LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
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 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, 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. 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 class action complaints, 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 class action proceedings are at an early stage and (iii) in our judgment, there are no comparable class action proceedings against other defendants that might provide guidance in making estimates. We review our outstanding legal proceedings with counsel quarterly, and we will disclose an estimate of the 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. Utah Proceedings. 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. We estimate that the cost of resolving matters with the Division of Air Quality will not be material to our financial statements. Junk Fax Lawsuit. On April 2, 2014, we were served with a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case 1:14-cv-02070) by an individual plaintiff for himself and on behalf of all other “similarly situated” persons. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we sent facsimile transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to plaintiff and others similarly situated in violation of the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. The complaint seeks certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief. On May 22, 2014, we filed our answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations therein. PSC Environmental. 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 wastes. 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.

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 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, 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.

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 class action complaints, 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 class action proceedings are at an early stage and (iii) in our judgment, there are no comparable class action proceedings against other defendants that might provide guidance in making estimates. We review our outstanding legal proceedings with counsel quarterly, and we will disclose an estimate of the 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.

Utah Proceedings. 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. We estimate that the cost of resolving matters with the Division of Air Quality will not be material to our financial statements.

Junk Fax Lawsuit. On April 2, 2014, we were served with a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case 1:14-cv-02070) by an individual plaintiff for himself and on behalf of all other “similarly situated” persons. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we sent facsimile transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to plaintiff and others similarly situated in violation of the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. The complaint seeks certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief. On May 22, 2014, we filed our answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations therein.

PSC Environmental. 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 wastes.

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.