XML 28 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.8.0.1
CONTINGENCIES
3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
CONTINGENCIES

NOTE L — CONTINGENCIES

Wallace Silversmiths de Puerto Rico, Ltd. (“WSPR”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, operates a manufacturing facility in San Germán, Puerto Rico that is leased from the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (“PRIDCO”). In March 2008, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) announced that the San Germán Ground Water Contamination site in Puerto Rico (the “Site”) had been added to the Superfund National Priorities List due to contamination present in the local drinking water supply.

In May 2008, WSPR received from the EPA a Notice of Potential Liability and Request for Information Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 9607(a) and 9604(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). In July 2011, WSPR received a letter from the EPA requesting access to the property that it leases from PRIDCO to conduct an environmental investigation, and the Company granted such access. In February 2013, the EPA requested access to conduct a further environmental investigation at the property. PRIDCO agreed to such access and the Company consented. The EPA conducted a further investigation during 2013 and, in April 2015, notified the Company and PRIDCO that the results from vapor intrusion sampling may warrant implementation of measures to mitigate potential exposure to sub-slab soil gas. The Company reviewed the information provided by the EPA and requested that PRIDCO, as the property owner, find and implement a solution acceptable to the EPA. While WSPR did not cause the sub-surface condition that resulted in the potential for vapor intrusion, in order to protect the health of its employees and continue its business operations, it has nevertheless implemented corrective action measures to prevent vapor intrusion such as sealing floors of the building and conducting periodic air monitoring to address potential exposure. On August 13, 2015, the EPA released its remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RI/FS”) for the Site. On December 11, 2015, the EPA issued the Record of Decision (“ROD”) for an initial operable unit, electing to implement its preferred remedy which consists of soil vapor extraction and dual-phase extraction/in-situ treatment. This selected remedy includes soil vapor extraction (“SVE”) to address soil (vadose zone) source areas at the Site, impermeable cover as necessary for the implementation of SVE, dual phase extraction in the shallow saprolite zone, and in-situ treatment as needed to address residual sources. The EPA’s estimated capital cost for its selected remedy is $7.3 million. The EPA also designated a second operable unit under which the EPA will conduct further investigations to determine the nature and extent of groundwater contamination, as well as a determination by the EPA on the necessity of any further response actions to address groundwater contamination. In February 2017, the EPA indicated that it plans to expand its field investigation for the RI/FS for the second operable unit to further determine the nature and extent of the groundwater contamination at and from the Site and to determine the nature of the remedial action needed to address the contamination. The EPA has requested access to the property occupied by WSPR to install monitoring wells and to undertake groundwater sampling as part of this expanded investigation. WSPR has consented to the EPA’s access request, provided that the EPA receives PRIDCO’s consent, as the property owner. WSPR never used the primary contaminant of concern and did not take up its tenancy at the Site until after the EPA had discovered the contamination in the local water supply. The EPA has also issued notices of potential liability to a number of other entities affiliated with the Site, which used the contaminants of concern.

Accordingly, based on the above uncertainties and variables, it is not possible at this time for the Company to estimate its share of liability, if any, related to this matter. However, in the event of one or more adverse determinations related to this matter, it is possible that the ultimate liability resulting from this matter and the impact on the Company’s results of operations could be material.

The Company is, from time to time, involved in other legal proceedings. The Company believes that other current litigation is routine in nature and incidental to the conduct of the Company’s business and that none such litigation, individually or collectively, would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.