Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

6. 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 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 (“the 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.

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. This settlement covered investigation costs; not cleanup costs.

The Government has now selected a remedy for the Site and has indicated that it will negotiate with all of the PRPs at the site to take over and or pay for the cleanup. As it did before, the Company responded 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.