|
|
 | | | |
- close
- close
- close
- close
This excerpt taken from the SMG 10-K filed Nov 29, 2007. Regulatory
Actions
In 1997, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (the
“Ohio EPA”) initiated an enforcement action against us
with respect to alleged surface water violations and inadequate
wastewater treatment capabilities at our Marysville, Ohio
facility and seeking corrective action under the federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The action related to
discharges from
on-site
waste water treatment and several discontinued
on-site
disposal areas, which date back to the early operations of the
Marysville facility that we had already been assessing and, in
some cases, remediating, on a voluntary basis. We are
remediating the Marysville site under the terms of a judicial
consent order under the oversight of the Ohio EPA.
We completed negotiations with the Philadelphia District of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the terms of site
remediation and the resolution of the Corps’ civil penalty
demand in connection with our prior peat harvesting operations
at our Lafayette, New Jersey facility. A final consent decree
was entered into on October 18, 2004 that required us to
perform five years of wetland monitoring, and the completion of
additional actions if after five years, the monitoring indicates
the wetlands have not developed satisfactorily.
At September 30, 2007, $4.6 million was accrued for
the environmental and regulatory matters described herein, the
majority of which is for site remediation. Most of the costs
accrued as of September 30, 2007 are expected to be paid in
fiscal 2008; however, payments could be made for a period
thereafter.
We believe the amounts accrued as of September 30, 2007 are
adequate to cover our known environmental exposures based on
current facts and estimates of likely outcome. However, the
adequacy of these accruals is based on several significant
assumptions, including the following:
If there is a significant change in the facts and circumstances
surrounding these assumptions, it could have a material impact
on the ultimate outcome of these matters and our results of
operations, financial position and cash flows.
During fiscal 2007, fiscal 2006 and fiscal 2005, we expensed
approximately $1.5 million, $2.4 million, and
$3.7 million for environmental matters. There were no
material capital expenditures during the last three fiscal years
related to environmental or regulatory matters.
This excerpt taken from the SMG 10-K filed Dec 14, 2006. Regulatory
Actions
In 1997, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (the
“Ohio EPA”) initiated an enforcement action against us
with respect to alleged surface water violations and inadequate
wastewater treatment capabilities at our Marysville, Ohio
facility and seeking corrective action under the federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The action related to
discharges from on-site waste water treatment and several
discontinued
on-site
disposal areas, which date back to the early operations of the
Marysville facility that we had already been assessing and, in
some cases, remediating, on a voluntary basis. We are
remediating the Marysville site under the terms of a consent
order under the oversight of the Ohio EPA.
We completed negotiations with the Philadelphia District of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the terms of site
remediation and the resolution of the Corps’ civil penalty
demand in connection with our prior peat harvesting operations
at our Lafayette, New Jersey facility. A final consent decree
was entered into on October 18, 2004 that required us to
perform five years of wetland monitoring, and the completion of
additional actions if after five years, the monitoring indicates
the wetlands have not developed satisfactorily.
At September 30, 2006, $4.2 million was accrued for
the environmental and regulatory matters described herein, the
majority of which is for site remediation. Most of the costs
accrued as of September 30, 2006 are expected to be paid in
fiscal 2007; however, payments could be made for a period
thereafter.
Table of Contents
We believe the amounts accrued as of September 30, 2006 are
adequate to cover our known environmental exposures based on
current facts and estimates of likely outcome. However, the
adequacy of these accruals is based on several significant
assumptions, including the following:
If there is a significant change in the facts and circumstances
surrounding these assumptions, it could have a material impact
on the ultimate outcome of these matters and our results of
operations, financial position and cash flows.
During fiscal 2006, fiscal 2005 and fiscal 2004, we expensed
approximately $2.4 million, $3.7 million, and
$3.3 million for environmental matters. There were no
material capital expenditures during the last three fiscal years
related to environmental or regulatory matters.
| EXCERPTS ON THIS PAGE:
RELATED TOPICS for SMG: |
| |||||||
