Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	15.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In the normal course of its business and as a result of the extensive governmental regulation of the solid waste and E&P waste industries, the Company is subject to various judicial and administrative proceedings involving federal, state or local agencies. In these proceedings, an agency may seek to impose fines on the Company or to revoke or deny renewal of an operating permit held by the Company. 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 March 31, 2015, 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. Madera County, California Materials Recovery Facility Contract Litigation The Company’s subsidiary, Madera Disposal Systems, Inc. (“MDSI”) was named in a complaint captioned County of Madera vs. Madera Disposal Systems, Inc., et al, filed in Madera County Superior Court (Case No. MCV 059402) on March 5, 2012, and subsequently transferred to Fresno County Superior Court. Madera County alleges in the complaint that from 2007 through 2010, MDSI breached a contract with the County for the operation of a materials recovery facility by withholding profits from facility operations in excess of those authorized by the contract. The County further alleges that the breach gives the County the unilateral right to terminate all of its contracts with MDSI, including contracts for (1) the collection of residential and commercial waste in the unincorporated parts of the County, (2) operation of the materials recovery facility, (3) operation of the North Fork Transfer Station and (4) operation of the Fairmead Landfill. The County seeks monetary damages of $2,962 from MDSI, plus pre-judgment interest at 10% per annum. MDSI had been under contract with the County to collect residential and commercial waste and operate the county-owned Fairmead Landfill continuously since at least 1981. In 1993, MDSI contracted with the County to construct and operate a materials recovery facility for the County on the premises of the Fairmead Landfill. After it entered into the materials recovery facility contract, MDSI entered into new contracts with the County for waste collection and landfill operation to run concurrently with the materials recovery facility contract. In 1998, MDSI and the County agreed to extend the terms of the County contracts until November 10, 2012, with MDSI holding a unilateral option to extend the contracts for an additional five-year term. In March 2011, the County issued a Notice of Default to MDSI under the materials recovery facility contract and gave MDSI 30 days to cure the default. MDSI provided information that it believed demonstrated that it was not in default under the contract and had not withheld profits that it was obligated to deliver to the County under the terms of the contract. On February 7, 2012, the County issued a Notice of Termination to MDSI terminating all of its contracts effective November 1, 2012. The lawsuit followed on March 5, 2012. MDSI answered the complaint and asserted a claim against the County for wrongful termination of the contracts. On October 31, 2012, MDSI ceased providing services and vacated the County premises. The case is set for trial in Fresno in September 2015. At this point, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter. The Company disputes Madera County’s right to terminate the MDSI contracts effective November 1, 2012, and seeks damages for the profits lost as a result of the wrongful termination. The Company estimates that the current annual impact to its pre-tax earnings resulting from the termination of MDSI’s contracts with Madera County is approximately $2,300 per year, not including any monetary damages and interest the Court could order MDSI to pay the County. 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”), along with more than 100 others, as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) 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 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, and on December 2, 2014, the EPA issued its Record of Decision (“ROD”) describing the selected remedy. The EPA estimates the total cleanup costs (in present value dollars) at $342,000, and estimates that it will take seven years to implement the remedy. Implementation will not begin until after the ongoing Early Action Area cleanups have been completed (estimated to be in mid-2015), as well as additional baseline sampling throughout the LDW Site and the preparation of a remedial design, activities that will take a number of years. The ROD also specifies ten years of monitoring following the cleanup, and provides that if the cleanup goals have not been met by the close of this period, then additional remediation activities may be required at that time. 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 non-binding allocation of certain past and future response costs allegedly incurred at the LDW Site. The allocation process is designed to develop evidence relating to each PRP’s nexus, if any, to the LDW Site (whether or not that PRP is participating in the allocation process), for the allocator to hear arguments as to how each PRP’s nexus affects the allocation of response costs, and to determine each PRP’s share of the cleanup costs. NWCS is defending itself vigorously in this confidential allocation process and does not anticipate being allocated material liability. The allocation process is currently scheduled to be completed in mid-2018 with the entry of cleanup implementation and cash-out settlement agreements between and amongst the PRPs and the EPA. At this point the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter.

15.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In the normal course of its business and as a result of the extensive governmental regulation of the solid waste and E&P waste industries, the Company is subject to various judicial and administrative proceedings involving federal, state or local agencies. In these proceedings, an agency may seek to impose fines on the Company or to revoke or deny renewal of an operating permit held by the Company. 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 March 31, 2015, 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.

Madera County, California Materials Recovery Facility Contract Litigation

The Company’s subsidiary, Madera Disposal Systems, Inc. (“MDSI”) was named in a complaint captioned County of Madera vs. Madera Disposal Systems, Inc., et al, filed in Madera County Superior Court (Case No. MCV 059402) on March 5, 2012, and subsequently transferred to Fresno County Superior Court. Madera County alleges in the complaint that from 2007 through 2010, MDSI breached a contract with the County for the operation of a materials recovery facility by withholding profits from facility operations in excess of those authorized by the contract. The County further alleges that the breach gives the County the unilateral right to terminate all of its contracts with MDSI, including contracts for (1) the collection of residential and commercial waste in the unincorporated parts of the County, (2) operation of the materials recovery facility, (3) operation of the North Fork Transfer Station and (4) operation of the Fairmead Landfill. The County seeks monetary damages of $2,962 from MDSI, plus pre-judgment interest at 10% per annum.

MDSI had been under contract with the County to collect residential and commercial waste and operate the county-owned Fairmead Landfill continuously since at least 1981. In 1993, MDSI contracted with the County to construct and operate a materials recovery facility for the County on the premises of the Fairmead Landfill. After it entered into the materials recovery facility contract, MDSI entered into new contracts with the County for waste collection and landfill operation to run concurrently with the materials recovery facility contract. In 1998, MDSI and the County agreed to extend the terms of the County contracts until November 10, 2012, with MDSI holding a unilateral option to extend the contracts for an additional five-year term.

In March 2011, the County issued a Notice of Default to MDSI under the materials recovery facility contract and gave MDSI 30 days to cure the default. MDSI provided information that it believed demonstrated that it was not in default under the contract and had not withheld profits that it was obligated to deliver to the County under the terms of the contract.

On February 7, 2012, the County issued a Notice of Termination to MDSI terminating all of its contracts effective November 1, 2012. The lawsuit followed on March 5, 2012. MDSI answered the complaint and asserted a claim against the County for wrongful termination of the contracts. On October 31, 2012, MDSI ceased providing services and vacated the County premises. The case is set for trial in Fresno in September 2015.

At this point, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter. The Company disputes Madera County’s right to terminate the MDSI contracts effective November 1, 2012, and seeks damages for the profits lost as a result of the wrongful termination. The Company estimates that the current annual impact to its pre-tax earnings resulting from the termination of MDSI’s contracts with Madera County is approximately $2,300 per year, not including any monetary damages and interest the Court could order MDSI to pay the County.

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”), along with more than 100 others, as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) 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 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, and on December 2, 2014, the EPA issued its Record of Decision (“ROD”) describing the selected remedy. The EPA estimates the total cleanup costs (in present value dollars) at $342,000, and estimates that it will take seven years to implement the remedy. Implementation will not begin until after the ongoing Early Action Area cleanups have been completed (estimated to be in mid-2015), as well as additional baseline sampling throughout the LDW Site and the preparation of a remedial design, activities that will take a number of years. The ROD also specifies ten years of monitoring following the cleanup, and provides that if the cleanup goals have not been met by the close of this period, then additional remediation activities may be required at that time. 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 non-binding allocation of certain past and future response costs allegedly incurred at the LDW Site. The allocation process is designed to develop evidence relating to each PRP’s nexus, if any, to the LDW Site (whether or not that PRP is participating in the allocation process), for the allocator to hear arguments as to how each PRP’s nexus affects the allocation of response costs, and to determine each PRP’s share of the cleanup costs. NWCS is defending itself vigorously in this confidential allocation process and does not anticipate being allocated material liability. The allocation process is currently scheduled to be completed in mid-2018 with the entry of cleanup implementation and cash-out settlement agreements between and amongst the PRPs and the EPA. At this point the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter.