XML 57 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.1.9
Contingencies and Legacy Environmental Commitments
9 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Contingencies and Legacy Environmental Commitments

NOTE  14.      Contingencies and Legacy Environmental Commitments

Environmental Matters

The Company is involved in environmental proceedings and potential proceedings relating to soil and groundwater contamination and other environmental matters at several former facilities that were never required for its current operations. These facilities were part of businesses disposed of by TransTechnology Corporation, the former parent Company. Environmental cleanup activities usually span many years, which make estimating liabilities a matter of judgment because of various factors, including changing remediation technologies, assessments of the extent of contamination, and continually evolving regulatory environmental standards. The Company considers these and other factors as well as studies and reports by external environmental consultants to estimate the amount and timing of any future costs that may be required for remediation actions. The Company follows ASC 450 in recording and disclosing environmental liabilities and records a liability for its best estimate of remediation costs. Because the Company believes it has a more-definitive best estimate of the environmental liability, the Company does not calculate a range in accordance with ASC 450.

At December 31, 2014 and March 31, 2014, the aggregate environmental liability was $9,431 and $10,323, respectively, included in other current liabilities and other long term liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets, before cost-sharing of approximately $1,346 and $1,918 at December 31, 2014 and March 31, 2014, respectfully, that is included in other current assets and other long term assets, net of fees to be paid to a third party relating to this arrangement.  The Company’s environmental liability reserves are not reduced for any potential cost-sharing reimbursements.

In the first nine months of fiscal 2015 and the first nine months fiscal 2014, the Company spent $701 and $1,039, respectively, on environmental costs, and for the entire fiscal 2014 the Company spent $1,487. These costs are charged against the environmental liability reserve and do not impact net income . The Company performs quarterly reviews of its environmental sites and the related liabilities.

The Company continues to participate in environmental assessments and remediation work at seven locations, including certain former facilities. Due to the nature of environmental remediation and monitoring work, such activities can extend for up to thirty years, depending upon the nature of the work, the substances involved, and the regulatory requirements associated with each site. The Company does not discount the recorded liabilities.

Although the Company takes great care in developing these risk assessments and future cost estimates, the actual amount of remediation costs may be different from those estimated as a result of a number of factors including but not limited to the following: changes to federal and state environmental regulations or laws; changes in local construction costs and the availability of personnel and materials; unforeseen remediation requirements that are not apparent until the work actually commences; and actual remediation expenses that differ from those estimated. The Company does not include any unasserted claims that it might have against others in determining its potential liability for such costs, and, except as noted with specific cost sharing arrangements, has no such arrangements, nor has it taken into consideration any future claims against insurance carriers that the Company may have in determining its environmental liabilities. In those situations where the Company is considered a de minimis participant in a remediation claim, the failure of the larger participants to meet their obligations could result in an increase in the Company’s liability at such a site.

There are a number of former operating facilities that the Company is monitoring or investigating for potential future remediation. In some cases, although a loss may be probable, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the amount of any obligation for remediation activities because of uncertainties assessing the extent of the contamination or the applicable regulatory standard.

In addition, and as disclosed below, the Company is also pursuing claims for contribution to site investigation and cleanup costs against other potentially responsible parties (PRPs), including the U.S. Government.

Glen Head, New York

In the first quarter of fiscal 2003, the Company entered into a consent order for a former facility in Glen Head, New York, which is currently subject to a contract for sale, pursuant to which the Company developed a remediation plan for review and approval by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYDEC”). The Company was advised in fiscal 2010 that the NYDEC required additional offsite groundwater delineation studies. Based upon the characterization work performed to date and this latest request, the Company’s reserve is $3,154 for the Glen Head site at December 31, 2014. The amounts and timing of payments are subject to the approved remediation plan and additional discussions with NYDEC.

The property is classified as “held for sale” for $3,800 after allowing for certain costs. In July 2001, the Company entered into a sales contract for the Glen Head, New York property for $4,000.  

Neither the consent order nor the remediation plan affect the buyer’s obligation to close under the sales contract. The contract does not include a price adjustment clause and, although there are conditions precedent to the buyer’s obligation to close, the contract does not allow for termination. Thus, the buyer cannot unilaterally terminate the contract without liability, a buy-out, or some other settlement negotiated with the Company. There is no set date for closing, and the Company must provide the buyer with a funded remediation plan and environmental insurance prior to the buyer’s obligation to close. The buyer indicated its intent to build residential housing on this former industrial site and has been engaged in the lengthy process of securing the necessary municipal approvals.

Saltzburg, Pennsylvania (“Federal Labs”)

The Company sold the business previously operated at the property owned in Saltzburg, Pennsylvania. The Company presented an environmental cleanup plan during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2000 for a portion of Federal Labs site pursuant to a consent order and agreement with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PaDEP”) in fiscal 1999 (“1999 Consent Order”). PaDEP approved the plan during the third quarter of fiscal 2004, and the Company paid $200 for past costs, future oversight expenses, and in full settlement of claims made by PaDEP related to the environmental remediation of the site with an additional $200 paid subsequently.

The Company concluded a second consent order with PaDEP in the third quarter of fiscal 2001 for a second portion of the Federal Labs site (“2001 Consent Order”), and concluded a third Consent Order for the remainder of the Federal Labs site in the third quarter of fiscal 2003 (“2003 Consent Order”). The Company submitted an environmental cleanup plan for the portion of the Federal Labs site covered by the 2003 Consent Order during the second quarter of fiscal 2004.

In the second quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company and the PaDEP executed a first amendment to the 2003 Consent Order for additional remediation work within the site covered by the 2003 Consent Order. The Company submitted an environmental cleanup plan for this additional remediation work during the second quarter of fiscal 2014.

The Company is administering a settlement, concluded in the first quarter of fiscal 2000, under which the U.S. Government pays 50% of the ongoing direct and indirect environmental costs for the Federal Labs site subject to the 1999 Consent Order. The U.S. Government cost-sharing receivable is classified primarily as other assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheets.  

 

The Company also concluded an agreement in the first quarter of fiscal 2006, under which the U.S. Government paid an amount equal to 45% of the estimated environmental response costs for the Federal Labs site subject to the 2001 Consent Order. In May 2014, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) approved the final remedial action report for the site subject to the 2001 Consent Order and as a result of this approval the Company believes that no further on-site work is required.  The remaining technical fees from the Company’s technical advisors are not expected to exceed $10.  Accordingly, the Company reduced the environmental reserve by $412 in June 2014.

 

Effective May 27, 2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the U.S. Government with respect to environmental response costs for the Fed Labs site subject to the 2003 Consent Order. Under this agreement, the U.S. Government pays an amount equal to approximately 26% of the environmental response costs incurred prior to December 31, 2012 and 33.5% of the ongoing environmental response costs incurred thereafter.  

At December 31, 2014, the environmental liability reserve at Federal Labs was $4,264. The Company expects that remediation at this site, which is subject to the oversight of the Pennsylvania authorities, will not be completed for several years, and that monitoring costs, although expected to be incurred over twenty years, could extend for up to thirty years.

There are other properties that have a combined environmental liability of $2,013 at December 31, 2014.

The environmental activity is summarized as follows:

 

Balance at March 31, 2014

$

10,323

  

Environmental costs incurred

 

(701

Interest accretion

 

221

  

Reduction of environmental reserve-Part of Federal Labs site subject to the 2001 Consent Order

 

(412

)

Balance at December 31, 2014

$

9,431

  

Litigation

Certain other claims, suits, and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business have been filed or are pending against us. We believe, after consultation with legal counsel handling these specific matters, all such matters are reserved for or adequately covered by insurance or, if not so covered, are without merit or are of such kind, or involve such amounts, as would not be expected to have a material effect on our financial position or results of operations if determined adversely against us.