As we’ve posted in the past, public companies must generally disclose material legal proceedings in their annual, quarterly, and current reports to the SEC. Today we’ve pulled some disclosures of environmental liabilities from recent filings of interest.
* * *
- UNIFIRST CORP | Form 10-Q | 7/7/2011
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.
- El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. | Form 8-K | 7/6/2011
General Background. SNG and CIG are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing environmental quality and pollution control. These laws and regulations require us to remove or remedy the effect on the environment of the disposal or release of specified substances at current and former operating sites. At March 31, 2011, SNG had no accrual for our environmental matters, and CIG had approximately $10 million for expected remediation costs and associated onsite, offsite and groundwater technical studies and for related environmental legal costs; however, we estimate that our exposure could be as high as $33 million. The accrual includes $6 million for environmental contingencies related to properties we previously owned.
CERCLA Restitution Notice (EPA). SNG was named as potentially responsible party (PRP) under a previous settlement entered into with the EPA in 1999 relating to the Port Refinery Superfund Site in Rye Brook, New York.
- GENCORP INC | Form 10-Q | 7/5/2011
a. Legal Matters
[…]
Groundwater Cases
South El Monte Operable Unit (“SEMOU”) Related Cases
In October 2002, Aerojet 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 agreement with the Water Entities has been signed by all parties, but before it becomes final, EPA must lodge the Consent Decree with the Court to allow no less than 30 days for public comment before the Court enters its approval. EPA lodged the Consent Decree with the Court on July 1, 2011. At Aerojet’s request, the Court must also make a Good Faith Settlement Determination that will cut off any non-participating party’s right to seek further contribution from Aerojet. If the Court refuses to approve the Consent Decree or make a Good Faith Settlement Determination, the Water Entities, collectively rather than individually, or Aerojet individually, may elect to terminate the settlement. The Water Entities may not terminate the settlement if Aerojet elects to make the final settlement payments regardless of the Court’s actions. The litigation stay will remain in effect during the completion of the settlement process. 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.
[…]
b. Environmental Matters
The Company is involved in over forty environmental matters under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (“RCRA”), and other federal, state, local, and foreign laws relating to soil and groundwater contamination, hazardous waste management activities, and other environmental matters at some of its current and former facilities. The Company is also involved in a number of remedial activities at third party sites, not owned by the Company, where it is designated a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) by either the U.S. EPA and/or a state agency. In many of these matters, the Company is involved with other PRPs. In many instances, the Company’s liability and proportionate share of costs have not been determined largely due to uncertainties as to the nature and extent of site conditions and the Company’s involvement. While government agencies frequently claim PRPs are jointly and severally liable at such sites, in the Company’s experience, interim and final allocations of liability and costs are generally made based on relative contributions of waste or contamination. Anticipated costs associated with environmental remediation that are probable and estimable are accrued. In cases where a date to complete remedial activities at a particular site cannot be determined by reference to agreements or otherwise, the Company projects costs over an appropriate time period not exceeding fifteen years; in such cases, generally the Company does not have the ability to reasonably estimate environmental remediation costs that are beyond this period. Factors that could result in changes to the Company’s estimates include completion of current and future soil and groundwater investigations, new claims, future agency demands, discovery of more or less contamination than expected, discovery of new contaminants, modification of planned remedial actions, changes in estimated time required to remediate, new technologies, and changes in laws and regulations.
As of May 31, 2011, the aggregate range of these anticipated environmental costs was $208.7 million to $368.2 million and the accrued amount was $208.7 million. See Note 7(c) for a summary of the environmental reserve activity for the first half of fiscal 2011. Of these accrued liabilities, approximately 67% relates to the Sacramento, California site and approximately 22% to the Baldwin Park Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley, California site. Each of those two sites is discussed below. The balance of the accrued liabilities relates to other sites for which the Company’s obligations are probable and estimable.
- Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd. | Form 10-K/A | 7/1/2011
52nd Street Facility, Phoenix, AZ. In 1983, a trichloroethane leak from a solvent tank led to the discovery of chlorinated solvents in the groundwater underlying a former Motorola facility located on 52nd Street in Phoenix, Arizona, which resulted in the facility and adjacent areas being placed on the federal National Priorities List of Superfund sites. The 52nd Street site was subsequently divided into three operable units by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is overseeing site investigations and cleanup actions with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). To date, two separate soil cleanup actions have been completed at the first operable unit (“Operable Unit One”), for which Motorola received letters stating that no further action would be required with respect to the soils. We also implemented and are operating a system to treat contaminated groundwater in Operable Unit One and prevent migration of the groundwater from Operable Unit One. The EPA has not announced a final remedy for Operable Unit One and it is therefore possible that costs to be incurred at this operable unit in future periods may vary from our estimates. In relation to the second operable unit, the EPA issued a record of decision in July 1994, and subsequently issued a consent decree, which required Motorola to design a remediation plan targeted at containing and cleaning up solvent groundwater contamination downgradient of Operable Unit One. That remedy is now being implemented by Freescale Inc. and another potentially responsible party pursuant to an administrative order. Of our total accrual for environmental remediation liabilities of $41 million as of December 31, 2010, approximately 68% was for Operable Unit One and Operable Unit Two. The EPA and ADEQ are currently performing a remedial investigation at the third operable unit (“Operable Unit Three”) to determine the extent of groundwater contamination. A number of additional potentially responsible parties, including Motorola, have been identified in relation to Operable Unit Three. In addition, the EPA recently announced it will conduct “vapor intrusion studies” in residential areas adjacent to the 52nd Street facility. Because these investigations are in the early stages, we cannot predict at this time whether or to what extent we may be held liable for cleanup at Operable Unit Three, or whether any such liability would be material.
56th Street Facility, Phoenix, AZ. In 1985, the EPA initiated an inquiry concerning the former Motorola facility located on 56th Street in Phoenix, Arizona following the discovery of organic compounds in certain local area wells. Motorola completed several remedial actions at this site including soil excavation and cleanup. We subsequently undertook voluntary negotiations with ADEQ, which assumed primary responsibility for this matter in 2004 under the state’s Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Program.
The Green Mien 