Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	13. Commitments and Contingencies The Company is involved in certain legal and regulatory actions. Management believes that the ultimate resolution of such matters is unlikely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations, except as described below. Letters Of Credit: As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company was contingently liable for $456,000 and $473,000, respectively, under an outstanding letter of credit issued for casualty insurance requirements. As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company was contingently liable for $6,423,000, respectively, under an outstanding letter of credit issued to provide financial assurance related to the Company’s environmental payments in accordance with the terms of the Consent Decree reached with the DOJ and EPA related to its liability for both OU-1 and OU-2. Litigation: The Company has been and is the subject of administrative actions that arise from its ownership of SL Surface Technologies, Inc. (“SurfTech”), a wholly-owned subsidiary, the assets of which were sold in November 2003. SurfTech formerly operated chrome-plating facilities in Pennsauken Township, New Jersey (the “Pennsauken Site”) and Camden, New Jersey (the “Camden Site”). In 2006 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) named the Company as a potential responsible party (a “PRP”) in connection with the remediation of the Puchack Well Field, which has been designated as a Superfund Site. The EPA is remediating the Puchack Well Field Superfund Site in two separate operable units. The first operable unit (“OU-1”) consists of an area of chromium groundwater contamination in three aquifers that exceeds the selected cleanup standard. The second operable unit (“OU-2”) pertains to sites that are allegedly the sources of contamination for the first operable unit. The Company has reached an agreement with both the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and EPA effective April 30, 2013 related to its liability for both OU-1 and OU-2 pursuant to the terms of a Consent Decree which governs the agreement. Specifically, the Company has agreed to perform the remediation for OU-2 and pay a fixed sum for the EPA’s past cost for OU-2 and a portion of the EPA’s past cost for OU-1. The payments are to be made in five equal payments of $2,141,000, for a total $10,705,000, plus interest. The Company has also agreed to pay the EPA’s costs for oversight of the OU-2 remediation. The United States District Court judge signed the Consent Decree effective April 30, 2013, thereby triggering the Company’s obligation under the Consent Decree. The Company has made two payments totaling $4,396,000, which includes interest, related to its obligation under the Consent Decree. The third payment is scheduled to be made on June 1, 2015. The fourth and fifth payments will be made on the anniversary of the prior year’s payment plus ten days in the same amount of $2,141,000, plus interest. In 2013, the Company had obtained financial assurances for the OU-2 remediation and the fixed payments as required by the terms of the Consent Decree. The financial assurance is reduced annually as the fixed payments are made. Also, the financial instruments did not affect the Company’s availability under its Credit facility (see Note 10 Debt). The Company has completed the final stages of the design phase of the remediation activities for OU-2. The “100% Remediation Design” (the “Final Design”) was approved by the EPA in January 2015. The Final Design essentially sets the scope of work for the Company’s remediation responsibility related to OU-2 under the terms of the Consent Decree. The Company’s consultants performed a significant amount of work at the site, which included demolition of the Company’s former facility and a building on an adjacent property, shoring, equipment mobilization and have been excavating and treating the impacted soils as required. The Company’s consultants have been providing the EPA with progress reports on a monthly basis. The Company expects to incur significant remediation costs in 2015, which have been accrued. Other On March 10, 2015, Compass Directional Guidance, Inc. (“Compass”) filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against SL-MTI in the District Court in Harris County, Texas. The Complaint seeks damages in excess of $18 million arising from the SL-MTI’s sale of certain brushless motors to Compass. Compass asserts that SL-MTI breached express and implied warranties, violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and negligently misrepresented the quality, specification and uses of its motors to Compass. SL-MTI intends to vigorously defend the claims asserted in the Complaint which it believes are limited by the contractual terms between the parties as well as the applicable statute of limitations, and are substantially without merit. In the ordinary course of its business the Company is and may be subject to other loss contingencies pursuant to foreign and domestic federal, state and local governmental laws and regulations and may be party to certain legal actions, frequently involving complaints by terminated employees and disputes with customers, suppliers and others. In the opinion of management, any such other loss contingencies are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. Environmental Matters: Loss contingencies include potential obligations to investigate and eliminate or mitigate the effects on the environment of the disposal or release of certain chemical substances at various sites, such as Superfund sites and other facilities, whether or not they are currently in operation. The Company is currently participating in environmental assessments and cleanups at a number of sites and in the future may be involved in additional environmental assessments and cleanups. Based upon investigations completed to date by the Company and its independent engineering-consulting firms, management has provided an estimated accrual for all known costs believed to be probable and costs that can be reasonably estimated in the amount of $16,499,000, of which $7,195,000 is included as other long-term liabilities, with the remainder recorded as other short-term accrued liabilities, as of March 31, 2015. However, it is the nature of environmental contingencies that other circumstances might arise, the costs of which are indeterminable at this time due to such factors as changing government regulations and stricter standards, the unknown magnitude of cleanup costs, and the unknown timing and extent of the remedial actions that may be required. These other circumstances could result in additional expenses or judgments, or offsets thereto. The adverse resolution of any one or more of these other circumstances could have a material adverse effect on the business, operating results, financial condition or cash flows of the Company. The Company’s environmental costs primarily relate to discontinued operations and such costs have been recorded in discontinued operations, net of tax. There are three sites on which the Company may incur material environmental costs in the future as a result of past activities of its former subsidiary, SurfTech. There are two Company owned sites related to its former subsidiary, SurfTech. These sites are located in Pennsauken, New Jersey (the “Pennsauken Site”) and in Camden, New Jersey (the “Camden Site”). There is also a third site, which is not owned by the Company, referred to as the “Puchack Well Field Site.” The Puchack Well Field Site and the Pennsauken Site are part of the Puchack Well Field Superfund Site. With respect to the Camden Site, the Company has reported soil contamination and a groundwater contamination plume emanating from the site. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) approved, and the Company implemented in 2010, an interim remedial action pilot study to inject neutralizing chemicals into the unsaturated soil. Based on an assessment of post-injection data, our consultants believe the pilot study can be implemented as a full scale soil remedy to treat unsaturated contaminated soil. A Remedial Action Workplan (“RAWP”) for soils is being developed. The RAWP will select the injection remedy as the site wide remedy for unsaturated soils, along with demolition and proper disposal of the former concrete building slab and targeted excavation and disposal of impacted soil immediately underlying the slab. Additionally, the RAWP will address a small area of impacted soil off the property. The RAWP for soils is expected to be submitted to the NJDEP in the second quarter of 2015, by the Licensed Site Remediation Professional (“LSRP”) for the site. The RAWP for treatment of unsaturated soils is scheduled to be implemented in the third quarter of 2015. The Company’s environmental consultants also implemented an interim remedial action pilot study to treat on-site contaminated groundwater, which consisted of injecting food-grade product, into the groundwater at the down gradient property boundary, to create a “bio-barrier.” Post-injection groundwater monitoring to assess the bio-barrier’s effectiveness was completed. Consistent decreases in target contaminants concentrations in groundwater were observed. In December 2014, a report was submitted to the NJDEP stating sufficient information was obtained from the pilot study to complete the full scale groundwater remedy design. A Remedial Action Report/Remedial Action Workplan for full scale implementation will be provided to the NJDEP in 2015. As previously reported, the Company is currently participating in environmental assessments and cleanups at a number of sites. One of these sites is a commercial facility, located in Wayne, New Jersey. Contaminated soil and groundwater has undergone remediation with NJDEP and LSRP oversight, but contaminants of concern (“COCs”) in groundwater and surface water, which extend off-site, still remain above applicable NJDEP remediation standards. A soil remedial action plan has been developed to remove the new soil source contamination that continues to impact groundwater. Our LSRP completed a supplemental groundwater remedial action, pursuant to a RAWP filed with, and permit approved by, the NJDEP. The remedial action consisted of additional in-situ injections of food grade product into on-site groundwater and post-performance groundwater monitoring. The in-situ injections are completed, and remedial action performance monitoring for groundwater is scheduled to occur through 2015. Enhancements to the existing vapor intrusion system were completed in the fourth quarter 2014. No site constituents of concern were detected at concentrations exceeding applicable NJDEP indoor air screening levels. A report was filed with the NJDEP on March 23, 2015. The Company’s consultants have developed cost estimates for supplemental remedial injections, soil excavation and additional tests and remedial activities. Costs related to this site are recorded as part of discontinued operations, net of tax. The “Remedial Investigation” deadline for this site has been extended to May 7, 2016. The Company’s sale of RFL triggered certain requirements of the Industrial Site Recovery Act (“ISRA”), which applies to New Jersey statutorily, defined transactions involving industrial establishments. Under the stock purchase agreement pursuant to which RFL was sold (the “RFL-SPA”), the Company agreed to undertake, or cause to undertake, all actions necessary to comply with ISRA arising from the RFL-SPA. The Company hired an LSRP to complete a Preliminary Assessment. Based on the Preliminary Assessment, the LSRP recommended the completion of a site investigation (the “Site Investigation”) for certain areas of concern. The LSRP completed most of the Site Investigation in January 2015, and the remainder of the investigation is scheduled to be completed by May 2015. A Preliminary Assessment Report and Site Investigation Report are scheduled to be filed with the NJDEP by no later than November 17, 2015. The Company may then be obligated to perform additional investigation or remediation, depending on the outcome of the Site Investigation. The Company has reported soil and groundwater contamination at the facility of SL-MTI located on its property in Montevideo, Minnesota. An analysis of the contamination has been completed and a remediation plan has been implemented at the site pursuant to the remedial action plan approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MCPA”). A soil vapor extraction system has been operating at the site since October 2008. In 2013 the regulatory and screening levels for soil vapor and groundwater were lowered for some of the contaminants at the site. In response to this regulatory change, SL-MTI’s consultants are conducting additional testing to delineate site impacts and update the site conceptual model. A work plan was submitted to MPCA and approved on September 22, 2014. Pending the results of work performed during 2015, additional investigations or remedial actions may be required in the future. Costs related to this site are recorded as a component of continuing operations. As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, environmental accruals of $16,499,000 and $16,859,000, respectively, have been recorded by the Company in accrued liabilities – other and in other long-term liabilities, as appropriate (see Notes 11 and 12 for additional information).

13. Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is involved in certain legal and regulatory actions. Management believes that the ultimate resolution of such matters is unlikely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations, except as described below.

Letters Of Credit: As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company was contingently liable for $456,000 and $473,000, respectively, under an outstanding letter of credit issued for casualty insurance requirements.

As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company was contingently liable for $6,423,000, respectively, under an outstanding letter of credit issued to provide financial assurance related to the Company’s environmental payments in accordance with the terms of the Consent Decree reached with the DOJ and EPA related to its liability for both OU-1 and OU-2.

Litigation: The Company has been and is the subject of administrative actions that arise from its ownership of SL Surface Technologies, Inc. (“SurfTech”), a wholly-owned subsidiary, the assets of which were sold in November 2003. SurfTech formerly operated chrome-plating facilities in Pennsauken Township, New Jersey (the “Pennsauken Site”) and Camden, New Jersey (the “Camden Site”).

In 2006 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) named the Company as a potential responsible party (a “PRP”) in connection with the remediation of the Puchack Well Field, which has been designated as a Superfund Site. The EPA is remediating the Puchack Well Field Superfund Site in two separate operable units. The first operable unit (“OU-1”) consists of an area of chromium groundwater contamination in three aquifers that exceeds the selected cleanup standard. The second operable unit (“OU-2”) pertains to sites that are allegedly the sources of contamination for the first operable unit.

The Company has reached an agreement with both the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and EPA effective April 30, 2013 related to its liability for both OU-1 and OU-2 pursuant to the terms of a Consent Decree which governs the agreement. Specifically, the Company has agreed to perform the remediation for OU-2 and pay a fixed sum for the EPA’s past cost for OU-2 and a portion of the EPA’s past cost for OU-1. The payments are to be made in five equal payments of $2,141,000, for a total $10,705,000, plus interest. The Company has also agreed to pay the EPA’s costs for oversight of the OU-2 remediation. The United States District Court judge signed the Consent Decree effective April 30, 2013, thereby triggering the Company’s obligation under the Consent Decree. The Company has made two payments totaling $4,396,000, which includes interest, related to its obligation under the Consent Decree. The third payment is scheduled to be made on June 1, 2015. The fourth and fifth payments will be made on the anniversary of the prior year’s payment plus ten days in the same amount of $2,141,000, plus interest. In 2013, the Company had obtained financial assurances for the OU-2 remediation and the fixed payments as required by the terms of the Consent Decree. The financial assurance is reduced annually as the fixed payments are made. Also, the financial instruments did not affect the Company’s availability under its Credit facility (see Note 10 Debt).

The Company has completed the final stages of the design phase of the remediation activities for OU-2. The “100% Remediation Design” (the “Final Design”) was approved by the EPA in January 2015. The Final Design essentially sets the scope of work for the Company’s remediation responsibility related to OU-2 under the terms of the Consent Decree. The Company’s consultants performed a significant amount of work at the site, which included demolition of the Company’s former facility and a building on an adjacent property, shoring, equipment mobilization and have been excavating and treating the impacted soils as required. The Company’s consultants have been providing the EPA with progress reports on a monthly basis. The Company expects to incur significant remediation costs in 2015, which have been accrued.

Other

On March 10, 2015, Compass Directional Guidance, Inc. (“Compass”) filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against SL-MTI in the District Court in Harris County, Texas. The Complaint seeks damages in excess of $18 million arising from the SL-MTI’s sale of certain brushless motors to Compass. Compass asserts that SL-MTI breached express and implied warranties, violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and negligently misrepresented the quality, specification and uses of its motors to Compass. SL-MTI intends to vigorously defend the claims asserted in the Complaint which it believes are limited by the contractual terms between the parties as well as the applicable statute of limitations, and are substantially without merit.

In the ordinary course of its business the Company is and may be subject to other loss contingencies pursuant to foreign and domestic federal, state and local governmental laws and regulations and may be party to certain legal actions, frequently involving complaints by terminated employees and disputes with customers, suppliers and others. In the opinion of management, any such other loss contingencies are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company.

Environmental Matters: Loss contingencies include potential obligations to investigate and eliminate or mitigate the effects on the environment of the disposal or release of certain chemical substances at various sites, such as Superfund sites and other facilities, whether or not they are currently in operation. The Company is currently participating in environmental assessments and cleanups at a number of sites and in the future may be involved in additional environmental assessments and cleanups. Based upon investigations completed to date by the Company and its independent engineering-consulting firms, management has provided an estimated accrual for all known costs believed to be probable and costs that can be reasonably estimated in the amount of $16,499,000, of which $7,195,000 is included as other long-term liabilities, with the remainder recorded as other short-term accrued liabilities, as of March 31, 2015. However, it is the nature of environmental contingencies that other circumstances might arise, the costs of which are indeterminable at this time due to such factors as changing government regulations and stricter standards, the unknown magnitude of cleanup costs, and the unknown timing and extent of the remedial actions that may be required. These other circumstances could result in additional expenses or judgments, or offsets thereto. The adverse resolution of any one or more of these other circumstances could have a material adverse effect on the business, operating results, financial condition or cash flows of the Company. The Company’s environmental costs primarily relate to discontinued operations and such costs have been recorded in discontinued operations, net of tax.

There are three sites on which the Company may incur material environmental costs in the future as a result of past activities of its former subsidiary, SurfTech. There are two Company owned sites related to its former subsidiary, SurfTech. These sites are located in Pennsauken, New Jersey (the “Pennsauken Site”) and in Camden, New Jersey (the “Camden Site”). There is also a third site, which is not owned by the Company, referred to as the “Puchack Well Field Site.” The Puchack Well Field Site and the Pennsauken Site are part of the Puchack Well Field Superfund Site.

With respect to the Camden Site, the Company has reported soil contamination and a groundwater contamination plume emanating from the site. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) approved, and the Company implemented in 2010, an interim remedial action pilot study to inject neutralizing chemicals into the unsaturated soil. Based on an assessment of post-injection data, our consultants believe the pilot study can be implemented as a full scale soil remedy to treat unsaturated contaminated soil. A Remedial Action Workplan (“RAWP”) for soils is being developed. The RAWP will select the injection remedy as the site wide remedy for unsaturated soils, along with demolition and proper disposal of the former concrete building slab and targeted excavation and disposal of impacted soil immediately underlying the slab. Additionally, the RAWP will address a small area of impacted soil off the property. The RAWP for soils is expected to be submitted to the NJDEP in the second quarter of 2015, by the Licensed Site Remediation Professional (“LSRP”) for the site. The RAWP for treatment of unsaturated soils is scheduled to be implemented in the third quarter of 2015. The Company’s environmental consultants also implemented an interim remedial action pilot study to treat on-site contaminated groundwater, which consisted of injecting food-grade product, into the groundwater at the down gradient property boundary, to create a “bio-barrier.” Post-injection groundwater monitoring to assess the bio-barrier’s effectiveness was completed. Consistent decreases in target contaminants concentrations in groundwater were observed. In December 2014, a report was submitted to the NJDEP stating sufficient information was obtained from the pilot study to complete the full scale groundwater remedy design. A Remedial Action Report/Remedial Action Workplan for full scale implementation will be provided to the NJDEP in 2015.

As previously reported, the Company is currently participating in environmental assessments and cleanups at a number of sites. One of these sites is a commercial facility, located in Wayne, New Jersey. Contaminated soil and groundwater has undergone remediation with NJDEP and LSRP oversight, but contaminants of concern (“COCs”) in groundwater and surface water, which extend off-site, still remain above applicable NJDEP remediation standards. A soil remedial action plan has been developed to remove the new soil source contamination that continues to impact groundwater. Our LSRP completed a supplemental groundwater remedial action, pursuant to a RAWP filed with, and permit approved by, the NJDEP. The remedial action consisted of additional in-situ injections of food grade product into on-site groundwater and post-performance groundwater monitoring. The in-situ injections are completed, and remedial action performance monitoring for groundwater is scheduled to occur through 2015. Enhancements to the existing vapor intrusion system were completed in the fourth quarter 2014. No site constituents of concern were detected at concentrations exceeding applicable NJDEP indoor air screening levels. A report was filed with the NJDEP on March 23, 2015. The Company’s consultants have developed cost estimates for supplemental remedial injections, soil excavation and additional tests and remedial activities. Costs related to this site are recorded as part of discontinued operations, net of tax. The “Remedial Investigation” deadline for this site has been extended to May 7, 2016.

The Company’s sale of RFL triggered certain requirements of the Industrial Site Recovery Act (“ISRA”), which applies to New Jersey statutorily, defined transactions involving industrial establishments. Under the stock purchase agreement pursuant to which RFL was sold (the “RFL-SPA”), the Company agreed to undertake, or cause to undertake, all actions necessary to comply with ISRA arising from the RFL-SPA. The Company hired an LSRP to complete a Preliminary Assessment. Based on the Preliminary Assessment, the LSRP recommended the completion of a site investigation (the “Site Investigation”) for certain areas of concern. The LSRP completed most of the Site Investigation in January 2015, and the remainder of the investigation is scheduled to be completed by May 2015. A Preliminary Assessment Report and Site Investigation Report are scheduled to be filed with the NJDEP by no later than November 17, 2015. The Company may then be obligated to perform additional investigation or remediation, depending on the outcome of the Site Investigation.

The Company has reported soil and groundwater contamination at the facility of SL-MTI located on its property in Montevideo, Minnesota. An analysis of the contamination has been completed and a remediation plan has been implemented at the site pursuant to the remedial action plan approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MCPA”). A soil vapor extraction system has been operating at the site since October 2008. In 2013 the regulatory and screening levels for soil vapor and groundwater were lowered for some of the contaminants at the site. In response to this regulatory change, SL-MTI’s consultants are conducting additional testing to delineate site impacts and update the site conceptual model. A work plan was submitted to MPCA and approved on September 22, 2014. Pending the results of work performed during 2015, additional investigations or remedial actions may be required in the future. Costs related to this site are recorded as a component of continuing operations.

As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, environmental accruals of $16,499,000 and $16,859,000, respectively, have been recorded by the Company in accrued liabilities – other and in other long-term liabilities, as appropriate (see Notes 11 and 12 for additional information).