COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal and environmental

Peekskill Site. Lightron Corporation (“Lightron”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Griffon, once conducted operations at a location in the Town of Cortlandt, New York, just outside the city of Peekskill, New York (the “Peekskill Site”) owned by ISC Properties, Inc. (“ISCP”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Griffon. ISCP sold the Peekskill Site in November 1982.

Subsequently, ISCP was advised by the Department of Environmental Conservation of New York State (the "DEC") that sampling at the Peekskill Site and in a creek near the Peekskill Site indicated concentrations of solvents and other chemicals common to prior plating operations by a Lightron subsidiary. In 1996, ISCP entered into a consent order with the DEC (the “Consent Order”), pursuant to which ISCP was required to perform a remedial investigation and prepare a feasibility study (the “Feasibility Study”). After completing the initial remedial investigation, ISCP conducted supplemental remedial investigations over the next several years, including soil vapor investigations, as required by the Consent Order.

In April 2009, the DEC advised ISCP that both the DEC and the New York State Department of Health had reviewed and accepted an August 2007 Remedial Investigation Report and an Additional Data Collection Summary Report dated January 30, 2009. ISCP submitted to the DEC a draft Feasibility Study which was accepted and approved by the DEC in February 2011. ISCP satisfied its obligations under the Consent Order when DEC approved the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study for the Peekskill Site. In June 2011 the DEC issued a Record of Decision that set forth a Remedial Action Plan for the Peekskill Site that identified the specific remedies selected and responded to public comments. The cost of the remedy proposed by DEC in its Remedial Action Plan was approximately $10,000.

Following issuance of the Remedial Action Plan, the DEC implemented a portion of its plan, and also performed additional investigation for the presence of metals in soils and sediments downstream from the Peekskill Site. During this investigation metals were found to be present in sediments further downstream from the Peekskill site than previously detected.

In August 2018, the DEC sent a letter to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”), in which the DEC requested that the Peekskill Site be nominated by the EPA for inclusion on the National Priorities List under CERCLA (the “NPL”). Based on the DEC’s request and an analysis by a consultant retained by the EPA, on May 15, 2019 the EPA added the Peekskill Site to the NPL and has since announced that it is performing a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. On August 25, 2020, the EPA sent a letter to several parties, including Lightron and ISCP, requesting that each such party inform the EPA as to whether it would be willing to enter into discussions regarding implementation of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”). The EPA also sent a request for information to each party under Section 104(e) of CERCLA. Lightron and ISCP have informed the EPA that they are willing to participate in discussions regarding implementation of the RI/FS. Lightron and ISCP have also submitted responses to certain items contained in the Section 104(e) information request, with additional responses to follow. The current owner of the property, which acquired the Peekskill Site from ISCP in 1982 and has no relationship with Lightron or ISCP, has also informed the EPA that it is willing to discuss implementation of the RI/FS, and has also received, and submitted certain information in response to, a Section 104(e) information request. The EPA may decide to implement the RI/FS, on its own or through the use of consultants, may reach agreement with one or more parties to perform the RI/FS, or may offer to negotiate with one or more parties to accept a settlement addressing the potential liability of such parties for investigation and/or remediation at the Peekskill Site. Should the EPA implement the RI/FS, or perform further studies and/or subsequently remediate the site, without first reaching agreement with one or more relevant parties, the EPA would likely seek reimbursement for the costs incurred from such parties.

Lightron has not engaged in any operations in over three decades. ISCP functioned solely as a real estate holding company, and has not held any real property in over three decades. Griffon does not acknowledge any responsibility to perform any investigation or remediation at the Peekskill Site.

Union Fork and Hoe, Frankfort, NY site. The former Union Fork and Hoe property in Frankfort, New York was acquired by AMES in 2006 as part of a larger acquisition, and has historic site contamination involving chlorinated solvents, petroleum hydrocarbons and metals. AMES entered into an Order on Consent with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”). While the Order is without admission or finding of liability or acknowledgment that there has been a release of hazardous substances at the site, the Order required Ames to perform a remedial investigation of certain portions of the property and to recommend a remediation option. In 2011, remediation of chlorinated solvents in the groundwater was completed to the satisfaction of DEC. In 2018, Ames submitted a Feasibility Study recommending that the remaining soil contamination involving metals and petroleum be covered, excavated and removed to a licensed off-site location or placed under a cover on-site. DEC approved the selection of this remedy in 2019 by issuing a Record of Decision (“ROD”). In June 2020, Ames completed the remediation required by the ROD and filed a Construction Completion Report, a Site Management Plan and an environmental easement with DEC. While Ames was implementing the remediation required by the ROD, DEC requested additional investigation of a small area on the site and of an area adjacent to the site perimeter. Ames investigated the on-site area and has completed remediation of that small area under a workplan approved by DEC. At the request of DEC, Ames has also submitted a workplan to investigate the areas adjacent to the site perimeter. AMES has a number of defenses to liability in this matter, including its rights under a previous Consent Judgment entered into between DEC and a predecessor of AMES relating to the site. Ames’ insurer has accepted Ames’ claim for a substantial portion of the costs incurred and to be incurred for both the on-site and off-site activities.

U.S. Government investigations and claims

Defense contracts and subcontracts, including Griffon’s contracts and subcontracts, are subject to audit and review by various agencies and instrumentalities of the United States government, including among others, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and the Department of Justice which has responsibility for asserting claims on behalf of the U.S. Government.

In general, departments and agencies of the U.S. Government have the authority to investigate various transactions and operations of Griffon, and the results of such investigations may lead to administrative, civil or criminal proceedings, the ultimate outcome of which could be fines, penalties, repayments or compensatory or treble damages. U.S. Government regulations provide that certain findings against a contractor may lead to suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracts or the loss of export privileges for a company or an operating division or subdivision. Suspension or debarment could have a material adverse effect on Telephonics because of its reliance on government contracts.

General legal

Griffon is subject to various laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment and is a party to legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Management believes, based on facts presently known to it, that the resolution of the matters above and such other matters will not have a material adverse effect on Griffon’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.