a stay. We are in active discovery in the Residents case. We entered into an Administrative Consent Order on April 26, 2017 (the “ACO”), with MADEP, the Town, and the Town of Charlton, committing us to equally share the costs with MADEP, of up to $10,000 ($5,000 each) for the Town to install a municipal waterline in the Town of Charlton ("Waterline"). Upon satisfactory completion of that Waterline, and other matters covered by the ACO, we and the Town will be released by MADEP from any future responsibilities for the Charlton 21E Obligations. We also entered into an agreement with the Town on April 28, 2017 entitled the “21E Settlement and Water System Construction Funding Agreement” (the “Waterline Agreement”), wherein we and the Town released each other from claims arising from the Charlton 21E Obligations. Pursuant to the Waterline Agreement, the Town will issue a twenty (20) year bond for our portion of the Waterline costs (up to $5,000). We have agreed to reimburse the Town for periodic payments under such bond. Construction of the waterline is complete and homeowners are relying on municipal water supply. Remaining aspects of the project are minor and are expected to be completed in 2020. Bond reimbursement to the Town will commence in the fiscal year ending December 31, 2020. We have recorded an environmental remediation liability related to our obligation associated with the installation of the Waterline in other accrued liabilities and other long-term liabilities. We inflate the estimated costs in current dollars to the expected time of payment and discount the total cost to present value using a risk-free interest rate of 1.9%. Our expenditures could be significantly higher if costs exceed estimates. A summary of the changes to the environmental remediation liability associated with the Southbridge Landfill follows:
| Three Months Ended March 31, |  |
| 2020 |  | 2019
Beginning balance | $ | 4,596 |  |  | $ | 5,173 |
Accretion expense | 30 |  |  | 34 |
Obligations incurred | 27 |  |  | — |
Obligations settled (1) | (12) |  |  | (141) |
Ending balance | $ | 4,641 |  |  | $ | 5,066 |
(1)Includes amounts that are being processed through accounts payable as a part of our disbursements cycle. We completed the first phase of landfill capping and closure in fiscal year 2019 at the Southbridge Landfill and are actively seeking approval from MADEP to close and cap the remainder of the landfill. The costs and liabilities we may be required to incur in connection with the foregoing Southbridge Landfill matters could be material to our results of operations, our cash flows and our financial condition. Potsdam Environmental Remediation Liability On December 20, 2000, the State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) issued an Order on Consent (“Order”) which named Waste-Stream, Inc. (“WSI”), our subsidiary, General Motors Corporation (“GM”) and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (“NiMo”) as Respondents. The Order required that the Respondents undertake certain work on a 25-acre scrap yard and solid waste transfer station owned by WSI in Potsdam, New York, including the preparation of a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“Study”). A draft of the Study was submitted to the DEC in January 2009 (followed by a final report in May 2009). The Study estimated that the undiscounted costs associated with implementing the preferred remedies would be approximately $10,219. On February 28, 2011, the DEC issued a Proposed Remedial Action Plan for the site and accepted public comments on the proposed remedy through March 29, 2011. We submitted comments to the DEC on this matter. In April 2011, the DEC issued the final Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the site. The ROD was subsequently rescinded by the DEC for failure to respond to all submitted comments. The preliminary ROD, however, estimated that the present cost associated with implementing the preferred remedies would be approximately $12,130. The DEC issued the final ROD in June 2011 with proposed remedies consistent with its earlier ROD. An Order on Consent and Administrative Settlement naming WSI and NiMo as Respondents was executed by the Respondents and DEC with an effective date of October 25, 2013. On January 29, 2016, a Cost-Sharing Agreement was executed between WSI, NiMo, Alcoa Inc. (“Alcoa”) and Reynolds Metal Company (“Reynolds”) whereby Alcoa and Reynolds elected to voluntarily participate in the onsite remediation activities at a combined 15% participant share. The majority of the remediation work has been completed as of March 31, 2020. WSI is jointly and severally liable with NiMo, Alcoa and Reynolds for the total cost to remediate. We have recorded an environmental remediation liability associated with the Potsdam site based on incurred costs to date and estimated costs to complete the remediation in other accrued liabilities and other long-term liabilities. Our expenditures could be significantly higher if costs exceed estimates. We inflate the estimated costs in current dollars to the expected time of payment and discount the total cost to present value using a risk-free interest rate of 1.5%. The environmental remediation liability associated with the Potsdam site was $1,151 as of both March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019. Legal Proceedings North Country Environmental Services On or about March 8, 2018, the Citizen Groups described above delivered correspondence to our subsidiary, North Country Environmental Services, Inc. ("NCES") and us, providing notice of the Citizen Groups' intent to sue NCES and us for violations of the CWA in conjunction with NCES's operation of its landfill in Bethlehem, New Hampshire ("NCES Landfill"). On May 14, 2018, the Citizen Groups filed a lawsuit against NCES and us in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (the “New Hampshire Court”) alleging violations of the CWA, arguing that ground water discharging into the Ammonoosuc River is a "point source" under the CWA (the "New Hampshire Litigation"). The New Hampshire Litigation seeks remediation and fines under the CWA. On June 15, 2018, we and NCES filed a Motion to Dismiss the New Hampshire Litigation. On July 13, 2018, the Citizen Groups filed objections to our Motion to Dismiss. On July 27, 2018, we filed a reply in support of our Motion to Dismiss. On September 25, 2018, the New Hampshire Court denied our Motion to Dismiss. In March of 2019, we filed a motion in the New Hampshire Litigation asking for a stay of this litigation until certain appeals from discordant federal circuit courts were heard by the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”), in the case identified as “County of Maui the. Hawaii Wildlife Fund (“MAUI”)”. Our motion for a stay was granted in the New Hampshire Litigation, and SCOTUS heard the case in 2019 and issued a ruling on April 23, 2020. SCOTUS remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco (the “Circuit Court”) ruling that the Circuit Court’s standard as to whether ground water impacts navigable waters is too broad. SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that the question should be whether “…the addition of the pollutants through ground water is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge from the point source into navigable waters”. We do not believe that the MAUI decision resolves the issues presented in the New Hampshire Litigation, and until the Circuit Court rules in the remanded MAUI case, we intend to continue to vigorously defend against the New Hampshire Litigation, which we believe is without merit. Ontario County, New York Class Action Litigation On or about September 17, 2019, Richard Vandemortel and Deb Vandemortel filed a class action complaint against us on behalf of similarly situated citizens in Ontario County, New York. The lawsuit has been filed in Ontario County (the “New York Litigation”). It alleges that over one thousand (1,000) citizens constitute the putative class in the New York Litigation, and it seeks damages for diminution of property values and infringement of the putative class’ rights to live without interference to their daily lives due to odors emanating from the Ontario County Landfill, which is operated by us pursuant to a long-term Operation, Maintenance and Lease Agreement with Ontario County. The New York Litigation was served on us on October 14, 2019. We are reviewing the New York Litigation and intend to present a vigorous defense. Hakes Landfill Litigation On or about December 19, 2019, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“Department”) issued certain permits to us to expand the landfill owned and operated by Hakes C&D Disposal Inc. (“Hakes”) in the Town of Campbell, Steuben County, New York. The permits authorize approximately five years of expansion capacity at the Hakes Landfill. The authorizations issued by the Department followed approvals issued by the Town of Campbell Planning Board (“Planning Board”) in January 2019, and the Town Board of the Town of Campbell (“Town Board”) in March 2019, granting site plan review and a zoning change for the project. Through litigation commenced by the Sierra Club, several other non-governmental organizations, and several individuals, the Petitioners have challenged the approvals issued by the Department, the Planning Board and the Town Board in New York State Supreme Court, Steuben County. The challenge is based upon allegations that the agencies issuing these approvals did not follow the requirements of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law of the State of New York, the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), by failing to address certain radioactivity issues alleged by Petitioners to be associated with certain wastes drilling wastes authorized for disposal at the Hakes Landfill. The petitioners have also made a motion for a preliminary injunction to restrain construction and operation of the expansion cell. We, as well as all of the involved agencies, are vigorously defending against the litigation. The parties to the litigation have entered into a stipulation to facilitate progress in the litigation and the motion for a preliminary injunction has been adjourned until the end of August, which should give the court time to address the merits of the petition before addressing the motion for a preliminary injunction. There is no restriction on construction and we anticipate completing the construction at the Hakes Landfill by the end of August, 2020. Loss Contingency On January 9, 2019, NCES filed an application for a 1.2 million (cy) expansion of the capacity of the NCES Landfill with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (“NHDES”) (“Stage VI Expansion”). The Stage VI Expansion would provide NCES with over five (5) years of additional capacity beyond the capacity of Stage V. On January 9, 2019, NCES filed an application for a 1.2 million (cy) expansion of the capacity of the NCES Landfill with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (“NHDES”) (“Stage VI Expansion”). The Stage VI Expansion would provide NCES with over five (5) years of additional capacity beyond the capacity of Stage V. In January 2020, NHDES informed NCES and us that NHDES had concerns regarding the short-term public benefit need for the Stage VI expansion, and also in respect of certain technical concerns regarding the Stage VI expansion. Given the fact the NHDES decided to review our permit application for the Stage VI Expansion with respect to public benefit determination using a different regulatory framework than used in any of our previous permitting activities at NCES, we informed the NHDES on February 11, 2020, that while we vigorously disagreed with NHDES’ review of our application and the context for the NHDES’ concerns, we would withdraw our application with the expectation of refiling the application with the NHDES as soon as possible. We refiled our application on March 17, 2020. While the refiling of the application for the Stage VI Expansion could be rejected by the NHDES, and while delay of the Stage VI Expansion will surely occur, we remain confident that we will receive a permit for the Stage VI Expansion. We believe that a loss of $1,415 is reasonably possible, but not probable.

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 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration