COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 18. 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. On January 19, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held with respect to NRC that the district court erred in stating that BP was not entitled to indemnity from NRC under any circumstances but remanded to the district court for a claim-specific factual inquiry. The Court made clear that indemnity was only possible in the event of gross negligence or willful misconduct by NRC in cases where the claims in question were not otherwise lost under Texas law. The Company is currently unable to estimate the range of possible losses associated with this proceeding, although the Company believes that the opinion of the Court of Appeals positions it well on remand. Additionally, the Company believes that if it were 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. On November 17, 2018, an explosion occurred at our Grand View, Idaho facility. 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 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. In November 2020, we commenced a lawsuit against the generator and broker of the waste, the treatment of which we believe contributed to the Grand View explosion, seeking damages in connection with the losses suffered as a result of the incident. 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 September 2021, Robert Dell, a Marine Technician for NRC from June 2021 to September 2021, filed a class action complaint against US Ecology in the Alameda Superior Court for the State of California (Robert Dell et. al. v. US Ecology Illinois, Inc., US Ecology, Inc., and US Ecology Vernon, Inc.) alleging the failure by the defendants to pay wages and/or overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to provide meal and rest breaks as required by California law. Further, Mr. Dell has put the Labor & Workforce Development Agency on notice in an effort to exhaust administrative remedies and enable him to bring an additional claim under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, 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. Given the recency of the filing, the Company has not yet filed a response to Mr. Dell’s complaint. The Company believes that Mr. Dell’s claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. The Company is currently unable to estimate the range of possible losses associated with this proceeding. Other than as described herein, as of December 31, 2021 we were not a party to any material pending legal proceedings and are not aware of any other claims that could, individually or in the aggregate, have a materially adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The decision to accrue costs or write-off assets is based on the pertinent facts and our evaluation of present circumstances.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

NOTE 18. 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. On January 19, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held with respect to NRC that the district court erred in stating that BP was not entitled to indemnity from NRC under any circumstances but remanded to the district court for a claim-specific factual inquiry. The Court made clear that indemnity was only possible in the event of gross negligence or willful misconduct by NRC in cases where the claims in question were not otherwise lost under Texas law. The Company is currently unable to estimate the range of possible losses associated with this proceeding, although the Company believes that the opinion of the Court of Appeals positions it well on remand. Additionally, the Company believes that if it were 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.

On November 17, 2018, an explosion occurred at our Grand View, Idaho facility. 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 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. In November 2020, we commenced a lawsuit against the generator and broker of the waste, the treatment of which we believe contributed to the Grand View explosion, seeking damages in connection with the losses suffered as a result of the incident. 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 September 2021, Robert Dell, a Marine Technician for NRC from June 2021 to September 2021, filed a class action complaint against US Ecology in the Alameda Superior Court for the State of California (Robert Dell et. al. v. US Ecology Illinois, Inc., US Ecology, Inc., and US Ecology Vernon, Inc.) alleging the failure by the defendants to pay wages and/or overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to provide meal and rest breaks as required by California law. Further, Mr. Dell has put the Labor & Workforce Development Agency on notice in an effort to exhaust administrative remedies and enable him to bring an additional claim under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, 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. Given the recency of the filing, the Company has not yet filed a response to Mr. Dell’s complaint. The Company believes that Mr. Dell’s claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. The Company is currently unable to estimate the range of possible losses associated with this proceeding.

Other than as described herein, as of December 31, 2021 we were not a party to any material pending legal proceedings and are not aware of any other claims that could, individually or in the aggregate, have a materially adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The decision to accrue costs or write-off assets is based on the pertinent facts and our evaluation of present circumstances.