BMY » Topics » ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

This excerpt taken from the BMY 10-Q filed Apr 28, 2009.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

As previously reported, the Company is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, Federal and foreign laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, (CERCLA), for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at the Company’s current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties.

CERCLA Matters

With respect to CERCLA matters for which the Company is responsible under various state, Federal and foreign laws, the Company typically estimates potential costs based on information obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or counterpart state agency and/or studies prepared by independent consultants, including the total estimated costs for the site and the expected cost-sharing, if any, with other “potentially responsible parties”, and the Company accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. As of March 31, 2009, the Company estimated its share of the total future costs for these sites to be approximately $60 million, recorded as other liabilities, which represents the sum of best estimates or, where no simple estimate can reasonably be made, estimates of the minimal probable amount among a range of such costs (without taking into account any potential recoveries from other parties, which are not currently expected). These estimated future costs include a site in Brazil where the Company is working with the Brazilian environmental authorities to determine what remediation steps must be undertaken.

Passaic River (NJ) Remediation and Natural Resource Damages Claim

As previously disclosed, in September 2003, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued an administrative enforcement Directive requiring the Company and other companies to perform an assessment of natural resource damages and to implement unspecified interim remedial measures to restore conditions in the Lower Passaic River (LPR). The Directive named the Company due to releases from a nearby bulk chemical reprocessing facility operated by a predecessor of McKesson Corp. Subsequently, the EPA issued notice letters to numerous parties, but not the Company, requesting performance of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of conditions in the LPR. Under a consent agreement with EPA in 2004, a group of these other parties committed to pay roughly half of the $20 million estimated for the RI/FS by EPA at that time. The EPA thereafter substantially increased its estimate of the scope and cost of the RI/FS and, as a result, the EPA agreed to allow the group to perform most of the remaining RI/FS tasks. By the group’s estimate, total costs to complete the RI/FS and related tasks now exceed $50 million. The group has negotiated an amended consent agreement with the EPA to conduct the remaining RI/FS work, which became effective in May 2007. As part of that process, the Company and McKesson have bought out of remaining RI/FS tasks.

Separately, the Company has agreed to pay approximately $110 thousand towards RI/FS tasks previously funded by McKesson and work cooperatively going forward, subject to later reallocation. In mid-2007 the EPA announced plans to seek implementation of “early-action” remedial measures to address the most highly-contaminated portions of the LPR while the RI/FS is being completed. The EPA has indicated it expects to select any such actions by mid-2009. Also, a sub-group of the cooperating private parties have commenced discussions with federal natural resource trustee agencies concerning an agreement to assess natural resource damages in the LPR. Those discussions are expected to continue until mid-2009. The remaining parties, including the Company and McKesson, have declined to discuss the proposal at least until the scope and cost of the “early-actions” sought by the EPA are more thoroughly understood.

 

31


Table of Contents

Note 21. Legal Proceedings and Contingencies (Continued)

 

In 2006, NJDEP filed suit against a set of parties tied to a facility suspected of significant discharges to the LPR to recover costs and unspecified damages. That case languished until recently, when the defendants filed third-party claims against most members of the cooperating group and numerous other parties. Those claims also seek contribution to the costs of the various actions the defendants are funding on other response actions related to the LPR. The defendants did not name the Company in those claims. The other group members are actively discussing strategy and coordinated actions; for now, the Company is not participating in those efforts. While the group currently does not plan to add the Company to the litigation, it remains to be seen whether any of the other new defendants will do so. The extent of any liability the Company may face for these and related risks cannot yet be determined.

North Brunswick Township Board of Education

As previously disclosed, in October 2003, the Company was contacted by counsel representing the North Brunswick, NJ Board of Education (BOE) regarding a site where waste materials from E.R. Squibb and Sons may have been disposed from the 1940’s through the 1960’s. Fill material containing industrial waste and heavy metals in excess of residential standards was discovered during an expansion project at the North Brunswick Township High School, as well as at a number of neighboring residential properties and adjacent public park areas. In January 2004, the NJDEP sent the Company and others an information request letter about possible waste disposal at the site, to which the Company responded in March 2004. The BOE and the Township, as the current owners of the school property and the park, are conducting and jointly financing soil remediation work and ground water investigation work under a work plan approved by NJDEP, and has asked the Company to contribute to the cost. The Company is actively monitoring the clean-up project, including its costs. To date, neither the school board nor the Township has asserted any claim against the Company. Instead, the Company and the local entities have negotiated an agreement to attempt to resolve the matter by informal means, including mediation and binding allocation as necessary. A central component of the agreement is provision by the Company of interim funding to help defray cleanup costs and assure the work is not interrupted; the Company transmitted an initial interim funding payment in December 2007. The parties have since commenced mediation, which is expected to continue through mid-2009; if necessary, the parties will move to a binding allocation process, which could conclude by the fall of 2009.

ODS Regulatory Compliance

As previously disclosed, the EPA was investigating industrial and commercial facilities throughout the U.S. that use refrigeration equipment containing ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and enforcing compliance with regulations governing the prevention, service and repair of leaks (ODS requirements). In 2004, the Company performed a voluntary corporate-wide audit at its facilities in the U.S. and Puerto Rico that use ODS-containing refrigeration equipment. The Company submitted an audit report to the EPA in November 2004, identifying potential violations of the ODS requirements at several of its facilities. In addition to the matters covered in the Company’s audit report letter to the EPA, the EPA previously sent Mead Johnson a request for information regarding compliance with ODS requirements at its facility in Evansville, Indiana. The Company responded to the request in June 2004, and, as a result, identified potential violations at the Evansville facility. The Company has signed a Consent Decree with the EPA to resolve both the potential violations discovered during the audit and those identified as a result of the EPA request for information to the Evansville facility, which was filed in the Evansville Division of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on July 8, 2008. The Consent Decree requires the Company to pay a civil penalty of $127 thousand and to retire, retrofit or replace 17 ODS-containing refrigeration units by June 2009 located at facilities in New Jersey, Indiana, and Puerto Rico. The Consent Decree also requires the Company to spend at least $2,225 thousand on a Supplemental Environmental Project, which consists of the removal of two ODS-containing comfort cooling devices at the New Brunswick, NJ facility and the tie in of their functions to a new centralized chiller system that does not use ODS as a refrigerant. The Department of Justice filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on January 27, 2009, to enter the Consent Decree, but the court has not yet acted on the motion.

New Brunswick Facility – Environmental & Personal Injury Lawsuits

As previously disclosed, in May 2008, lawsuits were filed against the Company in Superior Court, Middlesex County, NJ, by or on behalf of current and former residents of New Brunswick, NJ who live adjacent to the Company’s New Brunswick facility. The complaints allege various personal injuries and property damage resulting from soil and groundwater contamination on their property stemming from historical operations at the New Brunswick facility. In March 2009, the court denied most of the Company’s motion to dismiss and, with respect to the claims it did dismiss, the court afforded plaintiffs the opportunity to re-plead without prejudice. Also in March 2009, a few additional lawsuits were filed in Atlantic County. The total number of cases is over 100. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this litigation. It is not possible at this time to reasonable assess the outcome of these lawsuits, or the potential impact on the Company.

 

32


Table of Contents

Note 21. Legal Proceedings and Contingencies (Continued)

 

This excerpt taken from the BMY 8-K filed Apr 28, 2009.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

As previously reported, the Company is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, Federal and foreign laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, (CERCLA), for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at the Company’s current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties.

CERCLA Matters

With respect to CERCLA matters for which the Company is responsible under various state, Federal and foreign laws, the Company typically estimates potential costs based on information obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or counterpart state agency and/or studies prepared by independent consultants, including the total estimated costs for the site and the expected cost-sharing, if any, with other “potentially responsible parties”, and the Company accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. As of December 31, 2008, the Company estimated its share of the total future costs for these sites to be approximately $62 million, recorded as other liabilities, which represents the sum of best estimates or, where no simple estimate can reasonably be made, estimates of the minimal probable amount among a range of such costs (without taking into account any potential recoveries from other parties, which are not currently expected).

Passaic River (NJ) Remediation and Natural Resource Damages Claims

As previously disclosed, in September 2003, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued an administrative enforcement Directive requiring the Company and other companies to perform an assessment of natural resource damages and to implement unspecified interim remedial measures to restore conditions in the Lower Passaic River (LPR). The Directive named the Company due to releases from a nearby bulk chemical reprocessing facility operated by a predecessor of McKesson Corp. Subsequently, the EPA issued notice letters to numerous parties, but not the Company, requesting performance of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of conditions in the LPR. Under a consent agreement with EPA in 2004, a group of these other parties committed to pay roughly half of the $20 million estimated for the RI/FS by EPA at that time. The EPA thereafter substantially increased its estimate of the scope and cost of the RI/FS and, as a result, the EPA agreed to allow the group to perform most of the remaining RI/FS tasks. By the group’s estimate, total costs to complete the RI/FS and related tasks now exceed $50 million. The group has negotiated an amended consent agreement with the EPA to conduct the remaining RI/FS work, which became effective in May 2007. As part of that process, the Company and McKesson have bought out of remaining RI/FS tasks.

Separately, the Company has agreed to pay approximately $110 thousand towards RI/FS tasks previously funded by McKesson and work cooperatively going forward, subject to later reallocation. In mid-2007 the EPA announced plans to seek implementation of “early-action” remedial measures to address the most highly-contaminated portions of the LPR while the RI/FS is being completed. The EPA has indicated it expects to select any such actions early in 2009. Also, a sub-group of the cooperating private parties have commenced discussions with federal natural resource trustee agencies concerning an agreement to assess natural resource damages in the LPR. Those discussions are expected to continue until mid-2009. The remaining parties, including the Company and McKesson, have declined to discuss the proposal at least until the scope and cost of the “early-actions” sought by the EPA are most thoroughly understood. The extent of any liability the Company may face for these and related requirements cannot yet be determined.

North Brunswick Township Board of Education

As previously disclosed, in October 2003, the Company was contacted by counsel representing the North Brunswick, NJ Board of Education (BOE) regarding a site where waste materials from E.R. Squibb and Sons may have been disposed from the 1940’s through the 1960’s. Fill material containing industrial waste and heavy metals in excess of residential standards was discovered during an expansion project at the North Brunswick Township High School, as well as at a number of neighboring residential properties and adjacent public park areas. In January 2004, the NJDEP sent the Company and others an information request letter about possible waste disposal at the site, to which the Company responded in March 2004. The BOE and the Township, as the current owners of the school property and the park, are conducting and jointly financing soil remediation work and ground water investigation work under a work plan approved by NJDEP, and has asked the Company to contribute to the cost. The Company is actively monitoring the clean-

 

F-94


Note 25 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

 

up project, including its costs. To date, neither the school board nor the Township has asserted any claim against the Company. Instead, the Company and the local entities have negotiated an agreement to attempt to resolve the matter by informal means, including mediation and binding allocation as necessary. A central component of the agreement is provision by the Company of interim funding to help defray cleanup costs and assure the work is not interrupted; the Company transmitted an initial interim funding payment in December 2007. The parties have since commenced mediation activities, which are expected to conclude by mid-2009.

ODS Regulatory Compliance

As previously disclosed, the EPA was investigating industrial and commercial facilities throughout the U.S. that use refrigeration equipment containing ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and enforcing compliance with regulations governing the prevention, service and repair of leaks (ODS requirements). In 2004, the Company performed a voluntary corporate-wide audit at its facilities in the U.S. and Puerto Rico that use ODS-containing refrigeration equipment. The Company submitted an audit report to the EPA in November 2004, identifying potential violations of the ODS requirements at several of its facilities. In addition to the matters covered in the Company’s audit report letter to the EPA, the EPA previously sent Mead Johnson a request for information regarding compliance with ODS requirements at its facility in Evansville, Indiana. The Company responded to the request in June 2004, and, as a result, identified potential violations at the Evansville facility. The Company has signed a Consent Decree with the EPA to resolve both the potential violations discovered during the audit and those identified as a result of the EPA request for information to the Evansville facility, which was filed in the Evansville Division of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on July 8, 2008. The Consent Decree requires the Company to pay a civil penalty of $127 thousand and to retire, retrofit or replace 17 ODS-containing refrigeration units by June 2009 located at facilities in New Jersey, Indiana, and Puerto Rico. The Consent Decree also requires the Company to spend at least $2,225 thousand on a Supplemental Environmental Project, which consists of the removal of two ODS-containing comfort cooling devices at the New Brunswick, NJ facility and the tie in of their functions to a new centralized chiller system that does not use ODS as a refrigerant. The Consent Decree has not yet been entered by the court.

New Brunswick Facility – Environmental & Personal Injury Lawsuits

As previously disclosed, in May 2008, approximately 100 lawsuits were filed against the Company in Superior Court, Middlesex County, NJ, by or on behalf of current and former residents of New Brunswick, NJ who live adjacent to the Company’s New Brunswick facility. The complaints allege various personal injuries and property damage resulting from soil and groundwater contamination on their property stemming from historical operations at the New Brunswick facility. The complaints also allege that BMS has failed to remediate contamination at the New Brunswick facility in compliance with state and federal cleanup requirements. The New Brunswick facility is already undergoing environmental remediation as part of a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) approved cleanup plan. In addition to the lawsuits, the plaintiffs filed a notice seeking relief under the NJ Environmental Rights Act. In October 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted Mass Tort status to these cases and transferred them to the New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic County for centralized case management purposes. The Company has filed motions to dismiss these lawsuits, some of which were denied with leave to refile them after discovery has been taken, while others are still pending before the court. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this litigation. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits, or the potential impact on the Company.

This excerpt taken from the BMY 10-K filed Feb 20, 2009.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

As previously reported, the Company is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, Federal and foreign laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, (CERCLA), for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at the Company’s current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties.

CERCLA Matters

With respect to CERCLA matters for which the Company is responsible under various state, Federal and foreign laws, the Company typically estimates potential costs based on information obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or counterpart state agency and/or studies prepared by independent consultants, including the total estimated costs for the site and the expected cost-sharing, if any, with other “potentially responsible parties”, and the Company accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. As of December 31, 2008, the Company estimated its share of the total future costs for these sites to be approximately $62 million, recorded as other liabilities, which represents the sum of best estimates or, where no simple estimate can reasonably be made, estimates of the minimal probable amount among a range of such costs (without taking into account any potential recoveries from other parties, which are not currently expected).

Passaic River (NJ) Remediation and Natural Resource Damages Claims

As previously disclosed, in September 2003, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued an administrative enforcement Directive requiring the Company and other companies to perform an assessment of natural resource damages and to implement unspecified interim remedial measures to restore conditions in the Lower Passaic River (LPR). The Directive named the Company due to releases from a nearby bulk chemical reprocessing facility operated by a predecessor of McKesson Corp. Subsequently, the EPA issued notice letters to numerous parties, but not the Company, requesting performance of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of conditions in the LPR. Under a consent agreement with EPA in 2004, a group of these other parties committed to pay roughly half of the $20 million estimated for the RI/FS by EPA at that time. The EPA thereafter substantially increased its estimate of the scope and cost of the RI/FS and, as a result, the EPA agreed to allow the group to perform most of the remaining RI/FS tasks. By the group’s estimate, total costs to complete the RI/FS and related tasks now exceed $50 million. The group has negotiated an amended consent agreement with the EPA to conduct the remaining RI/FS work, which became effective in May 2007. As part of that process, the Company and McKesson have bought out of remaining RI/FS tasks.

Separately, the Company has agreed to pay approximately $110 thousand towards RI/FS tasks previously funded by McKesson and work cooperatively going forward, subject to later reallocation. In mid-2007 the EPA announced plans to seek implementation of “early-action” remedial measures to address the most highly-contaminated portions of the LPR while the RI/FS is being completed. The EPA has indicated it expects to select any such actions early in 2009. Also, a sub-group of the cooperating private parties have commenced discussions with federal natural resource trustee agencies concerning an agreement to assess natural resource damages in the LPR. Those discussions are expected to continue until mid-2009. The remaining parties, including the Company and McKesson, have declined to discuss the proposal at least until the scope and cost of the “early-actions” sought by the EPA are most thoroughly understood. The extent of any liability the Company may face for these and related requirements cannot yet be determined.

North Brunswick Township Board of Education

As previously disclosed, in October 2003, the Company was contacted by counsel representing the North Brunswick, NJ Board of Education (BOE) regarding a site where waste materials from E.R. Squibb and Sons may have been disposed from the 1940’s through the 1960’s. Fill material containing industrial waste and heavy metals in excess of residential standards was discovered during an

 

125


Table of Contents

NOTE 25 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

 

expansion project at the North Brunswick Township High School, as well as at a number of neighboring residential properties and adjacent public park areas. In January 2004, the NJDEP sent the Company and others an information request letter about possible waste disposal at the site, to which the Company responded in March 2004. The BOE and the Township, as the current owners of the school property and the park, are conducting and jointly financing soil remediation work and ground water investigation work under a work plan approved by NJDEP, and has asked the Company to contribute to the cost. The Company is actively monitoring the clean-up project, including its costs. To date, neither the school board nor the Township has asserted any claim against the Company. Instead, the Company and the local entities have negotiated an agreement to attempt to resolve the matter by informal means, including mediation and binding allocation as necessary. A central component of the agreement is provision by the Company of interim funding to help defray cleanup costs and assure the work is not interrupted; the Company transmitted an initial interim funding payment in December 2007. The parties have since commenced mediation activities, which are expected to conclude by mid-2009.

ODS Regulatory Compliance

As previously disclosed, the EPA was investigating industrial and commercial facilities throughout the U.S. that use refrigeration equipment containing ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and enforcing compliance with regulations governing the prevention, service and repair of leaks (ODS requirements). In 2004, the Company performed a voluntary corporate-wide audit at its facilities in the U.S. and Puerto Rico that use ODS-containing refrigeration equipment. The Company submitted an audit report to the EPA in November 2004, identifying potential violations of the ODS requirements at several of its facilities. In addition to the matters covered in the Company’s audit report letter to the EPA, the EPA previously sent Mead Johnson a request for information regarding compliance with ODS requirements at its facility in Evansville, Indiana. The Company responded to the request in June 2004, and, as a result, identified potential violations at the Evansville facility. The Company has signed a Consent Decree with the EPA to resolve both the potential violations discovered during the audit and those identified as a result of the EPA request for information to the Evansville facility, which was filed in the Evansville Division of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on July 8, 2008. The Consent Decree requires the Company to pay a civil penalty of $127 thousand and to retire, retrofit or replace 17 ODS-containing refrigeration units by June 2009 located at facilities in New Jersey, Indiana, and Puerto Rico. The Consent Decree also requires the Company to spend at least $2,225 thousand on a Supplemental Environmental Project, which consists of the removal of two ODS-containing comfort cooling devices at the New Brunswick, NJ facility and the tie in of their functions to a new centralized chiller system that does not use ODS as a refrigerant. The Consent Decree has not yet been entered by the court.

New Brunswick Facility – Environmental & Personal Injury Lawsuits

As previously disclosed, in May 2008, approximately 100 lawsuits were filed against the Company in Superior Court, Middlesex County, NJ, by or on behalf of current and former residents of New Brunswick, NJ who live adjacent to the Company’s New Brunswick facility. The complaints allege various personal injuries and property damage resulting from soil and groundwater contamination on their property stemming from historical operations at the New Brunswick facility. The complaints also allege that BMS has failed to remediate contamination at the New Brunswick facility in compliance with state and federal cleanup requirements. The New Brunswick facility is already undergoing environmental remediation as part of a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) approved cleanup plan. In addition to the lawsuits, the plaintiffs filed a notice seeking relief under the NJ Environmental Rights Act. In October 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted Mass Tort status to these cases and transferred them to the New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic County for centralized case management purposes. The Company has filed motions to dismiss these lawsuits, some of which were denied with leave to refile them after discovery has been taken, while others are still pending before the court. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this litigation. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits, or the potential impact on the Company.

This excerpt taken from the BMY 10-Q filed Jul 24, 2008.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

As previously reported, the Company is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, Federal and foreign laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, (CERCLA), for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at the Company’s current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties.

ODS Regulatory Compliance

As previously disclosed, the EPA was investigating industrial and commercial facilities throughout the U.S. that use refrigeration equipment containing ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and enforcing compliance with regulations governing the prevention, service and repair of leaks (ODS requirements). In 2004, the Company performed a voluntary corporate-wide audit at its facilities in the U.S. and Puerto Rico that use ODS-containing refrigeration equipment. The Company submitted an audit report to the EPA in November 2004, identifying potential violations of the ODS requirements at several of its facilities. In addition to the matters covered in the Company’s audit report letter to the EPA, the EPA previously sent the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Mead Johnson, a request for information regarding compliance with ODS requirements at its facility in Evansville, Indiana. The Company responded to the request in June 2004, and, as a result, identified potential violations at the Evansville facility. The Company has signed a Consent Decree with the EPA to resolve both the potential violations discovered during the audit and those identified as a result of the EPA request for information to the Evansville facility, which was filed in the Evansville Division of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on July 8, 2008. The Consent Decree requires the Company to pay a civil penalty of $127,000 and to retire, retrofit or replace 17 ODS-containing refrigeration units by June 2009 located at facilities in New Jersey, Indiana, and Puerto Rico. The Consent Decree also requires the Company to spend at least $2,225,000 on a Supplemental Environmental Project, which consists of the removal of two ODS-containing comfort cooling devices at the New Brunswick, NJ facility and the tie in of their functions to a new centralized chiller system that does not use ODS as a refrigerant. The Consent Decree will be subject to a 30-day public comment period before it can be finalized by the court.

New Brunswick Facility – Environmental & Personal Injury Lawsuits

On or about May 13, 2008, approximately 100 lawsuits were filed against the Company in Superior Court, Middlesex County, NJ, by or on behalf of current and former residents of New Brunswick, NJ who live adjacent to the Company’s New Brunswick facility. The complaints allege various personal injuries and property damage resulting from soil and groundwater contamination on their property stemming from historical operations at the New Brunswick facility. The complaints also allege that BMS has failed to remediate contamination at the New Brunswick facility in compliance with state and federal cleanup requirements. The New Brunswick facility is already undergoing environmental remediation as part of a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) approved cleanup plan. In addition to the lawsuits, on May 21, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice seeking relief under the NJ Environmental Rights Act. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this litigation. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits, or the potential impact on the Company.

 

30


Table of Contents

Note 20. Legal Proceedings and Contingencies (Continued)

 

This excerpt taken from the BMY 10-Q filed Apr 24, 2008.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

Puerto Rico Air Emissions Civil Litigation

As previously disclosed, the Company is one of several defendants in a class action suit filed in Superior Court in Puerto Rico relating to air emissions from a government-owned and operated wastewater treatment facility. On August 15, 2007, the parties executed a global settlement agreement, resolving all claims in the litigation. Under the terms of the settlement, certain measures, including capital improvements, will be implemented at a wastewater treatment facility to minimize the potential for future odor emissions. The Company’s share of the payment to plaintiffs is approximately $700 thousand. On November 6, 2007, the court entered Final Judgment approving the settlement, and the Company completed payment of its share of the cost of capital improvements on or about March 3, 2008. This concludes the Company’s involvement in the litigation.

This excerpt taken from the BMY 10-K filed Feb 22, 2008.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

As previously reported, the Company is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, Federal and foreign laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, (CERCLA), for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at the Company’s current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties.

CERCLA Matters

With respect to CERCLA matters for which the Company is responsible under various state, Federal and foreign laws, the Company typically estimates potential costs based on information obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or counterpart state agency and/or studies prepared by independent consultants, including the total estimated costs for the site and the expected cost-sharing, if any, with other “potentially responsible parties”, and the Company accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. As of December 31, 2007, the Company estimated its share of the total future costs for these sites to be approximately $69 million, recorded as other liabilities, which represents the sum of best estimates or, where no simple estimate can reasonably be made, estimates of the minimal probable amount among a range of such costs (without taking into account any potential recoveries from other parties, which are not currently expected).

Puerto Rico Air Emissions Civil Litigation

As previously disclosed, the Company is one of several defendants in a class action suit filed in Superior Court in Puerto Rico relating to air emissions from a government-owned and operated wastewater treatment facility. The Court certified the class on August 9, 2007 and on August 15, 2007 the parties executed a global settlement agreement, resolving all claims in the litigation. A hearing to approve the settlement was held on October 26, 2007. Under the terms of the settlement, certain measures, including capital improvements, will be implemented at the wastewater treatment facility to minimize the potential for future odor emissions. The Company’s share of the payment to plaintiffs will be approximately $700 thousand. On November 6, 2007, the court entered Final Judgment approving the settlement. This concludes the Company’s involvement in the litigation, except for the Company’s payment of its share of the cost of the capital improvements, which will be finalized in early 2008.

Passaic River (NJ) Remediation and Natural Resource Damages Claims

As previously disclosed, in September 2003, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued an administrative enforcement Directive requiring the Company and other companies to perform an assessment of natural resource damages and to implement unspecified interim remedial measures to restore conditions in the Lower Passaic River (LPR). The Directive named the Company due to releases from a nearby bulk chemical reprocessing facility operated by a predecessor of McKesson Corp. Subsequently, the EPA issued a notice letter to numerous parties, but not the Company, requesting performance of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of conditions in the LPR. Under a consent agreement with EPA in 2004, a group of these other parties committed to pay roughly half of the $20 million estimated for the RI/FS by EPA at that time. The EPA thereafter substantially increased its estimate of the scope and cost of the RI/FS and, as a result, the EPA agreed to allow the group to perform most of the remaining RI/FS tasks. By the group’s estimate, total costs to complete the RI/FS and related tasks now exceed $50 million. The group has negotiated an amended consent agreement with the EPA to conduct the remaining RI/FS work, which became effective in May 2007. As part of that deal, the Company and McKesson have bought out of remaining RI/FS tasks.

Separately, the Company has agreed to pay approximately $110 thousand towards RI/FS tasks previously funded by McKesson and work cooperatively going forward. In addition, in mid-2007 the EPA announced plans to seek implementation of “early-action” remedial measures to address the most highly-contaminated portions of the LPR while the RI/FS is being completed. The EPA has indicated it expects to select any such actions early in 2008. Also, a group of federal natural resource trustee agencies have proposed that the private party group enter into an agreement to assess natural resource damages in the LPR. The group expects to discuss the proposal with the trustees in the near future. The extent of any liability the Company may face for these and related requirements cannot yet be determined.

 

137


Table of Contents

Note 22 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

 

North Brunswick Township Board of Education

As previously disclosed, in October 2003, the Company was contacted by counsel representing the North Brunswick, NJ Board of Education (BOE) regarding a site where waste materials from E.R. Squibb and Sons may have been disposed from the 1940’s through the 1960’s. Fill material containing industrial waste and heavy metals in excess of residential standards was discovered during an expansion project at the North Brunswick Township High School, as well as at a number of neighboring residential properties and adjacent public park areas. In January 2004, the NJDEP sent the Company and others an information request letter about possible waste disposal at the site, to which the Company responded in March 2004. The BOE and the Township, who are the current owners of the school property and the park, are conducting and jointly financing soil remediation work and ground water investigation work under a work plan approved by NJDEP, and have asked the Company to contribute to the cost. Due to financial constraints, in late 2004 the BOE asked the Company to contribute funds on an interim basis to assure uninterrupted performance of necessary site work. The Company continues to actively monitor the clean-up project, including its costs. To date, neither the school board nor the Township has asserted any claim against the Company. Instead, the Company and the local entities have negotiated an agreement to attempt to resolve the matter by mediation; a central component of the anticipated agreement is provision by the Company of interim funding to help defray cleanup costs. The agreement has been executed by all parties, and the Company has transmitted an initial interim funding payment in January 2008. The parties have recently commenced work to prepare for mediation, which is expected to conclude by mid-2008.

ODS Regulatory Compliance

As previously disclosed, the EPA is investigating industrial and commercial facilities throughout the U.S. that use refrigeration equipment containing ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and enforcing compliance with regulations governing the prevention, service and repair of leaks (ODS requirements). In 2004, the Company performed a voluntary corporate-wide audit at its facilities in the U.S. and Puerto Rico that use ODS-containing refrigeration equipment. The Company submitted an audit report to the EPA in November 2004, identifying potential violations of the ODS requirements at several of its facilities. In addition to the matters covered in the Company’s audit report letter to the EPA, the EPA previously sent the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Mead Johnson, a request for information regarding compliance with ODS requirements at its facility in Evansville, Indiana. The Company responded to the request in June 2004, and, as a result, identified potential violations at the Evansville facility. The Company currently is in discussions with the EPA to resolve both the potential violations discovered during the audit and those identified as a result of the EPA request for information to the Evansville facility. If the EPA determines that the Evansville facility, or any other facilities, was, or is, in violation of applicable ODS requirements, the Company could be subject to penalties and/or be required to convert or replace refrigeration equipment to use non-ODS approved substitutes.

MACT Compliance—Puerto Rico Facilities (Barceloneta and Humacao)

As previously disclosed, in March 2005, the Company commenced a voluntary environmental audit of the Barceloneta and Humacao, Puerto Rico facilities to determine their compliance with EPA’s regulations regarding the maximum achievable control technology requirements for emissions of hazardous air pollutants from pharmaceuticals production (Pharmaceutical MACT). The Company submitted to EPA an audit report for the Humacao facility in June 2005 and for the Barceloneta facility in July 2005, which disclosed potential violations of the Pharmaceutical MACT requirements at both facilities. The Company and the EPA are currently in discussions regarding resolution of this matter.

This excerpt taken from the BMY 10-Q filed Oct 25, 2007.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

As previously reported, the Company is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, Federal and foreign laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, (CERCLA), for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at the Company’s current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties.

CERCLA Matters

With respect to CERCLA matters for which the Company is responsible under various state, Federal and foreign laws, the Company typically estimates potential costs based on information obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or counterpart state agency and/or studies prepared by independent consultants, including the total estimated costs for the site and the expected cost-sharing, if any, with other “potentially responsible parties”, and the Company accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. As of September 30, 2007, the Company estimated its share of the total future costs for these sites to be approximately $68 million, recorded as other liabilities, which represents the sum of best estimates or, where no simple estimate can reasonably be made, estimates of the minimal probable amount among a range of such costs (without taking into account any potential recoveries from other parties, which are not currently expected).

Puerto Rico Air Emissions Civil Litigation

As previously disclosed, the Company is one of several defendants in a class action suit filed in Superior Court in Puerto Rico relating to air emissions from a government owned and operated wastewater treatment facility. The Court certified the class on August 9, 2007 and on August 15, 2007 the parties executed a global settlement agreement, resolving all claims in the litigation. A hearing to approve the settlement is scheduled for October 26, 2007. Under the terms of the settlement, certain measures, including capital improvements, will be implemented at the wastewater treatment facility to minimize the potential for future odor emissions. The Company’s share of the payment to plaintiffs will be approximately $700,000.

 

23


Table of Contents
This excerpt taken from the BMY 10-Q filed Aug 1, 2007.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

As previously reported, the Company is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, Federal and foreign laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, (CERCLA), for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at the Company’s current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties.

CERCLA Matters

With respect to CERCLA matters for which the Company is responsible under various state, Federal and foreign laws, the Company typically estimates potential costs based on information obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or counterpart state agency and/or studies prepared by independent consultants, including the total estimated costs for the site and the expected cost-sharing, if any, with other “potentially responsible parties”, and the Company accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. As of June 30, 2007, the Company estimated its share of the total future costs for these sites to be

 

24


Table of Contents

Note 16. Legal Proceedings and Contingencies (Continued)

 

approximately $69 million, recorded as other liabilities, which represents the sum of best estimates or, where no simple estimate can reasonably be made, estimates of the minimal probable amount among a range of such costs (without taking into account any potential recoveries from other parties, which are not currently expected).

Puerto Rico Air Emissions Civil Litigation

As previously disclosed, the Company is one of several defendants, including many of the major U.S. pharmaceutical companies, in a purported class action suit filed in Superior Court in Puerto Rico in February 2000 relating to air emissions from a government owned and operated wastewater treatment facility. In March 2007, the parties reached a tentative global settlement, which would resolve all claims in the litigation. The terms of the proposed settlement were discussed with the Court at status conferences held in May and June 2007. A draft settlement agreement was presented to the Court at the June 15, 2007 status conference. The parties are finalizing the terms of the settlement, which is expected to be filed with the court in August 2007. Under the terms of the settlement, certain measures, including capital improvements, will be implemented at the wastewater treatment facility to minimize the potential for odor emissions. The defendants also agreed to pay plaintiffs $4.8 million in settlement of all claims. The Company’s share of the payment to plaintiffs is less than $1 million. A hearing to certify the class is scheduled for August 9, 2007 and a hearing to approve the settlement is scheduled for October 18, 2007.

Passaic River (NJ) Remediation and Natural Resource Damages Claims

As previously disclosed, in September 2003, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued an administrative enforcement Directive and Notice requiring the Company and other companies to perform an assessment of natural resource damages and to implement unspecified interim remedial measures to restore conditions in the Lower Passaic River (LPR). The Directive alleges that the Company is liable because it historically sent bulk waste to the former Inland Chemical Company facility in Newark, NJ (now owned by McKesson Corp. (McKesson)) for reprocessing, and that releases of hazardous substances from this facility have migrated into Newark Bay and continue to have an adverse impact on the LPR watershed. Subsequently, the EPA issued a notice letter under CERCLA to numerous parties, but not the Company, seeking their cooperation in a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of conditions in substantially the same portion of the LPR that is the subject of the NJDEP’s Directive. A group of these other parties entered into a consent agreement with EPA in 2004, under which the private party group committed to pay roughly half of the $20 million estimated for the RI/FS by EPA at that time, subject to revision and future negotiation. The EPA substantially increased its estimate of the scope and cost of the RI/FS and, as a result, the private party group has persuaded the EPA to allow the group to perform most of the remaining RI/FS tasks. By the group’s estimate, total costs to complete the RI/FS and related tasks now exceed $50 million. The group has negotiated an amended consent agreement with the EPA to conduct the remaining RI/FS work, which became effective in May 2007. In conjunction with those efforts, the Company and McKesson have accepted an offer from the private party group to buy out of remaining RI/FS tasks.

In response to these developments, the Company has reached an agreement with McKesson under which the Company will contribute approximately $110,000 towards RI/FS tasks. In addition, the EPA recently announced plans to consider the implementation of “early-action” remedial measures to address the most highly-contaminated portions of the LPR while the RI/FS is being completed. The EPA has indicated it expects to select any such actions early in 2008. Also, the federal trustee agencies with responsibility for natural resources associated with the LPR have proposed that the private party group enter into an agreement to assess natural resource damages in the LPR. The group expects to discuss the proposal with the trustees in the near future. The extent of any liability the Company may face for these and related requirements cannot yet be determined.

This excerpt taken from the BMY 10-Q filed May 10, 2007.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

As previously reported, the Company is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, Federal and foreign laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, (CERCLA), for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at the Company’s current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties.

CERCLA Matters

With respect to CERCLA matters for which the Company is responsible under various state, Federal and foreign laws, the Company typically estimates potential costs based on information obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or counterpart state agency and/or studies prepared by independent consultants, including the total estimated costs for the site and the expected cost-sharing, if any, with other “potentially responsible parties”, and the Company accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. As of March 31, 2007, the Company estimated its share of the total future costs for these sites to be approximately $70 million, recorded as other liabilities, which represents the sum of best estimates or, where no simple estimate can reasonably be made, estimates of the minimal probable amount among a range of such costs (without taking into account any potential recoveries from other parties, which are not currently expected).

 

23


Table of Contents

Note 16. Legal Proceedings and Contingencies (Continued)

Puerto Rico Air Emissions Civil Litigation

As previously reported, the Company is one of several defendants, including many of the major U.S. pharmaceutical companies, in a purported class action suit filed in Superior Court in Puerto Rico in February 2000 relating to air emissions from a government owned and operated wastewater treatment facility. In April 2006, the Company executed an individual settlement with the plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $0.5 million, subject to certain conditions, including that the Court would decide to certify the case as a class action. The Court deferred decision on class certification pending its review of expert reports on the facility’s operations, and ongoing efforts to reach a global settlement. In March 2007 with the Court’s assistance, the parties reached a tentative global settlement, which would resolve all claims in the litigation. The terms of the proposed settlement were discussed with the Court at a status conference held on May 2, 2007. The Court instructed the parties to submit a draft settlement agreement to the Court by June 1, 2007.

Passaic River (NJ) Remediation and Natural Resource Damages Claims

As previously reported, in September 2003, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued an administrative enforcement Directive and Notice under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act requiring the Company and approximately 65 other companies to perform an assessment of natural resource damages and to implement unspecified interim remedial measures to restore conditions in the Lower Passaic River. The Directive alleges that the Company is liable because it historically sent bulk waste to the former Inland Chemical Company facility in Newark, NJ (now owned by McKesson Corp. (McKesson)) for reprocessing, and that releases of hazardous substances from this facility have migrated into Newark Bay and continue to have an adverse impact on the Lower Passaic River watershed. Subsequently, the EPA also issued a notice letter under CERCLA to numerous parties—but not including the Company—seeking their cooperation in a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of conditions in substantially the same portion of the Passaic River that is the subject of the NJDEP’s Directive. A group of these other parties entered into a consent agreement with EPA in 2004 to finance a portion of the RI/FS. The EPA has not yet determined the estimated cost of the study. Under the 2004 consent agreement, the private party group committed to pay roughly half of the $20 million estimated for the RI/FS by EPA at that time, subject to revision and future negotiation. The RI/FS, now projected to run until 2011, may also lead to clean-up actions, directed by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. However, the EPA recently has substantially increased its estimate of the scope and cost of the RI/FS; as a result, the private party group has persuaded the EPA to allow the group to perform most of the remaining RI/FS tasks. By the group’s estimate, total costs to complete the RI/FS and related tasks now exceed $54 million. The Company and McKesson have committed to accept an offer from the private party group for members to buy out of remaining RI/FS tasks. That group is actively negotiating with the EPA; if successful, those negotiations will result in an amended consent agreement.

In response to these developments, the Company has reached an agreement in principle with McKesson to share the costs of an anticipated agreed portion of the RI/FS tasks. The extent of any liability the Company may face cannot yet be determined.

MACT Compliance—Puerto Rico Facilities (Barceloneta and Humacao)

In March 2005, the Company commenced a voluntary environmental audit of its Barceloneta and Humacao, Puerto Rico facilities to determine their compliance with the EPA’s regulations regarding the maximum achievable control technology requirements for emissions of hazardous air pollutants from pharmaceuticals production (Pharmaceutical MACT). The Company submitted to the EPA an audit report for the Humacao facility in June 2005 and for the Barceloneta facility in July 2005, which disclosed potential violations of the Pharmaceutical MACT requirements at both facilities. The Company and the EPA are currently in discussions regarding resolution of this matter. The Company is awaiting a response from EPA with respect to resolution of this matter.

This excerpt taken from the BMY 10-K filed Feb 26, 2007.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

As previously reported, the Company is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, Federal and foreign laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, (CERCLA), for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at the Company’s current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties.

CERCLA Matters

With respect to CERCLA matters for which the Company is responsible under various state, Federal and foreign laws, the Company typically estimates potential costs based on information obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or counterpart state agency and/or studies prepared by independent consultants, including the total estimated costs for the site and the expected cost-sharing, if any, with other “potentially responsible parties”, and the Company accrues liabilities when they are probable

 

136


Note 21 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

 

and reasonably estimable. As of December 31, 2006, the Company estimated its share of the total future costs for these sites to be approximately $67 million, recorded as other liabilities, which represents the sum of best estimates or, where no simple estimate can reasonably be made, estimates of the minimal probable amount among a range of such costs (without taking into account any potential recoveries from other parties, which are not currently expected). The Company has paid less than $6 million (excluding legal fees) in each of the last five years for investigation and remediation of such matters, including liabilities under CERCLA and for other on-site remedial obligations.

Puerto Rico Air Emissions Civil Litigation

As previously reported, the Company is one of several defendants, including many of the major U.S. pharmaceutical companies, in a purported class action suit filed in Superior Court in Puerto Rico in February 2000 relating to air emissions from a government owned and operated wastewater treatment facility. In April 2006, the Company executed an individual settlement with the plaintiffs in the amount of $460,000, subject to certain conditions, including that the Court would decide to certify the case as a class action. The Court deferred decision on class certification pending its review of expert reports on the facility’s operations. The Court considered the expert reports at a hearing in October 2006 and thereafter facilitated settlement discussions as to all parties and all claims. Those discussions are ongoing and, consequently, the class certification hearing, scheduled for December 2006, has been postponed until May 2007.

Passaic River (NJ) Remediation and Natural Resource Damages Claims

In September 2003, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued an administrative enforcement Directive and Notice under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act requiring the Company and approximately 65 other companies to perform an assessment of natural resource damages and to implement unspecified interim remedial measures to restore conditions in the Lower Passaic River. The Directive alleges that the Company is liable because it historically sent bulk waste to the former Inland Chemical Company facility in Newark, NJ (now owned by McKesson Corp.) for reprocessing, and that releases of hazardous substances from this facility have migrated into Newark Bay and continue to have an adverse impact on the Lower Passaic River watershed. Subsequently, the EPA also issued a notice letter under CERCLA to numerous parties—but not including the Company—seeking their cooperation in a study of conditions in substantially the same portion of the Passaic River that is the subject of the NJDEP’s Directive. A group of these other parties entered into a consent agreement with EPA in 2004 to finance a portion of that study. The EPA has not yet determined the estimated cost of the study. Under the consent agreement, the private party group committed to pay roughly half of the $20 million estimate, subject to revision and future negotiation. This study may also lead to clean-up actions, directed by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. That group is actively negotiating with the EPA; if successful, those negotiations will result in an amended consent agreement. In anticipation of that agreement, the Company has reached an agreement in principle with McKesson Corp. to share the costs of an anticipated agreed portion of the EPA study tasks. The Company also is working cooperatively with a group of the parties that received the NJDEP Directive and/or the EPA notice to explore potential resolutions of the Directive and to address the risk of collateral claims. Although the Company does not believe it has caused or contributed to any contamination in the Lower Passaic River watershed, the Company has informed the NJDEP that it is willing to discuss the NJDEP’s allegations against the Company. Also, the private party group continues to discuss with the Federal agencies designated as trustees of natural resources affected by contamination in the Passaic River watershed the possibility of funding a cooperative NRD study that presumably would dovetail with the ongoing EPA study, and ideally would be joined by the NJDEP, to coordinate actions NJDEP may seek under the Directive. In late 2005, the NJDEP issued a supplemental Directive and filed suit against one of the site parties, seeking to compel implementation of interim measures. It is unclear whether the NJDEP will take additional actions against other site parties and/or whether litigation will arise in response to these new claims. The extent of any liability the Company may face, either to NJDEP or EPA, or with respect to future claims by the Federal trustees, McKesson Corp. or other responsible parties, cannot yet be determined.

North Brunswick, NJ Board of Education Remediation Claims

In October 2003, the Company was contacted by the North Brunswick, NJ Board of Education (BOE) regarding the discovery of industrial waste materials allegedly including materials from E.R. Squibb and Sons during an expansion project at the North Brunswick Township High School, as well as at a number of neighboring residential properties and adjacent public park areas. In January 2004, the NJDEP sent the Company and others an information request letter about possible waste disposal at the site, to which the Company responded in March 2004. The BOE and the Township, who are the current owners of the school property and the park, are conducting and jointly financing soil remediation work under a work plan approved by the NJDEP, and are evaluating the need to conduct response actions to remediate or contain potentially impacted ground water. Due to financial constraints in late 2004, the BOE asked the Company to contribute funds on an interim basis to assure uninterrupted performance of necessary site work. The Company is actively monitoring the clean-up project, including its costs, and is discussing with the BOE and Township the terms of a cooperative funding agreement and allocation process. Municipal records indicate the Township operated a landfill at the site in the 1940’s through the 1960’s, and the Company is investigating the historic use of the site, including any activities for which the Company may be responsible. To date, neither the BOE nor the Township has asserted any claims against the Company.

 

137


Note 21 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

 

NJDEP Air Permit—New Brunswick, NJ Facility:

In December 2003, the Company and the NJDEP entered an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) concerning alleged violations of the New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act and its implementing regulations at the Company’s New Brunswick facility. Pursuant to the ACO, the Company agreed to submit a permit application creating a facility-wide emissions cap and to pay a small administrative fine. Both of these obligations were satisfied in early 2004. Subsequently, in February, 2005, the ACO was amended to provide that the Company would install a new cogeneration turbine at its New Brunswick facility by December 31, 2006, and would obtain applicable air permits by December 31, 2005. The Company obtained the required Operating Permit in September 2006, purchased the new cogeneration turbine at a cost of approximately $5 million and installed the turbine by December 31, 2006, in compliance with the ACO. The Company has fulfilled all terms and conditions of the ACO and in February 2007 received notice of termination from the ACO by the NJDEP, which concludes this matter.

Mead Johnson Facility—NSPS Issue

In October 2005, the Company commenced a voluntary environmental audit of the Mead Johnson facility in Mt. Vernon, Indiana, to determine its compliance with the EPA’s new source performance standards (NSPS), which are applicable to the operation of an incinerator. In December 2005, the Company disclosed possible violations of the NSPS requirement and is currently in the process of modifying its operations to fall within an exemption from those requirements. To date, neither the EPA nor the Indiana Department of Environmental Management has pursued any penalties for these potential violations; however; the Company could potentially be subject to civil penalties for past non-compliance with the NSPS. In December 2006, EPA responded to the self-disclosure and stated that it does not intend to pursue an enforcement action for these issues at this time. It is possible, however, that the Indiana Department of Environmental Management could in the future pursue civil penalties for past non-compliance with the NSPS.

ODS Regulatory Compliance

The EPA is investigating industrial and commercial facilities throughout the U.S. that use refrigeration equipment containing ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and enforcing compliance with regulations governing the prevention, service and repair of leaks (ODS requirements). In 2004, the Company performed a voluntary corporate-wide audit at its facilities in the U.S. and Puerto Rico that use ODS-containing refrigeration equipment. The Company submitted an audit report to the EPA in November 2004, identifying potential violations of the ODS requirements at several of its facilities. In addition to the matters covered in the Company’s audit report letter to the EPA, the EPA previously sent the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary, Mead Johnson, a request for information regarding compliance with ODS requirements at its facility in Evansville, Indiana. The Company responded to the request in June 2004, and, as a result, identified potential violations at the Evansville facility. The Company currently is in discussions with EPA to resolve both the potential violations discovered during the audit and those identified as a result of the EPA request for information to the Evansville facility. If the EPA determines that the Evansville facility, or any other facilities, was, or is, in violation of applicable ODS requirements, the Company could be subject to penalties and/or be required to convert or replace refrigeration equipment to use non-ODS approved substitutes.

MACT Compliance—Puerto Rico Facilities (Barceloneta and Humacao)

In March 2005, the Company commenced a voluntary environmental audit of the Barceloneta and Humacao, Puerto Rico facilities to determine their compliance with EPA’s regulations regarding the maximum achievable control technology requirements for emissions of hazardous air pollutants from pharmaceuticals production (Pharmaceutical MACT). The Company submitted to EPA an audit report for the Humacao facility in June 2005 and for the Barceloneta facility in July 2005, which disclosed potential violations of the Pharmaceutical MACT requirements at both facilities. The Company and the EPA are currently in discussions regarding resolution of this matter.

 

138


Note 21 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

 

This excerpt taken from the BMY 10-Q filed Nov 2, 2006.

Environmental Proceedings

As previously reported, the Company is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, (CERCLA), for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at the Company’s current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties.

With respect to the latter matters for which the Company is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, the Company typically estimates potential costs based on information obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency, or counterpart state agency and/or studies prepared by independent consultants, including the total estimated costs for the site and the expected cost-sharing, if any, with other “potentially responsible parties”, and the Company accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. As of September 30, 2006, the Company estimated its share of the total future costs for these sites to be approximately $70 million, recorded as other liabilities, which represents the sum of best estimates or, where no simple estimate can reasonably be made, estimates of the minimal probable amount among a range of such costs (without taking into account any potential recoveries from other parties, which are not currently expected). The Company has paid less than $4 million (excluding legal fees) in each of the last five years for investigation and remediation of such matters, including liabilities under CERCLA and for other on-site remedial obligations.

On December 1, 2003, the Company and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection entered an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) concerning alleged violations of the New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act and its implementing regulations at the Company’s New Brunswick facility. Pursuant to the ACO, the Company agreed to submit a permit application creating a facility-wide emissions cap and to pay a small administrative fine. Both of these obligations were satisfied in early 2004. Subsequently, on February 15, 2005, the ACO was amended to provide that the Company would install a new cogeneration turbine at its New Brunswick facility by December 31, 2006, and would obtain applicable air permits by December 31, 2005. The Company obtained the required Operating Permit on September 19, 2006, purchased the new cogeneration turbine at a cost of approximately $5 million and has begun installing the turbine.

As previously reported, the Company is one of several defendants, including many of the major U.S. pharmaceutical companies, in a purported class action suit filed in Superior Court in Puerto Rico in February 2000 relating to air emissions from a government owned and operated wastewater treatment facility. In April 2006, the Company executed an individual settlement with the plaintiffs in the amount of $460,000, subject to certain conditions, including that the Court would decide to certify the case as a class action. The Court deferred decision on class certification pending its review of forthcoming expert reports on the facility’s current operations. The Court considered the expert reports at a hearing on October 31, 2006 and will conduct the class certification hearing in December 2006. Because the settlement conditions have not yet been met and the Company remains a party to the case, the Company’s ultimate financial liability could be greater than the proposed settlement amount.

This excerpt taken from the BMY 10-Q filed Aug 8, 2006.

Environmental Proceedings

As previously reported, the Company is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, (CERCLA), for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at the Company’s current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties.

With respect to the latter matters for which the Company is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, the Company typically estimates potential costs based on information obtained from the EPA, or counterpart state agency, and/or studies prepared by independent consultants, including the total estimated costs for the site and the expected cost-sharing, if any, with other “potentially responsible parties,” and the Company accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. As of May 31, 2006, the Company estimated its share of the total future costs for these sites to be approximately $65 million, recorded as other liabilities, which represents the sum of best estimates or, where no simple estimate can reasonably be made, estimates of the minimal probable amount among a range of such costs (without taking into account any potential recoveries from other parties, which are not currently expected). The Company has paid less than $4 million (excluding legal fees) in each of the last five years for investigation and remediation of such matters, including liabilities under CERCLA and for other on-site remedial obligations.

As previously reported, the Company is one of several defendants, including many of the major U.S. pharmaceutical companies, in a purported class action suit filed in Superior Court in Puerto Rico in February 2000 relating to air emissions from a government owned and operated wastewater treatment facility. In April 2006, the Company executed an individual settlement with the plaintiffs in the amount of $460,000, subject to certain conditions, including the Court’s certification of the case as a class action. The Court deferred decision on class certification pending its review of a forthcoming expert report on the facility’s current operations. Because the settlement conditions have not yet been met and the Company remains a party to the case, the Company’s ultimate financial liability could be greater than the proposed settlement amount.

This excerpt taken from the BMY 10-Q filed May 8, 2006.

Environmental Proceedings

In October 2005, the Company commenced a voluntary environmental audit of the Mead Johnson facility in Mt. Vernon, Indiana, to determine its compliance with EPA’s new source performance standards (NSPS), which are applicable to the operation of an incinerator. In December 2005, the Company disclosed possible violations of the NSPS requirement and is currently in the process of modifying its operations to fall within an exemption from those requirements. To date, neither EPA nor the Indiana Department of Environmental Management have pursued any penalties for these potential violations; however; the Company could potentially be subject to civil penalties for past non-compliance with the NSPS.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is investigating industrial and commercial facilities throughout the U.S. that use refrigeration equipment containing ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and enforcing compliance with regulations governing the prevention, service and repair of leaks (ODS requirements). In 2004, the Company performed a voluntary corporate-wide audit at its facilities in the U.S. and Puerto Rico that use ODS-containing refrigeration equipment. The Company submitted an audit report to the EPA in November 2004, identifying potential violations of the ODS requirements at several of its facilities. In addition to the matters covered in the Company’s audit report letter to the EPA, the EPA previously sent the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary, Mead Johnson, a request for information regarding compliance with ODS requirements at its facility in Evansville, Indiana. The Company responded to the request in June 2004, and, as a result, identified potential violations at the Evansville facility. The company currently is in discussions with EPA to resolve both the potential violations discovered during the audit and those identified as a result of the EPA request for information to the Evansville facility. If the EPA determines that the Evansville facility, or any other facilities, was, or is, in violation of applicable ODS requirements, the Company could be subject to penalties and/or be required to convert or replace refrigeration equipment to use non-ODS approved substitutes.

In March 2005, the Company commenced a voluntary environmental audit of the Barceloneta and Humacao Puerto Rico facilities to determine their compliance with EPA’s regulations regarding the maximum achievable control technology requirements for emissions of hazardous air pollutants from pharmaceuticals production (Pharmaceutical MACT). The Company submitted to EPA an audit report for the Humacao facility in June 2005 and for the Barceloneta facility in July 2005, which disclosed potential violations of the Pharmaceutical MACT requirements at both facilities. To date, EPA has not discussed these potential violations with the Company; however, the Company is undertaking actions to correct the potential violations. If EPA determines that the Barceloneta and Humacao facilities violated the Pharmaceutical MACT requirements, the Company could be subject to civil penalties and/or be required to make investments in the facilities to ensure their compliance with the Pharmaceutical MACT.

In October 2003, the Company was contacted by the North Brunswick, N.J. Board of Education (BOE) regarding the discovery of industrial waste materials allegedly including materials from E.R. Squibb and Sons during an expansion project at the North Brunswick Township High School, as well as at a number of neighboring residential properties and adjacent public park areas. In

 

29


Table of Contents

Note 17. Legal Proceedings and Contingencies (Continued)

January 2004, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) sent the Company and others an information request letter about possible waste disposal at the site, to which the Company responded in March 2004. The school board and the Township, who are the current owners of the school property and the park, are conducting and jointly financing soil remediation work under a work plan approved by the NJDEP, and are evaluating the need to conduct response actions to remediate or contain potentially impacted ground water. Due to financial constraints, the BOE has asked the Company to contribute funds on an interim basis to assure uninterrupted performance of necessary site work. The Company is actively monitoring the clean-up project, including its costs, and is discussing with the BOE and Township the terms of a cooperative funding agreement and allocation process. Municipal records indicate the Township operated a landfill at the site in the 1940’s through the 1960’s, and the Company is actively investigating the historic use of the site, including the Company’s possible connection. To date, neither the BOE or the Township have asserted any claims against the Company.

In September 2003, the NJDEP issued an administrative enforcement Directive and Notice under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act requiring the Company and approximately 65 other companies to perform an assessment of natural resource damages (NRD) and to implement unspecified interim remedial measures to restore conditions in the Lower Passaic River. The Directive alleges that the Company is liable because it historically sent bulk waste to the former Inland Chemical Company facility in Newark, N.J. (now owned by McKesson Corp.) for reprocessing, and that releases of hazardous substances from this facility have migrated into Newark Bay and continue to have an adverse impact on the Lower Passaic River watershed. Subsequently, the EPA also issued a notice letter under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to numerous parties—but not including the Company—seeking their cooperation in a study of conditions in substantially the same stretch of the Passaic River that is the subject of the NJDEP’s Directive. A group of these other parties entered into a consent agreement with EPA in 2004 to finance a portion of that study. The EPA has not yet determined the estimated cost of the study. Under the consent agreement, the private party group has committed to pay roughly half of the $20 million estimate, subject to revision and future negotiation. This study may also lead to clean-up actions, directed by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. The Company is working cooperatively with a group of the parties that received the NJDEP Directive and/or the EPA notice to explore potential resolutions of the Directive and to address the risk of collateral claims. Although the Company does not believe it has caused or contributed to any contamination in the Lower Passaic River watershed, the Company has informed the NJDEP that it is willing to discuss the NJDEP’s allegations against the Company. Also, the private party group continues to discuss with the federal agencies designated as trustees of natural resources affected by contamination in the Passaic River watershed the possibility of funding a cooperative NRD study that presumably would dovetail with the ongoing EPA study, and ideally would be joined by the NJDEP, to coordinate actions NJDEP may seek under the Directive. In late 2005, the NJDEP issued a supplemental Directive and filed suit against one of the site parties, seeking to compel implementation of interim measures. It is unclear whether the NJDEP will take additional actions against other site parties and/or whether litigation will arise in response to these new claims. The extent of any liability the Company may face, either to NJDEP or EPA, or with respect to future claims by the federal trustees, McKesson or other responsible parties, cannot yet be determined.

On December 1, 2003, the Company and the NJDEP entered an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) concerning alleged violations of the New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act and its implementing regulations at the Company’s New Brunswick facility. Pursuant to the ACO, the Company agreed to submit a permit application creating a facility-wide emissions cap and to pay a small administrative fine. Both of these obligations were satisfied in early 2004. Subsequently, on February 15, 2005, the ACO was amended to provide that the Company would install a new cogeneration turbine at its New Brunswick facility by December 31, 2006, and would obtain applicable air permits by December 31, 2005. The Company obtained the applicable permits and is purchasing the new cogeneration turbine at a cost of approximately $5 million.

The Company is one of several defendants, including most of the major U.S. pharmaceutical companies, in a purported class action suit filed in superior court in Puerto Rico in February 2000 by residents of three wards from the Municipality of Barceloneta, alleging that air emissions from a government owned and operated wastewater treatment facility in the Municipality have caused respiratory and other ailments, violated local air rules and adversely impacted property values. The Company believes its wastewater discharges to the treatment facility were at all relevant times to the complaint in material compliance with the terms of the Company’s permit. In September 2005 the parties stipulated to the dismissal (with prejudice) of all claims for property damage and personal injury, leaving only claims related to nuisance remaining in the case. The court had scheduled a hearing on the class certification motion for September 30, 2005, but that hearing was adjourned. Settlement discussions among the parties continued in November and December but were not successful. In February 2006 a new judge was appointed due to a potential conflict of interest involving the prior judge and a case status conference was held on April 28, 2006, at the conclusion of which the court instructed the parties to meet and submit to the court by October 2006 recommendations regarding operations and potential improvements at the treatment facility. Settlement negotiations have recently resumed and the Company is optimistic as to a settlement of this matter for an immaterial amount. However, in the event of an adverse judgment, the Company’s ultimate financial liability could be greater than anticipated.

The Company is also responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, including CERCLA, for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at the Company’s current or former sites or at waste disposal

 

30


Table of Contents

Note 17. Legal Proceedings and Contingencies (Continued)

or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties. The Company typically estimates these costs based on information obtained from the EPA, or counterpart state agency, and/or studies prepared by independent consultants, including the total estimated costs for the site and the expected cost-sharing, if any, with other “potentially responsible parties.” The Company accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. As of December 31, 2005, the Company estimated its share of the total future costs for these sites to be approximately $68.5 million, recorded as other liabilities, which represents the sum of best estimates or, where no simple estimate can reasonably be made, estimates of the minimal probable amount among a range of such costs (without taking into account any potential recoveries from other parties, which are not currently expected). The Company has paid less than $4 million (excluding legal fees) in each of the last five years for investigation and remediation of such matters, including liabilities under CERCLA and for other on-site remedial obligations. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these environmental proceedings or the ultimate costs of remediation, the Company does not believe that any reasonably possible expenditures that the Company may incur in excess of existing reserves will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position, or results of operations.

"ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS" elsewhere:

Covidien plc (COV)
Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki