XML 54 R12.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES ENVIRONMENTAL The Duke Energy Registrants are subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal and other environmental matters. These regulations can be changed from time to time, imposing new obligations on the Duke Energy Registrants. The following environmental matters impact all of the Duke Energy Registrants. Remediation Activities In addition to asset retirement obligations (ARO) recorded as a result of various environmental regulations, the Duke Energy Registrants are responsible for environmental remediation at various sites. These include certain properties that are part of ongoing operations and sites formerly owned or used by Duke Energy entities. These sites are in various stages of investigation, remediation and monitoring. Managed in conjunction with relevant federal, state and local agencies, remediation activities vary based upon site conditions and location, remediation requirements, complexity and sharing of responsibility. If remediation activities involve joint and several liability provisions, strict liability, or cost recovery or contribution actions, the Duke Energy Registrants could potentially be held responsible for environmental impacts caused by other potentially responsible parties and may also benefit from insurance policies or contractual indemnities that cover some or all cleanup costs. Liabilities are recorded when losses become probable and are reasonably estimable. The total costs that may be incurred cannot be estimated because the extent of environmental impact, allocation among potentially responsible parties, remediation alternatives and/or regulatory decisions have not yet been determined at all sites. Additional costs associated with remediation activities are likely to be incurred in the future and could be significant. Costs are typically expensed as Operation, maintenance and other on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations unless regulatory recovery of the costs is deemed probable. The following tables contain information regarding reserves for probable and estimable costs related to the various environmental sites. These reserves are recorded in Accounts Payable within Current Liabilities and Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
| Nine Months Ended September 30, 2018
|  |  | Duke |  |  |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |  |
| Duke |  |  | Energy |  |  | Progress |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |  |
(in millions) | Energy |  |  | Carolinas |  |  | Energy |  |  | Progress |  |  | Florida |  |  | Ohio |  |  | Indiana |  |  | Piedmont |
Balance at beginning of period | $ | 81 |  |  | $ | 10 |  |  | $ | 15 |  |  | $ | 3 |  |  | $ | 12 |  |  | $ | 47 |  |  | $ | 5 |  |  | $ | 2 |
Provisions/adjustments | 7 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 3 |  |  | (1 | ) |  | 3 |  |  | 1 |  |  | — |
Cash reductions | (20 | ) |  | (2 | ) |  | (5 | ) |  | (1 | ) |  | (4 | ) |  | (12 | ) |  | (1 | ) |  | — |
Balance at end of period | $ | 68 |  |  | $ | 11 |  |  | $ | 12 |  |  | $ | 5 |  |  | $ | 7 |  |  | $ | 38 |  |  | $ | 5 |  |  | $ | 2 |
| Nine Months Ended September 30, 2017
|  |  | Duke |  |  |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |  | Duke |  |  |
| Duke |  |  | Energy |  |  | Progress |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |  | Energy |  |  |
(in millions) | Energy |  |  | Carolinas |  |  | Energy |  |  | Progress |  |  | Florida |  |  | Ohio |  |  | Indiana |  |  | Piedmont |
Balance at beginning of period | $ | 98 |  |  | $ | 10 |  |  | $ | 18 |  |  | $ | 3 |  |  | $ | 14 |  |  | $ | 59 |  |  | $ | 10 |  |  | $ | 1 |
Provisions/adjustments | (1 | ) |  | 2 |  |  | 1 |  |  | — |  |  | 1 |  |  | (3 | ) |  | (2 | ) |  | 1 |
Cash reductions | (13 | ) |  | (2 | ) |  | (3 | ) |  | — |  |  | (3 | ) |  | (7 | ) |  | (1 | ) |  | — |
Balance at end of period | $ | 84 |  |  | $ | 10 |  |  | $ | 16 |  |  | $ | 3 |  |  | $ | 12 |  |  | $ | 49 |  |  | $ | 7 |  |  | $ | 2 |
Additional losses in excess of recorded reserves that could be incurred for the stages of investigation, remediation and monitoring for environmental sites that have been evaluated at this time are not material except as presented in the table below.
(in millions) |
Duke Energy | $ | 57 |
Duke Energy Carolinas | 17 |
Duke Energy Ohio | 30 |
Piedmont | 2 |
LITIGATION Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress Coal Ash Insurance Coverage Litigation In March 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a civil action in North Carolina Superior Court against various insurance providers. The lawsuit seeks payment for coal ash-related liabilities covered by third-party liability insurance policies. The insurance policies were issued between 1971 and 1986 and provide third-party liability insurance for property damage. The civil action seeks damages for breach of contract and indemnification for costs arising from the Coal Ash Act and the EPA CCR rule at 15 coal-fired plants in North Carolina and South Carolina. The parties are engaged in discovery. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter. NCDEQ State Enforcement Actions In the first quarter of 2013, the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) sent notices of intent to sue Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress related to alleged Clean Water Act (CWA) violations from coal ash basins at two of their coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. The NCDEQ filed enforcement actions against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress alleging violations of water discharge permits and North Carolina groundwater standards. The cases have been consolidated and are being heard before a single judge in the North Carolina Superior Court. On August 16, 2013, the NCDEQ filed an enforcement action against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress related to their remaining plants in North Carolina, alleging violations of the CWA and violations of the North Carolina groundwater standards. Both of these cases have been assigned to the judge handling the enforcement actions discussed above. SELC is representing several environmental groups who have been permitted to intervene in these cases. The court issued orders in 2016 granting Motions for Partial Summary Judgment for seven of the 14 North Carolina plants named in the enforcement actions. On February 13, 2017, the court issued an order denying motions for partial summary judgment brought by both the environmental groups and Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress for the remaining seven plants. On March 15, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a Notice of Appeal with the North Carolina Court of Appeals to challenge the trial court’s order. The parties were unable to reach an agreement at mediation in April 2017 and submitted briefs to the trial court on remaining issues to be tried. On August 1, 2018, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and the matter is proceeding before the trial court. No trial date has been scheduled. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Federal Citizens Suits On June 13, 2016, the Roanoke River Basin Association (RRBA) filed a federal citizen suit in the Middle District of North Carolina alleging unpermitted discharges to surface water and groundwater violations at the Mayo Plant. On August 19, 2016, Duke Energy Progress filed a Motion to Dismiss. On April 26, 2017, the court entered an order dismissing four of the claims in the federal citizen suit. Two claims relating to alleged violations of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit provisions survived the motion to dismiss, and Duke Energy Progress filed its response on May 10, 2017. Duke Energy Progress and RRBA each filed motions for summary judgment on March 23, 2018. The court has not yet ruled on these motions. On May 16, 2017, RRBA filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, which asserts two claims relating to alleged violations of NPDES permit provisions at the Roxboro Plant and one claim relating to the use of nearby water bodies. Duke Energy Progress and RRBA each filed motions for summary judgment on April 17, 2018, and the court has not yet ruled on these motions. On May 8, 2018, on motion from Duke Energy Progress, the court ordered trial in both of the above matters to be consolidated. Trial is currently scheduled for July 15, 2019. On June 20, 2017, RRBA filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina challenging the closure plans at the Mayo Plant under the EPA CCR Rule. Duke Energy Progress filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the court on March 30, 2018. RRBA had until April 30, 2018, to file an appeal to the Fourth Circuit but did not do so. On August 2, 2017, RRBA filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina challenging the closure plans at the Roxboro Plant under the EPA CCR Rule. Duke Energy Progress filed a motion to dismiss on October 2, 2017, which was granted by the court on May 29, 2018. RRBA had until June 28, 2018, to file an appeal to the Fourth Circuit but did not do so. On December 5, 2017, various parties filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina for alleged violations at Duke Energy Carolinas' Belews Creek Steam Station (Belews Creek) under the CWA. Duke Energy Carolinas filed a motion to dismiss on February 5, 2018, and on August 13, 2018, the court issued an order denying Duke Energy Carolinas’ motion to dismiss. Duke Energy Carolinas' answer to the complaint was filed on August 27, 2018. On October 10, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas filed Motions to Dismiss for lack of standing, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion to Stay Discovery. A hearing on the motion to stay is scheduled for December 12, 2018, and a scheduling conference has been set for January 2019. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of these matters. Groundwater Contamination Claims Beginning in May 2015, a number of residents living in the vicinity of the North Carolina facilities with ash basins received letters from the NCDEQ advising them not to drink water from the private wells on their land tested by the NCDEQ as the samples were found to have certain substances at levels higher than the criteria set by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Results of Comprehensive Site Assessments testing performed by Duke Energy under the Coal Ash Act have been consistent with historical data provided to state regulators over many years. The DHHS and NCDEQ sent follow-up letters on October 15, 2015, to residents near coal ash basins who had their wells tested, stating that private well samplings at a considerable distance from coal ash basins, as well as some municipal water supplies, contain similar levels of vanadium and hexavalent chromium, which led investigators to believe these constituents are naturally occurring. In March 2016, DHHS rescinded the advisories. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress have received formal demand letters from residents near Duke Energy Carolinas' and Duke Energy Progress' coal ash basins. The residents claim damages for nuisance and diminution in property value, among other things. The parties held three days of mediation discussions that ended at an impasse. On January 6, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress received the plaintiffs' notice of their intent to file suits should the matter not settle. The NCDEQ preliminarily approved Duke Energy’s permanent water solution plans on January 13, 2017, and as a result shortly thereafter, Duke Energy issued a press release, providing additional details regarding the homeowner compensation package. This package consists of three components: (i) a $5,000 goodwill payment to each eligible well owner to support the transition to a new water supply, (ii) where a public water supply is available and selected by the eligible well owner, a stipend to cover 25 years of water bills and (iii) the Property Value Protection Plan. The Property Value Protection Plan is a program offered by Duke Energy designed to guarantee eligible plant neighbors the fair market value of their residential property should they decide to sell their property during the time that the plan is offered. Settlement payments are being made, and, as of September 30, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress have remaining reserves of $4 million and $2 million, respectively. On August 23, 2017, a class-action suit was filed in Wake County Superior Court, North Carolina, against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress on behalf of certain property owners living near coal ash impoundments at Allen, Asheville, Belews Creek, Buck, Cliffside, Lee, Marshall, Mayo and Roxboro. The class is defined as those who are “well-eligible” under the Coal Ash Act or those to whom Duke Energy has promised a permanent replacement water supply and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, along with compensatory damages. Plaintiffs allege that Duke Energy’s improper maintenance of coal ash impoundments caused harm, particularly through groundwater contamination. Despite NCDEQ’s preliminary approval, Plaintiffs contend that Duke Energy’s proposed permanent water solutions plan fails to comply with the Coal Ash Act. On September 28, 2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike the class designation. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement on January 24, 2018, which resulted in the dismissal of the underlying class action on January 25, 2018. On September 14, 2017, a complaint was filed against Duke Energy Progress in New Hanover County Superior Court by a group of homeowners residing approximately 1 mile from Duke Energy Progress' Sutton Steam Plant (Sutton). The homeowners allege that coal ash constituents have been migrating from ash impoundments at Sutton into their groundwater for decades and that in 2015, Duke Energy Progress discovered these releases of coal ash, but failed to notify any officials or neighbors and failed to take remedial action. The homeowners claim unspecified physical and mental injuries as a result of consuming their well water and seek actual damages for personal injury, medical monitoring and punitive damages. On March 6, 2018, Plaintiffs' counsel voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice It is not possible to estimate the maximum exposure of loss, if any, that may occur in connection with future claims that might be made by these residents. Asbestos-related Injuries and Damages Claims Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of September 30, 2018, there were 160 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with cumulative relief sought of up to $43 million, and 63 asserted claims for malignant cases with cumulative relief sought of up to $19 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas’ experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed. Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $461 million at September 30, 2018, and $489 million at December 31, 2017. These reserves are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based upon the minimum amount of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2037, are recorded on an undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated inflation. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2037 related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves. Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self-insured retention. Duke Energy Carolinas’ cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $764 million in excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $553 million at September 30, 2018, and $585 million at December 31, 2017. These amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating. Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida Spent Nuclear Fuel Matters On October 16, 2014, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida sued the U.S. in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The lawsuit claimed the Department of Energy breached a contract in failing to accept spent nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and asserted damages for the cost of on-site storage. Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida asserted damages for the period January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2013, of $48 million and $25 million, respectively. On November 17, 2017, the court awarded Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida $48 million and $21 million, respectively, subject to appeal. No appeals were filed and Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida recognized the recoveries in the first quarter of 2018. Claims for all periods through 2013 have been resolved. On June 22, 2018, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Florida filed a complaint for damages incurred for 2014 through first quarter 2018. Duke Energy Progress Gypsum Supply Agreement Matter On June 30, 2017, CertainTeed Gypsum NC, Inc. (CertainTeed) filed a declaratory judgment action against Duke Energy Progress in the North Carolina Business Court relating to a gypsum supply agreement. In its complaint, CertainTeed sought an order from the court declaring that the minimum amount of gypsum Duke Energy Progress must provide to CertainTeed under the supply agreement is 50,000 tons per month through 2029. Subsequently, CertainTeed also sought a preliminary injunction requiring Duke Energy Progress to provide 50,000 tons of gypsum per month through the trial date. The parties reached an agreement under which Duke Energy Progress delivered 50,000 tons of gypsum per month through August 2018. Trial in this matter was completed on July 16, 2018. On August 29, 2018, the court issued an order and opinion finding that Duke Energy Progress is required to supply 50,000 tons of gypsum/month, but that CertainTeed’s sole remedy for Duke Energy Progress’ long-term discontinuance under the agreement is liquidated damages. This ruling effectively limits CertainTeed’s remedies in the event that Duke Energy Progress elects to permanently discontinue gypsum supply at the Roxboro plant. The estimated maximum amount that would be owed under the liquidated damages provision is approximately $90 million. Both CertainTeed and Duke Energy Progress have filed cross-appeals, as they explore a possible resolution. Duke Energy Progress cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Duke Energy Florida Class Action Lawsuit On February 22, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a putative class of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L’s customers in Florida. The suit alleges the state of Florida’s nuclear power plant cost recovery statutes (NCRS) are unconstitutional and pre-empted by federal law. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to repayment of all money paid by customers of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L as a result of the NCRS, as well as an injunction against any future charges under those statutes. The constitutionality of the NCRS has been challenged unsuccessfully in a number of prior cases on alternative grounds. Duke Energy Florida and FP&L filed motions to dismiss the complaint on May 5, 2016. On September 21, 2016, the court granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. On January 4, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Eleventh Circuit). On July 11, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court's dismissal of the lawsuit. The deadline to file a petition for cert was October 9, 2018, and no petition was filed; therefore, the dismissal of the lawsuit is final. Westinghouse Contract Litigation On March 28, 2014, Duke Energy Florida filed a lawsuit against Westinghouse in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The lawsuit sought recovery of $54 million in milestone payments in excess of work performed under an Engineering, Procurement and Construction agreement (EPC) for Levy as well as a determination by the court of the amounts due to Westinghouse as a result of the termination of an EPC contract. Duke Energy Florida recognized an exit obligation as a result of the termination of the EPC. On March 31, 2014, Westinghouse filed a separate lawsuit against Duke Energy Florida in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging damages under the same EPC contract in excess of $510 million for engineering and design work, costs to end supplier contracts and an alleged termination fee. On June 9, 2014, the judge in the North Carolina case ruled that the litigation would proceed in the Western District of North Carolina. On July 11, 2016, Duke Energy Florida and Westinghouse filed separate Motions for Summary Judgment. On September 29, 2016, the court issued its ruling, granting Westinghouse a $30 million termination fee claim and dismissing Duke Energy Florida's $54 million refund claim. Westinghouse's claim for termination costs continued to trial. Following a trial on the matter, the court issued an order in December 2016 denying Westinghouse’s claim for termination costs and reaffirming its earlier ruling in favor of Westinghouse on the $30 million termination fee. Judgment was entered against Duke Energy Florida in the amount of approximately $34 million, which includes prejudgment interest. Westinghouse appealed the trial court's order to the Fourth Circuit and Duke Energy Florida cross-appealed. On March 29, 2017, Westinghouse filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York, which automatically stayed the appeal. On May 23, 2017, the bankruptcy court entered an order lifting the stay with respect to the appeal. Briefing of the appeal concluded on October 20, 2017. Westinghouse and Duke Energy Florida executed a settlement agreement resolving this matter on April 5, 2018. The bankruptcy court approved the settlement and Duke Energy Florida paid approximately $34 million to Westinghouse in July 2018 pursuant to this agreement. At the request of the parties, the Fourth Circuit has dismissed the appeal. MGP Cost Recovery Action On December 30, 2011, Duke Energy Florida filed a lawsuit against FirstEnergy Corp. (FirstEnergy) to recover investigation and remediation costs incurred by Duke Energy Florida in connection with the restoration of two former MGP sites in Florida. Duke Energy Florida alleged that FirstEnergy, as the successor to Associated Gas & Electric Co., owes past and future contribution and response costs of up to $43 million for the investigation and remediation of MGP sites. On December 6, 2016, the trial court entered judgment against Duke Energy Florida in the case. In January 2017, Duke Energy Florida appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the trial court's ruling on April 10, 2018. The dismissal of the lawsuit is therefore final. Other Litigation and Legal Proceedings The Duke Energy Registrants are involved in other legal, tax and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve significant amounts. The Duke Energy Registrants believe the final disposition of these proceedings will not have a material effect on their results of operations, cash flows or financial position. The table below presents recorded reserves based on management’s best estimate of probable loss for legal matters, excluding asbestos-related reserves and the exit obligation related to the termination of an EPC contract discussed above. Reserves are classified on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Accounts payable and Other within Current Liabilities. The reasonably possible range of loss in excess of recorded reserves is not material, other than as described above.
(in millions) | September 30, 2018 |  |  | December 31, 2017 |
Reserves for Legal Matters |  |  |
Duke Energy | $ | 63 |  |  | $ | 88 |
Duke Energy Carolinas | 11 |  |  | 30 |
Progress Energy | 50 |  |  | 55 |
Duke Energy Progress | 11 |  |  | 13 |
Duke Energy Florida | 23 |  |  | 24 |
Piedmont | 1 |  |  | 2 |
OTHER COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES General As part of their normal business, the Duke Energy Registrants are party to various financial guarantees, performance guarantees and other contractual commitments to extend guarantees of credit and other assistance to various subsidiaries, investees and other third parties. These guarantees involve elements of performance and credit risk, which are not fully recognized on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and have unlimited maximum potential payments. However, the Duke Energy Registrants do not believe these guarantees will have a material effect on their results of operations, cash flows or financial position. In addition, the Duke Energy Registrants enter into various fixed-price, noncancelable commitments to purchase or sell power or natural gas, take-or-pay arrangements, transportation, or throughput agreements and other contracts that may or may not be recognized on their respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Some of these arrangements may be recognized at fair value on their respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets if such contracts meet the definition of a derivative and the normal purchase/normal sale (NPNS) exception does not apply. In most cases, the Duke Energy Registrants’ purchase obligation contracts contain provisions for price adjustments, minimum purchase levels and other financial commitments.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration