|
9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Legal Proceedings. In August 2004 and January and February 2005, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) conducted environmental investigations of our manufacturing facilities in Aberdeen, Mississippi and Plaquemine, Louisiana, respectively. The USEPA informed us that it identified several "areas of concern," and indicated that such areas of concern may, in its view, constitute violations of applicable requirements, thus warranting monetary penalties and possible injunctive relief. In lieu of pursuing such relief through its traditional enforcement process, the USEPA proposed that the parties enter into negotiations in an effort to reach a global settlement of the areas of concern and that such a global settlement cover our manufacturing facilities at Lake Charles, Louisiana and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma as well. During the second quarter of 2006, we were informed by the USEPA that its regional office responsible for Oklahoma and Louisiana desired to pursue resolution of these matters on a separate track from the regional office responsible for Mississippi. During the second quarter of 2007, we reached agreement with the USEPA responsible for Mississippi on the terms and conditions of a consent decree that would settle USEPA's pending enforcement action against our Aberdeen, Mississippi facility. All parties have executed a consent decree setting forth the terms and conditions of the settlement. The consent decree has been approved by the federal district court in Atlanta, Georgia. Under the consent decree, we were required to, among other things; undertake certain other environmental improvement projects. While the cost of such remaining projects will likely exceed $1 million, we do not believe that the cost associated with these projects will have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
We have not yet achieved a settlement with the USEPA regional office responsible for Oklahoma and Louisiana. However, on November 17, 2009, we received a unilateral administrative order (UAO) from this USEPA regional office. The UAO, issued pursuant to Section 3013(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), requires us to undertake certain monitoring and assessment activities in and around several of our wastewater and storm water conveyance systems.
We have also received several compliance orders and notices of potential penalties from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). On December 17, 2009, we received a Notice of Potential Penalty (NOPP) from LDEQ containing allegations of violations of Louisiana's hazardous waste management regulations. On October 7, 2010, we received a Consolidated Compliance Order (CCO) from LDEQ addressing the same allegations as were contained in the December 17, 2009 NOPP. On October 1, 2010, we received Consolidated Compliance Orders and Notices of Potential Penalties (CCONPPs) for both the Plaquemine, and Lake Charles, Louisiana facilities. These CCONPPs allege violations of reporting, recordkeeping, and other requirements contained in Louisiana's air pollution control regulations.
Some of the allegations contained in these compliance orders and notices of potential penalties may potentially be similar to the "areas of concern" raised by USEPA that are discussed above. These compliance orders and notices of potential penalties do not identify specific penalty amounts. It is likely that any settlement, if achieved, will result in the imposition of monetary penalties, capital expenditures for installation of environmental controls and/or other relief. We are not able to forecast the total cost of any monetary penalties, environmental projects, or other relief that would be imposed in any settlement or order. While we expect that such costs will exceed $100,000, we do not expect that such costs will have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
In addition, we are currently, and from time to time in the future expect that we will become, subject to other claims and legal actions that may arise in the ordinary course of business. We believe that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to these other known claims and legal actions will not have a material effect on our financial position or on our results of operations.
Environmental Regulation. Our operations are subject to increasingly stringent federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to environmental quality. These regulations, which are enforced principally by the USEPA and comparable state agencies and Canadian federal and provincial agencies, govern the management of solid hazardous waste, emissions into the air and discharges into surface and underground waters, and the manufacture of chemical substances. In addition to the matters involving environmental regulation above, we have the following potential environmental issues.
In the first quarter of 2007, the USEPA informed us of possible noncompliance at our Aberdeen, Mississippi facility with certain provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Subsequently, we discovered possible non-compliance involving our Plaquemine, Louisiana and Pasadena, Texas facilities, which were then disclosed. We expect that all of these disclosures will be resolved in one settlement agreement with USEPA. While the penalties, if any, for such noncompliance may exceed $100,000, we do not expect that any penalties will have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
There are several serious environmental issues concerning the VCM facility at Lake Charles, Louisiana we acquired from CONDEA Vista Company ("CONDEA Vista" is now Sasol North America, Inc.) on November 12, 1999. Substantial investigation of the groundwater at the site has been conducted, and groundwater contamination was first identified in 1981. Groundwater remediation through the installation of groundwater recovery wells began in 1984. The site currently contains an extensive network of monitoring wells and recovery wells. Investigation to determine the full extent of the contamination is ongoing. It is possible that offsite groundwater recovery will be required, in addition to groundwater monitoring. Soil remediation could also be required.
Investigations are currently underway by federal environmental authorities concerning contamination of an estuary near the Lake Charles VCM facility we acquired known as the Calcasieu Estuary. It is likely that this estuary will be listed as a Superfund site and will be the subject of a natural resource damage recovery claim. It is estimated that there are about 200 Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) associated with the estuary contamination. CONDEA Vista is included among these parties with respect to its Lake Charles facilities, including the VCM facility we acquired. The estimated cost for investigation and remediation of the estuary is unknown and could be significant. Also, Superfund statutes may impose joint and several liabilities for the cost of investigations and remedial actions on any company that generated the waste, arranged for disposal of the waste, transported the waste to the disposal site, selected the disposal site, or presently or formerly owned, leased or operated the disposal site or a site otherwise contaminated by hazardous substances. Any or all of the responsible parties may be required to bear all of the costs of cleanup regardless of fault, legality of the original disposal or ownership of the disposal site. Currently, we discharge our wastewater to CONDEA Vista, which has a permit to discharge treated wastewater into the estuary.
CONDEA Vista has agreed to retain responsibility for substantially all environmental liabilities and remediation activity relating to the Chlorovinyls business we acquired from it, including the Lake Charles, Louisiana VCM facility. For all matters of environmental contamination that were known at the time of acquisition (November 1999), we may make a claim for indemnification at any time. For environmental matters that were then unknown, we must generally have made such claims for indemnification before November 12, 2009. No such material claims were made.
At our Lake Charles VCM facility, CONDEA Vista continued to conduct the ongoing remediation at its expense until November 12, 2009. We are now responsible for remediation costs up to about $150,000 of expense per year, as well as costs in any year in excess of this annual amount up to an aggregate one-time amount of about $2.3 million. At September 30, 2011, we had incurred an aggregate of approximately $1.4 million of such excess remediation costs. As part of our ongoing assessment of our environmental contingencies, we determined certain remediation costs to be probable and reasonably estimable and had a $3.0 million accrual in liabilities at September 30, 2011.
CONDEA Vista is responsible for employee and independent contractor exposure claims before November 12, 2009, and we are responsible for exposures after November 12, 2009, on a pro rata basis determined by years of employment or service before and after November 12, 1999, by any claimant.
In May 2008, we were informed that further efforts to remediate a spill of styrene reducer at our Royal Mouldings facility in Atkins, Virginia would be necessary. The spill was the result of a supply line rupture from an external holding tank. As a result of this spill, the facility entered into a voluntary remediation agreement with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality ("VDEQ") in August 2003 and began implementing the terms of the voluntary agreement shortly thereafter. In August 2007, the facility submitted a report on the progress of the remediation to the VDEQ. Subsequently, the VDEQ responded by indicating that continued remediation of the area impacted by the spill would be required. While the remaining remediation costs may exceed $100,000, we do not expect such costs will have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
We believe that we are in material compliance with all current environmental laws and regulations. We estimate that any expenses incurred in maintaining compliance with these requirements will not materially affect earnings or cause us to exceed our level of anticipated capital expenditures. However, there can be no assurance that regulatory requirements will not change, and it is not possible to accurately predict the aggregate cost of compliance resulting from any such changes. |