LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS We operate in a highly regulated industry and must deal with regulatory inquiries or investigations from time to time that may be instituted for a variety of reasons. We are also involved in a variety of civil litigation from time to time. Class Action Lawsuits. As we have previously disclosed, we were served on March 12, 2013 with a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and on behalf of all other “similarly situated” customers of ours. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief. The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under the New York False Claims Act (which the class action complaint describes at some length). The New York investigation arose out of a qui tam (or “whistle blower”) complaint under the federal False Claims Act and comparable state statutes which was filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in April 2008 by a former employee of ours. The qui tam complaint was filed on behalf of the United States and 14 states and the District of Columbia. On September 4, 2013, we filed our answer to Plaintiff-Relator’s Second Amended Complaint, generally denying the allegations therein. Also, as previously disclosed, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Virginia and North Carolina have issued civil investigative demands to explore the allegations made on their behalf in the qui tam complaint but have not yet decided whether to join the Illinois action. The qui tam case is in the discovery stage. Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint, we were served with class action complaints filed in federal court in California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi and Utah and in state court in California. These complaints asserted claims and allegations substantially similar to those made in the Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New York. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) granted our Motion to Transfer these related actions to the Northern District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings. On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL action, generally denying the allegations therein. The MDL action is in the discovery stage. We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of our customer contracts and that these complaints are without merit. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against each of these lawsuits. We have not accrued any amounts in respect of these lawsuits, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its nature uncertain and unpredictable, (ii) the proceedings are at an early stage and (iii) in our judgment, there are no comparable proceedings against other defendants that might provide guidance in making estimates. Utah Proceedings. As previously disclosed, on December 3, 2014, we entered into an administrative settlement order (the “DAQ Settlement”) with the State of Utah Division of Air Quality (the “DAQ”) concerning a notice of violation and order to comply issued by the DAQ on May 28, 2013 and superseded by an amended notice of violation and order to comply issued on August 28, 2013 (the “DAQ NOV”). Under the DAQ Settlement, without admitting to any of the allegations contained in the DAQ NOV, we agreed to pay a civil penalty of $2.3 million, of which half, or $1.2 million , was paid within 30 days after December 3, 2014. The remaining $1.2 million will not be paid but instead will be credited to us as a Supplemental Environmental Project credit when we permanently close our North Salt Lake incineration facility which is required to occur no later than three years after we receive all permits and approvals necessary to commence construction of a new incineration facility to be located in Tooele County, Utah. The DAQ Settlement provides full and final resolution of any and all claims under the authority of the DAQ arising out of the allegations contained in the DAQ NOV and cannot be used by other parties to allege violations or negligence on our part in any other litigation or proceeding. Junk Fax Lawsuit. As previously disclosed, on May 20, 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all claims made against us and certain of our subsidiaries in Sawyer v. Stericycle, et al., Case No. 2015 CH 07190 (the “TCPA Action”), a class action complaint pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the “Court”). The TCPA Action is the successor lawsuit to the class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case 1:14-cv-02070) that we have previously disclosed and that was dismissed pursuant to the parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal. The TCPA Action alleges that from 2010 to 2014 we violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, by sending facsimile advertisements to plaintiffs or putative class members that either were unsolicited and/or did not contain a valid opt-out notice. We have denied all liability for the claims made in the TCPA Action but have agreed to settle to avoid the expense, burden and inherent risk and uncertainty of litigation. Under the terms of the settlement agreement entered into with the two class representatives, we agreed to make available a fund of $45.0 million (the “Settlement Fund”) to pay class members who submit a valid claim form within a 90-day period, to pay an incentive award to each of the class representatives, to pay fees and expenses to plaintiffs’ attorneys, and to pay fees and costs of a third-party settlement administrator (the “TCPA Settlement”). The plaintiffs’ attorneys are seeking fees of one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus out-of-pocket expenses, to be paid from the Settlement Fund. As part of the TCPA Settlement, we do not admit to any of the allegations in the TCPA Action and will be completely released from any claims related to faxes sent by us or on our behalf from March 25, 2010 through April 30, 2015. The Settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Court and is awaiting final approval. In view of the TCPA Settlement, we have recorded an accrual of $45.0 million in accrued liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet and a pre-tax charge of $45.0 million in "Selling, general and administrative expenses" on our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income for the three- and six-months ending June 30, 2015. We anticipate making payments from the Settlement Fund as described above sometime during the fourth quarter of 2015. We review all of our outstanding legal proceedings with counsel quarterly, and we will disclose an estimate of any reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses if and when we are able to make such an estimate and the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses is material to our financial statements. Environmental Matters. On April 22, 2014, we completed our acquisition of PSC Environmental Services, LLC (“PSC Environmental”) and consequently became subject to the legal proceedings in which PSC Environmental was a party on that date. PSC Environmental’s operations are regulated by federal, state and local laws enacted to regulate the discharge of materials into the environment, remediate contaminated soil and groundwater or otherwise protect the environment. As a result of this continuing regulation, PSC Environmental frequently becomes a party to legal or administrative proceedings involving various governmental authorities and other interested parties. The issues involved in these proceedings generally relate to alleged violations of existing permits and licenses or alleged responsibility under federal or state Superfund laws to remediate contamination at properties owned either by PSC Environmental or by other parties to which either PSC Environmental or the prior owners of certain of its facilities shipped waste. From time to time, PSC Environmental pays fines or penalties in regulatory proceedings relating primarily to waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities. We believe that the fines or other penalties that PSC Environmental may pay in connection with any pending regulatory proceedings of this nature will not, individually or in the aggregate, be material to our financial statements. On September 18, 2014, our wholly-owned subsidiary, Stericycle Specialty Waste Solutions, Inc., received a notice of violation (“NMED NOV”) from the New Mexico Environment Department (“NMED”) concerning our 10-day transfer facility in Albuquerque. The violations alleged in the NMED NOV generally relate to the management of Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (“CESQG”) waste under a CESQG agreement that we have with NMED, as well as some recordkeeping matters. On April 21, 2015, we entered into a Stipulated Final Order (the “Order”) with NMED to settle and completely resolve the violations alleged in the NMED NOV. Under the Order, without admitting to any of the violations alleged in the NMED NOV, we agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $120.8 thousand . NMED in turn agreed not to sue or to take any administrative or civil action against us under the New Mexico Hazardous Waste Act, Hazardous Waste Management Regulations or the CESQG agreement for any of the facts or violations alleged in the NMED NOV or the Order.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We operate in a highly regulated industry and must deal with regulatory inquiries or investigations from time to time that may be instituted for a variety of reasons. We are also involved in a variety of civil litigation from time to time.

Class Action Lawsuits. As we have previously disclosed, we were served on March 12, 2013 with a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and on behalf of all other “similarly situated” customers of ours. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief.

The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under the New York False Claims Act (which the class action complaint describes at some length). The New York investigation arose out of a qui tam (or “whistle blower”) complaint under the federal False Claims Act and comparable state statutes which was filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in April 2008 by a former employee of ours. The qui tam complaint was filed on behalf of the United States and 14 states and the District of Columbia. On September 4, 2013, we filed our answer to Plaintiff-Relator’s Second Amended Complaint, generally denying the allegations therein. Also, as previously disclosed, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Virginia and North Carolina have issued civil investigative demands to explore the allegations made on their behalf in the qui tam complaint but have not yet decided whether to join the Illinois action. The qui tam case is in the discovery stage.

Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint, we were served with class action complaints filed in federal court in California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi and Utah and in state court in California. These complaints asserted claims and allegations substantially similar to those made in the Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New York. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) granted our Motion to Transfer these related actions to the Northern District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings. On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL action, generally denying the allegations therein. The MDL action is in the discovery stage.

We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of our customer contracts and that these complaints are without merit. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against each of these lawsuits.

We have not accrued any amounts in respect of these lawsuits, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its nature uncertain and unpredictable, (ii) the proceedings are at an early stage and (iii) in our judgment, there are no comparable proceedings against other defendants that might provide guidance in making estimates.

Utah Proceedings. As previously disclosed, on December 3, 2014, we entered into an administrative settlement order (the “DAQ Settlement”) with the State of Utah Division of Air Quality (the “DAQ”) concerning a notice of violation and order to comply issued by the DAQ on May 28, 2013 and superseded by an amended notice of violation and order to comply issued on August 28, 2013 (the “DAQ NOV”). Under the DAQ Settlement, without admitting to any of the allegations contained in the DAQ NOV, we agreed to pay a civil penalty of $2.3 million, of which half, or $1.2 million , was paid within 30 days after December 3, 2014. The remaining $1.2 million will not be paid but instead will be credited to us as a Supplemental Environmental Project credit when we permanently close our North Salt Lake incineration facility which is required to occur no later than three years after we receive all permits and approvals necessary to commence construction of a new incineration facility to be located in Tooele County, Utah. The DAQ Settlement provides full and final resolution of any and all claims under the authority of the DAQ arising out of the allegations contained in the DAQ NOV and cannot be used by other parties to allege violations or negligence on our part in any other litigation or proceeding.

Junk Fax Lawsuit. As previously disclosed, on May 20, 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all claims made against us and certain of our subsidiaries in Sawyer v. Stericycle, et al., Case No. 2015 CH 07190 (the “TCPA Action”), a class action complaint pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the “Court”). The TCPA Action is the successor lawsuit to the class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case 1:14-cv-02070) that we have previously disclosed and that was dismissed pursuant to the parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal. The TCPA Action alleges that from 2010 to 2014 we violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, by sending facsimile advertisements to plaintiffs or putative class members that either were unsolicited and/or did not contain a valid opt-out notice. We have denied all liability for the claims made in the TCPA Action but have agreed to settle to avoid the expense, burden and inherent risk and uncertainty of litigation.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement entered into with the two class representatives, we agreed to make available a fund of $45.0 million (the “Settlement Fund”) to pay class members who submit a valid claim form within a 90-day period, to pay an incentive award to each of the class representatives, to pay fees and expenses to plaintiffs’ attorneys, and to pay fees and costs of a third-party settlement administrator (the “TCPA Settlement”). The plaintiffs’ attorneys are seeking fees of one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus out-of-pocket expenses, to be paid from the Settlement Fund. As part of the TCPA Settlement, we do not admit to any of the allegations in the TCPA Action and will be completely released from any claims related to faxes sent by us or on our behalf from March 25, 2010 through April 30, 2015.

The Settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Court and is awaiting final approval. In view of the TCPA Settlement, we have recorded an accrual of $45.0 million in accrued liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet and a pre-tax charge of $45.0 million in "Selling, general and administrative expenses" on our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income for the three- and six-months ending June 30, 2015. We anticipate making payments from the Settlement Fund as described above sometime during the fourth quarter of 2015.

We review all of our outstanding legal proceedings with counsel quarterly, and we will disclose an estimate of any reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses if and when we are able to make such an estimate and the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses is material to our financial statements.

Environmental Matters. On April 22, 2014, we completed our acquisition of PSC Environmental Services, LLC (“PSC Environmental”) and consequently became subject to the legal proceedings in which PSC Environmental was a party on that date. PSC Environmental’s operations are regulated by federal, state and local laws enacted to regulate the discharge of materials into the environment, remediate contaminated soil and groundwater or otherwise protect the environment. As a result of this continuing regulation, PSC Environmental frequently becomes a party to legal or administrative proceedings involving various governmental authorities and other interested parties. The issues involved in these proceedings generally relate to alleged violations of existing permits and licenses or alleged responsibility under federal or state Superfund laws to remediate contamination at properties owned either by PSC Environmental or by other parties to which either PSC Environmental or the prior owners of certain of its facilities shipped waste.

From time to time, PSC Environmental pays fines or penalties in regulatory proceedings relating primarily to waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities. We believe that the fines or other penalties that PSC Environmental may pay in connection with any pending regulatory proceedings of this nature will not, individually or in the aggregate, be material to our financial statements.

On September 18, 2014, our wholly-owned subsidiary, Stericycle Specialty Waste Solutions, Inc., received a notice of violation (“NMED NOV”) from the New Mexico Environment Department (“NMED”) concerning our 10-day transfer facility in Albuquerque. The violations alleged in the NMED NOV generally relate to the management of Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (“CESQG”) waste under a CESQG agreement that we have with NMED, as well as some recordkeeping matters. On April 21, 2015, we entered into a Stipulated Final Order (the “Order”) with NMED to settle and completely resolve the violations alleged in the NMED NOV. Under the Order, without admitting to any of the violations alleged in the NMED NOV, we agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $120.8 thousand . NMED in turn agreed not to sue or to take any administrative or civil action against us under the New Mexico Hazardous Waste Act, Hazardous Waste Management Regulations or the CESQG agreement for any of the facts or violations alleged in the NMED NOV or the Order.