XML 23 R13.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.5.0.2

Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies |
7. | CONTINGENCIES
There are a variety of legal proceedings pending or threatened against the Company. Some of these proceedings may result in fines, penalties, judgments or costs being assessed against the Company at some future time. The Company’s operations are subject to extensive local, state and federal regulations, including the U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Superfund amendments of 1986. Over the years, the Company has received requests for information related to or has been named by the government as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at a number of waste disposal sites where cleanup costs have been or may be incurred under CERCLA and similar state statutes. In addition, damages are being claimed against the Company in general liability actions for alleged personal injury or property damage in the case of some disposal and plant sites. The Company believes that it has made adequate provisions for the costs it may incur with respect to these sites. As of September 30, 2016, the Company estimated a range of possible environmental and legal losses of $21.4 million to $42.4 million. At September 30, 2016, and December 31, 2015, the Company’s accrued liability for such losses, which represented the Company’s best estimate within the estimated range of possible environmental and legal losses, was $21.4 million and $20.9 million, respectively. During the first nine months of 2016 and 2015, cash outlays related to legal and environmental matters approximated $1.0 and $2.3 million, respectively. For certain sites, the Company has responded to information requests made by federal, state or local government agencies but has received no response confirming or denying the Company’s stated positions. As such, estimates of the total costs, or range of possible costs, of remediation, if any, or the Company’s share of such costs, if any, cannot be determined with respect to these sites. Consequently, the Company is unable to predict the effect thereof on the Company’s financial position, cash flows and results of operations. Given the information available, management believes the Company has no liability at these sites. However, in the event of one or more adverse determinations with respect to such sites in any annual or interim period, the effect on the Company’s cash flows and results of operations for those periods could be material. Based upon the Company’s present knowledge with respect to its involvement at these sites, the possibility of other viable entities’ responsibilities for cleanup, and the extended period over which any costs would be incurred, the Company believes that these matters, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position. Following are summaries of the material contingencies at September 30, 2016: Maywood, New Jersey Site The Company’s property in Maywood, New Jersey and property formerly owned by the Company adjacent to its current site and other nearby properties (Maywood site) were listed on the National Priorities List in September 1993 pursuant to the provisions of CERCLA because of certain alleged chemical contamination. Pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent entered into between United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Company for property formerly owned by the Company, and the issuance of an order by USEPA to the Company for property currently owned by the Company, the Company has completed various Remedial Investigation Feasibility Studies, and on September 24, 2014, USEPA issued its Record of Decision (ROD) for chemically-contaminated soil. USEPA has not yet issued a ROD for chemically-contaminated groundwater for the Maywood site. Based on the most current information available, the Company believes its recorded liability represents its best estimate of the cost of remediation for the Maywood site. The best estimate of the cost of remediation for the Maywood site could change as the Company continues to hold discussions with USEPA, as the design of the remedial action progresses or if other PRPs are identified. The ultimate amount for which the Company is liable could differ from the Company’s current recorded liability. In April 2015, the Company entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Administrative Order on Consent with USEPA which requires payment of certain costs and performance of certain investigative and design work for chemically-contaminated soil. Based on the Company’s review and analysis of this order, no changes to the Company’s recorded liability for claims associated with soil remediation of chemical contamination were required. In addition, under the terms of a settlement agreement reached on November 12, 2004, the United States Department of Justice and the Company agreed to fulfill the terms of a Cooperative Agreement reached in 1985 under which the United States will take title to and responsibility for radioactive waste removal at the Maywood site, including past and future remediation costs incurred by the United States. As such, the Company recorded no liability related to this settlement agreement. D’Imperio Property Site During the mid-1970’s, Jerome Lightman and the Lightman Drum Company disposed of hazardous substances at several sites in New Jersey. The Company was named as a PRP in the case United States v. Lightman (1:92-cv-4710 D.N.J.), which involved the D’Imperio Property Site located in New Jersey. In 2016, the PRPs were provided with updated remediation cost estimates which were considered in the Company’s determination of its range of estimated possible losses and liability balance. The change in range of possible losses and liability balance were immaterial. Remediation work is continuing at this site. Based on current information, the Company believes that its recorded liability for claims associated with the D’Imperio site is adequate. However, actual costs could differ from current estimates. Wilmington Site The Company is currently contractually obligated to contribute to the response costs associated with the Company’s formerly-owned site at 51 Eames Street, Wilmington, Massachusetts. Remediation at this site is being managed by its current owner to whom the Company sold the property in 1980. Under the agreement, once total site remediation costs exceed certain levels, the Company is obligated to contribute up to five percent of future response costs associated with this site with no limitation on the ultimate amount of contributions. To date, the Company has paid the current owner $2.5 million for the Company’s portion of environmental response costs. The Company has recorded a liability for its portion of the estimated remediation costs for the site. Depending on the ultimate cost of the remediation at this site, the amount for which the Company is liable could differ from the current estimates. The Company and other prior owners also entered into an agreement in April 2004 waiving certain statute of limitations defenses for claims which may be filed by the Town of Wilmington, Massachusetts, in connection with this site. While the Company has denied any liability for any such claims, the Company agreed to this waiver while the parties continue to discuss the resolution of any potential claims which may be filed. The Company believes that based on current information its recorded liability for the claims related to this site is adequate. However, depending on the ultimate cost of the remediation at this site, the amount for which the Company is liable could differ from the current estimates. Mexico Value-Added Tax In the first quarter of 2015, during an examination of the 2009 and 2010 financial records of the Company’s Mexico subsidiary, local tax authority auditors determined that the Company’s treatment of value-added tax (VAT) for purchase transactions with a certain vendor was incorrect. As a result, the tax authorities concluded that the Company owed past VAT from 2009-2010 along with assessed inflation, penalty and interest charges. Consequently, the Company recorded a liability and corresponding income statement charge for the VAT inflation, penalty and interest charges. The liability included the 2009–2010 assessment of inflation, penalty and interest charges plus an estimated amount for the potential exposure for 2011– 2014. The amount recorded was not material to the Company’s results of operations. No charge was recorded for the past unpaid VAT because the Company believes the amount will be recoverable through the normal VAT process. No exposure for years after 2014 exists as the Company remedied the underlying issue that led to the tax authorities’ determination. In February 2016, the Company reached agreement with Mexico’s tax authorities on the amount of inflation, penalty and interest charged for the 2009 and 2010 years under audit. No significant adjustments were required to the previously recorded liability. Depending on the outcomes of future negotiations with Mexico tax authorities regarding the years 2011-2014 and the actual amount of the past VAT that is recovered by the Company, the final actual settlement could differ from the current recorded liability.

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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=68068213&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=73718637&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration