Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies	7. Commitments and Contingencies Financial Instruments — We have obtained letters of credit, performance bonds and insurance policies and have established trust funds and issued financial guarantees to support tax-exempt bonds, contracts, performance of landfill final capping, closure and post-closure requirements, environmental remediation, and other obligations. Letters of credit generally are supported by our revolving credit facility and other credit facilities established for that purpose. We obtain surety bonds and insurance policies from an entity in which we have a noncontrolling financial interest. We also obtain insurance from a wholly-owned insurance company, the sole business of which is to issue policies for us. In those instances where our use of financial assurance from entities we own or have financial interests in is not allowed, we have available alternative financial assurance mechanisms. Management does not expect that any claims against or draws on these instruments would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. We have not experienced any unmanageable difficulty in obtaining the required financial assurance instruments for our current operations. In an ongoing effort to mitigate risks of future cost increases and reductions in available capacity, we continue to evaluate various options to access cost-effective sources of financial assurance. Insurance — We carry insurance coverage for protection of our assets and operations from certain risks including automobile liability, general liability, real and personal property, workers’ compensation, directors’ and officers’ liability, pollution legal liability and other coverages we believe are customary to the industry. Our exposure to loss for insurance claims is generally limited to the per incident deductible under the related insurance policy. Our exposure, however, could increase if our insurers are unable to meet their commitments on a timely basis. We have retained a significant portion of the risks related to our automobile, general liability and workers’ compensation claims programs. “General liability” refers to the self-insured portion of specific third party claims made against us that may be covered under our commercial General Liability Insurance Policy. For our self-insured retentions, the exposure for unpaid claims and associated expenses, including incurred but not reported losses, is based on an actuarial valuation and internal estimates. The accruals for these liabilities could be revised if future occurrences or loss development significantly differ from our assumptions used. We do not expect the impact of any known casualty, property, environmental or other contingency to have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Guarantees — In the ordinary course of our business, WM and WM Holdings enter into guarantee agreements associated with their subsidiaries’ operations. Additionally, WM and WM Holdings have each guaranteed all of the senior debt of the other entity. No additional liabilities have been recorded for these intercompany guarantees because all of the underlying obligations are reflected in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. We also have guaranteed the obligations and certain performance requirements of, and provided indemnification to, third parties in the ordinary course of business for both consolidated and unconsolidated entities. Guarantee agreements outstanding as of September 30, 2012 include (i) guarantees of unconsolidated entities’ financial obligations maturing through 2020 for maximum future payments of $10 million; and (ii) agreements guaranteeing certain market value losses for approximately 850 homeowners’ properties adjacent to or near 20 of our landfills. Our indemnification obligations generally arise from divestitures and provide that we will be responsible for liabilities associated with our operations for events that occurred prior to the sale of the operations. Additionally, under certain of our acquisition agreements, we have provided for additional consideration to be paid to the sellers if established financial targets are achieved post-closing, and we have recognized liabilities for these contingent obligations based on an estimate of the fair value of these contingencies at the time of acquisition. Contingent obligations related to indemnifications arising from our divestitures and contingent consideration provided for by our acquisitions are not expected to be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Environmental Matters — A significant portion of our operating costs and capital expenditures could be characterized as costs of environmental protection as we are subject to an array of laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. Under current laws and regulations, we may have liabilities for environmental damage caused by our operations, or for damage caused by conditions that existed before we acquired a site. In addition to remediation activity required by state or local authorities, such liabilities include potentially responsible party, or PRP, investigations. The costs associated with these liabilities can include settlements and certain legal and consultant fees, as well as incremental internal and external costs directly associated with site investigation and clean-up. Estimating our degree of responsibility for remediation is inherently difficult. We recognize and accrue for an estimated remediation liability when we determine that such liability is both probable and reasonably estimable. Determining the method and ultimate cost of remediation requires that a number of assumptions be made. There can sometimes be a range of reasonable estimates of the costs associated with the likely site remediation alternatives identified in the investigation of the extent of environmental impact. In these cases, we use the amount within the range that constitutes our best estimate. If no amount within a range appears to be a better estimate than any other, we use the amount that is the low end of such range. If we used the high ends of such ranges, our aggregate potential liability would be approximately $150 million higher than the $264 million recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements as of September 30, 2012. Our ultimate responsibility may differ materially from current estimates. It is possible that technological, regulatory or enforcement developments, the results of environmental studies, the inability to identify other PRPs, the inability of other PRPs to contribute to the settlements of such liabilities, or other factors could require us to record additional liabilities. Our ongoing review of our remediation liabilities, in light of relevant internal and external facts and circumstances, could result in revisions to our accruals that could cause upward or downward adjustments to income from operations. These adjustments could be material in any given period. As of September 30, 2012, we had been notified that we are a PRP in connection with 80 locations listed on the EPA’s Superfund National Priorities List, or NPL. Of the 80 sites at which claims have been made against us, 16 are sites we own. Each of the NPL sites we own was initially developed as a landfill disposal facility by one or more other parties. At each of these facilities, we are working in conjunction with the government to characterize or remediate identified site problems, and we have either agreed with other legally liable parties on an arrangement for sharing the costs of remediation or are working toward a cost-sharing agreement. We generally expect to receive any amounts due from other participating parties at or near the time that we make the remedial expenditures. The other 64 NPL sites, which we do not own, are at various procedural stages under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, known as CERCLA or Superfund. The majority of these proceedings involving NPL sites that we do not own are based on allegations that certain of our subsidiaries (or their predecessors) transported hazardous substances to the sites, often prior to our acquisition of these subsidiaries. CERCLA generally provides for liability for those parties owning, operating, transporting to or disposing at the sites. Proceedings arising under Superfund typically involve numerous waste generators and other waste transportation and disposal companies and seek to allocate or recover costs associated with site investigation and remediation, which costs could be substantial and could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. At some of the sites at which we have been identified as a PRP, our liability is well defined as a consequence of a governmental decision and an agreement among liable parties as to the share each will pay for implementing that remedy. At other sites, where no remedy has been selected or the liable parties have been unable to agree on an appropriate allocation, our future costs are uncertain. Item 103 of the SEC’s Regulation S-K requires disclosure of certain environmental matters when a governmental authority is a party to the proceedings, or such proceedings are known to be contemplated, unless we reasonably believe that the matter will result in no monetary sanctions, or in monetary sanctions, exclusive of interest and costs, of less than $100,000. The following matters are disclosed in accordance with that requirement. We do not currently believe that the eventual outcome of any such matters, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. On April 4, 2006, the EPA issued a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) to Waste Management of Hawaii, Inc., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of WM, and to the City and County of Honolulu for alleged violations of the federal Clean Air Act, based on alleged failure to submit certain reports and design plans required by the EPA, and the failure to begin and timely complete the installation of a gas collection and control system (“GCCS”) for the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill on Oahu. The EPA has also indicated that it will seek penalties and injunctive relief as part of the NOV enforcement for elevated landfill temperatures that were recorded after installation of the GCCS. The parties have been in confidential settlement negotiations. Pursuant to an indemnity agreement, any penalty assessed will be paid by the Company, and not by the City and County of Honolulu. On December 22, 2011, the Harris County Attorney in Houston, Texas filed suit against McGinnes Industrial Maintenance Corporation (“MIMC”), WM and Waste Management of Texas, Inc., et al, seeking civil penalties and attorneys’ fees for alleged violations of the Texas Water Code and the Texas Health and Safety Code. The County’s Original Petition pending in the District Court of Harris County, Texas alleges the mismanagement of certain waste pits that were operated from 1965 to 1966 by MIMC. In 1998, a predecessor of WM acquired the stock of the parent entity of MIMC. On April 20, 2012, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) transmitted a proposed Consent Order and Agreement to Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of WM, for alleged violations of Pennsylvania solid waste regulations, including certain operations failures, at the Northwest Sanitary Landfill. PADEP has indicated that it is seeking penalties and corrective action. Additionally, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Hawaii has commenced an investigation prompted by allegations of violations of the federal Clean Water Act involving discharge of stormwater at the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill, located on Oahu, in connection with three major storm events in December 2010 and January 2011. No formal enforcement action has been brought against the Company. While we could potentially be subject to sanctions, including requirements to pay monetary penalties, in connection with a future proceeding that may arise from the investigation, a range of loss cannot currently be estimated because no proceeding has yet commenced and significant factual and legal issues remain. We are cooperating with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Litigation — In April 2002, certain former participants in the ERISA plans of WM Holdings filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a case entitled William S. Harris, et al. v. James E. Koenig, et al. The lawsuit attempts to increase the recovery of a class of ERISA plan participants on behalf of the plan based on allegations related to both the events alleged in, and the settlements relating to, the securities class action against WM Holdings that was settled in 1998, the litigation against WM in Texas that was settled in 2002, as well as the decision to offer WM common stock as an investment option within the plan beginning in 1990, despite alleged knowledge by at least two members of the investment committee of financial misstatement by WM during the relevant time period. During the second quarter of 2010, the Court dismissed certain claims against individual defendants, including all claims against each of the current members of our Board of Directors. Previously, plaintiffs dismissed all claims related to the settlement of the securities class action against WM that was settled in 2002, and the court certified a limited class of participants who may bring claims on behalf of the plan, but not individually. During the third quarter of 2011, the Court ruled in favor of WM and two former employees dismissing all claims brought by the plaintiffs related to the decision to offer WM stock as an investment option within the plan. We have reached a settlement with the plaintiffs on this matter, with a proposed class settlement agreement submitted to the Court on October 17, 2012. We anticipate all the details with respect to the settlement will be resolved and finally approved by the Court within the next few months. We do not believe the settlement could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. In October 2011 and January 2012, we were named as a defendant in a purported class action in the Circuit Court of Sarasota County, Florida and the Circuit Court of Lawrence County Alabama, respectively. These cases primarily pertain to our fuel and environmental charges included on our invoices, generally alleging that such charges were not properly disclosed, were unfair and were contrary to the customer service contracts. The law firm that filed these lawsuits had filed, in 2008, a purported class action against subsidiaries of WM in Bullock County, Alabama, making similar allegations. The prior Alabama suit was removed to federal court, where the federal court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs’ national class action claims. The plaintiffs then elected to dismiss the case without prejudice. We will vigorously defend against these pending lawsuits. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any potential class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss cannot currently be estimated. From time to time, we are also named as defendants in personal injury and property damage lawsuits, including purported class actions, on the basis of having owned, operated or transported waste to a disposal facility that is alleged to have contaminated the environment or, in certain cases, on the basis of having conducted environmental remediation activities at sites. Some of the lawsuits may seek to have us pay the costs of monitoring of allegedly affected sites and health care examinations of allegedly affected persons for a substantial period of time even where no actual damage is proven. While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these lawsuits, the ultimate resolution is often substantially uncertain due to the difficulty of determining the cause, extent and impact of alleged contamination (which may have occurred over a long period of time), the potential for successive groups of complainants to emerge, the diversity of the individual plaintiffs’ circumstances, and the potential contribution or indemnification obligations of co-defendants or other third parties, among other factors. Additionally, we often enter into contractual arrangements with landowners imposing obligations on us to meet certain regulatory or contractual conditions upon site closure or upon termination of the agreements. Compliance with these arrangements is inherently subject to subjective determinations and may result in disputes, including litigation. As a large company with operations across the United States and Canada, we are subject to various proceedings, lawsuits, disputes and claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. Many of these actions raise complex factual and legal issues and are subject to uncertainties. Actions filed against us include commercial, customer, and employment-related claims, including purported class action lawsuits related to our sales and marketing practices and our customer service agreements and purported class actions involving federal and state wage and hour and other laws. The plaintiffs in some actions seek unspecified damages or injunctive relief, or both. These actions are in various procedural stages, and some are covered in part by insurance. We currently do not believe that the eventual outcome of any such actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. WM’s charter and bylaws provide that WM shall indemnify against all liabilities and expenses, and upon request shall advance expenses to, any person who is subject to a pending or threatened proceeding because such person is a director or officer of the Company. Such indemnification is required to the maximum extent permitted under Delaware law. Accordingly, the director or officer must reimburse the Company for any fees advanced if it is later determined that the director or officer was not entitled to have such fees advanced under Delaware law. Additionally, WM has entered into separate indemnification agreements with each of the members of its Board of Directors, and the employment agreements between WM and its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and other executive and senior vice presidents contain a direct contractual obligation of the Company to provide indemnification to the executive. The Company may incur substantial expenses in connection with the fulfillment of its advancement of costs and indemnification obligations in connection with current actions involving former officers of the Company or its subsidiaries or other actions or proceedings that may be brought against its former or current officers, directors and employees. Multiemployer Defined Benefit Pension Plans — About 20% of our workforce is covered by collective bargaining agreements with various union locals across the United States and Canada. As a result of some of these agreements, certain of our subsidiaries are participating employers in a number of trustee-managed multiemployer, defined benefit pension plans for the affected employees. In connection with our ongoing renegotiation of various collective bargaining agreements, we may discuss and negotiate for the complete or partial withdrawal from one or more of these pension plans. A complete or partial withdrawal from a multiemployer pension plan may also occur if employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement vote to decertify a union from continuing to represent them. One of the most significant multiemployer pension plans in which we have participated is the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan (“Central States Pension Plan”). The Central States Pension Plan is in “critical status” as defined by the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Since 2008, certain of our affiliates have bargained to remove covered employees from the Central States Pension Plan, resulting in a series of withdrawals. In October 2011, employees at the last of our affiliates with active participants in the Central States Pension Plan voted to decertify the union that represented them, withdrawing themselves from the Central States Pension Plan. We are still negotiating and litigating final resolutions of our withdrawal liability for previous withdrawals, including our recent final withdrawal mentioned above, but we do not believe any additional liability above the charges we have already recognized for such previous withdrawals could be material to the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. We also do not believe that any future withdrawals, individually or in the aggregate, from the multiemployer plans to which we contribute, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or liquidity. However, such withdrawals could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations for a particular reporting period, depending on the number of employees withdrawn in any future period and the financial condition of the multiemployer plan(s) at the time of such withdrawal(s). Tax Matters — We are currently in the examination phase of IRS audits for the tax years 2011 and 2012 and expect these audits to be completed within the next three and 15 months, respectively. We participate in the IRS’s Compliance Assurance Program, which means we work with the IRS throughout the year in order to resolve any material issues prior to the filing of our year-end tax return. We are also currently undergoing audits by various state and local jurisdictions that date back to 2000. We have finalized audits in Canada through the 2005 tax year and are not currently under audit for any subsequent tax years in Canada. On July 28, 2011, we acquired Oakleaf, which is subject to IRS examinations for years dating back to 2009 and state income tax examinations for years dating back to 2002. Pursuant to the terms of our acquisition of Oakleaf, we are entitled to indemnification for Oakleaf’s pre-acquisition tax liabilities. We maintain a liability for uncertain tax positions, the balance of which management believes is adequate. Results of audit assessments by taxing authorities are not currently expected to have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or cash flows.

7. Commitments and Contingencies

Financial Instruments — We have obtained letters of credit, performance bonds and insurance policies and have established trust funds and issued financial guarantees to support tax-exempt bonds, contracts, performance of landfill final capping, closure and post-closure requirements, environmental remediation, and other obligations. Letters of credit generally are supported by our revolving credit facility and other credit facilities established for that purpose. We obtain surety bonds and insurance policies from an entity in which we have a noncontrolling financial interest. We also obtain insurance from a wholly-owned insurance company, the sole business of which is to issue policies for us. In those instances where our use of financial assurance from entities we own or have financial interests in is not allowed, we have available alternative financial assurance mechanisms.

Management does not expect that any claims against or draws on these instruments would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. We have not experienced any unmanageable difficulty in obtaining the required financial assurance instruments for our current operations. In an ongoing effort to mitigate risks of future cost increases and reductions in available capacity, we continue to evaluate various options to access cost-effective sources of financial assurance.

Insurance — We carry insurance coverage for protection of our assets and operations from certain risks including automobile liability, general liability, real and personal property, workers’ compensation, directors’ and officers’ liability, pollution legal liability and other coverages we believe are customary to the industry. Our exposure to loss for insurance claims is generally limited to the per incident deductible under the related insurance policy. Our exposure, however, could increase if our insurers are unable to meet their commitments on a timely basis.

We have retained a significant portion of the risks related to our automobile, general liability and workers’ compensation claims programs. “General liability” refers to the self-insured portion of specific third party claims made against us that may be covered under our commercial General Liability Insurance Policy. For our self-insured retentions, the exposure for unpaid claims and associated expenses, including incurred but not reported losses, is based on an actuarial valuation and internal estimates. The accruals for these liabilities could be revised if future occurrences or loss development significantly differ from our assumptions used. We do not expect the impact of any known casualty, property, environmental or other contingency to have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Guarantees — In the ordinary course of our business, WM and WM Holdings enter into guarantee agreements associated with their subsidiaries’ operations. Additionally, WM and WM Holdings have each guaranteed all of the senior debt of the other entity. No additional liabilities have been recorded for these intercompany guarantees because all of the underlying obligations are reflected in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

We also have guaranteed the obligations and certain performance requirements of, and provided indemnification to, third parties in the ordinary course of business for both consolidated and unconsolidated entities. Guarantee agreements outstanding as of September 30, 2012 include (i) guarantees of unconsolidated entities’ financial obligations maturing through 2020 for maximum future payments of $10 million; and (ii) agreements guaranteeing certain market value losses for approximately 850 homeowners’ properties adjacent to or near 20 of our landfills. Our indemnification obligations generally arise from divestitures and provide that we will be responsible for liabilities associated with our operations for events that occurred prior to the sale of the operations. Additionally, under certain of our acquisition agreements, we have provided for additional consideration to be paid to the sellers if established financial targets are achieved post-closing, and we have recognized liabilities for these contingent obligations based on an estimate of the fair value of these contingencies at the time of acquisition. Contingent obligations related to indemnifications arising from our divestitures and contingent consideration provided for by our acquisitions are not expected to be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Environmental Matters — A significant portion of our operating costs and capital expenditures could be characterized as costs of environmental protection as we are subject to an array of laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. Under current laws and regulations, we may have liabilities for environmental damage caused by our operations, or for damage caused by conditions that existed before we acquired a site. In addition to remediation activity required by state or local authorities, such liabilities include potentially responsible party, or PRP, investigations. The costs associated with these liabilities can include settlements and certain legal and consultant fees, as well as incremental internal and external costs directly associated with site investigation and clean-up.

Estimating our degree of responsibility for remediation is inherently difficult. We recognize and accrue for an estimated remediation liability when we determine that such liability is both probable and reasonably estimable. Determining the method and ultimate cost of remediation requires that a number of assumptions be made. There can sometimes be a range of reasonable estimates of the costs associated with the likely site remediation alternatives identified in the investigation of the extent of environmental impact. In these cases, we use the amount within the range that constitutes our best estimate. If no amount within a range appears to be a better estimate than any other, we use the amount that is the low end of such range. If we used the high ends of such ranges, our aggregate potential liability would be approximately $150 million higher than the $264 million recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements as of September 30, 2012. Our ultimate responsibility may differ materially from current estimates. It is possible that technological, regulatory or enforcement developments, the results of environmental studies, the inability to identify other PRPs, the inability of other PRPs to contribute to the settlements of such liabilities, or other factors could require us to record additional liabilities. Our ongoing review of our remediation liabilities, in light of relevant internal and external facts and circumstances, could result in revisions to our accruals that could cause upward or downward adjustments to income from operations. These adjustments could be material in any given period.

As of September 30, 2012, we had been notified that we are a PRP in connection with 80 locations listed on the EPA’s Superfund National Priorities List, or NPL. Of the 80 sites at which claims have been made against us, 16 are sites we own. Each of the NPL sites we own was initially developed as a landfill disposal facility by one or more other parties. At each of these facilities, we are working in conjunction with the government to characterize or remediate identified site problems, and we have either agreed with other legally liable parties on an arrangement for sharing the costs of remediation or are working toward a cost-sharing agreement. We generally expect to receive any amounts due from other participating parties at or near the time that we make the remedial expenditures. The other 64 NPL sites, which we do not own, are at various procedural stages under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, known as CERCLA or Superfund.

The majority of these proceedings involving NPL sites that we do not own are based on allegations that certain of our subsidiaries (or their predecessors) transported hazardous substances to the sites, often prior to our acquisition of these subsidiaries. CERCLA generally provides for liability for those parties owning, operating, transporting to or disposing at the sites. Proceedings arising under Superfund typically involve numerous waste generators and other waste transportation and disposal companies and seek to allocate or recover costs associated with site investigation and remediation, which costs could be substantial and could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. At some of the sites at which we have been identified as a PRP, our liability is well defined as a consequence of a governmental decision and an agreement among liable parties as to the share each will pay for implementing that remedy. At other sites, where no remedy has been selected or the liable parties have been unable to agree on an appropriate allocation, our future costs are uncertain.

Item 103 of the SEC’s Regulation S-K requires disclosure of certain environmental matters when a governmental authority is a party to the proceedings, or such proceedings are known to be contemplated, unless we reasonably believe that the matter will result in no monetary sanctions, or in monetary sanctions, exclusive of interest and costs, of less than $100,000. The following matters are disclosed in accordance with that requirement. We do not currently believe that the eventual outcome of any such matters, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

On April 4, 2006, the EPA issued a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) to Waste Management of Hawaii, Inc., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of WM, and to the City and County of Honolulu for alleged violations of the federal Clean Air Act, based on alleged failure to submit certain reports and design plans required by the EPA, and the failure to begin and timely complete the installation of a gas collection and control system (“GCCS”) for the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill on Oahu. The EPA has also indicated that it will seek penalties and injunctive relief as part of the NOV enforcement for elevated landfill temperatures that were recorded after installation of the GCCS. The parties have been in confidential settlement negotiations. Pursuant to an indemnity agreement, any penalty assessed will be paid by the Company, and not by the City and County of Honolulu.

On December 22, 2011, the Harris County Attorney in Houston, Texas filed suit against McGinnes Industrial Maintenance Corporation (“MIMC”), WM and Waste Management of Texas, Inc., et al, seeking civil penalties and attorneys’ fees for alleged violations of the Texas Water Code and the Texas Health and Safety Code. The County’s Original Petition pending in the District Court of Harris County, Texas alleges the mismanagement of certain waste pits that were operated from 1965 to 1966 by MIMC. In 1998, a predecessor of WM acquired the stock of the parent entity of MIMC.

On April 20, 2012, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) transmitted a proposed Consent Order and Agreement to Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of WM, for alleged violations of Pennsylvania solid waste regulations, including certain operations failures, at the Northwest Sanitary Landfill. PADEP has indicated that it is seeking penalties and corrective action.

Additionally, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Hawaii has commenced an investigation prompted by allegations of violations of the federal Clean Water Act involving discharge of stormwater at the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill, located on Oahu, in connection with three major storm events in December 2010 and January 2011. No formal enforcement action has been brought against the Company. While we could potentially be subject to sanctions, including requirements to pay monetary penalties, in connection with a future proceeding that may arise from the investigation, a range of loss cannot currently be estimated because no proceeding has yet commenced and significant factual and legal issues remain. We are cooperating with the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Litigation — In April 2002, certain former participants in the ERISA plans of WM Holdings filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a case entitled William S. Harris, et al. v. James E. Koenig, et al. The lawsuit attempts to increase the recovery of a class of ERISA plan participants on behalf of the plan based on allegations related to both the events alleged in, and the settlements relating to, the securities class action against WM Holdings that was settled in 1998, the litigation against WM in Texas that was settled in 2002, as well as the decision to offer WM common stock as an investment option within the plan beginning in 1990, despite alleged knowledge by at least two members of the investment committee of financial misstatement by WM during the relevant time period.

During the second quarter of 2010, the Court dismissed certain claims against individual defendants, including all claims against each of the current members of our Board of Directors. Previously, plaintiffs dismissed all claims related to the settlement of the securities class action against WM that was settled in 2002, and the court certified a limited class of participants who may bring claims on behalf of the plan, but not individually. During the third quarter of 2011, the Court ruled in favor of WM and two former employees dismissing all claims brought by the plaintiffs related to the decision to offer WM stock as an investment option within the plan. We have reached a settlement with the plaintiffs on this matter, with a proposed class settlement agreement submitted to the Court on October 17, 2012. We anticipate all the details with respect to the settlement will be resolved and finally approved by the Court within the next few months. We do not believe the settlement could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

In October 2011 and January 2012, we were named as a defendant in a purported class action in the Circuit Court of Sarasota County, Florida and the Circuit Court of Lawrence County Alabama, respectively. These cases primarily pertain to our fuel and environmental charges included on our invoices, generally alleging that such charges were not properly disclosed, were unfair and were contrary to the customer service contracts. The law firm that filed these lawsuits had filed, in 2008, a purported class action against subsidiaries of WM in Bullock County, Alabama, making similar allegations. The prior Alabama suit was removed to federal court, where the federal court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs’ national class action claims. The plaintiffs then elected to dismiss the case without prejudice. We will vigorously defend against these pending lawsuits. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any potential class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss cannot currently be estimated.

From time to time, we are also named as defendants in personal injury and property damage lawsuits, including purported class actions, on the basis of having owned, operated or transported waste to a disposal facility that is alleged to have contaminated the environment or, in certain cases, on the basis of having conducted environmental remediation activities at sites. Some of the lawsuits may seek to have us pay the costs of monitoring of allegedly affected sites and health care examinations of allegedly affected persons for a substantial period of time even where no actual damage is proven. While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these lawsuits, the ultimate resolution is often substantially uncertain due to the difficulty of determining the cause, extent and impact of alleged contamination (which may have occurred over a long period of time), the potential for successive groups of complainants to emerge, the diversity of the individual plaintiffs’ circumstances, and the potential contribution or indemnification obligations of co-defendants or other third parties, among other factors. Additionally, we often enter into contractual arrangements with landowners imposing obligations on us to meet certain regulatory or contractual conditions upon site closure or upon termination of the agreements. Compliance with these arrangements is inherently subject to subjective determinations and may result in disputes, including litigation.

As a large company with operations across the United States and Canada, we are subject to various proceedings, lawsuits, disputes and claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. Many of these actions raise complex factual and legal issues and are subject to uncertainties. Actions filed against us include commercial, customer, and employment-related claims, including purported class action lawsuits related to our sales and marketing practices and our customer service agreements and purported class actions involving federal and state wage and hour and other laws. The plaintiffs in some actions seek unspecified damages or injunctive relief, or both. These actions are in various procedural stages, and some are covered in part by insurance. We currently do not believe that the eventual outcome of any such actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

WM’s charter and bylaws provide that WM shall indemnify against all liabilities and expenses, and upon request shall advance expenses to, any person who is subject to a pending or threatened proceeding because such person is a director or officer of the Company. Such indemnification is required to the maximum extent permitted under Delaware law. Accordingly, the director or officer must reimburse the Company for any fees advanced if it is later determined that the director or officer was not entitled to have such fees advanced under Delaware law. Additionally, WM has entered into separate indemnification agreements with each of the members of its Board of Directors, and the employment agreements between WM and its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and other executive and senior vice presidents contain a direct contractual obligation of the Company to provide indemnification to the executive. The Company may incur substantial expenses in connection with the fulfillment of its advancement of costs and indemnification obligations in connection with current actions involving former officers of the Company or its subsidiaries or other actions or proceedings that may be brought against its former or current officers, directors and employees.

Multiemployer Defined Benefit Pension Plans — About 20% of our workforce is covered by collective bargaining agreements with various union locals across the United States and Canada. As a result of some of these agreements, certain of our subsidiaries are participating employers in a number of trustee-managed multiemployer, defined benefit pension plans for the affected employees. In connection with our ongoing renegotiation of various collective bargaining agreements, we may discuss and negotiate for the complete or partial withdrawal from one or more of these pension plans. A complete or partial withdrawal from a multiemployer pension plan may also occur if employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement vote to decertify a union from continuing to represent them.

One of the most significant multiemployer pension plans in which we have participated is the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan (“Central States Pension Plan”). The Central States Pension Plan is in “critical status” as defined by the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Since 2008, certain of our affiliates have bargained to remove covered employees from the Central States Pension Plan, resulting in a series of withdrawals. In October 2011, employees at the last of our affiliates with active participants in the Central States Pension Plan voted to decertify the union that represented them, withdrawing themselves from the Central States Pension Plan.

We are still negotiating and litigating final resolutions of our withdrawal liability for previous withdrawals, including our recent final withdrawal mentioned above, but we do not believe any additional liability above the charges we have already recognized for such previous withdrawals could be material to the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. We also do not believe that any future withdrawals, individually or in the aggregate, from the multiemployer plans to which we contribute, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or liquidity. However, such withdrawals could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations for a particular reporting period, depending on the number of employees withdrawn in any future period and the financial condition of the multiemployer plan(s) at the time of such withdrawal(s).

Tax Matters — We are currently in the examination phase of IRS audits for the tax years 2011 and 2012 and expect these audits to be completed within the next three and 15 months, respectively. We participate in the IRS’s Compliance Assurance Program, which means we work with the IRS throughout the year in order to resolve any material issues prior to the filing of our year-end tax return. We are also currently undergoing audits by various state and local jurisdictions that date back to 2000. We have finalized audits in Canada through the 2005 tax year and are not currently under audit for any subsequent tax years in Canada. On July 28, 2011, we acquired Oakleaf, which is subject to IRS examinations for years dating back to 2009 and state income tax examinations for years dating back to 2002. Pursuant to the terms of our acquisition of Oakleaf, we are entitled to indemnification for Oakleaf’s pre-acquisition tax liabilities. We maintain a liability for uncertain tax positions, the balance of which management believes is adequate. Results of audit assessments by taxing authorities are not currently expected to have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or cash flows.