XML 34 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.7.0.1

Commitments, Contingencies and Legal Proceedings | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments, Contingencies and Legal Proceedings |
12. | COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Fox River - Neenah, Wisconsin Background. We have significant uncertainties associated with environmental claims arising out of the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) in sediments in the lower Fox River, on which our former Neenah facility was located, and in the Bay of Green Bay Wisconsin (collectively, the “Site”). Since the early 1990s, the United States, the State of Wisconsin and two Indian tribes (collectively, the “Governments”) have pursued a cleanup of a 39-mile stretch of river from Little Lake Butte des Morts into Green Bay and natural resource damages (“NRDs”). The Site has been subject to certain studies, demonstration projects and interim cleanups. The permanent cleanup, known as a “remedial action” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), consists of sediment dredging, installation of engineered caps and placement of sand covers in various areas in the bed of the river. The United States originally notified several entities that they were potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”); however, after giving effect to settlements reached with the Governments, the remaining PRPs exposed to continuing obligations to implement the remainder of the cleanup consist of us, Georgia Pacific Consumer Products, L.P. (“Georgia Pacific”) and NCR Corporation (“NCR”). In addition to the government claims, Appvion retains a claim against us and Georgia Pacific. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has divided the Site into five “operable units”, including the most upstream portion of the Site on which our facility was located (“OU1”) and four downstream reaches of the river and bay (“OU2-5”). We and WTM I Company, one of the PRPs, implemented the remedial action in OU1 under a consent decree with the Governments; Menasha Corporation made a financial contribution to that work. That project began in 2004 and the work is complete, other than on-going monitoring and maintenance. For OU2-5, work has proceeded primarily under a Unilateral Administrative Order (“UAO”) issued in November 2007 by the EPA to us and seven other respondents. The majority of that work to date has been funded or conducted by parties other than us, although before the UAO, we contributed to a project in that area and we have conducted about $13.4 million of cleanup work under the UAO in 2015 and 2016. The cleanup is expected to continue through 2018. However, as discussed below, under a proposed consent decree between the United States, Wisconsin, NCR and Appvion, Inc. (“Appvion”), we would not be responsible for any additional cleanup at the Site. Litigation and Settlement. In 2008, in an allocation action, NCR and Appvion sued us and many other defendants in an effort to allocate among the liable parties the costs of cleaning up this Site and compensating the Governments for their costs and the natural resource trustees for NRDs. This case has been called the “Whiting litigation.” After several summary judgment rulings and a trial, the trial court entered judgment in the Whiting Litigation allocating to NCR 100% of the costs of (a) the OU2-5 cleanup, (b) NRDs, (c) past and future costs incurred by the Governments in OU2-5, and (d) past and future costs incurred by any of the other parties net of an appropriate equitable adjustment for insurance recoveries. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that if knowledge and fault were the only equitable factors governing allocation of costs and NRDs at the Site, NCR would owe 100% of all costs and damages in OU2-5, but would not have a share of costs in OU1 -- which is upstream of the outfall of the facilities for which NCR is responsible -- solely as an “arranger for disposal” of PCB-containing waste paper by recycling it at our mill. However, the court of appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the case for the district court’s further consideration of whether any other equitable factors might cause the district court to alter its allocation. In 2010, in an enforcement action, the Governments sued us and other defendants for (a) an injunction to require implementation of the cleanup ordered by the 2007 UAO, (b) recovery of the Governments’ past and future costs of response, (c) recovery of NRDs, and (d) recovery of a declaration of liability for the Site. After appeals, the Governments did not obtain an injunction and they withdrew their claims for NRDs. The Governments obtained a declaration of our liability to comply with the 2007 UAO. The Governments’ costs claims remained pending. On January 17, 2017, the United States filed a consent decree with the federal district court among the United States, Wisconsin, NCR, and Appvion (the “NCR/Appvion consent decree”) under which NCR would agree to complete the remaining cleanup and both NCR and Appvion would agree not to seek to recover from us or anyone else any amounts they have spent or will spend, and we and others would be barred from seeking claims against NCR or Appvion. On March 29, 2017, the United States moved for entry of a somewhat revised version of the NCR/Appvion consent decree. If the proposed consent decree is approved by the district court and if it were to withstand any appeal, then we would only face exposure to: (i) government past oversight costs, (ii) government future oversight costs, (iii) long term monitoring and maintenance, and (iv) depending on the reason, a further remedy if necessary in the event the currently ordered remedy fails, over 30 or more years, to achieve its objectives. As the result of earlier settlements, Georgia Pacific is only jointly liable with us to the Governments for monitoring and maintenance costs incurred in the most downstream three miles of the river (“OU4b”) and the bay of Green Bay (“OU5”). In addition, we and Georgia Pacific have claims against each other to reallocate the costs that we have each incurred or will incur. In connection with the filing of the proposed consent decree, NCR and Appvion filed a request to stay the trial scheduled to commence in April 2017. The courts granted the stay. Cost estimates. The proposed NCR/Appvion consent decree, as revised, states that all parties combined have spent more than approximately $1 billion to date towards remedial actions and NRDs, of which we have contributed approximately $65 million. In addition, work to complete the remaining site remedy under the UAO is anticipated to cost approximately $200 million. If the consent decree were entered, we would no longer be exposed to reallocation of any of those amounts other than the portion contributed by Georgia Pacific, which Georgia Pacific claims to be about $145 million. Under the proposed NCR/Appvion consent decree, we would remain responsible for the Governments’ unreimbursed past costs, which although they are in dispute, are represented to total approximately $34 million and the Governments’ future costs. Furthermore, we, along with Georgia Pacific, would be responsible for long term monitoring and maintenance required pursuant to the Lower Fox River 100% Remedial Design Report dated December 2009 – Long Term Monitoring Plan (the “Plan”). The Plan requires long term monitoring of each of OU1 through OU5 over a period of at least 30 years. The monitoring activities consist of, among others, testing fish tissue, sampling water quality and sediment, and inspections of the engineered caps. Each operable unit is required to be monitored; however, in the event the NCR/Appvion consent decree is entered by the court, we believe the cost of portions of the plan would be subject to allocation between us and Georgia Pacific. Although we are unable to determine with certainty the timing of cash expenditures for the above matters, they are reasonably likely to extend over a period of at least 30 years. Reserves for the Site. Our reserve including ongoing monitoring obligations in OU1, our share of remediation of the downstream portions of the Site, NRDs and all pending, threatened or asserted and unasserted claims against us relating to PCB contamination is set forth below:
|  | Three months ended March 31 |
In thousands |  |  | 2017 |  |  |  |  | 2016 |
Balance at January 1, |  | $ | 52,788 |  |  |  | $ | 17,105 |
Payments |  |  | (85 | ) |  |  |  | (658 | )
Accruals |  |  | - |  |  |  |  | - |
Balance at March 31, |  | $ | 52,703 |  |  |  | $ | 16,447 |
The payments set forth above represent cash paid towards completion of remediation activities in connection with the 2016 and 2015 Work Plans and ongoing monitoring activities. Of our total reserve for the Fox River, $25.0 million is recorded in the accompanying March 31, 2017 condensed consolidated balance sheet under the caption “Environmental liabilities” and the remaining $27.7 million is recorded under the caption “Other long term liabilities.” Range of Reasonably Possible Outcomes. Based on our analysis of all available information, including but not limited to decisions of the courts, official documents such as records of decision, discussions with legal counsel, cost estimates for future monitoring and maintenance and other post-remediation costs to be performed at the Site, and substantially dependent on whether the NCR/Appvion consent decree is entered and the resolution of the allocation issues between Georgia Pacific and us, we believe it is reasonably possible that our costs associated with the Fox River matter could exceed the aggregate amounts accrued by amounts ranging from insignificant to approximately $40 million. We believe the likelihood of an outcome in the upper end of the monetary range is less than other possible outcomes within the range and the possibility of an outcome in excess of the upper end of the monetary range is remote. However, in the event the NCR/Appvion consent decree is not entered, the ultimate resolution of this matter would likely resort to extensive litigation involving various matters, including allocation of remedial action and related costs. In such a scenario, although we should ultimately bear a very small share, it is reasonably possible that our costs associated with the Fox River matter could exceed the aggregate amounts accrued by amounts ranging from insignificant to $150 million. Summary. Our current assessment is we will be able to manage this environmental matter without a long-term, material adverse impact on the Company. This matter could, however, at any particular time or for any particular year or years, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity and/or results of operations or could result in a default under our debt covenants. Moreover, there can be no assurance our reserves will be adequate to provide for future obligations related to this matter, or our share of costs and/or damages will not exceed our available resources, or those obligations will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity and results of operations and might result in a default under our loan covenants. If the proposed NCR/Appvion consent decree is not approved and a court grants relief requiring us individually either to perform directly or to contribute significant amounts towards remedial action downstream of OU1 those developments could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity and results of operations and might result in a default under our loan covenants.

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