Our Company

Waste Connections, Inc. is the third largest non-hazardous solid waste services company in North America, providing waste collection, transfer, disposal and recycling services in mostly exclusive and secondary markets in the U.S. and Canada. Through our R360 Environmental Solutions subsidiary, we are also a leading provider of non-hazardous exploration and production, or E&P, waste treatment, recovery and disposal services in several of the most active natural resource producing areas in the U.S. We also provide intermodal services for the rail haul movement of cargo and solid waste containers in the Pacific Northwest through a network of intermodal facilities.

On June 1, 2016, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of January 18, 2016 (the “Merger Agreement”), Water Merger Sub LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Progressive Waste Solutions Ltd. (“Merger Sub”), merged with and into Waste Connections US, Inc. (f/k/a Waste Connections, Inc.), a Delaware corporation (“Old Waste Connections”) in an all-stock business combination with Old Waste Connections continuing as the surviving corporation and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Waste Connections, Inc. (f/k/a Progressive Waste Solutions Ltd.), a corporation organized under the laws of Ontario, Canada (“New Waste Connections,” “Waste Connections” or the “Company”). We use the term “Progressive Waste acquisition” herein to refer to the transactions completed under the Merger Agreement, and we use the term “Progressive Waste” herein in the context of references to Progressive Waste Solutions Ltd. and its shareholders prior to the completion of the Progressive Waste acquisition on June 1, 2016. All references to “dollars” or “$” used herein refer to U.S. dollars, and all references to CAD $ used herein refer to Canadian dollars, unless otherwise stated.

As of December 31, 2018, we served residential, commercial, industrial and E&P customers in 41 states in the U.S. and six provinces in Canada:  Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming, and the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec and Saskatchewan. 

Our senior management team has extensive experience in operating, acquiring and integrating non-hazardous waste services businesses, and we intend to continue to focus our efforts on both internal and acquisition-based growth.  We anticipate that a part of our future growth will come from acquiring additional waste businesses and, therefore, we expect that additional acquisitions could continue to affect period-to-period comparisons of our operating results. 

Our Operating Strategy

Our operating strategy seeks to improve financial returns and deliver superior shareholder value creation within the solid waste industry.  We generally seek to avoid highly competitive, large urban markets and instead target markets where we can attain high market share either through exclusive contracts, vertical integration or asset positioning. We also target niche markets, like E&P waste treatment and disposal services, with similar characteristics and, we believe, higher comparative growth potential. We are a leading provider of waste services in most of our markets, and the key components of our operating strategy, which are tailored to the competitive and regulatory factors that affect our markets, are as follows: 

Target Secondary and Rural Markets . By targeting secondary and rural markets, we believe that we are able to achieve a higher local market share than would be attainable in more competitive urban markets, which we believe reduces our exposure to customer churn and improves financial returns. In certain niche markets, like E&P waste treatment and disposal, early mover advantage in certain rural basins may improve market positioning and financial returns given the limited availability of existing third-party-owned waste disposal alternatives.

Control the Waste Stream .  In markets where waste collection services are provided under exclusive arrangements, or where waste disposal is municipally owned or funded or available at multiple sources, we believe that controlling the waste stream by providing collection services under exclusive arrangements is often more important to our growth and profitability than owning or operating landfills.  In addition, in certain E&P markets with “no pit” rules or other regulations that limit on-site storage or treatment of waste, control of the waste stream allows us to generate additional service revenue from the transportation, treatment and disposal of waste, thus increasing the overall scope and value of the services provided. 

Optimize Asset Positioning .  We believe that the location of disposal sites within competitive markets is a critical factor to success in the waste services industry.  Given the importance of and costs associated with the transportation of waste to treatment and disposal sites, having disposal capacity proximate to the waste stream may provide a competitive advantage and serve as a barrier to entry.

Provide Vertically Integrated Services .  In markets where we believe that owning landfills is a strategic advantage to a collection operation because of competitive and regulatory factors, we generally focus on providing integrated services, from collection through disposal of solid waste in landfills that we own or operate. Similarly, we see this strategic advantage in E&P waste services where we offer closed loop systems for liquid and solid waste storage, transportation, treatment, and disposal.

Manage on a Decentralized Basis .  We manage our operations on a decentralized basis.  This places decision-making authority closer to the customer, enabling us to identify and address customers’ needs quickly in a cost-effective manner.  We believe that decentralization provides a low-overhead, highly efficient operational structure that allows us to expand into geographically contiguous markets and operate in relatively small communities that larger competitors may not find attractive.  We believe that this structure gives us a strategic competitive advantage, given the relatively rural nature of many of the markets in which we operate, and makes us an attractive buyer to many potential acquisition candidates. 

As of December 31, 2018, we delivered our services from operating locations grouped into six operating segments: our Southern segment services customers located in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, southern Oklahoma, western Tennessee and Texas; our Western segment services customers located in Alaska, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and western Wyoming; our Eastern segment services customers located in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, eastern Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin; our Canada segment services customers located in the state of Michigan and in the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec and Saskatchewan; and our Central segment services customers located in Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, western Texas, Utah and eastern Wyoming. The E&P segment services E&P customers located in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Wyoming and along the Gulf of Mexico.  Some E&P revenues are also included in other operating segments, where we accept E&P waste at some of our municipal solid waste, or MSW landfills. In addition, a small amount of solid waste revenue is included in our E&P segment.

We manage and evaluate our business on the basis of the operating segments’ geographic characteristics, interstate waste flow, revenue base, employee base, regulatory structure, and acquisition opportunities.  Each operating segment has a regional vice president and a regional controller reporting directly to our corporate management.  These regional officers are responsible for operations and accounting in their operating segments and supervise their regional staff.  See Note 14 to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for further information on our segment reporting of our operations. 

Each operating location has a district or site manager who has a high degree of decision-making authority for his or her operations and is responsible for maintaining service quality, promoting safety, implementing marketing programs and overseeing day-to-day operations, including contract administration.  Local managers also help identify acquisition candidates and are responsible for integrating acquired businesses into our operations and obtaining the permits and other governmental approvals required for us to operate. 

Implement Operating Standards .  We develop company-wide operating standards, which are tailored for each of our markets based on industry norms and local conditions.  We implement cost controls and employee training and safety procedures and establish a sales and marketing plan for each market.  By internalizing the waste stream of acquired operations, we can further increase operating efficiencies and improve capital utilization.  We use a wide-area information system network, implement financial controls and consolidate certain accounting, personnel and customer service functions.  While regional and district management operate with a high degree of autonomy, our executive officers monitor regional and district operations and require adherence to our accounting, purchasing, safety, marketing, legal and internal control policies, particularly with respect to financial matters.  Our executive officers regularly review the performance of regional officers, district managers and operations.  We believe we can improve the profitability of existing and newly acquired operations by establishing operating standards, closely monitoring performance and streamlining certain administrative functions. 

Our Growth Strategy

We tailor the components of our growth strategy to the markets in which we operate and into which we hope to expand. 

Obtain Additional Exclusive Arrangements .  Our operations include market areas where we have exclusive arrangements, including franchise agreements, municipal contracts and governmental certificates, under which we are the exclusive service provider for a specified market.  These exclusive rights and contractual arrangements create a barrier to entry that is usually obtained through the acquisition of a company with such exclusive rights or contractual arrangements or by winning a competitive bid. 

We devote significant resources to securing additional franchise agreements and municipal contracts through competitive bidding and by acquiring other companies.  In bidding for franchises and municipal contracts and evaluating acquisition candidates holding governmental certificates, our management team draws on its experience in the waste industry and knowledge of local service areas in existing and target markets.  Our district management and sales and marketing personnel maintain relationships with local governmental officials within their service areas, maintain, renew and renegotiate existing franchise agreements and municipal contracts, and secure additional agreements and contracts while targeting acceptable financial returns.  Our sales and marketing personnel also expand our presence into areas adjacent to or contiguous with our existing markets, and market additional services to existing customers.  We believe our ability to offer comprehensive rail haul disposal services in the Pacific Northwest improves our competitive position in bidding for such contracts in that region. 

Generate Internal Growth .   To generate internal revenue growth, our district management and sales and marketing personnel focus on increasing market penetration in our current and adjacent markets, soliciting new customers in markets where such customers have the option to choose a particular waste collection service and marketing upgraded or additional services (such as compaction or automated collection) to existing customers.  We also seek price increases necessary to offset increased costs, to improve operating margins and to obtain adequate returns on our deployed capital.  Where possible, we intend to leverage our franchise-based platforms to expand our customer base beyond our exclusive market territories.  As customers are added in existing markets, our revenue per routed truck increases, which generally increases our collection efficiencies and profitability.  In markets in which we have exclusive contracts, franchises and governmental certificates, we expect internal volume growth generally to track population and business growth. 

In niche disposal markets, like E&P, our focus is on increasing market penetration, and providing additional service offerings in existing markets where appropriate. In addition, we focus on developing and permitting new treatment and disposal sites in new and existing E&P markets to position ourselves to capitalize on current and future drilling activity in those areas.

Expand Through Acquisitions .  We intend to expand the scope of our operations by continuing to acquire waste businesses in new markets and in existing or adjacent markets that are combined with or “tucked-in” to our existing operations.  We focus our acquisition efforts on markets that we believe provide significant growth opportunities for a well-capitalized market entrant and where we can compete efficiently with potential new competitors.  This focus typically highlights markets in which we can:  (1) provide waste collection services under exclusive arrangements such as franchise agreements, municipal contracts and governmental certificates; (2) gain a leading market position and provide vertically integrated collection and disposal services; or (3) gain a leading market position in a niche market through the provision of treatment and disposal services.  We believe that our experienced management, decentralized operating strategy, financial strength, size and public company status make us an attractive buyer to certain waste collection and disposal acquisition candidates.  We have developed an acquisition discipline based on a set of financial, market and management criteria to evaluate opportunities.  Once an acquisition is closed, we seek to integrate it while minimizing disruption to our ongoing operations and those of the acquired business. 

In new markets, we often use an initial acquisition as an operating base and seek to strengthen the acquired operation's presence in that market by providing additional services, adding new customers and making “tuck-in” acquisitions of other waste companies in that market or adjacent markets.  We believe that many suitable “tuck-in” acquisition opportunities exist within our current and targeted market areas that may provide us with opportunities to increase our market share and route density. 

The North America solid waste services industry has experienced continued consolidation over the past decade, most notably with the sale of the U.S. solid waste business of Veolia Environnement S.A. to Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. in 2012, and our acquisition of Progressive Waste in June 2016.   In spite of this consolidation, the solid waste services industry remains regional in nature, with acquisition opportunities available in select markets.  The E&P waste services industry is similarly regional in nature and is also highly fragmented, with acquisition opportunities available in several active natural resource basins. In some markets in both MSW and E&P waste, independent landfill, collection or service providers lack the capital resources, management skills and/or technical expertise necessary to comply with stringent environmental and other governmental regulations and to compete with larger, more efficient, integrated operators.  In addition, many of the remaining independent operators may wish to sell their businesses to achieve liquidity in their personal finances or as part of their estate planning.

During the year ended December 31, 2018, we completed 20 acquisitions for consideration having a net fair value of $1.032 billion. During the year ended December 31, 2017, we completed 14 acquisitions for consideration having a net fair value of $562.2 million. During 2016, we acquired Progressive Waste for consideration transferred having a net fair value of $5.162 billion.  During the year ended December 31, 2016, we completed 12 other acquisitions for consideration having a net fair value of $17.1 million.

WASTE SERVICES

Collection Services

We provide collection services to residential, commercial, municipal, industrial and E&P customers.  Our services are generally provided under one of the following arrangements:  (1) governmental certificates; (2) exclusive franchise agreements; (3) exclusive municipal contracts; (4) residential subscriptions; (5) residential contracts; or (6) commercial, industrial and E&P service agreements. 

Governmental certificates, exclusive franchise agreements and exclusive municipal contracts grant us rights to provide MSW services within specified areas at established rates and are long-term in nature.  Governmental certificates, or G Certificates, are unique to the State of Washington and are awarded by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, or WUTC, to solid waste collection service providers in unincorporated areas and electing municipalities.  These certificates typically grant the holder the exclusive and perpetual right to provide specific residential, commercial and/or industrial waste services in a defined territory at specified rates, subject to divestiture and/or overlap or cancellation by the WUTC on specified, limited grounds.  Franchise agreements typically provide an exclusive period of seven years or longer for a specified territory; they specify a broad range of services to be provided, establish rates for the services and can give the service provider a right of first refusal to extend the term of the agreement.  Municipal contracts typically provide a shorter service period and a more limited scope of services than franchise agreements and generally require competitive bidding at the end of the contract term.  In markets where exclusive arrangements are not available, we may enter into residential contracts with homeowners’ associations, apartment owners and mobile home park operators, or work on a subscription basis with individual households.  In such markets, we may also provide commercial and industrial services under customer service agreements generally ranging from one to five years in duration.  Finally, in certain E&P markets with “no pit” rules or other regulations that limit on-site storage or treatment of waste, we offer containers and collection services to provide a closed loop system for the collection of drilling wastes at customers’ well sites and subsequent transportation of the waste to our facilities for treatment and disposal.

Landfill Disposal Services

As of December 31, 2018, we owned or operated 68 MSW landfills, 11 E&P waste landfills, which only accept E&P waste, and 14 non-MSW landfills, which only accept construction and demolition, industrial and other non-putrescible waste. Nine of our MSW landfills also received E&P waste during 2018. We generally own landfills to achieve vertical integration in markets where the economic and regulatory environments make landfill ownership attractive.  We also own landfills in certain markets where it is not necessary to provide collection services because we believe that we are able to attract volume to our landfills, given our location or other market dynamics. Over time, MSW landfills generate a greenhouse gas, methane, which can be converted into a valuable source of clean energy. We deploy gas recovery systems at 52 of our landfills to collect methane, which can then be used to generate electricity for local households, fuel local industrial power plants or power alternative fueled vehicles. In some cases, landfill gas generated at our landfills qualifies as a renewable fuel for which renewable fuel credits may be available.

For landfills we operate but do not own, the owner of the property, generally a municipality, usually holds the permit and we operate the landfill pursuant to a landfill operating agreement for a contracted term, which may be the life of the landfill.  Where the contracted term is not the life of the landfill, the property owner is generally responsible for final capping, closure and post-closure obligations.  We are responsible for all final capping, closure and post-closure obligations at our operated landfills for which we have life-of-site agreements. 

The expiration dates for the four operating agreements for which the contracted term is less than the life of the landfill range from 2022 to 2028. We intend to seek renewal of all four contracts prior to, or upon, their expiration.

Based on remaining permitted capacity as of December 31, 2018, and projected annual disposal volumes, the average remaining landfill life for our owned and operated landfills and landfills operated, but not owned, under life-of-site agreements, is estimated to be approximately 26 years.  Many of our existing landfills have the potential for expanded disposal capacity beyond the amount currently permitted.  We regularly consider whether it is advisable, in light of changing market conditions and/or regulatory requirements, to seek to expand or change the permitted waste streams or to seek other permit modifications.  We also monitor the available permitted in-place disposal capacity of our landfills on an ongoing basis and evaluate whether to seek capacity expansion using a variety of factors.

We are currently seeking to expand permitted capacity at 14 of our landfills, for which we consider expansions to be probable.  Although we cannot be certain that all future expansions will be permitted as designed, the average remaining landfill life for our owned and operated landfills and landfills operated, but not owned, under life-of-site agreements is estimated to be approximately 29   years when considering remaining permitted capacity, probable expansion capacity and projected annual disposal volume. 

The following table reflects estimated landfill capacity and airspace changes, as measured in tons, for owned and operated landfills and landfills operated, but not owned, under life-of-site agreements (in thousands): 

The estimated remaining operating lives for the landfills we own and landfills we operate under life-of-site agreements, based on remaining permitted and probable expansion capacity and projected annual disposal volume, in years, as of December 31, 2018, and December 31, 2017, are shown in the tables below.  The estimated remaining operating lives include assumptions that the operating permits are renewed.

The disposal tonnage that we received in 2018 and 2017 at all of our landfills is shown in the tables below (tons in thousands): 

Transfer Station and Intermodal Services

We own or operate MSW transfer stations and E&P waste transfer stations with marine access.  Transfer stations receive, compact and/or load waste to be transported to landfills or treatment facilities via truck, rail or barge.  They extend our direct-haul reach and link collection operations or waste generators with distant disposal or treatment facilities by concentrating the waste stream from a wider area and thus providing better utilization rates and operating efficiencies. 

Intermodal logistics is the movement of containers using two or more modes of transportation, usually including a rail or truck segment.  We provide these services for railing containerized international import and export goods through the Pacific Northwest, along with the transport of MSW waste and industrial construction debris.  Additionally we operate two intermodal facilities primarily for the shipment of waste by rail to distant disposal facilities that we do not own.  Our fleet of double-stack railcars provides dedicated direct-line haul services among terminals in Portland, Boardman, Tacoma and Seattle.  We have a contract with Union Pacific railroad for the movement of containers among our intermodal operations.  We also provide our customers container and chassis sales and leasing services. 

We have increased the amount of waste we transport by rail to our landfills and intend to further expand our intermodal business through cross-selling efforts with our solid waste services operations.  We believe that a significant amount of solid waste is transported currently by truck, rail and barge from primarily the Seattle-Tacoma and Metro Portland areas to remote landfills in Eastern Washington and Eastern Oregon.  We believe our ability to market both intermodal and disposal services will enable us to more effectively compete for these volumes. 

Recycling Services

We offer residential, commercial, industrial and municipal customers recycling services for a variety of recyclable materials, including compost, cardboard, mixed paper, plastic containers, glass bottles and ferrous and aluminum metals. We own or operate recycling operations and market other collected recyclable materials to third parties for processing before resale.  The majority of the recyclables we process for sale are paper products and are shipped to customers in the United States and other markets, including Asia.  Changes in end market demand as well as other factors can cause fluctuations in the prices for such commodities, which can affect revenue, operating income and cash flows.  We believe that recycling will continue to be an important component of local and state solid waste management plans due to the public’s increasing environmental awareness and expanding regulations that mandate or encourage recycling. That said, we also believe that the costs of processing recyclables, which have historically been subsidized by the sale of recycled commodities, need to be fully recognized. To that end, we have increased the fees that we charge at our recycling facilities to more fully reflect the processing costs associated with the separation of recyclables into marketable commodities. In some instances, we will look to pass the risk associated with the volatility of recycled commodity prices onto our customers.

E&P Waste Treatment, Recovery and Disposal Services

E&P waste is a broad term referring to the by-products resulting from oil and natural gas exploration and production activity. These generally include: waste created throughout the initial drilling and completion of an oil or natural gas well, such as drilling fluids, drill cuttings, completion fluids and flowback water; production wastes and produced water during a well’s operating life; contaminated soils that require treatment during site reclamation; and substances that require clean-up after a spill, reserve pit clean-up or pipeline rupture. E&P customers are oil and natural gas exploration and production companies operating in the areas that we serve. E&P revenue is therefore driven by vertical and horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing, production and clean-up activity; it is complemented by other services including closed loop collection systems and the sale of recovered products. E&P activity varies across market areas which are tied to the natural resource basins in which the drilling activity occurs and reflects the regulatory environment, pricing and disposal alternatives available in any given market.

We provide E&P waste treatment, recovery and/or disposal services from a network of E&P waste landfills, MSW landfills that also receive E&P waste, E&P liquid waste injection wells and E&P waste treatment and oil recovery facilities. Treatment processes vary by site and regulatory jurisdiction. At certain treatment facilities, loads of flowback and produced water and other drilling and production wastes delivered by our customers are sampled, assessed and tested by third parties according to state regulations. Solids contained in a waste load are deposited into a land treatment cell where liquids are removed from the solids and are sent through an oil recovery system before being injected into saltwater disposal injection wells or placed in evaporation cells that utilize specialized equipment to accelerate evaporation of liquids. In certain locations, fresh water is then added to the remaining solids in the cell to “wash” the solids several times to remove contaminants, including oil and grease, chlorides and other contaminants, to ensure the solids meet specific regulatory criteria that, in certain areas, are administered by third-party labs and submitted to the regulatory authorities.

COMPETITION

The North America MSW services industry is highly competitive and requires substantial labor and capital resources.  Our competition includes three national, publicly-held solid waste companies – Waste Management, Inc., Republic Services, Inc. and Advanced Disposal Services, Inc.; several regional, publicly held and privately owned companies; and several thousand small, local, privately owned companies, including independent waste brokers, some of which we believe have accumulated substantial goodwill in their markets.  We compete for collection, transfer and disposal volume based primarily on the price and, to a lesser extent, quality of our services. We also compete with operators of alternative disposal facilities, including incinerators, and with counties, municipalities and solid waste districts that maintain their own waste collection and disposal operations.  Public sector operators may have financial and other advantages over us because of their access to user fees and similar charges, tax revenues, tax-exempt financing and the ability to flow-control waste streams to publicly owned disposal facilities. 

From time to time, competitors may reduce the price of their services in an effort to expand their market shares or service areas or to win competitively bid municipal contracts.  These practices may cause us to reduce the price of our services or, if we elect not to do so, to lose business.  We provide a significant amount of our residential, commercial and industrial collection services under exclusive franchise and municipal contracts and G Certificates. Exclusive franchises and municipal contracts may be subject to periodic competitive bidding.  Competition in the solid waste industry is also affected by the increasing national emphasis in the U.S. and Canada on recycling and other waste reduction programs, which may reduce the volume of waste we collect or deposit in our landfills.

The U.S. and Canadian MSW services industries have undergone significant consolidation, and we encounter competition in our efforts to acquire collection operations, transfer stations and landfills.  We generally compete for acquisition candidates with publicly owned regional and national waste management companies.  Accordingly, it may become uneconomical for us to make further acquisitions or we may be unable to locate or acquire suitable acquisition candidates at price levels and on terms and conditions that we consider appropriate, particularly in markets we do not already serve.  

Competition for E&P waste comes primarily from smaller regional companies that utilize a variety of disposal methods and generally serve specific geographic markets. We also compete in certain markets with publicly held and privately owned companies such as Waste Management, Inc., Republic Services, Inc., Clean Harbors, Inc., Secure Energy Services Inc., Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Trinity Environmental Services, LLC, Ecoserv, NRC Group Holdings, LLC, PetroWaste Environmental LLP, Tervita Corporation and others. In addition, customers in many markets have the option of using internal disposal methods or outsourcing to another third-party disposal company. The principal competitive factors in this business include: gaining customer approval of treatment and disposal facilities; location of facilities in relation to customer activity; reputation; reliability of services; track record of environmental compliance; ability to accept multiple waste types at a single facility; and price.

The intermodal services industry is also highly competitive.  We compete against other intermodal rail services companies, trucking companies and railroads, many of which have greater financial and other resources than we do.  Competition is based primarily on price, reliability and quality of service. 

REGULATION

Introduction

Our operations in the United States and Canada, including landfills, transfer stations, solid waste transportation, intermodal operations, vehicle maintenance shops, fueling facilities and oilfield waste treatment, recovery and disposal operations, are all subject to extensive and evolving federal, state, provincial and, in some instances, local environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, the enforcement of which has become increasingly stringent. These laws and regulations may, among other things, require securing permits or other authorizations (collectively, “permits”) for regulated activities; govern the amount and type of substances that may be released or emitted into the environment in connection with our operations; impose clean-up or corrective action responsibility for releases of regulated substances into the environment; restrict the way we handle, manage or dispose of wastes; limit or prohibit our activities in sensitive areas such as wetlands, wilderness areas or areas inhabited by endangered or threatened species; require investigatory and remedial actions to mitigate pollution conditions caused by our operations or attributable to former operations; and impose specific standards addressing worker protection and health. Compliance is often costly or difficult, and the violation of these laws and regulations may result in the denial or revocation of permits, issuance of corrective action orders, assessment of administrative and civil penalties and even criminal prosecution.

In many instances in the United States, liability is often “strict,” meaning it is imposed without a requirement of intent or fault on the part of the regulated entity. The environmental regulations that affect us in the United States are generally administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, and other federal, state and local agencies having jurisdiction over our U.S. operations.

The environmental legislation that affects us in Canada is administered by federal and provincial regulatory agencies, which have jurisdiction over certain aspects of our Canadian operations. The relevant Canadian federal environmental legislation that affects our operations is administered by federal departments such as Environment and Climate Change Canada. Provincial and local agencies and departments administer their own environmental legislation, such as the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. In most instances in Canada, regulatory liability for environmental and health and safety matters is imposed without a requirement of intent on the part of the regulated entity, but is subject to a defense of due diligence.

Compliance with existing environmental regulatory requirements and permits requires significant capital and operating expenditures. It is possible that substantial costs for compliance or penalties for non-compliance may be incurred in the future. We believe that in recent years, environmental regulation of the industry has increased as have the number of enforcement actions brought by regulatory agencies. It is also possible that other developments, such as the adoption of additional or more stringent environmental laws, regulations and enforcement policies, could result in additional costs or liabilities that we cannot currently foresee or quantify. Moreover, changes in environmental laws or regulations could reduce the demand for our services and adversely impact our business. We also expend significant resources (both administrative and financial) directed toward development, expansion, acquisition, and permitting of landfills, transfer stations, and other facilities we operate. Regarding any permit issued by a regulatory agency necessary for our operations, there are no assurances that we will be able to obtain or maintain all necessary permits or that any such permit held may ultimately be renewed on the same or similar terms. Further, permits obtained impose various requirements and may restrict the size and location of disposal operations, impose limits on the types and amount of waste a facility may receive or manage, as well as a waste disposal facility’s overall capacity. Additional operational conditions or restrictions may be included in the renewal or amendment of a previously issued permit. As regulations change, our permit requirements could become more stringent and compliance may require material expenditures at our facilities, impose significant operational restraints, or require new or additional financial assurance related to our operations. Regarding any permit that has been issued, it remains subject to renewal, modification, suspension or revocation by the agency with jurisdiction.

Various laws impose clean-up or remediation liability on responsible parties, which are discussed in more detail below. Substances subject to clean-up liability have been or may have been disposed of or released on or under certain of our facility sites. At some of our facilities, we have conducted and continue to conduct monitoring or remediation of known soil and groundwater contamination and, as required, we will continue to perform such work. It is possible that monitoring or remediation could be required in the future at other facilities we own or operate or previously owned or operated. These monitoring and remediation efforts are usually overseen by environmental regulatory agencies. Further, it is not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal injury or property damage allegedly caused by the release of regulated substances into the environment. In addition, from time to time, our intermodal services business undertakes the transport of hazardous materials. This transportation function is also regulated by various federal, state, provincial and potentially local agencies.

A number of major statutes and regulations apply to our operations, which are generally enforced by regulatory agencies. Typically, in the United States, federal statutes establish the general regulatory requirements governing our operations, but in many instances these programs are delegated to the states, which have independent and sometimes more strict regulation. In Canada, it is typically provincial statutes that establish the primary regulatory requirements governing our waste operations. Federal statutes in Canada govern certain aspects of waste management, including international and interprovincial transport of certain kinds of waste. Certain of these statutes in the United States and Canada contain provisions that authorize, under certain circumstances, lawsuits by private citizens to enforce certain statutory provisions. In addition to penalties, some of these statutes authorize an award of attorneys’ fees to parties that successfully bring such an action. Enforcement actions for a violation of these statutes or for a violation of or failure to have a permit, which is required by certain of these statutes, may include administrative, civil and criminal/regulatory penalties, as well as injunctive relief in some instances. In our ordinary course of business, we incur significant costs complying with these regulations and applicable standards.

A brief description of certain of the primary statutes affecting our operations is discussed below.

Laws and Regulations

In the United States, RCRA regulates the generation, treatment, storage, handling, transportation and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste and requires states to develop programs to ensure the safe disposal of solid waste. Regulations promulgated under RCRA impose broad requirements on the waste management industry. In October 1991, the EPA adopted what are known as the Subtitle D Regulations, which govern solid non-hazardous waste landfills. The Subtitle D Regulations establish, among other things, location restrictions, minimum facility design and performance standards, operating criteria, closure and post-closure requirements, financial assurance requirements, groundwater monitoring requirements, groundwater remediation standards and corrective action requirements. These and other applicable requirements, including permitting, are typically implemented by the states, but in some instances, states have enacted more stringent requirements.

Regarding the management and disposal of E&P waste, although E&P wastes may contain hazardous constituents, most E&P waste is exempt from stringent RCRA regulation as a hazardous waste. We are required to obtain permits for the land treatment and disposal of E&P waste as part of our operations. The construction, operation and closure of E&P waste land treatment and disposal operations are generally regulated at the state level. These regulations vary widely from state to state. None of our oilfield waste recycling, treatment and disposal facilities are currently permitted to accept hazardous wastes for disposal. Some wastes handled by us that currently are exempt from regulation as hazardous wastes may in the future be designated as “hazardous wastes” under RCRA or other applicable statutes if changes in laws or regulations were to occur. If the RCRA E&P waste exemption is repealed or modified, we could become subject to more rigorous and costly operating and disposal requirements.

A breach of laws or regulations governing facilities we operate may result in suspension or revocation of necessary permits, civil liability, and imposition of fines and penalties. Moreover, if we experience a delay in obtaining, are unable to obtain, or suffer the revocation of required permits, we may be unable to serve our customers, our operations may be interrupted and our growth and revenue may be limited.

RCRA also regulates underground storage of petroleum and other materials it defines as “regulated substances.” RCRA requires registration, compliance with technical standards for tanks, release detection and reporting and corrective action, among other things. Certain of our facilities and operations are subject to these requirements, which are typically implemented at the state level and may be more stringent in certain states.

CERCLA, which is also known as the “Superfund” law, established a program in the United States allowing federal authorities to provide for the investigation and clean up of facilities where, or from which, a release of any hazardous substance into the environment has occurred or is threatened. CERCLA defines “hazardous substances” broadly. One of the primary ways that CERCLA addresses a release or threatened release of hazardous substances is by imposing strict, joint and several liability for clean up on its broad categories of responsible parties. This means that responsible parties can bear liability without fault and that each responsible party potentially could bear liability for the entirety of clean-up costs, notwithstanding its individual contribution. Generally, responsible parties are current owners and operators of the contaminated site; former owners and operators of the site at the time when the hazardous substances were disposed; any person who arranged for treatment or disposal of the hazardous substances; and transporters who selected the disposal site. In addition to CERCLA’s liability framework, the EPA may issue orders directing responsible parties to respond to releases of hazardous substances. Further, the EPA and private parties, who have response liability to the EPA or who have incurred response costs, can bring suit against other responsible parties to seek to recover certain costs incurred in their response efforts. CERCLA also imposes liability for the cost of evaluating and remedying damage to natural resources. Various states have enacted laws analogous to and independent of CERCLA that also impose liability, which is typically strict and joint and several, for investigation, clean-up and other damages associated with the release of hazardous or other regulated substances. We may handle hazardous substances within the meaning of CERCLA, or hazardous and other substances regulated under similar state statutes, in the course of our ordinary operations. As a result, we may be jointly and severally liable under CERCLA or similar states statutes for all or part of the costs required to clean up sites if and where these hazardous substances have been released into the environment. CERCLA and these analogous state laws and regulations may also expose us to liability for acts or conditions that were in compliance with applicable laws at a prior time. Under certain circumstances, our sales of residual crude oil collected as part of the saltwater injection process could result in liability to us if the residual crude contains hazardous substances or is covered by one of the state statutes and the entity to which the oil was transferred fails to manage and, as necessary, dispose of it or components thereof in accordance with applicable laws.

The primary waste laws regulating our business in Canada are imposed by the provinces. These include provincial laws that regulate waste management, including requirements to obtain permits and approvals, and regulations with respect to the operation of transfer stations and landfilling sites. Each provincial jurisdiction in Canada will have its own regulatory regime; however, the key requirements under these regimes are similar across Canada. For example, the Environmental Protection Act, or the EP Act, in Ontario and its underlying regulations regulate the generation, treatment, storage, handling, transportation and disposal of wastes in Ontario, among other things. The EP Act requires an approval or, in some cases, a registration, for the establishment, operation or alteration of a waste management system (which includes all facilities or equipment used in connection with waste) or a waste disposal site. The specific terms and conditions of an approval may impose emission limits, monitoring and reporting requirements, siting and operating criteria, financial assurance or insurance and decommissioning requirements. Certain landfilling sites are subject to more stringent regulatory requirements that can include detailed prescribed design standards, leachate collection systems, landfill gas management or collection systems and/or site closure plans including post-closure care requirements. The federal Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 imposes requirements with respect to the interprovincial and international movement of hazardous wastes and hazardous recyclable material, which can affect the movement of wastes and recyclables to our Canadian facilities. The expansion or establishment of certain waste management projects, including waste treatment and landfilling sites, may also be subject to provincial or federal environmental assessment requirements.

A breach of laws or regulations governing our operations may result in suspension or revocation of necessary approvals and imposition of fines and penalties. Moreover, if we experience a delay in obtaining, are unable to obtain, or suffer the revocation of required approvals, we may be unable to serve our customers, our operations may be interrupted, and our growth and revenue may be limited.

There are provincial and federal laws in Canada that regulate spills and releases of substances into the environment and require the remediation of contaminated sites. Clean up of contaminated sites in connection with our business is primarily regulated by provincial environmental laws. Each province will have its own regulatory regime; however, the key requirements under these regimes are similar across Canada. For example, the EP Act in Ontario authorizes the agency to issue orders to responsible persons to undertake remedial or other corrective actions to investigate, monitor and remediate the discharge or presence of contaminants in the environment. These orders can generally be issued on a joint and several liability basis to persons who caused or permitted the discharge of a contaminant, persons who owned the discharged substance, as well as current and past owners of lands or the source of the contamination and persons who have or have had charge, management or control over lands or the source of the contamination. The costs to comply with an order can be very substantial. Some provincial jurisdictions provide a statutory right to compensation from the owner or person in control of a substance that is discharged into the environment to any person who suffers loss as a result. The federal government has also enacted laws that regulate the release of certain substances into the environment. We handle many contaminants and pollutants in the course of our ordinary operations and, as a result, may be liable under provincial and federal statutes for all or part of required clean-up costs if substances have been released into the environment. Under such laws, we could be required to remove previously disposed substances and wastes (including substances disposed of or released by prior owners or operators) or remediate contaminated property (including soil and groundwater contamination, whether from prior owners or operators or other historic activities or spills).

The Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants from a variety of sources, including, without limitation, solid waste disposal sites, transfer stations and oilfield waste facilities into Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, including surface and potentially ground waters. Under the Clean Water Act, sites or facilities that discharge pollutants to waters of the United States must have a permit authorizing that discharge. If run-off or other contaminants from our owned or operated transfer stations or oilfield waste facilities, or run-off, collected leachate or other contaminants from our owned or operated landfills or other facilities is discharged into streams, rivers or other regulated waters, the Clean Water Act would require a discharge permit, typically containing requirements to conduct monitoring and, under certain circumstances, to treat and reduce the quantity of pollutants in such discharge. Further, if a landfill or other facility discharges wastewater through a treatment works, it may be required to comply with additional permitting and other specific requirements. Also, virtually all landfills are required to comply with the EPA’s storm water regulations, which are designed to prevent the introduction of contaminated storm water run-off into United States’ waters.

At this time, the ultimate regulatory test for defining WOTUS is unclear, and the determination therefor will be based upon the outcome of regulatory promulgations and associated litigation which are currently pending. The manner in which WOTUS is defined could affect our operations by potentially increasing or modifying regulatory requirements governing our discharges. In 2015, the Clean Water Rule was promulgated, which would expand federal control over many U.S. water resources by broadening the definition of WOTUS, thereby potentially classifying a larger range of water resource types as jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. Since promulgation of the 2015 Clean Water Rule, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, or the Corps, have sought to rescind it and to promulgate a revised definition of WOTUS that would establish federal jurisdiction more narrowly, thereby reducing the scope of Clean Water Act applicability. To that end, on December 11, 2018, the EPA and the Corps proposed a rule to redefine WOTUS (the “2018 Proposed WOTUS Rule”). At this time, due to a patchwork of court rulings, the 2015 Clean Water Rule is effective in some states, while the agencies’ decision to delay implementation of the rule is effective in other states. If finalized, the 2018 Proposed WOTUS Rule would apply nationwide, replacing the national patchwork of WOTUS applicability. Additionally, if finalized, it is possible that the 2018 Proposed WOTUS Rule will be challenged. The scope of the WOTUS definition will likely remain fluid until a final regulatory determination is made and subsequent litigation, if any, is finalized. In the interim, our costs to comply with the Clean Water Act may increase as we seek to operate under various regulatory determinations.

Additionally, the Clean Water Act’s spill prevention, control and countermeasure requirements require appropriate containment berms and similar structures to help contain and prevent the contamination of regulated waters in the event of a hydrocarbon storage tank release. The Clean Water Act also contains provisions which can prohibit or require permitting before development or expansion of a landfill may occur in areas designated as wetlands. Various states in which we operate or may operate in the future have been delegated authority to implement the Clean Water Act and its permitting requirements, and some of these states have adopted regulations that are more stringent than federal Clean Water Act requirements.

Our United States E&P underground injection operations are subject to the SDWA, as well as analogous state laws and regulations. Under the SDWA, the EPA established the underground injection control, or UIC, program, which includes requirements for permitting, testing, monitoring, record keeping and reporting of injection well activities, as well as a prohibition against the migration of fluid containing any contaminant into underground sources of drinking water. Certain state regulations require us to obtain permits from the applicable regulatory agencies to operate our underground injection wells. Leakage from the subsurface portions of the injection wells could cause degradation of fresh groundwater resources, potentially resulting in suspension of our UIC permit, fines and penalties, the incurrence of expenditures for remediation of the affected resource and potential liability to third parties for property damages. In July 2018, the EPA partnered with New Mexico to assess alternatives to immediate disposal of E&P wastewater by reusing it and/or treating it for reintroduction into the hydrologic cycle, as well as potential regulations related thereto. If regulations requiring reuse or treatment are developed and implemented on a broad scale, it may increase our compliance costs or reduce the volume of E&P wastes that may be disposed of via underground injection.

There is legislation in Canada at both the federal and provincial levels that protects water quality and regulates the discharge of substances into the aquatic environment. Federal water pollution control authority is derived primarily from the Fisheries Act, which contains provisions for the protection of water quality and fish habitat. This includes a general prohibition on the deposit of any deleterious substances into water that is frequented by fish, unless otherwise authorized. There is legislation in each provincial jurisdiction that also protects water sources and regulates water pollution, and generally requires an approval or permit for a discharge of any effluent, including in some cases stormwater, into a water body. For example, in Ontario, the Ontario Water Resources Act, or OWRA, prohibits the discharge of material of any kind into any water that may impair the quality of the water. The OWRA requires that an approval be obtained for the use and operation of certain sewage and stormwater works. Such approvals typically contain monitoring requirements and impose restrictions on effluent characteristics. Other provinces in Canada have similar regimes for the protection of water. If run-off or other contaminants from our landfills, transfer stations or other waste facilities is discharged or migrates into waters and causes impairment, we could face significant liability under provincial and federal laws.

In the United States, the CAA generally regulates the emissions of air pollutants from a variety of sources, including certain landfills and oilfield waste facilities, based on factors such as the date of the construction and tons per year of emissions of regulated pollutants. Typically, federal requirements are delegated to the states and implemented at the state level. The CAA and analogous state laws require permits for and impose other restrictions on facilities and equipment that have the potential to emit pollutants into the atmosphere. Under the CAA, a source deemed to be a major source generally must be authorized by a permit. In those situations where major source permitting is not required, typically state laws and rules will require permitting as a type of minor source. Larger landfills and landfills located in areas where the ambient air does not meet certain air quality standards called for by the CAA may be subject to even more extensive air pollution controls and emissions limitations. In addition to the potential CAA permitting of landfill facilities, CAA permitting may be required for the construction of gas collection and flaring systems, composting and other operations. In some instances, federal operating permits may be required depending on the nature and volume of air emissions.

In addition to permitting, the CAA imposes other regulatory obligations, including, in some instances, performance standards on operations and equipment. The EPA has issued what are known as new source performance standards, or NSPS, and emissions guidelines, which impose requirements regarding control of landfill gases from new and existing large landfills. The EPA has also issued regulations imposing maximum achievable control technology, or MACT, on large MSW landfills. The MACT standards impose limits on landfill emissions and often require installation of landfill gas collection system tanks. Additional or more stringent regulations of our facilities may occur in the future, which could increase operating costs or impose additional compliance burdens. On August 29, 2016, the EPA issued “Subpart XXX” that applies to MSW landfills constructed, modified or reconstructed after July 17, 2014. Subpart XXX reduces the non-methane organic compounds, or NMOC, emissions threshold at which MSW landfills must install emission controls, requires monitoring surface emissions of methane, monitoring of temperature and pressure at the well head of landfill gas collection systems and imposes other requirements. Further, the EPA promulgated “Guidelines” on August 29, 2016, known as Subpart Cf, which require states to implement similar requirements on existing landfills that are not subject to NSPS Subpart XXX. Subpart Cf updates existing Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for existing MSW landfills. The Subpart Cf Guidelines apply to landfills that accepted waste after November 8, 1987 and commenced construction or modification on or before July 17, 2014. Subpart XXX and Subpart Cf are intended to result in the reduction of landfill gas emissions, including methane, by lowering the thresholds where an MSW landfill must install a gas collection and control system. Subpart Cf will ultimately affect existing sources that are not affected by Subpart XXX. In October 2018, the EPA proposed a rule to delay implementation of the Guidelines, and has indicated that it is reconsidering certain portions thereof. Regardless of whether or how EPA will implement and/or amend Subpart XXX and Subpart Cf, compliance with these regulatory requirements could result in significant additional compliance costs, which we will incur in our ordinary course of business. In addition, state air regulatory requirements may impose additional restrictions beyond federal requirements, which could also result in compliance costs. For example, some state air programs uniquely regulate odor and the emission of certain specific toxic air pollutants.

The EPA recently modified, or is in the process of modifying, other standards promulgated under the CAA in a manner which could increase our compliance costs. For example, the EPA has recently modified or discussed modifying national ambient air quality standards applicable to particulate matter, carbon monoxide and oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, ozone and other standards to make them more stringent. It is possible these additional regulations could result in additional capital or operating expenditures. We do not believe, however, they will have a material adverse effect on our business as a whole. Further, our customers’ operations may be subject to existing and future CAA permitting and regulatory requirements that could have a material effect on their operations, which could have an adverse effect on our business.

In Canada, the primary laws regulating air emissions from our operations come from provincial laws. Provincial laws may require approvals for air emissions and may impose other restrictions on facilities and equipment that have the potential to emit pollutants into the atmosphere. Provincial laws may require the construction of landfill gas management systems, including gas collection and flaring systems, which are subject to approvals or other regulatory requirements. Failure to obtain an approval or comply with approval requirements could result in the imposition of substantial administrative or regulatory penalties.

In the United States, the OSH Act is administered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, and many state agencies whose programs have been approved by OSHA. The OSH Act establishes employer responsibilities for worker health and safety, including the obligation to maintain a workplace free of recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious injury, comply with adopted worker protection standards, maintain certain records, provide workers with required disclosures, and implement certain health and safety training programs. Various OSHA standards may apply to our operations, including standards concerning notices of hazards, safety in excavation and demolition work, the handling of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials and worker training and emergency response programs. Moreover, the Department of Transportation, OSHA, and other agencies regulate and have jurisdiction concerning the transport, movement, and related safety of hazardous and other regulated materials. In some instances, state and local agencies also regulate the safe transport of such materials to the extent not preempted by federal law.

In Canada, each province establishes and administers a provincial occupational health and safety regime. Similar to the United States, these regimes generally identify the rights and responsibilities of employers, supervisors and workers. Employers are required to implement all prescribed safety requirements and to exercise reasonable care to protect employees from workplace hazards, among other things. Various occupational health and safety standards may apply to our Canadian operations, including requirements relating to communication of and exposure to hazards, safety in excavation and demolition work, the handling of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials and worker training and emergency response programs. In addition to the provincial departments of transportation, Transport Canada has jurisdiction to regulate the transportation of dangerous goods, which can include wastes.

We also review regulatory developments that may affect our business, including, among others, those described below.

In addition to the federal statutes regulating our operations, each state where we operate or may operate in the future has laws and regulations governing the management, generation, storage, treatment, handling, transportation, and disposal of solid waste, E&P waste, occupational safety and health, water and air pollution and, in most cases, the siting, design, operation, maintenance, corrective action, closure and post-closure maintenance of landfills and transfer stations. Further, many municipalities have enacted or could enact ordinances, local laws and regulations affecting our operations, including zoning and health measures that limit solid waste management activities to specified sites or activities. Other jurisdictions have enacted “fitness” rules focusing on companywide and overall corporate compliance history in making permitting decisions. In addition, certain jurisdictions have enacted flow control provisions that direct or restrict the delivery of solid wastes to specific facilities, laws that grant the right to establish franchises for collection services and bidding for such franchises and bans or other restrictions on the movement of solid wastes into a municipality. Specific state and local permits for our operations may be required and may be subject to periodic renewal, modification or revocation by the issuing agencies. There has also been an increasing trend at the state, provincial and local levels to mandate and encourage waste reduction at the source and recycling, and to prohibit or restrict landfill disposal of certain types of solid wastes, such as food waste, yard waste, leaves, tires, electronic equipment waste, painted wood and other construction and demolition debris. The enactment of laws or regulations reducing the volume and types of wastes available for transport to and disposal in landfills could prevent us from operating our facilities at their full capacity.

We do not conduct hydraulic fracturing operations, but we do provide treatment, recovery and disposal services for the fluids used and wastes generated by our customers in such operations. Recently, there has been increased public concern regarding the alleged potential for hydraulic fracturing to adversely affect drinking water supplies, and proposals have been made to enact separate federal, state or local legislation that would increase the regulatory burden imposed on hydraulic fracturing. Laws and regulations have been proposed and/or adopted at the federal, state and local levels that would regulate, restrict or prohibit hydraulic fracturing operations or require the reporting and public disclosure of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process. Certain states and localities have placed moratoria or bans on hydraulic fracturing or the disposal of waste therefrom, or have considered the same.

In June 2016, the EPA promulgated a rule prohibiting discharges of wastewater pollutants from onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction facilities to publicly-owned treatment works, or POTWs. Further, the EPA promulgated regulations known as Reg. OOOO and Reg. OOOOa, which, among other things, require control of methane and VOC emissions related to certain well completions and certain tankage and equipment. Certain provisions of Reg. OOOOa are currently the subject of litigation. In June 2017, the EPA proposed a two-year stay of portions of the rules and in October 2018, the EPA proposed revisions to Reg. OOOOa. Regardless of the stay and potential regulatory revisions, it is possible that these rules will continue to require oil and gas operators to expend material sums, which may reduce our customers’ E&P activities and could have an adverse impact on our business. Additionally, several states have adopted or proposed laws and regulations analogous to the federal rules that would remain in effect regardless of the outcome of any federal stay or litigation. Further, several states in which we conduct business require oil and natural gas operators to disclose information concerning their operations, which could result in increased public scrutiny.

The EPA has contemplated additional rule making. In May 2014, the EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or ANPR, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, seeking comment on whether and how the EPA should regulate the reporting or disclosure of the use of hydraulic fracturing chemical substances and mixtures and their constituents. Several states have already implemented such requirements. Additionally, in December 2016, the EPA released a study on the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. In that study, the EPA found evidence that hydraulic fracturing activity can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances, but data gaps limited the EPA’s ability to fully assess the matter. The EPA also published in May 2018 a detailed study of centralized waste treatment, or CWT, facilities accepting oil and gas extraction wastewater. The study assessed the regulatory status of CWTs, characteristics of wastewaters discharged from them, available treatment technologies and associated costs. The impact of rules that the EPA is contemplating, has proposed or has recently promulgated will be uncertain until the rules are finalized and fully implemented.

If the EPA’s newly promulgated or proposed rules, or other new federal, state or local laws, regulations or policies restricting hydraulic fracturing are adopted, such legal requirements could result in delays, eliminate certain drilling and injection activities and make it more difficult or costly for our customers to perform hydraulic fracturing. Any such regulations limiting, prohibiting or imposing operational requirements on hydraulic fracturing could reduce oil and natural gas E&P activities by our customers and, therefore, adversely affect our business. Such laws or regulations could also materially increase our costs of compliance.

Certain of our facilities accept drilling fluids and other E&P wastes for disposal via underground injection. The disposal of drilling fluids is generally regulated at the state level, and claims, including some regulatory actions, have been brought against some owners or operators of these types of facilities for nuisance, seismic disturbances and other claims in relation to the operation of underground injection facilities. To date, our facilities have not been subject to any such litigation, but could be in the future.

Generally, the promulgation of climate change laws or regulations restricting or regulating greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions could increase our costs to operate. The EPA’s current and proposed regulation of GHG emissions may adversely impact our operations. In 2009, the EPA made an endangerment finding allowing GHGs to be regulated under the CAA. The CAA requires stationary sources of air pollution to obtain New Source Review, or NSR, permits prior to construction and, in some cases, Title V operating permits. Pursuant to the EPA’s rulemakings and interpretations, certain Title V and NSR Prevention of Significant Deterioration, or PSD, permits issued on or after January 2, 2011, must address GHG emissions. As a result, new or modified emissions sources may be required to install Best Available Control Technology to limit GHG emissions. The EPA’s recently adopted Subpart XXX also requires the reduction of GHG emissions from new or modified landfills, and the Guidelines, known as Subpart Cf, published by the EPA in August 2016, will require the reduction of GHG emissions from existing landfills, although the EPA has delayed implementation of, and is reconsidering portions of, these regulations, as detailed above. In addition, the EPA’s Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule sets monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to certain landfills and other entities.

In June 2018, the Canadian federal government enacted the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which establishes a national carbon-pricing regime for the beginning of 2019 for provinces and territories in Canada where there is no provincial system in place already or where the provincial system does not meet the federal benchmark. Often referred to as the federal backstop, the new federal carbon-pricing regime consists of a carbon levy that will be applied to fossil fuels and an output-based pricing system (“OBPS”) that will be applied to certain industrial facilities with reported emissions of 50,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (“CO2e”) or more per year. The carbon levy will apply to prescribed liquid, gaseous, and solid fuels at a rate that is equivalent to $10 per tonne of CO2e in 2018, increasing annually, until it reaches $50 per tonne of CO2e by 2022.

Certain states and several Canadian provinces have promulgated legislation and regulations to limit GHG emissions through requirements of specific controls, carbon levies, cap and trade programs or other measures. Comprehensive GHG legislation or regulation, including carbon pricing, will affect not only our business, but also that of our customers.

Heightened regulation of our customers’ operations could also adversely affect our business. The regulation of GHG emissions from oil and gas E&P operations may increase the costs to our customers of developing and producing hydrocarbons and, as a result, may have an indirect and adverse effect on the amount of E&P waste delivered to our facilities. On June 3, 2016, the EPA promulgated NSPS Subpart OOOOa, which in conjunction with NSPS Subpart OOOO sets methane and VOC requirements for certain new and modified sources, including hydraulically fractured oil wells, certain tankage and equipment. Although the EPA has delayed implementation of, and is reconsidering portions of, these regulations, they will continue to require, in some instances, additional emissions controls and increased capital costs for our customers, which could reduce their E&P activities, and subsequently negatively impact our business operations. As discussed above, certain states have enacted rules analogous to the federal rules.

These statutes and regulations increase our costs and our customers’ costs, and future climate change statutes and regulations may have an impact as well. If we are unable to pass such higher costs through to our customers, or if our customers’ costs of developing and producing hydrocarbons increase, our business, financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected. The impact of any potential rules affecting existing sources is uncertain.

Certain permits and state and local regulations, known as flow control restrictions, may limit a landfill’s or transfer station’s ability to accept waste that originates from specified geographic areas, to import out-of-state waste or wastes originating outside the local jurisdictions or to otherwise accept non-local waste. While certain courts have deemed these laws to be unenforceable, other courts have not. Certain state and local jurisdictions may seek to enforce flow control restrictions contractually. These actions could limit or prohibit the importation of wastes originating outside of local jurisdictions or direct that wastes be handled at specified facilities. These restrictions could limit the volume of wastes we can manage in jurisdictions at issue and also result in higher disposal costs for our collection operations. If we are unable to pass such higher costs through to our customers, our business, financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected. Additionally, certain local jurisdictions have sought or may seek to impose extraterritorial obligations on our operations in an effort to affect flow control and may enforce tax and fee arrangements on behalf of such jurisdictions.

Pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the EPA promulgated the Renewable Fuel Standards, or RFS, which require refiners to either blend “renewable fuels,” such as ethanol and biodiesel, into their transportation fuels or to purchase renewable fuel credits, known as renewable identification numbers, or RINs, in lieu of blending. In some cases, landfill gas generated at our landfills in the United States qualifies as a renewable fuel for which RINs are available. Such RINs can be sold by the Company. The price of RINs has been extremely volatile and the value of RINs is dependent upon a variety of factors. The EPA annually establishes the renewable fuel volumes required under the RFS for the following year. Reductions or limitations on the requirement to blend renewable fuel would likely reduce the volume of RINs purchased to meet the RFS blending requirements. Further, there have been proposals to revise, and in some instances limit, the RFS program in the United States. For example, bills introduced in the House of Representatives included the Restoring Our Commitment to Renewable Fuels Act of 2018 (September 2018), which sought to reallocate renewable fuel obligations, and the Renewable Fuel Standard Elimination Act (March 2017), which would repeal the renewable fuel program. Various parties have also sought for the executive branch to revise the RFS. In March 2018, legislators and stakeholders met with President Donald Trump to propose RFS reforms, which in some instances would have eliminated RFS. Similarly, during an April 2018 hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt expressed interest on behalf of the EPA in working with Congress to reform the RFS. Limiting or eliminating the RFS could have the effect of reducing or eliminating the volume of RINs required to meet blending requirements, which could adversely affect the demand for RINS and accordingly the revenue stream we have historically derived from the sale of RINs.

In Canada, the Renewable Fuels Regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 require producers and importers of gasoline, diesel fuel and heating distillate to acquire a certain number of renewable fuel compliance units, or Compliance Units, in connection with the volumes of fuel they produce or import. Compliance Units can be generated in a number of ways, including through the blending of renewable fuel into liquid petroleum fuels. In some cases, landfill gas generated at our landfills in Canada qualifies as a renewable fuel that can be sold by our Company to blenders or refiners for the purpose of creating Compliance Units. Certain provincial jurisdictions in Canada also impose obligations to incorporate renewable fuels into fuels that are distributed within the jurisdiction. The price for our renewable fuel in Canada is dependent on a variety of factors, including demand. The Canadian federal government released details on a proposed new clean fuel regulatory framework at the end of 2017 called the “Clean Fuel Standard”. The proposed framework would impose lifecycle carbon intensity requirements on certain liquid, gaseous and solid fuels that are used in transportation, industry and buildings, and establish rules relating to the trading of compliance credits. The carbon intensity requirements would become more stringent over time. Carbon intensity would be differentiated between different types of renewable fuels to reflect the associated emissions reduction potential. Regulated parties, which may include fuel producers and importers, would have some flexibility with respect to how to achieve lower carbon fuels in Canada. The Canadian federal government has indicated that over time, the new Clean Fuel Standard would replace the current Renewable Fuels Regulations. Since January 2017, the Canadian federal government has been conducting public consultation on the proposed framework with final regulations anticipated in 2020 and 2021. At this time, we do not know how a new clean fuel regulatory framework in Canada could impact demand for our renewable fuel.

A significant reduction in the value of RINs in the United States or the price paid for our renewable fuel in Canada could adversely impact our reported results.

Certain states have enacted laws and regulations regulating NORM. In the course of our E&P waste operations, some of our equipment involved in E&P waste management and disposal may be exposed to naturally occurring radiation associated with oil and gas deposits. Further, certain E&P wastes we handle could be NORM contaminated. NORM wastes exhibiting levels of naturally occurring radiation exceeding established state standards are typically subject to special handling and disposal requirements, and any storage vessels, piping, equipment and work area affected by NORM waste may be subject to remediation or restoration requirements. It is possible that we may incur significant costs or liabilities associated with inadvertently handling NORM contaminated waste or equipment that becomes NORM contaminated based on exposure or contact with elevated levels of NORM.

EPR regulations place responsibility on product manufacturers or suppliers to assume certain waste management or recycling responsibility for their products after such products’ useful life or otherwise impose obligations on product manufacturers or suppliers to reduce the volume of waste associated with their products.

EPR regulations have yet to be promulgated at the federal level in the United States, but have been promulgated or considered in state and local jurisdictions in the United States. EPR regulations could have an adverse effect on our business if enacted at the federal level or if widely enacted by state or local governments.

Numerous provincial jurisdictions in Canada have promulgated EPR and related waste diversion legislation and other programs that mandate or encourage recycling and waste reduction and restrict the landfill disposal of certain types of waste. The enactment of new and more stringent regulations reducing the types or volumes of wastes available for disposal in landfills could impact our future operations.

In some states, public authorities regulate the rates that landfill operators may charge. The adoption of rate regulation or the reduction of current rates in states in which we own or operate landfills could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

RISK MANAGEMENT, INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SURETY BONDS

Risk Management

We maintain environmental and other risk management programs that we believe are appropriate for our business.  Our environmental risk management program includes evaluating existing facilities and potential acquisitions for environmental law compliance.  We do not presently expect environmental compliance costs to increase materially above current levels, but we cannot predict whether future acquisitions will cause such costs to increase.  We also maintain a worker safety program that encourages safe practices in the workplace.  Operating practices at our operations emphasize minimizing the possibility of environmental contamination and litigation.  Our facilities comply in all material respects with applicable federal, state and provincial regulations. 

Insurance 

We maintain an insurance program for automobile liability, general liability, employer’s liability claims, environmental liability, cyber liability, employment practices liability and directors’ and officers’ liability as well as for employee group health insurance, property and workers’ compensation.  Our loss exposure for insurance claims is generally limited to per incident deductibles or self-insured retentions.  Losses in excess of deductible or self-insured retention levels are insured subject to policy limits. 

Under our current company-wide insurance program, we carry per incident deductibles or self-insured retentions ranging from $100,000 to $1 million for cyber liability and directors’ and officers’ liability claims.  Additionally, we have umbrella policies with insurance companies for automobile liability, general liability and employer’s liability.  Our property insurance limits are in accordance with the replacement values of the insured property.  From time to time, actions filed against us include claims for punitive damages, which are generally excluded from coverage under our liability insurance policies. 

Under our current insurance program for our U.S. operations, we carry per incident deductibles or self-insured retentions ranging from $250,000 to $2 million for automobile liability claims, workers’ compensation and employer’s liability claims, general liability claims, employee group health insurance and employment practices liability, environmental liability, and for most property claims, subject to certain additional terms and conditions.  Since workers’ compensation is a statutory coverage limited by the various state jurisdictions, the umbrella coverage is not applicable.  Our environmental protection insurance policy covers all owned or operated landfills, certain transfer stations and other facilities, subject to the policy terms and conditions.  Our policy provides insurance for new pollution conditions that originate after the commencement of our coverage.  Pollution conditions existing prior to the commencement of our coverage, if found, could be excluded from coverage. 

Under our current insurance program for our Canadian operations, we carry per incident deductibles or self-insured retentions ranging from $100,000 to $750,000 for automobile liability claims, property claims and environmental liability.  Since workers’ compensation is a provincial coverage limited by the various province jurisdictions, the umbrella coverage is not applicable.  Employees are eligible to receive health coverage under Canada's public health care system and, in addition, most employees of our Canadian operations are eligible to participate in group medical and drug coverage plans sponsored by us.  Our environmental protection insurance policy covers all owned or operated landfills, certain transfer stations and other facilities, subject to the policy terms and conditions.  Our policy provides insurance for new pollution conditions that originate after the commencement of our coverage.  Pollution conditions existing prior to the commencement of our coverage, if found, could be excluded from coverage.

Financial Surety Bonds

We use financial surety bonds for a variety of corporate guarantees.  The financial surety bonds are primarily used for guaranteeing municipal contract performance and providing financial assurances to meet asset closure and retirement requirements under certain environmental regulations.  In addition to surety bonds, such guarantees and obligations may also be met through alternative financial assurance instruments, including insurance, letters of credit and restricted cash and investment deposits. At December 31, 2018 and 2017, we had provided customers and various regulatory authorities with surety bonds in the aggregate amount of approximately $619.8 million and $609.6 million, respectively, to secure our asset closure and retirement requirements and $357.8 million and $281.5 million, respectively, to secure performance under collection contracts and landfill operating agreements. 

We source financial surety bonds from a variety of third-party insurance and surety companies, including a company in which we own a 9.9% interest that, among other activities, issues financial surety bonds to secure landfill final capping, closure and post-closure obligations for companies operating in the solid waste sector. 

EMPLOYEES

At December 31, 2018, we had 16,356 employees, of which 3,096, or approximately 18.9% of our workforce, were employed under collective bargaining agreements. The majority of our collective bargaining agreements are with the Teamsters Union in both the U.S. and Canada.  These collective bargaining agreements are renegotiated periodically.  We have 30 collective bargaining agreements covering 1,571 employees that have expired or are set to expire during 2019.  We do not expect any significant disruption in our overall business in 2019 as a result of labor negotiations, employee strikes or organizational efforts by labor unions or their representatives. 

SEASONALITY

We expect our operating results to vary seasonally, with revenues typically lowest in the first quarter, higher in the second and third quarters and lower in the fourth quarter than in the second and third quarters.  This seasonality reflects (a) the lower volume of solid waste generated during the late fall, winter and early spring because of decreased construction and demolition activities during winter months in Canada and the U.S., and (b) reduced E&P activity during harsh weather conditions, with expected fluctuation due to such seasonality between our highest and lowest quarters of approximately 12%.  In addition, some of our operating costs may be higher in the winter months.  Adverse winter weather conditions slow waste collection activities, resulting in higher labor and operational costs.  Greater precipitation in the winter increases the weight of collected MSW, resulting in higher disposal costs, which are calculated on a per ton basis. 

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT

For purposes of this section, references to “WCI” shall mean Old Waste Connections prior to June 1, 2016 and New Waste Connections on and after June 1, 2016. The following table sets forth certain information concerning our executive officers as of February 1, 2019: 

Ronald J. Mittelstaedt has served as Chief Executive Officer and a director of WCI since its formation in 1997, and was elected Chairman in January 1998. Mr. Mittelstaedt also served as President of WCI from its formation through August 2004. Mr. Mittelstaedt has more than 30 years of experience in the solid waste industry. Mr. Mittelstaedt serves as a director of SkyWest, Inc. Mr. Mittelstaedt holds a B.A. degree in Business Economics with a finance emphasis from the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Worthing F. Jackman has been President of WCI since July 1, 2018. From September 2004 to that date, Mr. Jackman served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of WCI. From April 2003 to September 2004, Mr. Jackman served as Vice President – Finance and Investor Relations of WCI. Mr. Jackman held various investment banking positions with Alex. Brown & Sons, now Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., from 1991 through 2003, including most recently as a Managing Director within the Global Industrial & Environmental Services Group. In that capacity, he provided capital markets and strategic advisory services to companies in a variety of sectors, including solid waste services. Mr. Jackman serves as a director of Quanta Services, Inc. He holds a B.S. degree in Finance from Syracuse University and an M.B.A. from the Harvard Business School.

Darrell W. Chambliss has been Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of WCI since October 2003. From October 1, 1997 to that date, Mr. Chambliss served as Executive Vice President – Operations of WCI. Mr. Chambliss has more than 28 years of experience in the solid waste industry. Mr. Chambliss holds a B.S. degree in Business Administration from the University of Arkansas.

Matthew S. Black has been Senior Vice President and Chief Tax Officer of WCI since January 2017. From March 2012 to that date, Mr. Black served as Vice President and Chief Tax Officer of WCI. From December 2006 to March 2012, Mr. Black served as Executive Director of Taxes of WCI. Mr. Black served as Tax Director for The McClatchy Company from April 2001 to November 2006, and served as Tax Manager from December 2000 to March 2001. From January 1994 to November 2000, Mr. Black held various positions, including Tax Manager, for PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Mr. Black is a Certified Public Accountant and holds a B.S. degree in Accounting and Master’s degree in Taxation from California State University, Sacramento.

David G. Eddie has been Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of WCI since January 2011. From February 2010 to that date, Mr. Eddie served as Vice President – Chief Accounting Officer of WCI. From March 2004 to February 2010, Mr. Eddie served as Vice President – Corporate Controller of WCI. From April 2003 to February 2004, Mr. Eddie served as Vice President – Public Reporting and Compliance of WCI. From May 2001 to March 2003, Mr. Eddie served as Director of Finance of WCI. Mr. Eddie served as Corporate Controller for International Fibercom, Inc. from April 2000 to May 2001. From September 1999 to April 2000, Mr. Eddie served as WCI’s Manager of Financial Reporting. From September 1994 to September 1999, Mr. Eddie held various positions, including Audit Manager, for PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Mr. Eddie is a Certified Public Accountant and holds a B.S. degree in Accounting from California State University, Sacramento.

David M. Hall has been Senior Vice President – Sales and Marketing of WCI since October 2005. From August 1998 to that date, Mr. Hall served as Vice President – Business Development of WCI. Mr. Hall has more than 31 years of experience in the solid waste industry with extensive operating and marketing experience in the Western U.S. Mr. Hall received a B.S. degree in Management and Marketing from Missouri State University.

Eric O. Hansen has been Senior Vice President – Chief Information Officer of WCI since February 1, 2019. From July 2004 to that date, Mr. Hansen served as Vice President – Chief Information Officer of WCI. From January 2001 to July 2004, Mr. Hansen served as Vice President – Information Technology of WCI. From April 1998 to December 2000, Mr. Hansen served as Director of Management Information Systems of WCI. Mr. Hansen holds a B.S. degree from Portland State University.

James M. Little has been Senior Vice President – Engineering and Disposal of WCI since February 2009. From September 1999 to that date, Mr. Little served as Vice President – Engineering of WCI. Mr. Little held various management positions with Waste Management, Inc. (formerly USA Waste Services, Inc., which acquired Waste Management, Inc. and Chambers Development Co. Inc.) from April 1990 to September 1999, including Regional Environmental Manager and Regional Landfill Manager, and most recently Division Manager in Ohio, where he was responsible for the operations of ten operating companies in the Northern Ohio area. Mr. Little is a certified professional geologist and holds a B.S. degree in Geology from Slippery Rock University.

Patrick J. Shea has been Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of WCI since August 2014. From February 2009 to that date, Mr. Shea served as Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of WCI. He served as General Counsel and Secretary of WCI from February 2008 to February 2009 and Corporate Counsel of WCI from February 2004 to February 2008. Mr. Shea practiced corporate and securities law with Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP in San Francisco from 1999 to 2003 and Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts (now Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP) in New York and London from 1995 to 1999. Mr. Shea holds a B.S. degree in Managerial Economics from the University of California at Davis and a J.D. degree from Cornell University.

Mary Anne Whitney has been Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of WCI since July 1, 2018. From February 2018 to that date, Ms. Whitney served as Senior Vice President – Finance of WCI. From March 2012 to February 2018, Ms. Whitney served as Vice President – Finance of WCI. From November 2006 to March 2012, Ms. Whitney served as Director of Finance of WCI. Ms. Whitney held various finance positions for Wheelabrator Technologies from 1990 to 2001. Ms. Whitney holds a B.A. degree in Economics from Georgetown University and an M.B.A. in Finance from New York University Stern School of Business.

Robert M. Cloninger has been Vice President, Deputy General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of WCI since August 2014. From February 2013 to that date, Mr. Cloninger served as Deputy General Counsel of WCI. He served as Corporate Counsel of WCI from February 2008 to February 2013. Mr. Cloninger practiced corporate, securities and mergers and acquisitions law with Schiff Hardin LLP in Chicago from 1999 to 2004 and Downey Brand LLP in Sacramento from 2004 to 2008. Mr. Cloninger holds a B.A. degree in History from Northwestern University and a J.D. degree from the University of California at Davis.

Keith P. Gordon has been Vice President – Information Systems of WCI since January 2017. From September 2010 to that date, Mr. Gordon served as Director of Information Systems of WCI. Prior to joining WCI, he spent 14 years in leadership roles with CableData, DST Innovis and Amdocs, Inc. leading an international software development organization, as well as serving as CTO for a startup company that was acquired by LivingSocial. Mr. Gordon spent 11 years as an Army officer in a number of leadership positions including Company Commander and Battalion staff positions. Mr. Gordon has a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from United States Military Academy, West Point, and M.S. in Computer Science from Stanford University.

Michelle L. Little has been Vice President – Accounting of WCI since January 2017. From December 2007 to that date, Ms. Little served as Director of Accounting of WCI. From 2001 to 2006, Ms. Little held various accounting positions at companies including Apple Computer and Pearson Education. From September 1996 to June 2001, Ms. Little held various positions, including Manager in Transaction Services, for PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Ms. Little is a Certified Public Accountant and holds a B.S. degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Accounting from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

Shawn W. Mandel has been Vice President – Safety and Risk Management of WCI since January 2017. From May 2011 to that date, Mr. Mandel served as Director of Safety of WCI. From 1995 to 2011, Mr. Mandel held various Safety leadership positions with Republic Services (formerly Browning-Ferris Industries and Allied Waste) including Director of Safety. Mr. Mandel holds a B.A. degree in Business Administration from National University.

Susan R. Netherton has been Vice President – People, Training and Development of WCI since July 2013. From February 2007 to that date, Ms. Netherton served as Director of Human Resources and Employment Manager of WCI. From 1994 to 2007, Ms. Netherton held various human resources positions at Carpenter Technology Corporation, a publicly-traded, specialty metals and materials company. Ms. Netherton holds a B.S. in Elementary Education from Kutztown University and an M.B.A. from St. Mary’s College of California.

Scott I. Schreiber has been Vice President – Equipment and Operations Support of WCI since the completion of the Progressive Waste acquisition on June 1, 2016. From February 2009 to that date, Mr. Schreiber served as Vice President – Disposal Operations of WCI. From October 1998 to February 2009, he served as Director of Landfill Operations of WCI. Mr. Schreiber has more than 38 years of experience in the solid waste industry. From September 1993 to September 1998, Mr. Schreiber served as corporate Director of Landfill Development and corporate Director of Environmental Compliance for Allied Waste Industries, Inc. From August 1988 to September 1993, Mr. Schreiber served as Regional Engineer (Continental Region) and corporate Director of Landfill Development for Laidlaw Waste Systems Inc. From June 1979 to August 1988, Mr. Schreiber held several managerial and technical positions in the solid waste and environmental industry. Mr. Schreiber holds a B.S. degree in Chemistry from the University of Wisconsin at Parkside.

Gregory Thibodeaux has been Vice President – Maintenance and Fleet Management of WCI since January 2011. From January 2000 to that date, Mr. Thibodeaux served as Director of Maintenance of WCI. Mr. Thibodeaux has more than 32 years of experience in the solid waste industry having held various management positions with Browning Ferris Industries, Sanifill, and USA Waste Services, Inc. Before coming to WCI, Mr. Thibodeaux served as corporate Director of Maintenance for Texas Disposal Systems.

Colin G. Wittke has been Vice President – Sales of WCI since the completion of the Progressive Waste acquisition on June 1, 2016. From June 2011 to that date, he served as Vice President, Sales and Marketing of Progressive Waste Solutions Ltd. Prior to that time, Mr. Wittke held various roles with Waste Management, Inc. for 19 years, including the position of Vice President, Sales and Customer Service. He has more than 30 years of experience in the solid waste industry. Mr. Wittke holds a BSc in Finance (cum laude) from Biola University in La Mirada, California.

Richard K. Wojahn has been Vice President – Business Development of WCI since February 2009. From September 2005 to that date, Mr. Wojahn served as Director of Business Development of WCI. Mr. Wojahn served as Vice President of Operations for Mountain Jack Environmental Services, Inc. (which was acquired by WCI in September 2005) from January 2004 to September 2005. Mr. Wojahn has more than 37 years of experience in the solid waste industry having held various management positions with Waste Management, Inc. and Allied Waste Industries, Inc. Mr. Wojahn attended Western Illinois University. 

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

Our corporate website address is http://www.wasteconnections.com. We make our reports on Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K and any amendments to such reports available on our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we file them with or furnish them to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and with the securities commissions or similar regulatory authorities in Canada. The SEC maintains an internet website at http://www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. The references to our website address, the SEC’s website address and the website maintained by the securities commissions or similar regulatory authorities in Canada do not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained in those websites and should not be considered part of this document.