Environmental Matters

3 Months Ended

Sep. 25, 2011

Environmental Matters [Abstract]

Environmental Matters

15. Environmental Matters

Federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations impose various restrictions and controls on the storage, use and discharge of certain materials, chemicals and gases used in semiconductor manufacturing processes, and on the operation of the Company's facilities and equipment. The Company believes it uses reasonable efforts to maintain a system of compliance and controls for these laws and regulations. Despite its efforts and controls, from time to time, issues may arise with respect to these matters. Additionally, under some of these laws and regulations, the Company could be held financially responsible for remedial measures if properties are contaminated or if waste is sent to a landfill or recycling facility that becomes contaminated. Also, the Company may be subject to common law claims if released substances damage or harm third parties. The Company cannot make assurances that changes in environmental laws and regulations will not require additional investments in capital equipment and the implementation of additional compliance programs in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows, as could any failure by or violation of the Company to comply with any prior, current or future environmental laws and regulations.

During negotiations for the Company’s April 2007 divestiture of the Company’s Power Control Systems business to Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., certain chemical compounds were discovered in the groundwater underneath one of the Company's former manufacturing plants in Italy, and that the Company has advised appropriate governmental authorities at about the time of such divestiture.  In August 2010, the Company received a letter from the relevant local authority requiring a confirmation of intention to proceed with preparation of a plan of characterization in relation to the site in question.  The Company has restated to local authorities its prior position from the period following such divestiture that it had not committed to take further action with respect to the site. The Company has not been assessed any penalties with respect to the site, and it is too early to assess whether any such penalties will be assessed in the future.

In December 2010, the owner by foreclosure of a property in El Segundo, California has notified the Company of its claim that the Company is a potentially responsible party for the remediation of hazardous materials allegedly discovered by that owner at the property.  The Company has also been contacted by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control in respect of such notice.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the notice.

In November 2007, the Company was named as one of approximately 100 defendants in Angeles Chemical Company, Inc. et al. v. Omega Chemical PRP Group, LLC et al., No. EDCV07-1471 (TJH) (JWJx) (C.D. Cal.) (the "Angeles Case"). Angeles Chemical Company, Inc. and related entities ("Plaintiffs") own or operate a facility (the "Angeles Facility") which is located approximately one and a half miles down gradient of the Omega Chemical Superfund Site (the "Omega Site") in Whittier, California. Numerous parties, including the Company, allegedly disposed of wastes at the Omega Site. Plaintiffs claim that contaminants from the Omega Site migrated in groundwater from the Omega Site to the Angeles Facility, thereby causing damage to the Angeles Facility. In addition, they claim that the EPA considers them to be responsible for the groundwater plume near the Angeles Facility, which Plaintiffs contend was caused by disposal activities at the Omega Site. Plaintiffs filed claims based on CERCLA, nuisance and trespass, and also seek declaratory relief. Plaintiffs seek to require the defendants to investigate and clean-up the contamination and to recover damages. The case has been stayed by the court pending the Environmental Protection Agency's completion of its remedial investigation. The Company previously entered into a settlement with other parties associated with the Omega Site pursuant to which the Company paid those entities money in exchange for an agreement to defend and indemnify the Company with regard to certain environmental claims (the "Omega Indemnification"). In that agreement, it was estimated that the Company's volumetric share of wastes sent to the Omega Site was in the range of 0.08 percent. The Company believes that much, if not all, of the risks associated with the Angeles Case should be covered by the Omega Indemnification. In addition, the Company has tendered the complaint to several of its insurance carriers, one of which has agreed to defend under a reservation of rights. Therefore, the Company does not expect its out-of-pocket defense costs to be significant. In addition, in light of the Omega Indemnification, the potential for insurance coverage and the fact that its volumetric share of Omega Site wastes was less than 0.1 percent, the Company does not believe that an adverse judgment against the Company would be material.

IR and Rachelle Laboratories, Inc. ("Rachelle"), a subsidiary of the Company that discontinued operations in 1986, were each named a potentially responsible party ("PRP") in connection with the investigation by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") of the disposal of allegedly hazardous substances at a major superfund site in Monterey Park, California ("OII Site"). Certain PRPs who settled certain claims with the EPA under consent decrees filed suit in Federal Court in May 1992 against a number of other PRPs, including IR, for cost recovery and contribution under the provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"). The Company has settled all outstanding claims that have arisen against IR relating to the OII Site. No claims against Rachelle have been settled. The Company has taken the position that none of the wastes generated by Rachelle were hazardous.

Counsel for Rachelle received a letter dated August 2001 from the U.S. Department of Justice, directed to all or substantially all PRPs for the OII Site, offering to settle claims against such parties for all work performed through and including the final remedy for the OII Site. The offer required a payment from Rachelle in the amount of approximately $9.3 million in order to take advantage of the settlement. Rachelle did not accept the offer.

It remains the position of Rachelle that its wastes were not hazardous.  In addition, Rachelle operated as an independent corporation and the Company did not believe that a complaining party would be successful in reaching the assets of IR even if it could prevail on a claim against Rachelle.  Because Rachelle has not been sued, none of the Company’s insurers has accepted liability, although at least one of the Company’s insurers previously reimbursed IR for defense costs for the lawsuit filed against IR.

The Company received a letter in June 2001 from a law firm representing UDT Sensors, Inc. ("UDT") relating to environmental contamination (chlorinated solvents such as trichlorethene) purportedly found in UDT's properties in Hawthorne, California. The letter alleges that the Company operated a manufacturing business at that location in the 1970's and/or 1980's and that it may have liability in connection with the claimed contamination. The Company has made no accrual for any potential losses since there has been no assertion of specific facts on which to form the basis for determination of liability.