COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2020
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 16. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in judicial and administrative proceedings involving federal, state, provincial or local governmental authorities, including regulatory agencies that oversee and enforce compliance with permits. Fines or penalties may be assessed by our regulators for non-compliance. Actions may also be brought by individuals or groups in connection with permitting of planned facilities, modification or alleged violations of existing permits, or alleged damages suffered from exposure to hazardous substances purportedly released from our operated sites, as well as other litigation. We maintain insurance intended to cover property and damage claims asserted as a result of our operations. Periodically, management reviews and may establish reserves for legal and administrative matters, or other fees expected to be incurred in relation to these matters. In December 2010, National Response Corporation, a subsidiary of NRC acquired by the Company in the NRC Merger, was named as one of many “Dispersant Defendants” in multi-district litigation, arising out of the explosion of the BP Deepwater Horizon (“BP”) oil rig, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (“In re Deepwater Horizon” or the “MDL”). The claims against National Response Corporation, and other “Dispersant Defendants,” were brought by workers and others who alleged injury arising from post-explosion clean–up efforts, including particularly the use of certain chemical dispersants. In January 2013, the Court approved a Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement, which, among other things, provided for a “class wide” settlement as well as a release of claims against Dispersant Defendants, including National Response Corporation. Further, National Response Corporation successfully moved the court to dismiss all claims against it based on derivative immunity, as it was acting at the direction of the U.S. Government. In early 2018, BP began asserting an alleged contractual right of indemnity against National Response Corporation and others in post-settlement lawsuits brought by persons who had either chosen not to participate in the class-wide agreement or whose injuries were allegedly manifest after the period covered by the claim submission process. The Company advised BP that it considers the attempt to bring National Response Corporation back into previously settled litigation to be improper and moved for a declaratory judgment that it owes no indemnity or contribution to BP, raising various arguments, including BP’s own actions and conduct over the preceding nine years with respect to these claims (including its failure to seek indemnity) and the resultant prejudice to National Response Corporation, BP’s waiver of any indemnity, and the court’s prior finding that National Response Corporation is entitled to derivative immunity. In response, BP asserted counterclaims against National Response Corporation for a declaratory judgment that National Response Corporation must indemnify BP under certain circumstances and for unjust enrichment. National Response Corporation successfully moved to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim. The parties filed simultaneous judgment on the pleadings briefs in February 2020, and all oppositions were filed on March 16, 2020. On May 4, 2020, the court found in favor of National Response Corporation, and held that the Company is not liable to BP or any back end litigation plaintiffs for any damages related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. BP timely appealed the ruling on June 11, 2020. The Company is currently unable to estimate the range of possible losses associated with this proceeding. However, the Company also believes that, were it deemed to have liability arising out of or related to BP’s indemnity claims, such liability would be covered by an indemnity by SEACOR Holdings Inc., the former owner of National Response Corporation, in favor of National Response Corporation and its affiliates. In January 2019, Kevin Sullivan, a driver for NRC from May 1, 2018 to August 22, 2018 filed a class action complaint against NRC in California Superior Court (Kevin Sullivan et. Al. v. National Response Corp., NRC Environmental Services, Inc. and Paul Taveira et al.) alleging the failure by the defendants to provide meal and rest breaks required by California law and requiring employees to work off the clock. Mr. Sullivan’s complaint also asserted a claim under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), which permits an employee to assert a claim for violations of certain California Labor Code provisions on behalf of all aggrieved employees to recover statutory penalties that could be recovered by the State of California. On April 17, 2019, NRC filed a motion to compel individual arbitration, strike Mr. Sullivan’s class action claims and stay the PAGA claim pending the outcome of Mr. Sullivan’s individual claim; the court subsequently granted NRC’s motion to compel. In response, Mr. Sullivan amended his complaint to dismiss the class claims without prejudice and proceed solely with the PAGA claim. Unlike class claims, PAGA claims cannot be waived by an employee’s agreement to individual arbitration; therefore, the case is proceeding as a pure representative PAGA claim only, absent any individual or class claims against the Company or NRC. The parties participated in a confidential mediation on August 3, 2020, and tentatively reached a settlement resolving the pending PAGA claim, subject to the parties’ final agreement on a definitive settlement agreement and court approval of such settlement agreement. On November 17, 2018, an explosion occurred at our Grand View, Idaho facility, resulting in one employee fatality and injuries to other employees. The incident severely damaged the facility’s primary waste-treatment building as well as surrounding waste handling, waste storage, maintenance and administrative support structures, resulting in the closure of the entire facility that remained in effect through January 2019. In addition to initiating and conducting our own investigation into the incident, we fully cooperated with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) to support their comprehensive and independent investigations of the incident. On January 10, 2020, we entered into a settlement agreement with OSHA settling a complaint made by OSHA relating to the incident for $50,000. On January 28, 2020, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission issued an order terminating the proceeding relating to such OSHA complaint. We have not otherwise been named as a defendant in any action relating to the incident. We maintain workers’ compensation insurance, business interruption insurance and liability insurance for personal injury, property and casualty damage. We believe that any potential third-party claims associated with the explosion in excess of our deductibles are expected to be resolved primarily through our insurance policies. Although we carry business interruption insurance, a disruption of our business caused by a casualty event, including the full and partial closure of our Grand View, Idaho facility, may result in the loss of business, profits or customers during the time of such closure. Accordingly, our insurance policies may not fully compensate us for these losses. The Company is actively working with its insurance companies on comprehensive property and business interruption insurance claims related to the incident at our Grand View, Idaho facility in the fourth quarter of 2018. The Company recognized insurance recoveries of $462,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2020, related to expenses incurred to continue limited operations at the facility. Other than as described above, during the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, we have not been a party to any material legal proceedings.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

NOTE 16. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in judicial and administrative proceedings involving federal, state, provincial or local governmental authorities, including regulatory agencies that oversee and enforce compliance with permits. Fines or penalties may be assessed by our regulators for non-compliance. Actions may also be brought by individuals or groups in connection with permitting of planned facilities, modification or alleged violations of existing permits, or alleged damages suffered from exposure to hazardous substances purportedly released from our operated sites, as well as other litigation. We maintain insurance intended to cover property and damage claims asserted as a result of our operations. Periodically, management reviews and may establish reserves for legal and administrative matters, or other fees expected to be incurred in relation to these matters.

In December 2010, National Response Corporation, a subsidiary of NRC acquired by the Company in the NRC Merger, was named as one of many “Dispersant Defendants” in multi-district litigation, arising out of the explosion of the BP Deepwater Horizon (“BP”) oil rig, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (“In re Deepwater Horizon” or the “MDL”). The claims against National Response Corporation, and other “Dispersant Defendants,” were brought by workers and others who alleged injury arising from post-explosion clean–up efforts, including particularly the use of certain chemical dispersants. In January 2013, the Court approved a Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement, which, among other things, provided for a “class wide” settlement as well as a release of claims against Dispersant Defendants, including National Response Corporation. Further, National Response Corporation successfully moved the court to dismiss all claims against it based on derivative immunity, as it was acting at the direction of the U.S. Government.

In early 2018, BP began asserting an alleged contractual right of indemnity against National Response Corporation and others in post-settlement lawsuits brought by persons who had either chosen not to participate in the class-wide agreement or whose injuries were allegedly manifest after the period covered by the claim submission process. The Company advised BP that it considers the attempt to bring National Response Corporation back into previously settled litigation to be improper and moved for a declaratory judgment that it owes no indemnity or contribution to BP, raising various arguments, including BP’s own actions and conduct over the preceding nine years with respect to these claims (including its failure to seek indemnity) and the resultant prejudice to National Response Corporation, BP’s waiver of any indemnity, and the court’s prior finding that National Response Corporation is entitled to derivative immunity. In response, BP asserted counterclaims against National Response Corporation for a declaratory judgment that National Response Corporation must indemnify BP under certain circumstances and for unjust enrichment. National Response Corporation successfully moved to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim. The parties filed simultaneous judgment on the pleadings briefs in February 2020, and all oppositions were filed on March 16, 2020. On May 4, 2020, the court found in favor of National Response Corporation, and held that the Company is not liable to BP or any back end litigation plaintiffs for any damages related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. BP timely appealed the ruling on June 11, 2020. The Company is currently unable to estimate the range of possible losses associated with this proceeding. However, the Company also believes that, were it deemed to have liability arising out of or related to BP’s indemnity claims, such liability would be covered by an indemnity by SEACOR Holdings Inc., the former owner of National Response Corporation, in favor of National Response Corporation and its affiliates.

In January 2019, Kevin Sullivan, a driver for NRC from May 1, 2018 to August 22, 2018 filed a class action complaint against NRC in California Superior Court (Kevin Sullivan et. Al. v. National Response Corp., NRC Environmental Services, Inc. and Paul Taveira et al.) alleging the failure by the defendants to provide meal and rest breaks required by California law and requiring employees to work off the clock. Mr. Sullivan’s complaint also asserted a claim under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), which permits an employee to assert a claim for violations of certain California Labor Code provisions on behalf of all aggrieved employees to recover statutory penalties that could be recovered by the State of California. On April 17, 2019, NRC filed a motion to compel individual arbitration, strike Mr. Sullivan’s class action claims and stay the PAGA claim pending the outcome of Mr. Sullivan’s individual claim; the court subsequently granted NRC’s motion to compel. In response, Mr. Sullivan amended his complaint to dismiss the class claims without prejudice and proceed solely with the PAGA claim. Unlike class claims, PAGA claims cannot be waived by an employee’s agreement to individual arbitration; therefore, the case is proceeding as a pure representative PAGA claim only, absent any individual or class claims against the Company or NRC. The parties participated in a confidential mediation on August 3, 2020, and tentatively reached a settlement resolving the pending PAGA claim, subject to the parties’ final agreement on a definitive settlement agreement and court approval of such settlement agreement.

On November 17, 2018, an explosion occurred at our Grand View, Idaho facility, resulting in one employee fatality and injuries to other employees. The incident severely damaged the facility’s primary waste-treatment building as well as surrounding waste handling, waste storage, maintenance and administrative support structures, resulting in the closure of the entire facility that remained in effect through January 2019. In addition to initiating and conducting our own investigation into the incident, we fully cooperated with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) to support their comprehensive and independent investigations of the incident. On January 10, 2020, we entered into a settlement agreement with OSHA settling a complaint made by OSHA relating to the incident for $50,000. On January 28, 2020, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission issued an order terminating the proceeding relating to such OSHA complaint. We have not otherwise been named as a defendant in any action relating to the incident. We maintain workers’ compensation insurance, business interruption insurance and liability insurance for personal injury, property and casualty damage. We believe that any potential third-party claims associated with the explosion in excess of our deductibles are expected to be resolved primarily through our insurance policies. Although we carry business interruption insurance, a disruption of our business caused by a casualty event, including the full and partial closure of our Grand View, Idaho facility, may result in the loss of business, profits or customers during the time of such closure. Accordingly, our insurance policies may not fully compensate us for these losses.

The Company is actively working with its insurance companies on comprehensive property and business interruption insurance claims related to the incident at our Grand View, Idaho facility in the fourth quarter of 2018. The Company

recognized insurance recoveries of $462,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2020, related to expenses incurred to continue limited operations at the facility.

Other than as described above, during the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, we have not been a party to any material legal proceedings.