Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

8. Commitments and Contingent Liabilities:

The Company is a defendant in certain lawsuits relating to casualty losses, many of which are covered by insurance subject to a deductible. The Company believes that adequate provision has been made in the condensed financial statements for any expected liabilities which may result from disposition of such lawsuits.

On January 29, 2002, the Company received a “Notice of Potential Liability” from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) regarding an existing Superfund Site that includes the J.M. Mills Landfill in Cumberland, Rhode Island. EPA sends these “Notice” letters to potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). EPA identified the Company as a PRP based on its status as an owner and/or operator because its railroad property traverses the Site. Via these Notice letters, EPA makes a demand for payment of past costs (identified in the letter as $762) and future costs associated with the response actions taken to address the contamination at the Site, and requests PRPs to indicate their willingness to participate and resolve their potential liability at the Site. The Company has responded to EPA by stating that it does not believe it has any liability for this Site, but that it is interested in cooperating with EPA to address issues concerning liability at the Site. At this point, two other parties have already committed via a consent order with EPA to pay for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) phase of the clean-up at the Site, which will take approximately two or more years to complete. After that, EPA will likely seek to negotiate the cost of the Remedial Design and implementation of the remedy at the Site with the PRPs it has identified via these Notice letters (which presently includes over sixty parties, and is likely to increase after EPA completes its investigation of the identity of PRPs). On December 15, 2003, the EPA issued a second “Notice of Potential Liability” letter to the Company regarding the Site. EPA again identified the Company as a PRP, this time because EPA “believes that [the Company] accepted hazardous substance for transport to disposal or treatment facilities and selected the site for disposal.” The Company responded again to EPA stating that it is interested in cooperating with EPA but that it does not believe it has engaged in any activities that caused contamination at the Site. The Company believes that none of its activities caused contamination at the Site, and will contest this claim by EPA and, therefore, no liability has been accrued for this matter.

In connection with the EPA claim described above, the two parties who have committed to conduct the RI/FS at the Site filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island against the Company, in an action entitled CCL Custom Manufacturing, Inc. v. Arkwright Incorporated, et al (consolidated with Unilever Bestfoods v. American Steel & Aluminum Corp. et al), C.A. No. 01-496/L, on December 18, 2002. The Company was one of about sixty parties named by Plaintiffs, in this suit, to recover response costs incurred in investigating and responding to the releases of hazardous substances at the Site. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 961(a)(3) of CERCLA as an “arranger” or “generator” of waste that ended up at the Site. The Company entered into a Generator Cooperation Agreement with other defendants to allocate costs in responding to this suit, and to share technical costs and information in evaluating the Plaintiffs’ claims. Although the Company does not believe it generated any waste that ended up at this Site, or that its activities caused contamination at the Site, the Company paid $45 to settle this suit in March 2006.