XML 101 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.1.9
Contingencies and Legacy Environmental Commitments
12 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Contingencies and Legacy Environmental Commitments

13. 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 March 31, 2015 and 2014, the aggregate environmental liability was $9,255 and $10,323, respectively, included in other current liabilities and other long term liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets, before cost-sharing of approximately $1,554 and $1,918 at March 31, 2015 and March 31, 2014, respectfully, that is included in other current assets and other long term assets, net of third-party fees. The Company’s environmental liability reserves are not reduced for any potential cost-sharing reimbursements.

In fiscal 2015 and fiscal 2014, the Company spent $946 and $1,487, respectively, on environmental costs. These costs were charged against the environmental liability reserve and did 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 hazardous 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 other sites that the Company is monitoring or investigating for potential environmental liability. 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 will where supported by the evidence pursue claims for contribution to site investigation and cleanup costs against other potentially responsible parties (PRPs).

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 $3,167 for the Glen Head site at March 31, 2015. 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.  

The buyer has indicated that its intended plan is to build residential housing on this former industrial site and has been engaged in the lengthy process of securing the necessary governmental approvals. In March 2015, the Company and the buyer entered into an amendment to the sales contract. The amendment provides for a potential reduction in the purchase price from zero  to $1,000 if the final governmental approvals contain certain limitations on the buyer’s ability to implement its intended development plan. The parties are obligated to close under the sales contract upon receipt of the final governmental approvals, and the Company must provide the buyer with a funded remediation plan and environmental insurance at closing. However, the amendment further provides that if the governmental approvals are not secured by December 31, 2017, then at any time after that date either the Company or the buyer may elect to terminate the sales contract. If at any time after December 31, 2017, we terminate the sales contract for convenience, we must return to the buyer an additional liquidated amount of $750.    

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 a portion of the Federal Labs site subject to the 1999 Consent Order. The U.S. Government cost-sharing receivable, net of third-party fees is included in other current assets and other long term assets on the 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.  Accordingly, the Company reduced the environmental reserve by $412 in June 2014.

In March 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 the agreement, which was formally executed in the first quarter of fiscal 2015, the U.S. Government will pay 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. The U.S. Government cost-sharing receivable, net of third-party fees is included in other current assets and other long term assets on the consolidated balance sheets.  

At March 31, 2015, the environmental liability reserve for the Federal Labs site was $4,153. 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.

Wyoming, Illinois

In fiscal 2014, the Company completed implementation of a soil remediation project and provided final investigation and cleanup reports to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”) for its formerly-owned property in Wyoming, Illinois. In the fiscal first quarter of 2014, the IEPA issued a No Further Remediation Letter for our former Wyoming, Illinois site. As a result of this letter, we believe that we have no future environmental obligations with respect to this site. Accordingly, the Company reduced during fiscal 2014 the remaining environmental liability for this site by $1,207, reflected in SG&A expense.

There are other properties that have a combined environmental liability of $1,935 at March 31, 2015.

The environmental activity is summarized as follows:

 

Balance at March 31, 2012

  

$

13,535

  

Environmental costs incurred

  

 

(1,245

Interest accretion

  

 

394

  

Balance at March 31, 2013

  

 

12,684

  

Environmental costs incurred

  

 

(1,487

Interest accretion

  

 

333

  

Reduction of environmental reserve-Wyoming Illinois

 

 

(1,207

)

Balance at March 31, 2014

  

 

10,323

  

Environmental costs incurred

  

 

(946

)

Interest accretion

  

 

290

  

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

 

 

(412

)

Balance at March 31, 2015

  

$

9,255

  

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.