Recently in Environmental Contingencies and Proceedings Disclosure

As we’ve posted in the past, public companies must generally disclose material legal proceedings in their annual and quarterly reports to the SEC. Today we’ve pulled some disclosures of environmental liabilities from recent filings of interest.


  • PEP BOYS MANNY MOE & JACK | Form 10-K | 4/11/2011

In September 2006, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) requested certain information from the Company as part of an investigation to determine whether the Company had violated the Clean Air Act and its non-road engine regulations. The information requested concerned certain generator and personal transportation merchandise offered for sale by the Company. In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) informed the Company that it believed that the Company had violated the Clean Air Act by virtue of the fact that certain of this merchandise did not conform to their corresponding EPA Certificates of Conformity. During the third quarter of fiscal 2009, the Company and the EPA reached a settlement in principle of this matter requiring that the Company (i) pay a monetary penalty of $5.0 million, (ii) take certain corrective action with respect to certain inventory that had been restricted from sale during the course of the investigation, (iii) implement a formal compliance program and (iv) participate in certain non-monetary emission offset activities. The Company had previously accrued an amount equal to the agreed upon civil penalty and a $3.0 million contingency accrual with respect to the restricted inventory. During fiscal 2009, the Company reversed approximately $2.0 million of the inventory accrual as a portion of the subject inventory was released for sale by the EPA as remediation efforts had been completed. During the second quarter of fiscal 2010, the Company completed the remediation efforts and accordingly reversed approximately $1.0 million of the inventory accrual. Further, the Company reached an agreement with the merchandise vendor to cover the entire cost of retrofitting a portion of the remaining subject merchandise and to accept the balance of the subject inventory for return for full credit. During the second quarter of fiscal 2010, the formal settlement agreement between the Company and the EPA became effective and the Company paid the monetary penalty.


In October 2002, Aerojet [the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary] and approximately 65 other individual and corporate defendants were served with four civil suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that seek recovery of costs allegedly incurred or to be incurred in response to the contamination present at the South El Monte Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley Superfund site. The cases served on October 30, 2002 are denominated as follows:

San Gabriel Valley Water Company v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., Case No. CV-02-6346 ABC (RCx), U.S. District Court, Central District of CA.

San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., Case No. CV-02-4565 ABC (RCx), U.S. District Court, Central District of CA.

Southern California Water Company v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., Case No. CV-02-6340 ABC (RCx), U.S. District Court, Central District of CA.

The City of Monterey Park v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., Case No. CV-02-5909 ABC (RCx), U.S. District Court, Central District of CA.

The cases have been coordinated for ease of administration by the court. The plaintiffs’ claims against Aerojet are based upon allegations of discharges from a former site in the El Monte area. The total cost estimate to implement projects under a Unilateral Administrative Order (“UAO”) prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the water entities is approximately $90 million. Aerojet investigations do not identify a credible connection between the contaminants identified by the plaintiff water entities in the SEMOU and those detected at Aerojet’s former facility located in El Monte, California, near the SEMOU (“East Flair Drive site”). Aerojet filed third-party complaints against several water entities on the basis that they introduced perchlorate-containing Colorado River water to the basin. Those water entities have filed motions to dismiss Aerojet’s complaints. The motions and discovery have been stayed, pending efforts to resolve the litigation through mediation. During the period in which the litigation has been stayed, EPA, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) and the plaintiff water entities have reached settlements through the mediation process with various of the parties sued, which have been brought to the Federal District Court for approval. Certain of the settlements have been challenged by Aerojet and other defendants and are not finally resolved.

During fiscal 2010, Aerojet received correspondence from EPA on behalf of itself, the DTSC and the water entities regarding settlement. Aerojet participated in mediation with EPA, DTSC and the water entities to resolve the claims, and reached a tentative settlement with EPA and DTSC in mid-December 2010 which was accepted by the water entities in January 2011. The settlement now must be approved by EPA and published for public comment. The Company recorded the financial impact of the tentative settlement in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010. Accordingly, the Company does not believe it has any further material estimated losses related to this matter at this time; however, if the tentative settlement is not finalized, the litigation stay is likely to be lifted and EPA may refer the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice for litigation, seeking to hold Aerojet liable for past and future costs, to recover costs of suit and attorneys’ fees, and as to any accrued interest, penalties or statutory damages. In such case, Aerojet would vigorously defend itself.


In 1992, the Company entered into a consent decree with the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States Government (the “EPA”) in which the Company committed to remediate environmental contamination of the groundwater that was discovered in 1982 through 1990 at and adjacent to its Lindsay, Nebraska facility (the “site”). The site was added to the EPA’s list of priority superfund sites in 1989. Between 1993 and 1995, remediation plans for the site were approved by the EPA and fully implemented by the Company. Since 1998, the primary remaining contamination at the site has been the presence of volatile organic chemicals in the groundwater. The current remediation process consists of drilling wells into the aquifer and pumping water to the surface to allow these contaminants to be removed by aeration. In 2008, the Company and the EPA conducted a periodic five-year review of the status of the remediation of the contamination of the site. In response to the review, the Company and its environmental consultants have developed a remedial action work plan that will allow the Company and the EPA to better identify the boundaries of the contaminated groundwater and determine whether the contaminated groundwater is being contained by current and planned remediation methods. The Company accrues the anticipated cost of remediation when the obligation is probable and can be reasonably estimated. Amounts accrued in balance sheet liabilities related to the remediation actions were $1.2 million, $1.3 million and $0.9 million at February 28, 2011 and 2010 and August 31, 2010, respectively. Although the Company has accrued all reasonably estimable costs of completing the actions defined in the current ongoing work plan agreed to between the Company and the EPA, it is possible that additional testing and additional environmental monitoring and remediation will be required in the near future as part of the Company’s ongoing discussions with the EPA regarding the development and implementation of the remedial action work plan, which could result in the recognition of additional related expenses. While these additional expenses could significantly exceed the current accrued amount and could be material to the operating results of any fiscal quarter or fiscal year, the Company does not expect that such additional expenses would have a material adverse effect on the liquidity or financial condition of the Company.


Under environmental laws, an owner or lessee of real estate may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances located on, or in, or emanating from, such property, as well as related costs of investigation and property damage. Such laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or lessee knew of, or was responsible for the presence of such hazardous or toxic substances. There can be no assurances that acquired or leased locations have been operated in compliance with environmental laws and regulations or that future uses or conditions will not result in the imposition of liability upon the Company under such laws or expose the Company to third-party actions such as tort suits. The Company continues to address environmental conditions under terms of consent orders negotiated with the applicable environmental authorities or otherwise with respect to sites located in or related to Woburn, Massachusetts, Somerville, Massachusetts, Springfield, Massachusetts, Uvalde, Texas, Stockton, California, three sites related to former operations in Williamstown, Vermont, as well as a number of additional locations that it acquired as part of its acquisition of Textilease Corporation in September 2003. In addition, the Company is investigating potential contamination at its Landover, Maryland facility in response to a notice it received in 2010 from the Maryland Department of Environment.

The Company has accrued certain costs related to the sites described above as it has been determined that the costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company continues to implement mitigation measures and to monitor environmental conditions at the Somerville, Massachusetts site. The Company also has potential exposure related to an additional parcel of land (the “Central Area”) related to the Woburn, Massachusetts site discussed above. Currently, the consent decree for the Woburn site does not define or require any remediation work in the Central Area. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) has provided the Company and other signatories to the consent decree with comments on the design and implementation of groundwater and soil remedies at the Woburn site and investigation of environmental conditions in the Central Area. The Company has accrued costs to perform certain work responsive to EPA’s comments.


  • GREENBRIER COMPANIES INC | Form 10-Q | 4/7/2011

Environmental studies have been conducted of the Company’s owned and leased properties that indicate additional investigation and some remediation on certain properties may be necessary. The Company’s Portland, Oregon manufacturing facility is located adjacent to the Willamette River. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified portions of the river bed, including the portion fronting Greenbrier’s facility, as a federal “National Priority List” or “Superfund” site due to sediment contamination (the Portland Harbor Site). Greenbrier and more than 140 other parties have received a “General Notice” of potential liability from the EPA relating to the Portland Harbor Site. The letter advised the Company that it may be liable for the costs of investigation and remediation (which liability may be joint and several with other potentially responsible parties) as well as for natural resource damages resulting from releases of hazardous substances to the site. At this time, ten private and public entities, including the Company, have signed an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to perform a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) of the Portland Harbor Site under EPA oversight, and several additional entities have not signed such consent, but are nevertheless contributing money to the effort. A draft of the RI study was submitted on October 27, 2009. The Feasibility Study is being developed and is expected to be submitted in the fourth calendar quarter of 2011. Eighty-two parties have entered into a non-judicial mediation process to try to allocate costs associated with the Portland Harbor site. Approximately 110 additional parties have signed tolling agreements related to such allocations. On April 23, 2009, the Company and the other AOC signatories filed suit against 69 other parties due to a possible limitations period for some such claims; Arkema Inc. et al v. A & C Foundry Products, al, US District Court, District of Oregon, Case #3:09-cv-453-PK. All but 12 of these parties elected to sign tolling agreements and be dismissed without prejudice, and the case has now been stayed by the court, pending completion of the RI/FS. In addition, the Company has entered into a Voluntary Clean-Up Agreement with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality in which the Company agreed to conduct an investigation of whether, and to what extent, past or present operations at the Portland property may have released hazardous substances to the environment. The Company is also conducting groundwater remediation relating to a historical spill on the property which antedates its ownership.

Because these environmental investigations are still underway, the Company is unable to determine the amount of ultimate liability relating to these matters. Based on the results of the pending investigations and future assessments of natural resource damages, Greenbrier may be required to incur costs associated with additional phases of investigation or remedial action, and may be liable for damages to natural resources. In addition, the Company may be required to perform periodic maintenance dredging in order to continue to launch vessels from its launch ways in Portland, Oregon, on the Willamette River, and the river’s classification as a Superfund site could result in some limitations on future dredging and launch activities. Any of these matters could adversely affect the Company’s business and Consolidated Financial Statements, or the value of its Portland property.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: