XML 38 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.21.1

CONTINGENCIES | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Apr. 03, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
CONTINGENCIES | CONTINGENCIES The Company is involved in various legal proceedings relating to environmental issues, employment, product liability, workers’ compensation claims and other matters. The Company periodically reviews the status of these proceedings with both inside and outside counsel, as well as an actuary for risk insurance. Management believes that the ultimate disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on operations or financial condition taken as a whole. In the normal course of business, the Company is a party to administrative proceedings and litigation, before federal and state regulatory agencies, relating to environmental remediation with respect to claims involving the discharge of hazardous substances into the environment, generally at current and former manufacturing facilities. In addition, some of these claims assert that the Company is responsible for damages and liability, for remedial investigation and clean-up costs, with respect to sites that have never been owned or operated by the Company, but the Company has been identified as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"). In connection with the 2010 merger with Black & Decker, the Company assumed certain commitments and contingent liabilities. Black & Decker is a party to litigation and administrative proceedings with respect to claims involving the discharge of hazardous substances into the environment at current and former manufacturing facilities and has also been named as a PRP in certain administrative proceedings. The Company, along with many other companies, has been named as a PRP in numerous administrative proceedings for the remediation of various waste sites, including 28 active Superfund sites. Current laws potentially impose joint and several liabilities upon each PRP. In assessing its potential liability at these sites, the Company has considered the following: whether responsibility is being disputed, the terms of existing agreements, experience at similar sites, and the Company’s volumetric contribution at these sites. The Company’s policy is to accrue environmental investigatory and remediation costs for identified sites when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. If no amount in the range of probable loss is considered most likely, the minimum loss in the range is accrued. The amount of liability recorded is based on an evaluation of currently available facts with respect to each individual site and includes such factors as existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations, and prior experience in remediation of contaminated sites. The liabilities recorded do not take into account any claims for recoveries from insurance or third parties. As assessments and remediation progress at individual sites, the amounts recorded are reviewed periodically and adjusted to reflect additional technical and legal information that becomes available. As of April 3, 2021 and January 2, 2021, the Company had reserves of $165.6 million and $174.2 million, respectively, for remediation activities associated with Company-owned properties, as well as for Superfund sites, for losses that are probable and estimable. Of the 2021 amo unt, $46.2 million is classified as current and $119.4 million as l ong-term which is expected to be paid over the estimated remediation period. As of April 3, 2021, the range of environmental remediation costs that is reasonably possibl e is $101.1 million to $235.8 million which i s subject to change in the near term. The Company may be liable for environmental remediation of sites it no longer owns. Liabilities have been recorded on those sites in accordance with the Company's policy. As of April 3, 2021, the Company has recorde d $16.0 million in other assets related to funding received by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and placed in a trust in accordance with the final settlement with the EPA, embodied in a Consent Decree approved by the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 3, 2013. Per the Consent Decree, Emhart Industries, Inc. (a dissolved and liquidated former indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of The Black & Decker Corporation) (“Emhart”) has agreed to be responsible for an interim remedy at a site located in Rialto, California and formerly operated by West Coast Loading Corporation (“WCLC”), a defunct company for which Emhart was alleged to be liable as a successor. The remedy will be funded by (i) the amounts received from the EPA as gathered from multiple parties, and, to the extent necessary, (ii) Emhart's affiliate. The interim remedy requires the construction of a water treatment facility and the filtering of ground water at or around the site for a period of approximately 30 years or more. As of April 3, 2021, the Company's net cash obligation associated with remediation activities, including WCLC assets, is $149.6 million. The EPA also asserted claims in federal court in Rhode Island against Black & Decker and Emhart related to environmental contamination found at the Centredale Manor Restoration Project Superfund Site ("Centredale"), located in North Providence, Rhode Island. The EPA discovered a variety of contaminants at the site, including but not limited to, dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, and pesticides. The EPA alleged that Black & Decker and Emhart are liable for site clean-up costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") as successors to the liability of Metro-Atlantic, Inc., a former operator at the site, and demanded reimbursement of the EPA’s costs related to this site. Black & Decker and Emhart then vigorously litigated the issue of their liability for environmental conditions at the Centredale site, including completing trial on Phase 1 of the proceedings in late July 2015 and completing trial on Phase 2 of the proceedings in April 2017. On July 9, 2018, a Consent Decree was lodged with the United States District Court documenting the terms of a settlement between the Company and the United States for reimbursement of EPA's past costs and remediation of environmental contamination found at the Centredale site. The terms of the Consent Decree were subject to public comment and Court approval. After a full hearing on March 19, 2019, the Court approved and entered the Consent Decree on April 8, 2019. The settlement resolves outstanding issues relating to Phase 1 and 2 of the litigation with the United States. The Company is complying with the terms of the settlement. The District Court's entry of the Consent Decree was appealed by several PRPs at the site to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The District Court's actions were affirmed by the First Circuit on February 17, 2021. Phase 3 of the litigation is addressing the potential allocation of liability to other PRPs who may have contributed to contamination of the Centredale site with dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls and other contaminants of concern. As of April 3, 2021, the Company has a remaining reserve of $69.6 million for this site. The Company and approximately 47 other companies comprise the Lower Passaic Cooperating Parties Group (the “CPG”). The CPG members and other companies are parties to a May 2007 Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) with the EPA to perform a remedial investigation/feasibility study (“RI/FS”) of the lower seventeen miles of the Lower Passaic River in New Jersey (the “River”). The Company’s potential liability stems from former operations in Newark, New Jersey. As an interim step related to the 2007 AOC, on June 18, 2012, the CPG members voluntarily entered into an AOC with the EPA for remediation actions focused solely at mile 10.9 of the River. The Company’s estimated costs related to the RI/FS and focused remediation action at mile 10.9, based on an interim allocation, are included in its environmental reserves. On April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”) and proposed plan which addressed various early action remediation alternatives for the lower 8.3 miles of the River. The EPA received public comment on the FFS and proposed plan (including comments from the CPG and other entities asserting that the FFS and proposed plan do not comply with CERCLA) which public comment period ended on August 20, 2014. The CPG submitted to the EPA a draft RI report in February 2015 and draft FS report in April 2015 for the entire lower seventeen miles of the River. On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued a Record of Decision ("ROD") selecting the remedy for the lower 8.3 miles of the River. The cleanup plan adopted by the EPA is now considered a final action for the lower 8.3 miles of the River and will include the removal of 3.5 million cubic yards of sediment, placement of a cap over the entire lower 8.3 miles of the River, and, according to the EPA, will cost approximately $1.4 billion and take 6 years to implement after the remedial design is completed. The Company and 105 other parties received a letter dated March 31, 2016 from the EPA notifying such parties of potential liability for the costs of the cleanup of the lower 8.3 miles of the River and a letter dated March 30, 2017 stating that the EPA had offered 20 of the parties (not including the Company) an early cash out settlement. In a letter dated May 17, 2017, the EPA stated that these 20 parties did not discharge any of the eight hazardous substances identified as the contaminants of concern in the lower 8.3 mile ROD. In the March 30, 2017 letter, the EPA stated that other parties who did not discharge dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls (which are considered the contaminants of concern posing the greatest risk to human health or the environment) may also be eligible for cash out settlement, but expects those parties' allocation to be determined through a complex settlement analysis using a third-party allocator. The EPA subsequently clarified this statement to say that such parties would be eligible to be "funding parties" for the lower 8.3 mile remedial action with each party's share of the costs determined by the EPA based on the allocation process and the remaining parties would be "work parties" for the remedial action. The Company is participating in the allocation process. The allocator selected by the EPA issued a confidential financial report on December 28, 2020, which is under review by the EPA. The Company asserts that it did not discharge dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls and should be eligible to be a "funding party" for the lower 8.3 mile remedial action. On September 30, 2016, Occidental Chemical Corporation ("OCC") entered into an agreement with the EPA to perform the remedial design for the cleanup plan for the lower 8.3 miles of the River. The remedial design is expected to be substantially completed in the fourth quarter of 2022. On June 30, 2018, OCC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against over 100 companies, including the Company, seeking CERCLA cost recovery or contribution for past costs relating to various investigations and cleanups OCC has conducted or is conducting in connection with the River. According to the complaint, OCC has incurred or is incurring costs which include the estimated cost ($165 million) to complete the remedial design for the cleanup plan for the lower 8.3 miles of the River. OCC also seeks a declaratory judgment to hold the defendants liable for their proper shares of future response costs for OCC's ongoing activities in connection with the River. The Company and other defendants have answered the complaint and currently are engaged in discovery with OCC. On February 24, 2021, the Company and other defendants filed a third party complaint against the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners and forty-two municipalities to require those entities to pay their equitable share of response costs. On October 10, 2018, the EPA issued a letter directing the CPG to prepare a streamlined feasibility study for the upper 9 miles of the River based on an iterative approach using adaptive management strategies. The CPG submitted a revised draft Interim Remedy Feasibility Study to the EPA on December 4, 2020, which identifies various targeted dredge and cap alternatives with costs that range from $420 million to $468 million (net present value). The EPA approved the Interim Remedy Feasibility Study on December 11, 2020. The EPA issued the Interim Remedy Proposed Plan on April 14, 2021, selecting an alternative that the EPA estimates will cost $441 million (net present value). The EPA is expected to issue the Interim Remedy ROD in the third or fourth quarter of 2021. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably estimate its liability related to the litigation and remediation efforts, excluding the RI/FS and remediation actions at mile 10.9, as the RI/FS is ongoing, the ultimate remedial approach and associated cost for the upper portion of the River has not yet been determined, and the parties that will participate in funding the remediation and their respective allocations are not yet known. Per the terms of a Final Order and Judgment approved by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on January 22, 1991, Emhart is responsible for a percentage of remedial costs arising out of the Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation Superfund Site located in Jacksonville, Florida. On March 15, 2017, the Company received formal notification from the EPA that the EPA had issued a ROD selecting the preferred alternative identified in the Proposed Cleanup Plan. As of April 3, 2021, the Company has reserved $23.6 million for this site. The amount recorded for identified contingent liabilities is based on estimates. Amounts recorded are reviewed periodically and adjusted to reflect additional technical and legal information that becomes available. Actual costs to be incurred in future periods may vary from the estimates, given the inherent uncertainties in evaluating certain exposures. Subject to the imprecision in estimating future contingent liability costs, the Company does not expect that any sum it may have to pay in connection with these matters in excess of the amounts recorded will have a materially adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration