Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

May 25, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

8. Commitments and Contingencies

The Company and its operations are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations governing, among other things, air emissions, wastewater discharges, and the generation, handling, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste and other substances. In particular, industrial laundries use and must dispose of detergent waste water and other residues, and, in the past used perchloroethylene and other dry cleaning solvents. The Company is attentive to the environmental concerns surrounding the disposal of these materials and has, through the years, taken measures to avoid their improper disposal. In the past, the Company has settled, or contributed to the settlement of, actions or claims brought against the Company relating to the disposal of hazardous materials and there can be no assurance that the Company will not have to expend material amounts to remediate the consequences of any such disposal in the future.

US GAAP requires that a liability for contingencies be recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required to determine the existence of a liability, as well as the amount to be recorded. The Company regularly consults with attorneys and outside consultants in its consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances before recording a contingent liability. Changes in enacted laws, regulatory orders or decrees, management’s estimates of costs, insurance proceeds, participation by other parties, the timing of payments and the input of outside consultants and attorneys based on changing legal or factual circumstances could have a material impact on the amounts recorded for environmental and other contingent liabilities.

Under environmental laws, an owner or lessee of real estate may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances located on, or in, or emanating from, such property, as well as related costs of investigation and property damage. Such laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or lessee knew of, or was responsible for the presence of such hazardous or toxic substances. There can be no assurances that acquired or leased locations have been operated in compliance with environmental laws and regulations or that future uses or conditions will not result in the imposition of liability upon the Company under such laws or expose the Company to third-party actions such as tort suits. The Company continues to address environmental conditions under terms of consent orders negotiated with the applicable environmental authorities or otherwise with respect to sites located in or related to Woburn, Massachusetts, Somerville, Massachusetts, Springfield, Massachusetts, Uvalde, Texas, Stockton, California, three sites related to former operations in Williamstown, Vermont, as well as sites located in Goldsboro, North Carolina, Wilmington, North Carolina and Landover, Maryland.

The Company has accrued certain costs related to the sites described above as it has been determined that the costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company continues to implement mitigation measures and to monitor environmental conditions at the Somerville, Massachusetts site. The Company also has potential exposure related to an additional parcel of land (the "Central Area") related to the Woburn, Massachusetts site discussed above. Currently, the consent decree for the Woburn site does not define or require any remediation work in the Central Area. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") has provided the Company and other signatories to the consent decree with comments on the design and implementation of groundwater and soil remedies at the Woburn site and investigation of environmental conditions in the Central Area. The Company, and other signatories, have implemented and proposed to do additional work at the Woburn site but many of the EPA’s comments remain to be resolved. The Company has accrued costs to perform certain work responsive to EPA's comments. In addition, the Company has responded to requests for information, and recently received notices of violation, from the EPA under the Clean Air Act regarding its handling of and operations with respect to the laundering of soiled towels, and the Company is addressing these matters.

The Company routinely reviews and evaluates sites that may require remediation and monitoring and determines its estimated costs based on various estimates and assumptions. These estimates are developed using its internal sources or by third party environmental engineers or other service providers. Internally developed estimates are based on:

• Management’s judgment and experience in remediating and monitoring the Company’s sites;

• Information available from regulatory agencies as to costs of remediation and monitoring;

• The number, financial resources and relative degree of responsibility of other potentially responsible parties (PRPs) who may be liable for remediation and monitoring of a specific site; and

• The typical allocation of costs among PRPs.

There is usually a range of reasonable estimates of the costs associated with each site. The Company’s accruals reflect the amount within the range that constitutes its best estimate. Where it believes that both the amount of a particular liability and the timing of the payments are reliably determinable, the Company adjusts the cost in current dollars using a rate of 3% for inflation until the time of expected payment and discounts the cost to present value using current risk-free interest rates. As of May 25, 2013, the risk-free interest rates utilized by the Company ranged from 2.0% to 3.2%.

For environmental liabilities that have been discounted, the Company includes interest accretion, based on the effective interest method, in selling and administrative expenses on the Consolidated Statements of Income. The changes to the Company’s environmental liabilities for the thirty-nine weeks ended May 25, 2013 are as follows (in thousands):

	May 25, 2013
Beginning balance as of August 25, 2012	$	20,020
Payments made for which reserves had been provided		(1,478	)
Insurance proceeds received		163
Interest accretion		407
Change in discount rates		(702	)
Balance as of May 25, 2013	$	18,410

Anticipated payments and insurance proceeds of currently identified environmental remediation liabilities as of May 25, 2013, for the next five fiscal years and thereafter, as measured in current dollars, are reflected below.

(In thousands)	2013		2014			2015			2016			2017			Thereafter			Total
Estimated costs – current dollars	$	3,785	$	2,470		$	1,437		$	950		$	752		$	11,861		$	21,255
Estimated insurance proceeds		—		(173	)		(159	)		(173	)		(159	)		(1,743	)		(2,407	)
Net anticipated costs	$	3,785	$	2,297		$	1,278		$	777		$	593		$	10,118		$	18,848
Effect of inflation																			7,109
Effect of discounting																			(7,547	)
Balance as of May 25, 2013																		$	18,410

Estimated insurance proceeds are primarily received from an annuity received as part of a legal settlement with an insurance company. Annual proceeds of approximately $0.3 million are deposited into an escrow account which funds remediation and monitoring costs for three sites related to former operations in Williamstown, Vermont. Annual proceeds received but not expended in the current year accumulate in this account and may be used in future years for costs related to this site through the year 2027. As of May 25, 2013, the balance in this escrow account, which is held in a trust and is not recorded in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet, was approximately $3.4 million. Also included in estimated insurance proceeds are amounts the Company is entitled to receive pursuant to legal settlements as reimbursements from three insurance companies for estimated costs at the site in Uvalde, Texas.

The Company’s nuclear garment decontamination facilities are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”), or, in certain cases, by the applicable state agency, and are subject to regulation by federal, state and local authorities. There can be no assurance that such regulation will not lead to material disruptions in the Company’s garment decontamination business.

From time to time, the Company is also subject to legal proceedings and claims arising from the conduct of its business operations, including litigation related to charges for certain ancillary services on invoices, personal injury claims, customer contract matters, employment claims and environmental matters as described above.

While it is impossible to ascertain the ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to contingent liabilities, including lawsuits and environmental contingencies, the Company believes that the aggregate amount of such liabilities, if any, in excess of amounts covered by insurance have been properly accrued in accordance with US GAAP. It is possible, however, that the future financial position or results of operations for any particular period could be materially affected by changes in the Company’s assumptions or strategies related to these contingencies or changes out of the Company’s control.

In addition, on December 31, 2012, the Company received a letter from counsel for New England Compounding Center (“NECC”) demanding, among other things, that the Company indemnify NECC regarding claims made against NECC, including those related to NECC’s highly-publicized compounding and sale of tainted methylprednisolone acetate.  This demand relates to the limited, once-a-month cleaning services the Company provided to portions of NECC’s cleanroom facilities.  Based on its preliminary review of this matter, the Company believes that NECC’s claims are without merit.  The Company has notified its insurers of this claim and preliminary discussions concerning coverage have begun.  In June 2013, the Company received a subpoena from the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee appointed in conjunction with the NECC multi-district litigation proceeding seeking information relating to the NECC matter.  While the Company is unable to ascertain the ultimate outcome of this matter, based on the information currently available, the Company believes that a loss with respect to this matter is neither probable nor remote, and the Company is unable to reasonably assess an estimate or range of estimates of any potential losses.