| 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 laws and regulations of the U.S. and foreign countries. We take a proactive approach in our efforts to comply with these laws and regulations 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 or an investigation to determine responsibility for environmental conditions at 20 sites. At 14 of these sites, the future cost per site for us or our subsidiary is expected to exceed $100,000. Of these 20 sites, 18 are sites where we or one or more of our subsidiaries formerly conducted business operations but no longer do, and 2 are sites where we conduct manufacturing operations. Investigations have been completed for 16 sites and are in progress at 3 sites. An investigation to determine responsibility for environmental conditions is ongoing at one site. 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. For sites with multiple future projected cost scenarios for identified feasible investigation and remediation options where no one estimate is more likely than all the others, our policy is to accrue the lowest estimate among the range of estimates. 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 and adjusted to reflect additional technical data and legal information. As of March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, we had accrued liabilities aggregating $41.2 million and $42.2 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. We believe that our accruals for specific environmental liabilities are adequate based on currently available information. Based upon limited information regarding any incremental remediation or other actions that may be required at these sites, we cannot estimate any further loss or a reasonably possible range of loss related to these matters. 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 20 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. 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"). 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. In the fourth quarter of 2020, the third-party allocator issued his report, which determined the range for EnPro's liability for the lower eight miles of the river to be between $35,000 and $950,000. Our reserve at March 31, 2021 was $1.0 million. On April 14, 2021, the EPA issued its proposed remedy for the upper nine miles of the river, with an estimated present value cost of approximately $441 million. The proposed remedy would involve dredging and capping of the river sediment as an interim remedy followed by a period of monitoring to evaluate the response of the river system to the interim remedy. When the EPA initiated the allocation process in 2017, it explained that a fair, carefully structured, information-based allocation was necessary to promote settlements. With the completion of the allocation process, the EPA has indicated that settlement discussions will begin soon. Further adjustments to our reserve for this site are possible as further information is developed in the course of these discussions. Except with respect to the lower eight miles of the Lower Passaic River Study Area, 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. 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 Holdings' period of ownership of Crucible. Based on EnPro Holdings' 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 three months ended March 31, 2021 and 2020 are as follows: 2021 2020 (in millions) Balance at beginning of year $ 6.7 $ 10.1 Net charges to expense 0.5 0.7 Settlements made (0.4) (1.3) Balance at end of period $ 6.8 $ 9.5 The lower level of warranty expense, settlements made and ending balance as compared to the prior-year period is primarily due to the disposal, during the second half of 2020, of portions of our businesses supplying the heavy-duty trucking end market. Asbestos Insurance Receivables 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-GST 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-GST 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 related to the Pre-GST Coverage Block and anticipates further collections once the Trust begins making claims payments on non-GST Claims. As of March 31, 2021, approximately $4.2 million of available products hazard limits or insurance receivables existed under primary and excess general liability insurance policies other than the Pre-GST Coverage Block (the "GST Coverage Block") from solvent carriers, which we believe is available to cover contributions made to the Trust under the Joint Plan as the Trust uses those contributions to pay GST asbestos claims covered by policies in the GST Coverage Block. There are specific agreements in place with carriers regarding the remaining available coverage. We believe that all of the $4.2 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. In the fourth quarter of 2020, we billed an insurer in the GST Coverage Block $0.8 million for GST Claims paid by the Trust through December 2020. This amount is included in Other assets on our Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 2021. 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-GST 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 $4.2 million of anticipated collections. The insurance available to cover current and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive general liability and excess 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. |
