XML 39 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Commitments, Contingencies and Legal Proceedings | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments, Contingencies and Legal Proceedings |
15. | 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”). 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 (“WTM I”), 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. We and WTM I have recently executed documents for the withdrawal of WTM I from the entity we jointly formed for the performance of the OU1 work and releasing all claims between us related to the Site, subject to approval of the court overseeing WTM I’s bankruptcy. 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. Prior to the UAO, we contributed to a project in that area. Since the issuance of the UAO we have conducted about $13.4 million of cleanup work under the UAO in 2015 and 2016. The cleanup is expected to continue through 2019. However, as discussed below, under a consent decree between the United States, Wisconsin, NCR and Appvion, we are not 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 to something less than 100% to NCR. 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, which the federal district court entered on August 23, 2017. Under the consent decree, if it were to withstand appeal, 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 had claims against each other to reallocate the costs that we have each incurred or will incur. We have settled those claims. Under this settlement, Georgia Pacific has agreed to implement the monitoring and maintenance in OU4b and OU5 and we would be responsible for monitoring and maintenance of all other upstream Operable Units. We paid Georgia Pacific $9.5 million in August 2017. The NCR/Appvion consent decree and our settlement with Georgia Pacific resulted in all claims among the responsible parties being barred, waived, or withdrawn. Accordingly, on October 10, 2017, the federal district court approved a stipulation dismissing all remaining claims in the Whiting litigation. Therefore, unless certain limited circumstances occur permitting reassertion of claims, we are not subject to claims for reallocation of costs or damages incurred by any of the other parties and we cannot seek contribution or reallocation from them. On October 20, 2017, we appealed the district court’s approval of the NCR/Appvion consent decree. We contend that the court did not do what was required to properly conclude that the NCR/Appvion consent decree was substantially fair to us. We contend that the consent decree was unfair to us because the costs we have already incurred and the costs that we would have to incur were the NCR/Appvion consent decree to remain in effect would exceed our fair share of costs for this site. If we prevail on appeal, the circumstances that caused us to prevail would lead us to anticipate that, while all costs would again be subject to reallocation, that reallocation would be in our favor. Cost estimates. The proposed NCR/Appvion consent decree, as revised, states that all parties combined have spent more than $1 billion through March 2017 towards remedial actions and NRDs, of which we have contributed approximately $75 million. In addition, work to complete the remaining site remedy under the UAO was anticipated to cost approximately $200 million at the beginning of the 2017 remediation season. We believe NCR to have completed a full season of work in 2017 and to be commencing work for the 2018 season. So long as the NCR/Appvion consent decree remains in effect, we are not exposed to reallocation of any of those amounts, and no other party will be exposed to reallocation of any of the amounts that we have incurred or may incur in the future. So long as the NCR/Appvion consent decree remains in effect, we (and not NCR) would remain responsible for the Governments’ unreimbursed past costs. Many parties have entered into settlements with the Governments over time, including us, that have called for payments of cash or in-kind provision of natural resource restoration projects. Certain amounts were allocated to the United States and the State to reimburse their costs, and other amounts were allocated to the Natural Resource Damages Assessment and Restoration (“NRDAR”) Fund to pay for natural resource damages assessment, if any, and restoration projects. The Governments may not recover costs from us that anyone has reimbursed previously. As of the end of 2015, the United States claims to have incurred about $32.7 million in unreimbursed recoverable costs including prejudgment interest, an amount that we dispute. The State had no unreimbursed recoverable costs, and now claims to have had on hand approximately $4.6 million of unspent settlement money, a claim that we also dispute. Further, the NRDAR Fund had received what the Governments claim to have been approximately $105 million in settlement payments, of which more than $60 million remained unspent. On February 5, 2018, the district court decided that the Governments’ recovery of costs would be reduced by the funds held by the State at the end of 2015 and by any amount by which the Governments had applied settlement payments to natural resource damages in excess of the actual amount of natural resource damages. We contend that the natural resource restoration projects already constructed fully compensate the public for any natural resource damages, and therefore that the entire unspent balance in the NRDAR Fund remains as an off-set, an amount likely to exceed all of the Governments’ past and future costs of response. The Governments have sought reconsideration of that decision. No date has yet been set for trial of the issue. If at trial the actual amount of NRDs were determined to be more than the Governments have collected in settlements, we might be exposed to that shortfall. So long as the NCR/Appvion consent decree remains in effect, we would also remain subject to our remaining obligations under the OU1 consent decree, which now consist of long term monitoring and maintenance that we expect earlier contributions to the OU1 escrow account to fund these costs. Furthermore, we, along with Georgia Pacific, but not NCR, 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 OU2 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, because of our settlement with Georgia Pacific, our obligations are in OU1-OU4a. In the first quarter of 2018, we entered into a fixed-price, 30 year agreement with a third party for the performance of all of our monitoring and maintenance obligations in OU1 through the upper four miles of OU4 (“OU4a”) with limited exceptions, such as, for extraordinary amounts of cap maintenance or replacement. Our obligation under this agreement is included in our total reserve for the Site. The portion of this agreement that pertains to OU1 will be paid out of the previously funded OU1 escrow account. Reserves for the Site. Our reserve for all remaining claims against us relating to PCB contamination is set forth below:
|  | Three months ended March 31 |
In thousands |  |  | 2018 |  |  |  |  | 2017 |
Balance at January 1, |  | $ | 43,144 |  |  |  | $ | 52,788 |
Payments |  |  | (2,536 | ) |  |  |  | (85 | )
Accruals |  |  | - |  |  |  |  | - |
Balance at March 31, |  | $ | 40,608 |  |  |  | $ | 52,703 |
The payments set forth above primarily represent cash paid under the recently-entered long-term monitoring and maintenance agreement. Of our total reserve for the Fox River, $26.0 million is recorded in the accompanying March 31, 2018 condensed consolidated balance sheet under the caption “Environmental liabilities” and the remaining $14.6 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, 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 $30 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. 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 or 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 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -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