XML 35 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.6.0.2
Commitments and Contingencies
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies

10.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 

COMMITMENTS 

Leases 

The Company leases certain facilities and certain equipment under non-cancelable operating leases for periods ranging from one to 45 years, with renewal options for certain leases.  The Company’s total rent expense under operating leases during the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014,  was $29,295,  $26,858 and $27,466, respectively. 

As of December 31, 2016, future minimum lease payments, by calendar year, are as follows: 



 

 

2017

$

26,820 

2018

 

21,528 

2019

 

17,238 

2020

 

14,850 

2021

 

12,280 

Thereafter

 

69,436 



$

162,152 



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 asset deposits. 

At December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company had provided customers and various regulatory authorities with surety bonds in the aggregate amount of approximately $589,270 and $353,828, respectively, to secure its asset closure and retirement requirements and $273,465 and $121,687, 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 $546,145 and $185,753 were outstanding as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, 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, 2016, the Company’s unconditional purchase obligations consist of multiple fixed-price fuel purchase contracts under which it has 22.3 million gallons remaining to be purchased for a total of $52,141.  These fuel purchase contracts expire on or before December 31, 2018.

As of December 31, 2016, future minimum purchase commitments, by calendar year, are as follows: 



 

 

2017

$

42,640 

2018

 

9,501 



$

52,141 



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, 2016 and 2015, the current portion of remediation reserves was $2,316 and $2,328, respectively, which is included in Accrued liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.  At December 31, 2016 and 2015, the long-term portion of remediation reserves was $19,026 and $12,049, respectively, which is included in Other long-term liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.  The 2015 long-term remediation reserve amount includes $11,301 of remediation reserves which the Company established after assuming certain remedial liabilities in the Rock River acquisition during the year ending December 31, 2015.  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 seek to impose fines on the Company or to 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 waste management business.  Except as noted in the matters described below, as of December 31, 2016, there is no current proceeding or litigation involving the Company or its property that the Company believes could have a material adverse impact on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site Allocation Process

The Company’s subsidiary, Northwest Container Services, Inc. (“NWCS”), has been 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 (also known as 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 or the “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) should total about $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.  On November 9, 2016, the EPA and the Washington State Department of Ecology (“Ecology”) conducted a public stakeholder meeting regarding the LDW Site. During the public stakeholder meeting, the EPA provided an overview of the AOC 3 pre-remedial design work and the progress of the on-going work on the EAA cleanups.  At the meeting, both the EPA and Ecology estimated that the pre-design studies being performed pursuant to the AOC 3 would not be completed until the end of 2019.  The next EPA stakeholder meeting is scheduled for June 14, 2017, at which time it is anticipated that more current information on the status of the cleanups will be available. 

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 allocation process is designed to develop evidence relating to each PRP’s nexus, if any, to the LDW Site (regardless of whether that PRP is participating in the allocation process), and to determine each PRP’s share of the past and future response costs.  The goal of the allocation process is to reach agreement on a division of responsibility between and amongst the PRPs so that the PRPs then will be in a position to negotiate a global settlement with the EPA.  

On August 16, 2016, the EPA sent individual letters to each of the PRPs at the LDW Site, including NWCS, stating that it expects to initiate negotiations with all PRPs in early 2018 relating to a Remedial Design/Remedial Action (“RD/RA”) Consent Decree.  An RD/RA Consent Decree provides for the cleanup of the entire site and is often referred to as a “global settlement.”  In the letter the EPA explained this schedule, noting that it expected the pre-remedial design work under the AOC 3 to be completed by the beginning of 2018, and also that it understood that several PRPs are participating in a neutral allocation which the EPA is hopeful will be completed by early 2018.  The EPA encouraged the PRPs to complete the allocation on a schedule consistent with the EPA’s intended negotiation schedule, adding that it expects to initiate the RD/RA negotiations on schedule regardless of the status of the allocation.  The Company cannot provide assurance that the EPA’s schedule can be met.  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, nor 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.

Under CERCLA, certain Federal, State and Indian Tribe officials are designated as natural resource trustees and have responsibility for ensuring the restoration of injured natural resources.  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 at 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, dated March 9, 2016, in which it declined the invitation at that time.  NWCS does not know how other PRPs responded to the Letter, and has not received any further communication from NOAA or the Trustees.  The Trustees have not responded to NWCS’ letter and NWCS is not aware of any further action by the Trustees with respect to the Assessment Plan and NRDA.  At this point, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood or amount of an assessment of natural resource damages against NWCS in connection with this matter.

Some work is being done with respect to natural resource damages (“NRD”) at the LDW Site.  On September 22, 2016, a proposed consent decree settlement was announced between the City of Seattle (the “City”) and NOAA and the other natural resource trustees for the LDW Site.  The proposed NRD settlement that the City has entered into at the LDW Site, if approved, will generally provide that the City will fund the development of restoration projects by purchasing restoration credits from Bluefield Holdings, a company that develops such projects.  At this time, NWCS has not been approached by either the Council or the trustees for the LDW Site regarding participation in any similar NRD settlements.

Collective Bargaining Agreements 

Fourteen of the Company’s collective bargaining agreements have expired or are set to expire in 2017.  The Company does not expect any significant disruption in its overall business in 2017 as a result of labor negotiations, employee strikes or organizational efforts.