COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of our business and as a result of the extensive governmental regulation of the solid waste industry, we are subject to various judicial and administrative proceedings involving state and local agencies. In these proceedings, an agency may seek to impose fines or to revoke or deny renewal of an operating permit held by us. From time to time, we 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 and transfer stations, or allegations of environmental damage or violations of the permits and licenses pursuant to which we operate. In addition, we may be named defendants in 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 ordinary operation of a waste management business.

In accordance with FASB ASC 450-20, we accrue for legal proceedings, inclusive of legal costs, when losses become probable and reasonably estimable. As of the end of each applicable reporting period, we review each of our legal proceedings to determine whether it is probable, reasonably possible or remote that a liability has been incurred and, if it is at least reasonably possible, whether a range of loss can be reasonably estimated under the provisions of FASB ASC 450-20. In instances where we determine that a loss is probable and we can reasonably estimate a range of loss we may incur with respect to such a matter, we record an accrual for the amount within the range that constitutes our best estimate of the possible loss. If we are able to reasonably estimate a range, but no amount within the range appears to be a better estimate than any other, we record an accrual in the amount that is the low end of such range. When a loss is reasonably possible, but not probable, we will not record an accrual, but we will disclose our estimate of the possible range of loss where such estimate can be made in accordance with FASB ASC 450-20.

Expera Old Town, LLC v. Casella Waste Systems, Inc.

On or about November 6, 2015, Expera Old Town, LLC (“Expera”) filed a lawsuit against us in Maine Superior Court, seeking damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment and an action for declaratory judgment (“Lawsuit”). Expera was a successor-in-interest to a contract between us and Old Town Fuel and Fiber (“OTFF”), the former owner of a pulp manufacturing facility (“Facility”) located in Old Town, Maine (“Contract”). Expera purchased the Facility during the pendency of the bankruptcy of OTFF. Since the filing of the Lawsuit, Expera has sold the Facility and related assets to MFGR LLC (“MFGR”). MFGR alleged that we had the obligation to provide a specialized type of wood fuel to the Facility or, alternatively, that we owed a “Fuel Replacement Fee” of up to $2,000 a year (subject to the possibility of certain credits against such payments). The Contract was to expire in 2036.

On or about February 10, 2016, we reached an agreement in principle with MFGR to dismiss the Lawsuit with prejudice, and to resolve all outstanding claims of any nature including future claims which could arise under the Contract, and a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice was filed with the Superior Court on April 15, 2016. On or about April 12, 2016, the Parties entered into a Settlement Agreement (“SA”) along with other ancillary agreements. Pursuant to the SA, we paid MFGR $1,250 upon execution of the SA, and will pay $350 a year for five years following execution of the SA. Accordingly, taking into account the net present value of the settlement payments, we recorded a reserve of $2,616 that included a contract settlement charge of $1,940 and operating expenses of $676 recorded in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. As of September 30, 2016, $1,420 of this reserve remains outstanding. We have also reserved $34 for legal costs associated with the Lawsuit and SA as of September 30, 2016.

We have also entered into a new leachate disposal agreement at market prices with MFGR for the treatment of leachate from the landfill managed by us for the state of Maine located in Old Town, Maine (“Juniper Ridge Landfill”), and MFGR has entered into a waste disposal agreement at market prices with us for the disposal at Juniper Ridge Landfill of waste materials produced in the demolition or re-purposing of the Facility.

Environmental Remediation Liability

We are subject to liability for environmental damage, including personal injury and property damage, that our solid waste, recycling and power generation facilities may cause to neighboring property owners, particularly as a result of the contamination of drinking water sources or soil, possibly including damage resulting from conditions that existed before we acquired the facilities. We may also be subject to liability for similar claims arising from off-site environmental contamination caused by pollutants or hazardous substances if we or our predecessors arrange or arranged to transport, treat or dispose of those materials. The following matters represent our material outstanding claims.

Southbridge Recycling & Disposal Park, Inc.

In October 2015, our Southbridge Recycling and Disposal Park, Inc. (“SRD”) subsidiary reported to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“MADEP”) results of analysis of samples collected pursuant to our existing permit from private drinking water wells located near the Town of Southbridge, Massachusetts Landfill (“Southbridge Landfill”), which is operated by SRD. Those results indicated the presence of contaminants above the levels triggering notice and response obligations under MADEP regulations. In response to those results, we are carrying out an Immediate Response Action pursuant to state law. Further, we have implemented a plan to analyze and better understand the groundwater near the Southbridge Landfill and we are investigating with the objective of identifying the source or sources of the elevated levels of contamination measured in the well samples. If it is determined that some or all of the contamination originated at the Southbridge Landfill, we will work with the Town of Southbridge (“Town”), the Southbridge Landfill owner and the former operator of an unlined portion of the Southbridge Landfill, which was used prior to our operation of a double-lined portion of the Southbridge Landfill commencing in 2004, to evaluate and allocate the liabilities related to that contamination. In July 2016, we sent correspondence to the Town pursuant to Chapter 21E of Massachusetts General Laws demanding that the Town reimburse us for the incurrence of environmental response costs and that the Town be responsible for all such costs in the future, as well as any other costs or liabilities resulting from the release of contaminants from the unlined portion of the Southbridge Landfill. The Town responded in September 2016, denying that the Southbridge Landfill is the source of such contamination, and claiming that if it is, that we may owe an indemnity to the Town pursuant to our Operating Agreement between us and the Town dated May 29, 2007, as amended. As of September 30, 2016, we have incurred total costs to date of approximately $1,993.

In February 2016, we received a Notice of Intent to Sue under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act from a law firm representing residents from approximately 40 homes located in the vicinity of the Southbridge Landfill, indicating its intent to file suit against us. We believe it is reasonably possible that a loss may occur as a result of this potential matter although an estimate of loss cannot be reasonably provided at this time. We believe the Town should be responsible for any costs or liabilities associated with this suit relative to alleged contamination originating from the unlined portion of the Southbridge Landfill, although there can be no assurance that we will not be required to incur some or all of such costs and liabilities.

In August 2016, we filed a complaint against Steadfast Insurance Company (“Steadfast”) in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, (the “Litigation”) alleging among other things, that Steadfast breached its Pollution Liability Policy (“Policy”) purchased by us in April 2015, by refusing to acknowledge coverage under the Policy, and refusing to cover any of the costs and liabilities incurred by us as described above as well as costs and liabilities that we may incur in the future. Steadfast filed an answer and counterclaim in September 2016, denying that it has any obligations to us under the Policy, and seeking declaratory judgment of Steadfast’s obligations under the Policy. The costs and liabilities we may be required to incur in connection with the foregoing could have a material impact on our results of operations and financial condition, including our permitting activities and operations at the Southbridge Landfill.

Potsdam Environmental Remediation Liability

On December 20, 2000, the State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) issued an Order on Consent (“Order”) which named Waste-Stream, Inc. (“WSI”), our subsidiary, General Motors Corporation (“GM”) and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (“NiMo”) as Respondents. The Order required that the Respondents undertake certain work on a 25-acre scrap yard and solid waste transfer station owned by WSI in Potsdam, New York, including the preparation of a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“Study”). A draft of the Study was submitted to the DEC in January 2009 (followed by a final report in May 2009). The Study estimated that the undiscounted costs associated with implementing the preferred remedies would be approximately $10,219. On February 28, 2011, the DEC issued a Proposed Remedial Action Plan for the site and accepted public comments on the proposed remedy through March 29, 2011. We submitted comments to the DEC on this matter. In April 2011, the DEC issued the final Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the site. The ROD was subsequently rescinded by the DEC for failure to respond to all submitted comments. The preliminary ROD, however, estimated that the present cost associated with implementing the preferred remedies would be approximately $12,130. The DEC issued the final ROD in June 2011 with proposed remedies consistent with its earlier ROD. An Order on Consent and Administrative Settlement naming WSI and NiMo as Respondents was executed by the Respondents and DEC with an effective date of October 25, 2013. On January 29, 2016, a Cost-Sharing Agreement was executed between WSI, NiMo, Alcoa Inc. (“Alcoa”) and Reynolds Metal Company (“Reynolds”) whereby Alcoa and Reynolds elected to voluntarily participate in the onsite remediation activities at a 15% participant share. It is unlikely that any significant expenditures relating to onsite remediation will be incurred until the fiscal year ending December 31, 2017. WSI is jointly and severally liable with NiMo, Alcoa and Reynolds for the total cost to remediate.

We have recorded an environmental remediation liability associated with the Potsdam site based on incurred costs to date and estimated costs to complete the remediation in other accrued liabilities and other long-term liabilities. Our expenditures could be significantly higher if costs exceed estimates. We inflate the estimated costs in current dollars to the expected time of payment and discount the total cost to present value using a risk free interest rate of 1.8%.

A summary of the changes to the environmental remediation liability associated with the Potsdam environmental remediation liability follows:



	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2016			2015
Beginning balance	$	5,221		$	5,142
Accretion expense	—			59
Obligations settled (1)	(255		)	—
Ending balance	$	4,966		$	5,201


(1)	Includes amounts that are being processed through accounts payable as a part of our disbursement cycle.