COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal and Administrative Proceedings The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. Actions filed against the Company arise from commercial and employment-related claims including alleged class actions related to sales practices and wage and hour claims. The plaintiffs in these actions may be seeking damages or injunctive relief or both. These actions are in various jurisdictions and stages of proceedings, and some are covered in part by insurance. In addition, the Company’s waste management services operations are regulated by federal, state, provincial and local laws enacted to regulate discharge of materials into the environment, remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater or otherwise protect the environment. This ongoing regulation results in the Company frequently becoming a party to legal or administrative proceedings involving all levels of governmental authorities and other interested parties. The issues involved in such proceedings generally relate to alleged violations of existing permits and licenses or alleged responsibility under federal or state Superfund laws to remediate contamination at properties owned either by the Company or by other parties (“third party sites”) to which either the Company or the prior owners of certain of the Company’s facilities shipped wastes. At June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Company had recorded reserves of $44.4 million and $41.7 million, respectively, in the Company's financial statements for actual or probable liabilities related to the legal and administrative proceedings in which the Company was then involved, the principal of which are described below. At June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Company also believed that it was reasonably possible that the amount of these potential liabilities could be as much as $3.5 million more. The Company periodically adjusts the aggregate amount of these reserves when actual or probable liabilities are paid or otherwise discharged, new claims arise, or additional relevant information about existing or probable claims becomes available. As of June 30, 2014, the $44.4 million of reserves consisted of (i) $35.2 million related to pending legal or administrative proceedings, including Superfund liabilities, which were included in remedial liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets, and (ii) $9.2 million primarily related to federal, state and provincial enforcement actions, which were included in accrued expenses on the consolidated balance sheets. As of June 30, 2014, the principal legal and administrative proceedings in which the Company was involved, or which had been terminated during 2014, were as follows: Ville Mercier. In September 2002, the Company acquired the stock of a subsidiary (the "Mercier Subsidiary") which owns a hazardous waste incinerator in Ville Mercier, Quebec (the "Mercier Facility"). The property adjacent to the Mercier Facility, which is also owned by the Mercier Subsidiary, is now contaminated as a result of actions dating back to 1968, when the Government of Quebec issued to a company unrelated to the Mercier Subsidiary two permits to dump organic liquids into lagoons on the property. In 1999, Ville Mercier and three neighboring municipalities filed separate legal proceedings against the Mercier Subsidiary and the Government of Quebec. In 2012, the municipalities amended their existing statement of claim to seek $2.9 million (cdn) in general damages and $10.0 million (cdn) in punitive damages, plus interest and costs, as well as injunctive relief. Both the Government of Quebec and the Company have filed summary judgment motions against the municipalities that are scheduled to be heard in September of 2014. In September 2007, the Quebec Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks issued a Notice pursuant to Section 115.1 of the Environment Quality Act, superseding Notices issued in 1992, which are the subject of the pending litigation. The more recent Notice notifies the Mercier Subsidiary that, if the Mercier Subsidiary does not take certain remedial measures at the site, the Minister intends to undertake those measures at the site and claim direct and indirect costs related to such measures. The Mercier Subsidiary continues to assert that it has no responsibility for the groundwater contamination in the region and will contest any action by the Ministry to impose costs for remedial measures on the Mercier Subsidiary. The Company also continues to pursue settlement options. At June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Company had accrued $13.9 million and $13.6 million, respectively, for remedial liabilities relating to the Ville Mercier legal proceedings. Safety-Kleen Legal Proceedings. On December 28, 2012, the Company acquired Safety-Kleen and thereby became subject to the legal proceedings in which Safety-Kleen was a party on that date. In addition to certain Superfund proceedings in which Safety-Kleen has been named as a potentially responsible party as described below under “Superfund Proceedings,” the principal such legal proceedings involving Safety-Kleen which were outstanding as of June 30, 2014 were as follows: Product Liability Cases. Safety-Kleen is named as a defendant in various lawsuits that are currently pending in various courts and jurisdictions throughout the United States, including approximately 64 proceedings (excluding cases which have been settled but not formally dismissed) as of June 30, 2014, wherein persons claim personal injury resulting from the use of Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning equipment or cleaning products. These proceedings typically involve allegations that the solvent used in Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning equipment contains contaminants and/or that Safety-Kleen's recycling process does not effectively remove the contaminants that become entrained in the solvent during their use. In addition, certain claimants assert that Safety-Kleen failed to warn adequately the product user of potential risks, including an historic failure to warn that solvent contains trace amounts of toxic or hazardous substances such as benzene. Safety-Kleen maintains insurance that it believes will provide coverage for these claims (over amounts accrued for self-insured retentions and deductibles in certain limited cases), except for punitive damages to the extent not insurable under state law or excluded from insurance coverage. Safety-Kleen believes that these claims lack merit and has historically vigorously defended, and intends to continue to vigorously defend, itself and the safety of its products against all of these claims. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. Consequently, Safety-Kleen is unable to ascertain the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these matters as of June 30, 2014. From December 31, 2013 to June 30, 2014, eight product liability claims were settled or dismissed. Due to the nature of these claims and the related insurance, the Company did not incur any expense as Safety-Kleen's insurance provided coverage in full for all such claims. Safety-Kleen may be named in similar, additional lawsuits in the future, including claims for which insurance coverage may not be available. Fee Class Action Claims. In October 2010, two customers filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated customers in the State of Alabama, alleging that Safety-Kleen improperly assessed fuel surcharges and extended area service fees. In 2012, similar lawsuits were filed by the same law firm in California and Missouri. It is Safety-Kleen's position that it had the right to assess fuel surcharges, that the customers were contractually obligated or otherwise consented to the charges and that the surcharges were voluntarily paid by the customers when presented with an invoice. A class has not been certified in any of these cases, and no reserve has been recorded. Superfund Proceedings The Company has been notified that either the Company (which, since December 28, 2012, includes Safety-Kleen) or the prior owners of certain of the Company's facilities for which the Company may have certain indemnification obligations have been identified as potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") or potential PRPs in connection with 125 sites which are subject to or are proposed to become subject to proceedings under federal or state Superfund laws. Of the 125 sites, two (the Wichita Facility and the BR Facility described below) involve facilities that are now owned by the Company and 123 involve third party sites to which either the Company or the prior owners of certain of the Company’s facilities shipped wastes. Of the 123 third party sites, 29 are now settled, 20 are currently requiring expenditures on remediation and 74 are not currently requiring expenditures on remediation. In connection with each site, the Company has estimated the extent, if any, to which it may be subject, either directly or as a result of any indemnification obligations, for cleanup and remediation costs, related legal and consulting costs associated with PRP investigations, settlements, and related legal and administrative proceedings. The amount of such actual and potential liability is inherently difficult to estimate because of, among other relevant factors, uncertainties as to the legal liability (if any) of the Company or the prior owners of certain of the Company's facilities to contribute a portion of the cleanup costs, the assumptions that must be made in calculating the estimated cost and timing of remediation, the identification of other PRPs and their respective capability and obligation to contribute to remediation efforts, and the existence and legal standing of indemnification agreements (if any) with prior owners, which may either benefit the Company or subject the Company to potential indemnification obligations. In addition to the Wichita Property and the BR Facility, Clean Harbors believes its potential liability could exceed $100,000 at 15 of the 123 third party sites. Wichita Property. The Company acquired in 2002 as part of the CSD assets a service center located in Wichita, Kansas (the "Wichita Property"). The Wichita Property is one of several properties located within the boundaries of a 1,400 acre state-designated Superfund site in an old industrial section of Wichita known as the North Industrial Corridor Site. Along with numerous other PRPs, the former owner executed a consent decree relating to such site with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA"), and the Company is continuing an ongoing remediation program for the Wichita Property in accordance with that consent decree. The Company also acquired rights under an indemnification agreement between the former owner and an earlier owner of the Wichita Property which the Company anticipates but cannot guarantee will be available to reimburse certain such cleanup costs. BR Facility. The Company acquired in 2002 a former hazardous waste incinerator and landfill in Baton Rouge (the "BR Facility"), for which operations had been previously discontinued by the prior owner. In September 2007, the EPA issued a special notice letter to the Company related to the Devil's Swamp Lake Site ("Devil's Swamp") in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. Devil's Swamp includes a lake located downstream of an outfall ditch where wastewater and stormwater have been discharged, and Devil's Swamp is proposed to be included on the National Priorities List due to the presence of Contaminants of Concern ("COC") cited by the EPA. These COCs include substances of the kind found in wastewater and storm water discharged from the BR Facility in past operations. The EPA originally requested COC generators to submit a good faith offer to conduct a remedial investigation feasibility study directed towards the eventual remediation of the site. The Company is currently performing corrective actions at the BR Facility under an order issued by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (the "LDEQ"), and has begun conducting the remedial investigation and feasibility study under an order issued by the EPA. The Company cannot presently estimate the potential additional liability for the Devil's Swamp cleanup until a final remedy is selected by the EPA. Third Party Sites. Of the 123 third party sites at which the Company has been notified it is a PRP or potential PRP or may have indemnification obligations, Clean Harbors has an indemnification agreement at 11 of these sites with ChemWaste, a former subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc., and at five additional of these third party sites, Safety-Kleen has a similar indemnification agreement with McKesson Corporation. These agreements indemnify the Company (which now includes Safety-Kleen) with respect to any liability at the 16 sites for waste disposed prior to the Company's (or Safety-Kleen's) acquisition of the former subsidiaries of Waste Management or McKesson which had shipped wastes to those sites. Accordingly, Waste Management or McKesson are paying all costs of defending those subsidiaries in those 16 cases, including legal fees and settlement costs. However, there can be no guarantee that the Company's ultimate liabilities for those sites will not exceed the amount recorded or that indemnities applicable to any of these sites will be available to pay all or a portion of related costs. Except for the indemnification agreements which the Company holds from ChemWaste and McKesson, the Company does not have an indemnity agreement with respect to any of the 123 third party sites discussed above. Federal, State and Provincial Enforcement Actions From time to time, the Company pays fines or penalties in regulatory proceedings relating primarily to waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities. As of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, there were three and five proceedings, respectively, for which the Company reasonably believed that the sanctions could equal or exceed $100,000. The Company believes that the fines or other penalties in these or any of the other regulatory proceedings will, individually or in the aggregate, not have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal and Administrative Proceedings

The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. Actions filed against the Company arise from commercial and employment-related claims including alleged class actions related to sales practices and wage and hour claims. The plaintiffs in these actions may be seeking damages or injunctive relief or both. These actions are in various jurisdictions and stages of proceedings, and some are covered in part by insurance. In addition, the Company’s waste management services operations are regulated by federal, state, provincial and local laws enacted to regulate discharge of materials into the environment, remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater or otherwise protect the environment. This ongoing regulation results in the Company frequently becoming a party to legal or administrative proceedings involving all levels of governmental authorities and other interested parties. The issues involved in such proceedings generally relate to alleged violations of existing permits and licenses or alleged responsibility under federal or state Superfund laws to remediate contamination at properties owned either by the Company or by other parties (“third party sites”) to which either the Company or the prior owners of certain of the Company’s facilities shipped wastes.

At June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Company had recorded reserves of $44.4 million and $41.7 million, respectively, in the Company's financial statements for actual or probable liabilities related to the legal and administrative proceedings in which the Company was then involved, the principal of which are described below. At June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Company also believed that it was reasonably possible that the amount of these potential liabilities could be as much as $3.5 million more. The Company periodically adjusts the aggregate amount of these reserves when actual or probable liabilities are paid or otherwise discharged, new claims arise, or additional relevant information about existing or probable claims becomes available. As of June 30, 2014, the $44.4 million of reserves consisted of (i) $35.2 million related to pending legal or administrative proceedings, including Superfund liabilities, which were included in remedial liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets, and (ii) $9.2 million primarily related to federal, state and provincial enforcement actions, which were included in accrued expenses on the consolidated balance sheets.

As of June 30, 2014, the principal legal and administrative proceedings in which the Company was involved, or which had been terminated during 2014, were as follows:

Ville Mercier. In September 2002, the Company acquired the stock of a subsidiary (the "Mercier Subsidiary") which owns a hazardous waste incinerator in Ville Mercier, Quebec (the "Mercier Facility"). The property adjacent to the Mercier Facility, which is also owned by the Mercier Subsidiary, is now contaminated as a result of actions dating back to 1968, when the Government of Quebec issued to a company unrelated to the Mercier Subsidiary two permits to dump organic liquids into lagoons on the property. In 1999, Ville Mercier and three neighboring municipalities filed separate legal proceedings against the Mercier Subsidiary and the Government of Quebec. In 2012, the municipalities amended their existing statement of claim to seek $2.9 million (cdn) in general damages and $10.0 million (cdn) in punitive damages, plus interest and costs, as well as injunctive relief. Both the Government of Quebec and the Company have filed summary judgment motions against the municipalities that are scheduled to be heard in September of 2014. In September 2007, the Quebec Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks issued a Notice pursuant to Section 115.1 of the Environment Quality Act, superseding Notices issued in 1992, which are the subject of the pending litigation. The more recent Notice notifies the Mercier Subsidiary that, if the Mercier Subsidiary does not take certain remedial measures at the site, the Minister intends to undertake those measures at the site and claim direct and indirect costs related to such measures.

The Mercier Subsidiary continues to assert that it has no responsibility for the groundwater contamination in the region and will contest any action by the Ministry to impose costs for remedial measures on the Mercier Subsidiary. The Company also continues to pursue settlement options. At June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Company had accrued $13.9 million and $13.6 million, respectively, for remedial liabilities relating to the Ville Mercier legal proceedings.

Safety-Kleen Legal Proceedings. On December 28, 2012, the Company acquired Safety-Kleen and thereby became subject to the legal proceedings in which Safety-Kleen was a party on that date. In addition to certain Superfund proceedings in which Safety-Kleen has been named as a potentially responsible party as described below under “Superfund Proceedings,” the principal such legal proceedings involving Safety-Kleen which were outstanding as of June 30, 2014 were as follows:

Product Liability Cases. Safety-Kleen is named as a defendant in various lawsuits that are currently pending in various courts and jurisdictions throughout the United States, including approximately 64 proceedings (excluding cases which have been settled but not formally dismissed) as of June 30, 2014, wherein persons claim personal injury resulting from the use of Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning equipment or cleaning products. These proceedings typically involve allegations that the solvent used in Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning equipment contains contaminants and/or that Safety-Kleen's recycling process does not effectively remove the contaminants that become entrained in the solvent during their use. In addition, certain claimants assert that Safety-Kleen failed to warn adequately the product user of potential risks, including an historic failure to warn that solvent contains trace amounts of toxic or hazardous substances such as benzene. Safety-Kleen maintains insurance that it believes will provide coverage for these claims (over amounts accrued for self-insured retentions and deductibles in certain limited cases), except for punitive damages to the extent not insurable under state law or excluded from insurance coverage. Safety-Kleen believes that these claims lack merit and has historically vigorously defended, and intends to continue to vigorously defend, itself and the safety of its products against all of these claims. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. Consequently, Safety-Kleen is unable to ascertain the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these matters as of June 30, 2014. From December 31, 2013 to June 30, 2014, eight product liability claims were settled or dismissed. Due to the nature of these claims and the related insurance, the Company did not incur any expense as Safety-Kleen's insurance provided coverage in full for all such claims. Safety-Kleen may be named in similar, additional lawsuits in the future, including claims for which insurance coverage may not be available.

Fee Class Action Claims. In October 2010, two customers filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated customers in the State of Alabama, alleging that Safety-Kleen improperly assessed fuel surcharges and extended area service fees. In 2012, similar lawsuits were filed by the same law firm in California and Missouri. It is Safety-Kleen's position that it had the right to assess fuel surcharges, that the customers were contractually obligated or otherwise consented to the charges and that the surcharges were voluntarily paid by the customers when presented with an invoice. A class has not been certified in any of these cases, and no reserve has been recorded.

Superfund Proceedings

The Company has been notified that either the Company (which, since December 28, 2012, includes Safety-Kleen) or the prior owners of certain of the Company's facilities for which the Company may have certain indemnification obligations have been identified as potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") or potential PRPs in connection with 125 sites which are subject to or are proposed to become subject to proceedings under federal or state Superfund laws. Of the 125 sites, two (the Wichita Facility and the BR Facility described below) involve facilities that are now owned by the Company and 123 involve third party sites to which either the Company or the prior owners of certain of the Company’s facilities shipped wastes. Of the 123 third party sites, 29 are now settled, 20 are currently requiring expenditures on remediation and 74 are not currently requiring expenditures on remediation.

In connection with each site, the Company has estimated the extent, if any, to which it may be subject, either directly or as a result of any indemnification obligations, for cleanup and remediation costs, related legal and consulting costs associated with PRP investigations, settlements, and related legal and administrative proceedings. The amount of such actual and potential liability is inherently difficult to estimate because of, among other relevant factors, uncertainties as to the legal liability (if any) of the Company or the prior owners of certain of the Company's facilities to contribute a portion of the cleanup costs, the assumptions that must be made in calculating the estimated cost and timing of remediation, the identification of other PRPs and their respective capability and obligation to contribute to remediation efforts, and the existence and legal standing of indemnification agreements (if any) with prior owners, which may either benefit the Company or subject the Company to potential indemnification obligations. In addition to the Wichita Property and the BR Facility, Clean Harbors believes its potential liability could exceed $100,000 at 15 of the 123 third party sites.

Wichita Property. The Company acquired in 2002 as part of the CSD assets a service center located in Wichita, Kansas (the "Wichita Property"). The Wichita Property is one of several properties located within the boundaries of a 1,400 acre state-designated Superfund site in an old industrial section of Wichita known as the North Industrial Corridor Site. Along with numerous other PRPs, the former owner executed a consent decree relating to such site with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA"), and the Company is continuing an ongoing remediation program for the Wichita Property in accordance with that consent decree. The Company also acquired rights under an indemnification agreement between the former owner and an earlier owner of the Wichita Property which the Company anticipates but cannot guarantee will be available to reimburse certain such cleanup costs.

BR Facility. The Company acquired in 2002 a former hazardous waste incinerator and landfill in Baton Rouge (the "BR Facility"), for which operations had been previously discontinued by the prior owner. In September 2007, the EPA issued a special notice letter to the Company related to the Devil's Swamp Lake Site ("Devil's Swamp") in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. Devil's Swamp includes a lake located downstream of an outfall ditch where wastewater and stormwater have been discharged, and Devil's Swamp is proposed to be included on the National Priorities List due to the presence of Contaminants of Concern ("COC") cited by the EPA. These COCs include substances of the kind found in wastewater and storm water discharged from the BR Facility in past operations. The EPA originally requested COC generators to submit a good faith offer to conduct a remedial investigation feasibility study directed towards the eventual remediation of the site. The Company is currently performing corrective actions at the BR Facility under an order issued by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (the "LDEQ"), and has begun conducting the remedial investigation and feasibility study under an order issued by the EPA. The Company cannot presently estimate the potential additional liability for the Devil's Swamp cleanup until a final remedy is selected by the EPA.

Third Party Sites. Of the 123 third party sites at which the Company has been notified it is a PRP or potential PRP or may have indemnification obligations, Clean Harbors has an indemnification agreement at 11 of these sites with ChemWaste, a former subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc., and at five additional of these third party sites, Safety-Kleen has a similar indemnification agreement with McKesson Corporation. These agreements indemnify the Company (which now includes Safety-Kleen) with respect to any liability at the 16 sites for waste disposed prior to the Company's (or Safety-Kleen's) acquisition of the former subsidiaries of Waste Management or McKesson which had shipped wastes to those sites. Accordingly, Waste Management or McKesson are paying all costs of defending those subsidiaries in those 16 cases, including legal fees and settlement costs. However, there can be no guarantee that the Company's ultimate liabilities for those sites will not exceed the amount recorded or that indemnities applicable to any of these sites will be available to pay all or a portion of related costs. Except for the indemnification agreements which the Company holds from ChemWaste and McKesson, the Company does not have an indemnity agreement with respect to any of the 123 third party sites discussed above.

Federal, State and Provincial Enforcement Actions

From time to time, the Company pays fines or penalties in regulatory proceedings relating primarily to waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities. As of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, there were three and five proceedings, respectively, for which the Company reasonably believed that the sanctions could equal or exceed $100,000. The Company believes that the fines or other penalties in these or any of the other regulatory proceedings will, individually or in the aggregate, not have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.