Honeywell 2008 Annual Report Download - page 120

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)
the Court, as well as sediment remedial plans, which also have been approved by the Court and are presently
under review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The above-referenced site is the most significant of the twenty-one sites located in Hudson County, New
Jersey that are the subject of an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) entered into with the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in 1993 (the "Honeywell ACO Sites"). Remedial investigations
and activities consistent with the ACO have also been conducted and are underway at the other Honeywell ACO
Sites. We have recorded reserves for the Honeywell ACO Sites where appropriate under the accounting policy
described above.
On May 3, 2005, NJDEP filed a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court against Honeywell and two other
companies seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and the reimbursement of unspecified
total costs relating to sites in New Jersey allegedly contaminated with chrome ore processing residue. The claims
against Honeywell relate to the activities of a predecessor company which ceased its New Jersey manufacturing
operations in the mid-1950's. Honeywell and the two other companies have agreed to settle this litigation with
NJDEP, subject to Court approval. Under the settlement, Honeywell would pay $5 million of NJDEP's past costs,
as well as accept sole responsibility to remediate 24 of the 53 "Publicly Funded Sites" (i.e., those sites for which
none of the three companies had previously accepted responsibility). Honeywell would also bear 50% of the
costs at another 10 Publicly Funded Sites. We have recorded reserves for the Publicly Funded Sites where
appropriate under the accounting policy described above.
Lawsuits were previously filed in federal court against Honeywell and other landowners by Jersey City and
two of its municipal utility authorities, and separately by a citizens group seeking, the cleanup of chromium
residue at several of the Honeywell ACO Sites under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Honeywell, Jersey City, the municipal utility authorities and the citizens group have agreed to settle
claims relating to a group of properties known as Study Area 6 North, which settlement has been approved by
the Court. These sites and other related sites have been classified by Jersey City as an area in need of
redevelopment and Jersey City has approved a redevelopment plan and agreement regarding these sites. As
part of this settlement, Honeywell has also agreed to release claims it may have had against Jersey City and its
municipal utility authorities for contamination of river sediments and for the remediation of chrome residue at the
Publicly Funded Sites that are sewer lines. Honeywell and the plaintiffs have reached a settlement for one group
of properties (known as Study Area 6 South), and that settlement has been approved by the Court. The remedial
actions regarding the settlements discussed above are consistent with our recorded reserves. Settlement
negotiations are ongoing for the remaining sites (portions of what is known as Study Area 5) in the litigation.
Dundalk Marine Terminal, Baltimore—Chrome residue from legacy chrome plant operations in Baltimore
was deposited as fill at the Dundalk Marine Terminal ("DMT"), which is owned and operated by the Maryland Port
Administration ("MPA"). Honeywell and the MPA have been sharing costs to investigate and mitigate related
environmental issues, and have entered into a cost sharing agreement under which Honeywell will bear a 77
percent share of the costs of developing and implementing permanent remedies for the DMT facility. The
investigative phase is ongoing, after which the appropriate remedies will be identified and chosen. We have
negotiated a Consent Decree with the MPA and Maryland Department of the Environment ("MDE") with respect
to the investigation and remediation of the DMT facility. The Consent Decree is being challenged in federal court
by BUILD, a Baltimore community group, together with a local church and two individuals (collectively "BUILD").
In October 2007, the Court dismissed with prejudice BUILD's state law claims and dismissed without prejudice
BUILD's RCRA claims regarding neighborhoods near the DMT facility. In August 2008, the Court held a hearing
on the Company's motion to dismiss BUILD's remaining claims on the grounds that MDE is diligently prosecuting
the investigation and remediation of the DMT. We are awaiting the Court's decision. We do not believe that this
matter will have a material adverse impact on our
86