| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies General A detailed description of environmental and other legal matters relating to certain of our subsidiaries is included in this section. In addition to the matters noted herein, we are from time to time subject to, and are presently involved in, other litigation and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We believe the outcome of such other litigation and legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Expenses for administrative and legal proceedings are recorded when incurred. Environmental Our facilities and operations are subject to federal, state and local environmental and occupational health and safety requirements of the U.S. and foreign countries. We take a proactive approach in our efforts to comply with environmental, health and safety laws as they relate to our manufacturing operations and in proposing and implementing any remedial plans that may be necessary. We also regularly conduct comprehensive environmental, health and safety audits at our facilities to maintain compliance and improve operational efficiency. Although we believe past operations were in substantial compliance with the then applicable regulations, we or one or more of our subsidiaries are involved with various remediation activities at 21 sites. At 16 of these sites, the future cost per site for us or our subsidiary is expected to exceed $100,000 . Of these 21 sites, 18 are sites where we or one or more of our subsidiaries formerly conducted business operations but no longer do, and 3 are sites where we conduct manufacturing operations. Investigations have been completed for 16 sites and are in progress at the other 5 sites. Our costs at 14 of the 21 sites relate to remediation projects for soil and/or groundwater contamination at or near former operating facilities that were sold or closed. Our policy is to accrue environmental investigation and remediation costs when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The measurement of the liability is based on an evaluation of currently available facts with respect to each individual situation and takes into consideration factors such as existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations and prior experience in the remediation of similar contaminated sites. Liabilities are established for all sites based on these factors. As assessments and remediation progress at individual sites, these liabilities are reviewed periodically and adjusted to reflect additional technical data and legal information. As of September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018 , we had accrued liabilities aggregating $34.6 million and $31.1 million , respectively, for estimated future expenditures relating to environmental contingencies. These amounts have been recorded on an undiscounted basis in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Given the uncertainties regarding the status of laws, regulations, enforcement policies, the impact of other parties potentially being fully or partially liable, technology and information related to individual sites, we do not believe it is possible to develop an estimate of the range of reasonably possible environmental loss in excess of our recorded liabilities. Except as described below, we believe that our accruals for specific environmental liabilities are adequate for those liabilities based on currently available information. Actual costs to be incurred in future periods may vary from estimates because of the inherent uncertainties in evaluating environmental exposures due to unknown and changing conditions, changing government regulations and legal standards regarding liability. Based on our prior ownership of Crucible Steel Corporation a/k/a Crucible, Inc. (“Crucible”), we may have additional contingent liabilities in one or more significant environmental matters. One such matter, which is included in the 21 sites referred to above, is the Lower Passaic River Study Area of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site in New Jersey. Crucible operated a steel mill abutting the Passaic River in Harrison, New Jersey from the 1930s until 1974, which was one of many industrial operations on the river dating back to the 1800s. Certain contingent environmental liabilities related to this site were retained by a predecessor of our EnPro Holdings, Inc. subsidiary (which, including its corporate predecessors is referred to as "EnPro Holdings") when it sold a majority interest in Crucible Materials Corporation (the successor of Crucible) in 1985. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) notified our subsidiary in September 2003 that it is a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) for Superfund response actions in the lower 17 -mile stretch of the Passaic River known as the Lower Passaic River Study Area. EnPro Holdings and approximately 70 of the numerous other PRPs, known as the Cooperating Parties Group, are parties to a May 2007 Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) of the contaminants in the Lower Passaic River Study Area. In September 2018, EnPro Holdings withdrew from the Cooperating Parties Group but remains a party to the May 2007 Administrative Order on Consent. The RI/FS was completed and submitted to the EPA at the end of April 2015. The RI/FS recommends a targeted dredge and cap remedy with monitored natural recovery and adaptive management for the Lower Passaic River Study Area. The cost of such remedy is estimated to be $726 million . Previously, on April 11, 2014, the EPA released its Focused Feasibility Study (the “FFS”) with its proposed plan for remediating the lower eight miles of the Lower Passaic River Study Area. The FFS calls for bank-to-bank dredging and capping of the riverbed of that portion of the river and estimates a range of the present value of aggregate remediation costs of approximately $953 million to approximately $1.73 billion , although estimates of the costs and the timing of costs are inherently imprecise. On March 3, 2016, the EPA issued the final Record of Decision (ROD) as to the remedy for the lower eight miles of the Lower Passaic River Study Area, with the maximum estimated cost being reduced by the EPA from $1.73 billion to $1.38 billion , primarily due to a reduction in the amount of cubic yards of material that will be dredged. In October 2016, Occidental Chemical Corporation, the successor to the entity that operated the Diamond Alkali chemical manufacturing facility, reached an agreement with the EPA to develop the design for this proposed remedy at an estimated cost of $165 million . The EPA has estimated that it will take approximately four years to develop this design. No final allocations of responsibility have been made among the numerous PRPs that have received notices from the EPA, there are numerous identified PRPs that have not yet received PRP notices from the EPA, and there are likely many PRPs that have not yet been identified. In September 2017, EPA hired a third-party allocator to develop an allocation of costs among a large number of the parties identified by EPA as having potential responsibility, including the Company. On June 30, 2018, Occidental Chemical Corporation sued over 120 parties, including the Company, in the United States District Court for New Jersey seeking recovery of response costs under the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"). Based on our evaluation of the site, during 2014 we accrued a liability of $3.5 million related to environmental remediation costs associated with the lower eight miles of the Lower Passaic River Study Area, which is our estimate of the low end of a range of reasonably possible costs, with no estimate within the range being a better estimate than the minimum. Since 2016, we incurred $0.7 million in costs related to this matter. Our future remediation costs could be significantly greater than the $2.8 million remaining accrual at September 30, 2019 . With respect to the upper nine miles of the Lower Passaic River Study Area, we are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible costs. Another such matter involves the Onondaga Lake Superfund Site (the “Onondaga Site”) located near Syracuse, New York, which is also included in the 21 sites referred to above. Crucible operated a steel mill facility adjacent to Onondaga Lake from 1911 to 1983. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) has contacted us and EnPro Holdings, as well as other parties, demanding reimbursement of unquantified environmental response costs incurred by NYSDEC and the EPA at the Onondaga Site. NYSDEC and EPA have alleged that contamination from the Crucible facility contributed to the need for environmental response actions at the Onondaga Site. We have also received notice from the Natural Resource Trustees for the Onondaga Lake Superfund Site (which are the U.S. Department of Interior, NYSDEC, and the Onondaga Nation) alleging that EnPro Holdings is considered to be a potentially responsible party for natural resource damages at the Onondaga Site. In addition, Honeywell International Inc. (“Honeywell”), which has undertaken certain remediation activities at the Onondaga Site under the supervision of NYSDEC and the EPA, has informed us that it has claims against EnPro Holdings related to investigation and remediation at the Onondaga Site. We have entered into tolling agreements with NYSDEC, the EPA and Honeywell. On May 4, 2016, we received from Honeywell a summary of its claims, including a portion of its costs for the remediation of the Onondaga Site in accordance with its settlement with NYSDEC and EPA. Based on limited information available with respect to estimated remediation costs and the respective allocation of responsibility for remediation among potentially responsible parties, we previously were unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss associated with Crucible’s activities that may have affected the Onondaga Site. After continued discussions with Honeywell, an agreement-in-principle has been reached to settle Honeywell's claim for $10 million in exchange for a full release of any and all claims based on Crucible's alleged contamination of Onondaga Lake. In light of this tentative settlement, for the third quarter of 2019, we increased our reserve for this matter by $3.5 million to reflect an aggregate reserve of $10 million . It is anticipated that the settlement will be completed and paid in the first quarter of 2020. Except with respect to specific Crucible environmental matters for which we have accrued a portion of the liability set forth above, including the Lower Passaic River Study Area and the Onondaga site, we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss related to any other contingent environmental liability based on our prior ownership of Crucible. See the section entitled “Crucible Steel Corporation a/k/a Crucible, Inc.” in this footnote for additional information. In addition to the Crucible environmental matters discussed above, EnPro Holdings received a notice from the EPA dated February 19, 2014 asserting that EnPro Holdings is a potentially responsible party under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") as the successor to a former operator in 1954 and 1955 of two uranium mines in Arizona. On October 15, 2015, EnPro Holdings received another notice from the EPA asserting that it is a potentially responsible party as the successor to the former operator of six additional uranium mines in Arizona. In 2015, we reserved $1.1 million for the minimum amount of probable loss associated with the first two mines identified by the EPA, including the cost of the investigative work to be conducted at such mines. During 2016, we reserved an additional $1.1 million for the minimum amount of probable loss associated with the six additional mines, which includes estimated costs of investigative work to be conducted at the eight mines. We entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Interim Removal Action with the EPA effective November 7, 2017 for the performance of this work. In the third quarter of 2017, we increased the reserve by $1.9 million to perform investigations required by the Settlement Agreement to determine the nature and extent of contamination at each site with the investigations anticipated to be completed by the end of 2020. In the fourth quarter of 2018, we increased the reserve by $1.0 million for the estimated reimbursement of the EPA's costs to oversee these investigations. The balance in the reserve as of September 30, 2019 is $2.2 million . We cannot at this time estimate a reasonably possible range of loss associated with remediation or other incremental costs related to these mines. In connection with the former operation of a division of EnPro Holdings located in Water Valley, Mississippi, which was divested to BorgWarner, Inc. ("BorgWarner") in 1996, EnPro Holdings has been managing trichloroethylene soil and groundwater contamination at the site. In February 2016, the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) issued an order against EnPro Holdings requiring evaluation of potential vapor intrusion into residential properties and commercial facilities located over the groundwater plume as well as requiring additional groundwater investigation and remediation. MDEQ performed the initial vapor intrusion investigations at certain residential and commercial sites, with the findings all being below the applicable screening level. In April 2016, the parties entered into a new order including negotiated time frames for groundwater remediation. Pursuant to that order, MDEQ performed a second round of vapor intrusion sampling beginning in August 2016. Results from sampling outside of three residences were above screening levels. Follow-up sampling directly underneath those residences (either sub-slab or in crawl spaces) were all below applicable screening levels. Two separate sampling events at another residence were also below applicable screening levels. Due to an increasing trend in vapor concentrations, MDEQ requested that we develop and implement initial corrective action measures to address vapor intrusion resulting from groundwater contamination in this residential area. These measures were developed and approved by MDEQ. Due to an inability to obtain access to private properties where the corrective action system was to be located, we developed an alternate remedial approach which has been approved by MDEQ. In addition, vapor intrusion sampling at the manufacturing facility owned by BorgWarner was conducted during the first quarter of 2017. The results showed exceedances of screening levels at various areas in the plant and exceedances of levels requiring responsive actions in a limited area of the plant. Implementation of the immediate responsive actions has been completed and corrective action consisting of a permanent vapor intrusion remediation system became operational in May 2017 with further improvements made to the system in December 2017 and January 2018. Indoor air sampling is conducted at four locations biweekly and have been below levels requiring responsive action at three sampling locations since June 2017 and at all four locations since February 2018. We are also continuing soil and groundwater investigation work in the area inside the plant where the vapor intrusion remediation system is located and around the outside of the plant and implementing corrective action plans for both the contamination remaining at the plant as well as contamination that has migrated off-site. All of the work to be performed at the residential area, the plant and off-site is set forth in an agreed Order that we and MDEQ entered into on September 11, 2017. During 2016, we established an additional $1.3 million reserve with respect to this matter. During the year ended December 31, 2017, we reserved an additional $5.7 million for further investigation, additional remediation, long-term monitoring costs, and legal fees to support regulatory compliance for the above noted actions. In the fourth quarter of 2018, we reserved an additional $3.5 million for additional remediation, long-term monitoring costs and legal fees to support regulatory compliance for the above noted activities. As the corrective actions are implemented and their performance monitored, further modifications to the remediation system at the site may be required which may result in additional costs beyond the current reserve. On April 7, 2017, the State of Mississippi through its Attorney General filed suit against EnPro Holdings and Goodrich Corporation (EnPro's former corporate parent), in Mississippi Circuit Court in Yalobusha County seeking recovery of all costs and expenses to be incurred by the State in remediating the groundwater contamination, punitive damages and attorney’s fees. We are aggressively defending this case. The additional reserve established in the year ended December 31, 2017, noted above, does not include any estimate of contingent loss associated with this lawsuit other than due to remediation and other actions with respect to this site based on existing MDEQ orders described above. On January 31, 2019, some of these property owners (representing ownership of 27 residential, agricultural or commercial properties), Yalobusha County, and the Board of Trustees of the Yalobusha General Hospital filed suit against EnPro and Goodrich in Mississippi Circuit Court and Yalobusha County seeking recovery for alleged damage to their properties, including diminution in value, from groundwater contamination that has come onto their properties. These cases have been removed to the federal U.S. District Court and plaintiffs' challenge to such removal has been denied by the federal court. In addition, it is our understanding that other area homeowners, owners of commercial facilities and possibly other private parties and individuals may be separately evaluating possible legal action relating to potential vapor intrusion and groundwater contamination. In October 2019, mediation of the case filed by the property owners (representing ownership of the 27 residential, agricultural and commercial properties) was conducted. As a result of that mediation, the claims of all of the property owners were settled for current and estimated future payments of $3.0 million in the aggregate. In exchange for these payments, the litigation is to be dismissed with prejudice, each plaintiff will release any and all claims that were or could have been brought against EnPro, and each property owner will file in the real property records of Yalobusha County, Mississippi, a deed restriction required by MDEQ as part of EnPro's required remediation. Mediation of the lawsuit brought by Yalobusha County and the Board of Trustees of the Yalobusha County General Hospital is scheduled to be held in December 2019. In light of this settlement and the upcoming mediation, for the third quarter of 2019, we further increased our reserve for this matter, including the remediation matters described above, by $4.4 million to reflect an aggregate reserve of $7.5 million . Beyond this increase, we cannot estimate a reasonably possible range of loss from the remaining lawsuits or any potential additional legal actions at this time. Based upon limited information regarding any incremental remediation or other actions that may be required at the site, we cannot estimate a minimum loss or a reasonably possible range of loss related to this matter. Crucible Steel Corporation a/k/a Crucible, Inc. Crucible, which was engaged primarily in the manufacture and distribution of high technology specialty metal products, was a wholly owned subsidiary of EnPro Holdings until 1983 when its assets and liabilities were distributed to a new subsidiary, Crucible Materials Corporation. EnPro Holdings sold a majority of the outstanding shares of Crucible Materials Corporation in 1985 and divested its remaining minority interest in 2004. Crucible Materials Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in May 2009 and is no longer conducting operations. We have certain ongoing obligations, which are included in other liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets, including workers’ compensation, retiree medical and other retiree benefit matters, in addition to those mentioned previously related to EnPro Holding's period of ownership of Crucible. Based on EnPro Holding's prior ownership of Crucible, we may have certain additional contingent liabilities, including liabilities in one or more significant environmental matters included in the matters discussed in “Environmental” above. We are investigating these matters. Except with respect to those matters for which we have an accrued liability as discussed in "Environmental" above, we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss related to these contingent liabilities. Warranties We provide warranties on many of our products. The specific terms and conditions of these warranties vary depending on the product and the market in which the product is sold. We record a liability based upon estimates of the costs we may incur under our warranties after a review of historical warranty experience and information about specific warranty claims. Adjustments are made to the liability as claims data, historical experience, and trends result in changes to our estimate. Changes in the product warranty liability for the nine months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018 are as follows: 2019 2018 (in millions) Balance at beginning of year $ 11.7 $ 5.3 Net charges to expense 6.7 5.8 Settlements made (4.7 ) (2.3 ) Balance at end of period $ 13.7 $ 8.8 BorgWarner A subsidiary of BorgWarner has asserted claims against our subsidiary, GGB France E.U.R.L. (“GGB France”), regarding certain bearings supplied by GGB France to BorgWarner and used by BorgWarner in manufacturing hydraulic control units included in motor vehicle automatic transmission units, mainly that the bearings caused performance problems with and/or damage to the transmission units, leading to associated repairs and replacements. BorgWarner and GGB France participated in a technical review before a panel of experts to determine, among other things, whether there were any defects in such bearings that were a cause of the damages claimed by BorgWarner, including whether GGB France was required to notify BorgWarner of a change in the source of a raw material used in the manufacture of such bearings. This technical review was a required predicate to the commencement of a legal proceeding for damages. The expert panel issued a final report on technical and financial matters on April 6, 2017. In the final report, the expert panel concluded that GGB France had a duty to notify BorgWarner regarding the change of source of raw material used in the bearings, but that the failure of the hydraulic control units was attributable to both the raw material supplier change and the insufficient design of the units by BorgWarner. The expert panel provided detail on a possible allocation of damages alleged to have been incurred by BorgWarner and its customer. Although the language of the report is not clear, the report appears to note a potential allocation of recoverable damages 65% to GGB and 35% to BorgWarner. It also indicates that, though it is for a court to ultimately determine, the aggregate damages to BorgWarner and its customer was in the range of 7.9 million EUR to 10.2 million EUR, with 1.8 million EUR to 2.1 million EUR of this range being for damages to BorgWarner and the remainder being for damages to its customer. The experts noted the lower end of the range as being more likely and noted a lack of sufficient evidence provided substantiating the customer's damages. Applying a 65% liability allocation to GGB to the total aggregate range yields a range of 5.1 million EUR to 6.6 million EUR. In the final report, the expert panel deferred to a court the determination of whether GGB France had breached its contractual obligations to BorgWarner. On October 25, 2017, BorgWarner initiated a legal proceeding against GGB with respect to this matter by filing a writ of claim with the Commercial Court of Brive, France. The parties have begun briefing their legal positions, and we expect court hearings to begin in late 2019 and a court ruling in early 2020. We continue to believe that GGB France has valid factual and legal defenses to these claims and we are vigorously defending these claims. Among GGB France’s legal defenses are a contractual disclaimer of consequential damages, which, if controlling, would limit liability for consequential damages and provide for the replacement of the bearings at issue, at an aggregate replacement value we estimate to be approximately 0.4 million EUR; that the determination of any duty to notify of the change in the source of the raw material is a legal matter to be determined by the presiding court; and the insufficiency of evidence of damage to BorgWarner's customer provided to the expert panel. Based on the final report from the expert panel and GGB France's legal defenses described above, we estimate GGB France’s reasonably possible range of loss associated with this matter to be approximately 0.4 million EUR to 6.6 million EUR plus a potential undetermined amount of apportioned proceeding expenses, with no amount within the range being a better estimate than the minimum of the range. Accordingly, GGB France has retained the accrual of 0.4 million EUR associated with this matter, which was established in 2016. Asbestos Insurance Matters The historical business operations of certain of our subsidiaries resulted in a substantial volume of asbestos litigation in which plaintiffs alleged personal injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers. In 2010, certain of these subsidiaries, including Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC ("GST"), filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina (the "Bankruptcy Court"). An additional subsidiary filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition with the Bankruptcy Court in 2017. The filings were part of a claims resolution process for an efficient and permanent resolution of all pending and future asbestos claims through court approval of a plan of reorganization to establish a facility to resolve and pay these asbestos claims. These claims against GST and other subsidiaries were resolved pursuant to a joint plan of reorganization (the "Joint Plan") filed with the Bankruptcy Court which was consummated on July 29, 2017. Under the Joint Plan, GST and EnPro Holdings retained their rights to seek reimbursement under insurance policies for any amounts they have paid in the past to resolve asbestos claims, including contributions made to the asbestos claims resolution trust established under the Joint Plan (the "Trust"). These policies include a number of primary and excess general liability insurance policies that were purchased by EnPro Holdings and were in effect prior to January 1, 1976 (the “Pre-Garlock Coverage Block”). The policies provide coverage for “occurrences” happening during the policy periods and cover losses associated with product liability claims against EnPro Holdings and certain of its subsidiaries. Asbestos claims against GST are not covered under these policies because GST was not a subsidiary of EnPro Holdings prior to 1976. The Joint Plan provides that EnPro Holdings may retain the first $25 million of any settlements and judgments collected for non-GST asbestos claims related to insurance policies in the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block and EnPro Holdings and the Trust will share equally in any settlements and judgments EnPro Holdings may collect in excess of $25 million . To date, EnPro Holdings has collected almost $22 million in settlements for non-GST asbestos claims from the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block and anticipates further collections once the Trust begins making claims payments. As of September 30, 2019 , approximately $6.7 million of available products hazard limits or insurance receivables existed under primary and excess general liability insurance policies other than the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block (the "Garlock Coverage Block") from solvent carriers with investment grade ratings, which we believe is available to cover GST asbestos claims payments and certain expense payments, including contributions to the Trust. We consider such amount of available insurance coverage under the Garlock Coverage Block to be of high quality because the insurance policies are written or guaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating by S&P is investment grade (BBB-) or better, and whose AM Best rating is excellent (A-) or better. The remaining $6.7 million is available to pending and estimated future claims. There are specific agreements in place with carriers regarding the remaining available coverage. Based on those agreements and the terms of the policies in place and prior decisions concerning coverage, we believe that all of the $6.7 million of insurance proceeds will ultimately be collected, although there can be no assurance that the insurance companies will make the payments as and when due. Assuming the insurers pay according to the agreements and policies, we anticipate that $4.2 million will be collected in the fourth quarter of 2019 and $2.5 million will be collected in 2020. We also believe that EnPro Holdings will bill, and could collect over time, as much as $10 million of insurance coverage for non-GST asbestos claims to reimburse it for Trust payments to non-GST Trust claimants. After EnPro Holdings collects the first approximately $3 million of that coverage, remaining collections for non-GST asbestos claims from the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block will be shared equally with the Trust. GST has received $8.8 million of insurance recoveries from insolvent carriers since 2007, and may receive additional payments from insolvent carriers in the future. No anticipated insolvent carrier collections are included in the $6.7 million of anticipated collections. The insurance available to cover current and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive general liability policies that cover EnPro Holdings and certain of its other subsidiaries in addition to GST for periods prior to 1985 and therefore could be subject to potential competing claims of other covered subsidiaries and their assignees. |
