LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
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. 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 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. Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint, we were served with class action complaints filed in federal court in California, Florida, Illinois 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. 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. On May 28, 2013, we received a notice of violation and order to comply from the State of Utah Division of Air Quality alleging violations of certain conditions of the operating permit for our incineration facility in North Salt Lake relating to emissions and emissions testing at the facility. We have subsequently completed testing, in accordance with protocols approved by the Division of Air Quality, that demonstrates that the facility is currently operating in compliance with applicable emissions standards and our permit conditions. We filed a formal response to the notice of violation on September 27, 2013 and remain in discussions with the Division of Air Quality regarding a resolution of this matter.

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.

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 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.

Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint, we were served with class action complaints filed in federal court in California, Florida, Illinois 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.

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.

On May 28, 2013, we received a notice of violation and order to comply from the State of Utah Division of Air Quality alleging violations of certain conditions of the operating permit for our incineration facility in North Salt Lake relating to emissions and emissions testing at the facility. We have subsequently completed testing, in accordance with protocols approved by the Division of Air Quality, that demonstrates that the facility is currently operating in compliance with applicable emissions standards and our permit conditions. We filed a formal response to the notice of violation on September 27, 2013 and remain in discussions with the Division of Air Quality regarding a resolution of this matter.