XML 28 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.5.0.2
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
 
The Company is a defendant in various lawsuits as a result of normal operations and in the ordinary course of business. Management believes the outcome of these lawsuits will not have a material effect on the financial position or results of operations.

The Company’s operations are subject to extensive federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations relating to environmental matters. Certain environmental laws can impose joint and several liability for releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances upon certain statutorily defined parties regardless of fault or the lawfulness of the original activity or disposal. Hazardous substances and adverse environmental effects have been identified with respect to real property owned by the Company, and on adjacent parcels of real property.

In particular, the Elmira, NY manufacturing facility is located within the Kentucky Avenue Wellfield on the National Priorities List of hazardous waste sites designated for cleanup by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) because of groundwater contamination. The Kentucky Avenue Wellfield Site (the “Site”) encompasses an area which includes sections of the Town of Horseheads and the Village of Elmira Heights in Chemung County, NY. In February 2006, the Company received a Special Notice Concerning a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) for the Koppers Pond (the “Pond”) portion of the Site. The EPA documented the release and threatened release of hazardous substances into the environment at the Site, including releases into and in the vicinity of the Pond. The hazardous substances, including metals and polychlorinated biphenyls, have been detected in sediments in the Pond.

Until receipt of this Special Notice in February 2006, the Company had never been named as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) at the Site nor had the Company received any requests for information from the EPA concerning the Site. Environmental sampling on the Company’s property within this Site under supervision of regulatory authorities had identified off-site sources for such groundwater contamination and sediment contamination in the Pond, and found no evidence that the Company’s operations or property have contributed or are contributing to the contamination. All appropriate insurance carriers have been notified, and the Company is actively cooperating with them, but whether coverage will be available has not yet been determined and possible insurance recovery cannot be estimated with any degree of certainty at this time.

A substantial portion of the Pond is located on the Company’s property. The Company, along with Beazer East, Inc., the Village of Horseheads, the Town of Horseheads, the County of Chemung, CBS Corporation and Toshiba America, Inc., (collectively, the "PRPs"), agreed to voluntarily participate in the RI/FS by signing an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order of Consent on September 29, 2006. On September 29, 2006, the Director of Emergency and Remedial Response Division of the EPA, Region II, approved and executed the Agreement on behalf of the EPA. The PRPs also signed a PRP Member Agreement, agreeing to share the costs associated with the RI/FS study on a per capita basis.

The EPA approved the RI/FS Work Plan in May of 2008. On July 6, 2012 the PRPs submitted the Remedial Investigation (RI). On July 18, 2016 the PRPs submitted the final Feasibility Study (FS) and the EPA issued the Record of Decision on September 30, 2016.

Based upon Alternative 3 (Capping), the preferred EPA remedy, the Company, under present circumstances, would be responsible for $0.3 million of the estimated $1.92 million cost. This has been reserved and reported as an Accrued expense on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Based upon information currently available, except as described in the preceding paragraphs, the Company does not have material liabilities for environmental remediation. Though the foregoing reflects the Company’s current assessment as it relates to environmental remediation obligations, it is possible that future remedial requirements or changes in the enforcement of existing laws and regulations, which are subject to extensive regulatory discretion, will result in material liabilities to the Company.