LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 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. 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. Qui Tam Action. As disclosed in our current report on Form 8-K filed on October 14, 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement on October 8, 2015 to resolve all claims made against us in the previously disclosed qui tam (or "whistle blower") action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois captioned United States of America ex rel. Jennifer D. Perez v. Stericycle, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-2390 (the "Qui Tam Action"). Originally filed under seal on April 28, 2008 by a former employee of ours ("Relator") on behalf of the federal government, the Qui Tam Action was amended on June 28, 2010 to add the States of California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia, and the District of Columbia (except for New Hampshire and New York, the "Government Entities"). The Qui Tam Action was further amended on July 23, 2013 to allege certain claims on behalf of the Government Entities and to drop any claims on behalf of the State of New Hampshire. The State of New York pursued its own investigation under the New York False Claims Act resulting in our settlement announced by the New York Attorney General’s office on January 8, 2013. Brought under the federal False Claims Act and comparable state statutes, the Qui Tam Action alleged that, from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2014, we improperly increased our service price to certain government customers without their consent or contractual authorization. We have denied all liability for the claims made in the Qui Tam 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 Relator (the "Settlement"), we paid (i) $26.75 million to a third-party administrator to be allocated among the Government Entities as determined by the Government Entities themselves without any involvement by us and (ii) $1.75 million in full satisfaction of any claims by Relator and Relator’s counsel for attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs. We did not admit in the Settlement to any of the allegations in the Qui Tam Action, and the Settlement cannot be used as an admission of wrongdoing or liability on our part. In addition, we are completely released from any and all claims brought by Relator and the Government Entities. In view of the Settlement, we recorded a pre-tax charge of $28.5 million during the third quarter 2015 which is included in SG&A expenses on our Consolidated Statement of Income. We made the payments described above on October 21, 2015 in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. On February 1, 2016, the Qui Tam Action was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Settlement. 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 arose out of the Qui Tam Action described above. 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 granted our Motion to Transfer these related actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings (the "MDL Action"). On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL Action, generally denying the allegations therein. On January 29, 2016, the plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint and a Motion for Class Certification in the MDL Action. The Motion requests that the court certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of certain of our small quantity customers who received rate increases. We intend to strongly contest the Motion. We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of our customer contracts and that these complaints are without merit. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves against each of these lawsuits. We have not accrued any amounts in respect of these class action 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) we do not know whether the court will certify any class of plaintiffs or, if any class is certified, how the class would be defined, and (iii) in our judgment, there are no comparable proceedings against other defendants that might provide guidance in making estimates. 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 filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the "Court"). The TCPA Action was 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 alleged 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 attorneys’ fees and expenses to plaintiffs’ attorneys, and to pay fees and costs of a third-party settlement administrator (the "TCPA Settlement"). The plaintiffs’ attorneys sought attorneys’ 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 did not admit to any of the allegations in the TCPA Action and are completely released from any claims related to faxes sent by us or on our behalf from March 25, 2010 through April 30, 2015. On August 27, 2015, the TCPA Action was dismissed with prejudice. Based on the claims filed in connection with the TCPA Settlement, we recorded a pre-tax charge of $28.2 million during 2015 which is included in SG&A expenses on our Consolidated Statement of Income. We made payments totaling $15.2 million in respect of the incentive awards to each of the class representatives and the attorneys’ fees and expenses of plaintiffs’ attorneys during August 2015. In December 2015, we paid a total of $13.0 million in respect of valid claims submitted by class members within the claims period. 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 may be subject to 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 February 29, 2016, we entered into a statute of limitations tolling agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah relating to that Office’s investigation of the same facts underlying the notice of violation (the "NOV") issued by the State of Utah Division of Air Quality (the "DAQ") that resulted in our December 2014 settlement with the DAQ that we have previously disclosed. The U.S. Attorney’s Office is investigating whether the matters forming the basis of the NOV constitute violations of the Clean Air Act and other federal statutes. Under the tolling agreement, the period from March 1, 2016 through July 31, 2016 will be excluded from any calculation of time for the purpose of determining the statute of limitations concerning any charges that we violated federal statutes. The agreement does not constitute an admission of guilt or wrongdoing on our part and cannot be construed as a waiver of any other rights or defenses that we may have in any resulting action or proceeding. We will continue to cooperate with the investigation.

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.

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.

Qui Tam Action. As disclosed in our current report on Form 8-K filed on October 14, 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement on October 8, 2015 to resolve all claims made against us in the previously disclosed qui tam (or "whistle blower") action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois captioned United States of America ex rel. Jennifer D. Perez v. Stericycle, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-2390 (the "Qui Tam Action"). Originally filed under seal on April 28, 2008 by a former employee of ours ("Relator") on behalf of the federal government, the Qui Tam Action was amended on June 28, 2010 to add the States of California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia, and the District of Columbia (except for New Hampshire and New York, the "Government Entities"). The Qui Tam Action was further amended on July 23, 2013 to allege certain claims on behalf of the Government Entities and to drop any claims on behalf of the State of New Hampshire. The State of New York pursued its own investigation under the New York False Claims Act resulting in our settlement announced by the New York Attorney General’s office on January 8, 2013. Brought under the federal False Claims Act and comparable state statutes, the Qui Tam Action alleged that, from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2014, we improperly increased our service price to certain government customers without their consent or contractual authorization. We have denied all liability for the claims made in the Qui Tam 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 Relator (the "Settlement"), we paid (i) $26.75 million to a third-party administrator to be allocated among the Government Entities as determined by the Government Entities themselves without any involvement by us and (ii) $1.75 million in full satisfaction of any claims by Relator and Relator’s counsel for attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs. We did not admit in the Settlement to any of the allegations in the Qui Tam Action, and the Settlement cannot be used as an admission of wrongdoing or liability on our part. In addition, we are completely released from any and all claims brought by Relator and the Government Entities.

In view of the Settlement, we recorded a pre-tax charge of $28.5 million during the third quarter 2015 which is included in SG&A expenses on our Consolidated Statement of Income. We made the payments described above on October 21, 2015 in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. On February 1, 2016, the Qui Tam Action was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Settlement.

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 arose out of the Qui Tam Action described above.

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 granted our Motion to Transfer these related actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings (the "MDL Action"). On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL Action, generally denying the allegations therein.

On January 29, 2016, the plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint and a Motion for Class Certification in the MDL Action. The Motion requests that the court certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of certain of our small quantity customers who received rate increases. We intend to strongly contest the Motion.

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

We have not accrued any amounts in respect of these class action 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) we do not know whether the court will certify any class of plaintiffs or, if any class is certified, how the class would be defined, and (iii) in our judgment, there are no comparable proceedings against other defendants that might provide guidance in making estimates.

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 filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the "Court"). The TCPA Action was 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 alleged 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 attorneys’ fees and expenses to plaintiffs’ attorneys, and to pay fees and costs of a third-party settlement administrator (the "TCPA Settlement"). The plaintiffs’ attorneys sought attorneys’ 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 did not admit to any of the allegations in the TCPA Action and are completely released from any claims related to faxes sent by us or on our behalf from March 25, 2010 through April 30, 2015. On August 27, 2015, the TCPA Action was dismissed with prejudice.

Based on the claims filed in connection with the TCPA Settlement, we recorded a pre-tax charge of $28.2 million during 2015 which is included in SG&A expenses on our Consolidated Statement of Income. We made payments totaling $15.2 million in respect of the incentive awards to each of the class representatives and the attorneys’ fees and expenses of plaintiffs’ attorneys during August 2015. In December 2015, we paid a total of $13.0 million in respect of valid claims submitted by class members within the claims period.

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 may be subject to 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 February 29, 2016, we entered into a statute of limitations tolling agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah relating to that Office’s investigation of the same facts underlying the notice of violation (the "NOV") issued by the State of Utah Division of Air Quality (the "DAQ") that resulted in our December 2014 settlement with the DAQ that we have previously disclosed. The U.S. Attorney’s Office is investigating whether the matters forming the basis of the NOV constitute violations of the Clean Air Act and other federal statutes. Under the tolling agreement, the period from March 1, 2016 through July 31, 2016 will be excluded from any calculation of time for the purpose of determining the statute of limitations concerning any charges that we violated federal statutes. The agreement does not constitute an admission of guilt or wrongdoing on our part and cannot be construed as a waiver of any other rights or defenses that we may have in any resulting action or proceeding. We will continue to cooperate with the investigation.