LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 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. Liabilities from litigation are accrued when known, probable and estimable. 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 early stages of discovery. 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 early stages of discovery. 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 "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 "NOV"). Under the Settlement, without admitting to any of the allegations contained in the NOV, we agreed to pay a civil penalty of $2,322,536, of which half, or $1,161,268, was paid within 30 days after December 3, 2014. The remaining $1,161,268 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 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 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. 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 Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"). The complaint seeks certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of the greater of actual damages or the sum of $500 for each violation and injunctive and other relief. Under the TCPA, the statutory remedy of $500 per violation may be trebled if the Court finds the violations to be willful or knowing. On May 22, 2014, we filed our answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations therein. Discovery in the case is proceeding. We have not accrued any amounts in respect of the TCPA action, 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) the proceedings are at an early stage and discovery is ongoing and (ii) other reported TCPA claims have resulted in a broad range of outcomes, with each case being dependent on its own unique facts and circumstances. 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 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. On September 18, 2014, our wholly-owned subsidiary, Stericycle Specialty Waste Solutions, Inc., received a notice of violation ("NOV") from the New Mexico Environment Department ("NMED") concerning our 10-day transfer facility in Albuquerque. The violations alleged in the 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. We have met with NMED and are currently in discussions regarding a resolution of the matters alleged in the NOV. We believe that the penalties ultimately assessed under the NOV could exceed $100,000 but that, in any event, they will not 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. Liabilities from litigation are accrued when known, probable and estimable.

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 early stages of discovery.

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 early stages of discovery.

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 "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 "NOV"). Under the Settlement, without admitting to any of the allegations contained in the NOV, we agreed to pay a civil penalty of $2,322,536, of which half, or $1,161,268, was paid within 30 days after December 3, 2014. The remaining $1,161,268 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 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 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. 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 Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"). The complaint seeks certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of the greater of actual damages or the sum of $500 for each violation and injunctive and other relief. Under the TCPA, the statutory remedy of $500 per violation may be trebled if the Court finds the violations to be willful or knowing. On May 22, 2014, we filed our answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations therein. Discovery in the case is proceeding.

We have not accrued any amounts in respect of the TCPA action, 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) the proceedings are at an early stage and discovery is ongoing and (ii) other reported TCPA claims have resulted in a broad range of outcomes, with each case being dependent on its own unique facts and circumstances.

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 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.

On September 18, 2014, our wholly-owned subsidiary, Stericycle Specialty Waste Solutions, Inc., received a notice of violation ("NOV") from the New Mexico Environment Department ("NMED") concerning our 10-day transfer facility in Albuquerque. The violations alleged in the 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. We have met with NMED and are currently in discussions regarding a resolution of the matters alleged in the NOV. We believe that the penalties ultimately assessed under the NOV could exceed $100,000 but that, in any event, they will not be material to our financial statements.