XML 128 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

Environmental Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2012
Environmental Commitments and Contingencies | 18. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES We are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing environmental quality and pollution control. These laws and regulations require us to remove or remedy at current and former operating sites the effect on the environment of the disposal or release of specified substances. We have participated in the investigation, assessment or remediation, and have exposures at six former MGP sites. Those sites are located in Salisbury, Maryland, and Winter Haven, Key West, Pensacola, Sanford and West Palm Beach, Florida. We have also been in discussions with the MDE regarding a seventh former MGP site located in Cambridge, Maryland. As of December 31, 2012, we had approximately $10.5 million in environmental liabilities related to all of FPU’s MGP sites in Florida, which include the Key West, Pensacola, Sanford and West Palm Beach sites, representing our estimate of the future costs associated with those sites. FPU has approval to recover up to $14.0 million of its environmental costs related to all of its MGP sites from insurance and from customers through rates, approximately $8.7 million of which has been recovered as of December 31, 2012. We had approximately $5.3 million in regulatory assets for future recovery of environmental costs from FPU’s customers. In addition to the FPU MGP sites, we had $170,000 in environmental liabilities at December 31, 2012, related to Chesapeake’s MGP sites in Maryland and Florida, representing our estimate of future costs associated with these sites. As of December 31, 2012, we had approximately $612,000 in regulatory and other assets for future recovery through Chesapeake’s rates. Environmental liabilities for all of our MGP sites are recorded on an undiscounted basis based on the estimate of future costs provided by independent consultants. We continue to expect that all costs related to environmental remediation and related activities will be recoverable from customers through rates. The following discussion provides details on MGP sites: West Palm Beach, Florida Remedial options are being evaluated to respond to environmental impacts to soil and groundwater at and in the immediate vicinity of a parcel of property owned by FPU in West Palm Beach, Florida, where FPU previously operated an MGP. FPU is currently implementing a remedial plan approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“FDEP”) for the east parcel of the West Palm Beach site, which includes installation of monitoring test wells, sparging of air into the groundwater system and extraction of vapors from the subsurface. It is anticipated that similar remedial actions ultimately will be implemented for other portions of the site. Estimated costs of remediation for the West Palm Beach site range from approximately $4.5 million to $15.4 million, including costs associated with the relocation of FPU’s operations at this site, which is necessary to implement the remedial plan, and any potential costs associated with future redevelopment of the properties. We continue to expect that all costs related to these activities will be recoverable from customers through rates. Sanford, Florida FPU is the current owner of property in Sanford, Florida, which was a former MGP site that was operated by several other entities before FPU acquired the property. FPU was never an owner or an operator of the MGP. In January 2007, FPU and other responsible parties at the Sanford site (collectively with FPU the “Sanford Group”) signed a Third Participation Agreement, which provides for the funding of the final remedy approved by the EPA for the site. FPU’s share of remediation costs under the Third Participation Agreement is set at five percent of a maximum of $13.0 million, or $650,000. As of December 31, 2012, FPU has paid $650,000 to the Sanford Group escrow account for its entire share of the funding requirements. The total cost of the final remedy is now estimated at over $20.0 million, which includes long-term monitoring and the settlement of claims asserted by two adjacent property owners to resolve damages that the property owners allege they have incurred and will incur as a result of the implementation of the EPA-approved remediation. In settlement of these claims, members of the Sanford Group, which in this instance does not include FPU, have agreed to pay specified sums of money to the parties. FPU has refused to participate in the funding of the third-party settlement agreements based on its contention that it did not contribute to the release of hazardous substances at the site giving rise to the third-party claims. FPU has advised the other members of the Sanford Group that it is unwilling at this time to agree to pay any sum in excess of the $650,000 committed by FPU in the Third Participation Agreement. As of December 31, 2012, FPU’s remaining remediation expenses, including attorneys’ fees and costs, are estimated to be $24,000. However, we are unable to determine, to a reasonable degree of certainty, whether the other members of the Sanford Group will accept FPU’s asserted defense to liability for costs exceeding $13.0 million as provided in the Third Participation Agreement to implement the final remedy for this site or will pursue a claim against FPU for a sum in excess of the $650,000 that FPU has paid under the Third Participation Agreement. No such claims have been made as of December 31, 2012. Key West, Florida FPU formerly owned and operated an MGP in Key West, Florida. Field investigations performed in the 1990s identified limited environmental impacts at the site, which is currently owned by an unrelated third party. In 2010, after 17 years of regulatory inactivity, FDEP observed that some soil and groundwater standards were exceeded and requested implementation of additional soil and groundwater fieldwork. The scope of work is limited to the installation of two additional monitoring wells and periodic monitoring of the new and existing wells. The two new monitoring wells were installed in November 2011, and groundwater monitoring began in December 2011. The first semi-annual report from the monitoring program was issued in May 2012. The data from the June 2012 and September 2012 monitoring events were submitted to the FDEP on October 4, 2012. FDEP responded via e-mail on October 9, 2012, that based on the data, Natural Attenuation Monitoring (“NAM”) appears to be an appropriate remedy for the site. The FDEP issued a Remedial Action Plan approval order, dated October 12, 2012, which specified that a limited semi-annual monitoring program is to be conducted. The annual cost to conduct the limited NAM program is not expected to exceed $8,000. Although the duration that FDEP will require limited NAM cannot be determined with certainty, it is anticipated that total costs to complete the remedial action will not exceed $50,000. Pensacola, Florida FPU formerly owned and operated an MGP in Pensacola, Florida, which was subsequently owned by Gulf Power. Portions of the site are now owned by the City of Pensacola and the Florida Department of Transportation (“FDOT”). In October 2009, FDEP informed Gulf Power that FDEP would approve a conditional No Further Action determination for the site, which must include a requirement for institutional and engineering controls. On December 13, 2011, Gulf Power, the City of Pensacola, FDOT and FPU submitted to FDEP a draft covenant for institutional and engineering controls for the site. Upon FDEP’s approval and the subsequent recording of the institutional and engineering controls, no further work is expected to be required of the parties. Assuming FDEP approves the draft institutional and engineering controls, it is anticipated that FPU’s share of remaining legal and cleanup costs will not exceed $5,000. Salisbury, Maryland We have substantially completed remediation of a site in Salisbury, Maryland, where it was determined that a former MGP caused localized ground-water contamination. In February 2002, the MDE granted permission to permanently decommission the systems used for remediation and to discontinue all on-site and off-site well monitoring, except for one well, which is being maintained for periodic product monitoring and recovery. We anticipate that the remaining costs of the one remaining monitoring well will not exceed $5,000 annually. We cannot predict at this time when the MDE will grant permission to permanently decommission the one remaining monitoring well. Winter Haven, Florida The Winter Haven site is located on the eastern shoreline of Lake Shipp, in Winter Haven, Florida. Pursuant to a consent order entered into with FDEP, we are obligated to assess and remediate environmental impacts at this former MGP site. The recent groundwater sampling results show a continuing reduction in contaminant concentrations from the treatment system, which has been in operation since 2002. Currently, we predict that remedial action objectives could be met in approximately two to three years for the area being treated by the remediation system. On August 7, 2012, FDEP issued a letter discussing the need to evaluate further remedial options, which could incorporate risk-management options, including natural attenuation and the use of institutional and engineering controls. Modifications to the existing consent order and the remedial action plan modification could be required to incorporate risk-management options into the remedy for the site. If such modifications are required, we estimate that future remediation costs could be as much as $443,000, which includes an estimate of $100,000 to implement additional actions, such as institutional controls, at the site. If we are required to incur this cost, we continue to believe that the entire amount will be recoverable from customers through our approved rates. The current treatment system at the Winter Haven site does not address impacted soils in the southwest corner of the site. In 2010, we obtained a conditional approval from FDEP for a soil excavation plan; however, because the costs associated with shoreline stabilization and dewatering are likely to be substantial, alternatives to this excavation plan are being evaluated. FDEP has indicated that we may be required to remediate sediments along the shoreline of Lake Shipp, immediately west of the site. Based on studies performed to date, we object to FDEP’s suggestion that the sediments have been adversely impacted by the former operations of the MGP. Our early estimates indicate that some of the corrective measures discussed by FDEP could cost as much as $1.0 million. We believe that corrective measures for the sediments are not warranted and intend to oppose any requirement that we undertake corrective measures in the offshore sediments. We have not recorded a liability for sediment remediation, as the final resolution of this matter cannot be predicted at this time. Other We are in discussions with the MDE regarding a former MGP site located in Cambridge, Maryland. The outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time; therefore, we have not recorded an environmental liability for this location. We are currently investigating a potential environmental matter involving a property we recently purchased in Fernandina Beach, Florida. The extent of contamination and our cost to remediate the property, if any, cannot be determined at this time; therefore, we have not recorded an environmental liability for this site.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for environmental loss contingencies, such as presence of hazardous waste, relevant information from reports issued by regulators, and estimated costs to achieve compliance with regulatory requirements. This element may be used for all of an entity's disclosures about environmental loss contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 410 -SubTopic 30 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6393242&loc=d3e13185-110859 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 410 -SubTopic 30 -Section 50 -Paragraph 10 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6393242&loc=d3e13237-110859 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SAB TOPIC 5.Y.Q2) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6572457&loc=d3e149879-122751 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher SEC -Name Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) -Number Topic 5 -Section Y Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 410 -SubTopic 30 -Section 50 -Paragraph 17 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6393242&loc=d3e13328-110859 Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 410 -SubTopic 30 -Section 50 -Paragraph 12 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6393242&loc=d3e13296-110859 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher AICPA -Name Statement of Position (SOP) -Number 96-1 -Paragraph 152, 163, 172 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_EnvironmentalLossContingencyDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration