Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 6 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Other than as noted below, there have been no material changes during the period covered by this Form 10-Q in the status of the legal proceedings disclosed in Note 11 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II of our 2013 10-K. *Investigations and Litigation* *Apollo and Parks Township* In January 2010, Michelle McMunn, Cara D. Steele and Yvonne Sue Robinson filed suit against Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc. (“B&W PGG”), Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services Group, Inc., formerly known as B&W Nuclear Environmental Services, Inc. (the “B&W Parties”) and Atlantic Richfield Company (“ARCO”) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Since January 2010, additional suits have been filed by additional plaintiffs and there are currently fifteen lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against the B&W Parties and ARCO, including the most recent claims in May 2014. In total, the suits presently involve approximately 100 primary claimants, including the five additional primary claims filed in May 2014. Plaintiffs have filed motions to dismiss, with prejudice, 3 claims and have agreed to dismiss, with prejudice, 3 additional claims, which would reduce the total number of primary claimants to 94. The primary claimants allege, among other things, personal injuries and property damage as a result of alleged releases of radioactive material relating to the operation, remediation, and/or decommissioning of two former nuclear fuel processing facilities located in Apollo Borough and Parks Township, Pennsylvania (collectively, the “Apollo and Parks Litigation”). Those facilities previously were owned by Nuclear Materials and Equipment Company, a former subsidiary of ARCO (“NUMEC”), which was acquired by B&W PGG. The plaintiffs in the Apollo and Parks Litigation seek compensatory and punitive damages. All of the suits, except for the most recent filing, have been consolidated for non-dispositive pre-trial matters. Fact discovery in the Apollo and Parks Litigation is now closed, but no trial date has been set. At the time of ARCO’s sale of NUMEC stock to B&W PGG, B&W PGG received an indemnity and hold harmless agreement from ARCO with respect to claims and liabilities arising prior to or as a result of conduct or events predating the acquisition. Insurance coverage and/or the ARCO indemnity currently provides coverage for the claims alleged in the Apollo and Parks Litigation, although no assurance can be given that insurance and/or the indemnity will be available or sufficient in the event of liability, if any. The B&W Parties and ARCO were defendants in a prior litigation filed in 1994 relating to the operation of the Apollo and Parks Township facilities in the matter of Donald F. Hall and Mary Ann Hall, et al., v. Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. (the “Hall Litigation”). In 1998, the B&W Parties settled all then-pending and future punitive damage claims in the Hall Litigation for $8.0 million and sought reimbursement from third parties, including its insurers, American Nuclear Insurers and Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters (“ANI”). In 2008, ARCO settled the Hall Litigation with the plaintiffs for $27.5 million. The B&W Parties then settled the Hall Litigation in 2009 for $52.5 million, settling approximately 250 personal injury and wrongful death claims, as well as approximately 125 property damage claims, alleging damages as a result of alleged releases involving the facilities. ARCO and the B&W Parties retained their insurance rights against ANI in their respective settlements; however, under a related settlement regarding ARCO’s indemnification of B&W PGG relating to the two facilities, ARCO assigned to the B&W Parties 58.33% of the total of all ARCO’s proceeds/amounts recovered against ANI on account of the Hall Litigation. The B&W Parties sought recovery from ANI for amounts paid by the B&W Parties to settle the Hall Litigation, along with unreimbursed attorney fees, allocated amounts assigned by ARCO to the B&W Parties, and applicable interest based upon ANI’s breach of contract and bad faith conduct in the matter of The Babcock & Wilcox Company et al. v. American Nuclear Insurers, et al. (the “ANI Litigation”). ARCO also sought recovery against ANI in the ANI Litigation, which has been pending before the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In September 2011, a jury returned a verdict in the ANI Litigation, finding that the B&W Parties’ settlement of the Hall Litigation for $52.5 million and ARCO’s settlement for $27.5 million were fair and reasonable. Following the verdict, in February 2012, the B&W Parties, ARCO and ANI entered into an agreement in which the parties agreed to the dismissal with prejudice of all remaining claims pending in the ANI Litigation, excluding the B&W Parties’ and ARCO’s claims seeking reimbursement from ANI for the $52.5 million and $27.5 million settlements (plus interest) (the “Settlement Claims”). By agreement, ANI also waived: (1) any and all rights to appeal the September 2011 jury verdict on the basis of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings; and (2) any defenses and arguments of any kind except ANI’s position that it was not required to reimburse the B&W Parties’ and ARCO for their settlements under the provisions of the ANI policies. In February 2012, the Court granted the parties’ proposed order implementing their agreement and entered final judgment in favor of the B&W Parties and ARCO on the Settlement Claims. As part of the final order and judgment, the Court ruled that the B&W Parties and ARCO are entitled to pre-judgment interest on their $52.5 million and $27.5 million settlements, in the amounts of approximately $8.8 million and $6.2 million, respectively. In addition, post-verdict interest from the date of the jury verdict was awarded at 6%. In March 2012, ANI filed a notice of appeal as to the final judgment and a supersedeas appeal bond in the amount of 120% of the total final judgment amount. The parties filed their respective briefs with the Superior Court and oral arguments were held October 31, 2012. In July 2013, the Superior Court reversed the judgment of the trial court with instructions to reconsider the issue of the Settlement Claims under a different standard. In August 2013, B&W and ARCO filed a request for appeal of the Superior Court’s decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On January 24, 2014, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted B&W and ARCO’s request for appeal. The parties’ briefs on the appeal have been filed, but the date for oral arguments has not been set. B&W has not recognized any amounts claimed in the ANI Litigation in its financial statements due to the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate amount to be realized. *Berlin Station* Our subsidiary, Babcock & Wilcox Construction Co., Inc. (“BWCC”), is currently in a dispute with a customer in connection with a 75MW biomass-energy power plant that BWCC designed and built in Berlin, New Hampshire. The dispute primarily concerns (1) material claims by BWCC against its customer for contract changes relating to schedule delays, delay costs and extra work and (2) whether liquidated damages for delay (“Delay LDs”) are due to the customer under the contract. The customer contends it is owed Delay LDs, capped under the terms of the contract at approximately $18.7 million, and has made nine partial draws totaling approximately $11.0 million against $44 million of letters of credit from BWCC that were outstanding as of the date of filing of this report. These draws correspond to a total of approximately $11.9 million in alleged Delay LDs. BWCC had previously asserted that substantial completion had been achieved in early 2014 and that any further delays to completion of the project, beyond the delays already caused by the customer during construction or otherwise excusable under the contract are the result of the customer’s failure to supply fuel complying with the contract specifications. BWCC’s motion for an injunction to prevent further draws on BWCC’s letters of credit for such claims was denied on May 21, 2014 and a related temporary restraining order against the customer was vacated on the same date. The customer has certified that BWCC achieved substantial completion on the project effective July 19, 2014, following which the customer will have no further claims for Delay LDs. BWCC’s aggregate liquidated damages cap under the contract is approximately $37.4 million, which also includes an $18.7 million cap for performance LDs. There is a risk that the customer will attempt to call all or part of the letters of credit during the pendency of this matter. We believe any such call would be wrongful and entitle us to return of the funds and other damages. As of June 30, 2014, we had made provisions in our financial statements totaling $12.8 million based on Delay LDs called to date and management’s estimation of further calls against the letters of credit and had not recorded offsetting claims revenue in our financial statements. BWCC has submitted claims to the customer based on the customer’s failure to supply fuel complying with the contract specifications that has resulted (and continues to result) in further delays, reduced plant performance abilities and damage to plant equipment. Following the customer’s denial of BWCC’s change order request relating to schedule delays, delay costs and extra work, on January 16, 2014, BWCC filed suit against the customer in the Court of Common Pleas, Summit County, Ohio, Case No. 2014 01 0208, seeking damages in excess of $37 million (the “Ohio suit”). On or about January 30, 2014, BWCC’s customer filed suit against BWCC in the Superior Court of Coos County, New Hampshire, Case No. 214-2014-CV-14 alleging breach of contract and seeking unspecified amounts (the “New Hampshire suit”). On June 26, 2014, the Ohio suit was dismissed on jurisdictional and forum non conveniens grounds. BWCC is considering its response to the New Hampshire suit and still intends to seek recovery of damages incurred to date in excess of $50 million. We believe BWCC has sound legal and factual bases for its claims. BWCC intends to aggressively pursue recovery on its claims, including recovery of the wrongful calls against BWCC’s letters of credit. However, it is premature to predict the outcome of this matter. The litigation could be lengthy, and if BWCC’s customer were to prevail completely or substantially in this matter, the outcome could have a material adverse effect on our financial statements.

NOTE 6 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Other than as noted below, there have been no material changes during the period covered by this Form 10-Q in the status of the legal proceedings disclosed in Note 11 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II of our 2013 10-K.

Investigations and Litigation

Apollo and Parks Township

In January 2010, Michelle McMunn, Cara D. Steele and Yvonne Sue Robinson filed suit against Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc. (“B&W PGG”), Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services Group, Inc., formerly known as B&W Nuclear Environmental Services, Inc. (the “B&W Parties”) and Atlantic Richfield Company (“ARCO”) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Since January 2010, additional suits have been filed by additional plaintiffs and there are currently fifteen lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against the B&W Parties and ARCO, including the most recent claims in May 2014. In total, the suits presently involve approximately 100 primary claimants, including the five additional primary claims filed in May 2014. Plaintiffs have filed motions to dismiss, with prejudice, 3 claims and have agreed to dismiss, with prejudice, 3 additional claims, which would reduce the total number of primary claimants to 94. The primary claimants allege, among other things, personal injuries and property damage as a result of alleged releases of radioactive material relating to the operation, remediation, and/or decommissioning of two former nuclear fuel processing facilities located in Apollo Borough and Parks Township, Pennsylvania (collectively, the “Apollo and Parks Litigation”). Those facilities previously were owned by Nuclear Materials and Equipment Company, a former subsidiary of ARCO (“NUMEC”), which was acquired by B&W PGG. The plaintiffs in the Apollo and Parks Litigation seek compensatory and punitive damages. All of the suits, except for the most recent filing, have been consolidated for non-dispositive pre-trial matters. Fact discovery in the Apollo and Parks Litigation is now closed, but no trial date has been set.

At the time of ARCO’s sale of NUMEC stock to B&W PGG, B&W PGG received an indemnity and hold harmless agreement from ARCO with respect to claims and liabilities arising prior to or as a result of conduct or events predating the acquisition.

Insurance coverage and/or the ARCO indemnity currently provides coverage for the claims alleged in the Apollo and Parks Litigation, although no assurance can be given that insurance and/or the indemnity will be available or sufficient in the event of liability, if any.

The B&W Parties and ARCO were defendants in a prior litigation filed in 1994 relating to the operation of the Apollo and Parks Township facilities in the matter of Donald F. Hall and Mary Ann Hall, et al., v. Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. (the “Hall Litigation”). In 1998, the B&W Parties settled all then-pending and future punitive damage claims in the Hall Litigation for $8.0 million and sought reimbursement from third parties, including its insurers, American Nuclear Insurers and Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters (“ANI”). In 2008, ARCO settled the Hall Litigation with the plaintiffs for $27.5 million. The B&W Parties then settled the Hall Litigation in 2009 for $52.5 million, settling approximately 250 personal injury and wrongful death claims, as well as approximately 125 property damage claims, alleging damages as a result of alleged releases involving the facilities. ARCO and the B&W Parties retained their insurance rights against ANI in their respective settlements; however, under a related settlement regarding ARCO’s indemnification of B&W PGG relating to the two facilities, ARCO assigned to the B&W Parties 58.33% of the total of all ARCO’s proceeds/amounts recovered against ANI on account of the Hall Litigation.

The B&W Parties sought recovery from ANI for amounts paid by the B&W Parties to settle the Hall Litigation, along with unreimbursed attorney fees, allocated amounts assigned by ARCO to the B&W Parties, and applicable interest based upon ANI’s breach of contract and bad faith conduct in the matter of The Babcock & Wilcox Company et al. v. American Nuclear Insurers, et al. (the “ANI Litigation”). ARCO also sought recovery against ANI in the ANI Litigation, which has been pending before the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

In September 2011, a jury returned a verdict in the ANI Litigation, finding that the B&W Parties’ settlement of the Hall Litigation for $52.5 million and ARCO’s settlement for $27.5 million were fair and reasonable. Following the verdict, in February 2012, the B&W Parties, ARCO and ANI entered into an agreement in which the parties agreed to the dismissal with prejudice of all remaining claims pending in the ANI Litigation, excluding the B&W Parties’ and ARCO’s claims seeking reimbursement from ANI for the $52.5 million and $27.5 million settlements (plus interest) (the “Settlement Claims”). By agreement, ANI also waived: (1) any and all rights to appeal the September 2011 jury verdict on the basis of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings; and (2) any defenses and arguments of any kind except ANI’s position that it was not required to reimburse the B&W Parties’ and ARCO for their settlements under the provisions of the ANI policies. In February 2012, the Court granted the parties’ proposed order implementing their agreement and entered final judgment in favor of the B&W Parties and ARCO on the Settlement Claims. As part of the final order and judgment, the Court ruled that the B&W Parties and ARCO are entitled to pre-judgment interest on their $52.5 million and $27.5 million settlements, in the amounts of approximately $8.8 million and $6.2 million, respectively. In addition, post-verdict interest from the date of the jury verdict was awarded at 6%. In March 2012, ANI filed a notice of appeal as to the final judgment and a supersedeas appeal bond in the amount of 120% of the total final judgment amount. The parties filed their respective briefs with the Superior Court and oral arguments were held October 31, 2012.

In July 2013, the Superior Court reversed the judgment of the trial court with instructions to reconsider the issue of the Settlement Claims under a different standard. In August 2013, B&W and ARCO filed a request for appeal of the Superior Court’s decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On January 24, 2014, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted B&W and ARCO’s request for appeal. The parties’ briefs on the appeal have been filed, but the date for oral arguments has not been set. B&W has not recognized any amounts claimed in the ANI Litigation in its financial statements due to the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate amount to be realized.

Berlin Station

Our subsidiary, Babcock & Wilcox Construction Co., Inc. (“BWCC”), is currently in a dispute with a customer in connection with a 75MW biomass-energy power plant that BWCC designed and built in Berlin, New Hampshire. The dispute primarily concerns (1) material claims by BWCC against its customer for contract changes relating to schedule delays, delay costs and extra work and (2) whether liquidated damages for delay (“Delay LDs”) are due to the customer under the contract. The customer contends it is owed Delay LDs, capped under the terms of the contract at approximately $18.7 million, and has made nine partial draws totaling approximately $11.0 million against $44 million of letters of credit from BWCC that were outstanding as of the date of filing of this report. These draws correspond to a total of approximately $11.9 million in alleged Delay LDs. BWCC had previously asserted that substantial completion had been achieved in early 2014 and that any further delays to completion of the project, beyond the delays already caused by the customer during construction or otherwise excusable under the contract are the result of the customer’s failure to supply fuel complying with the contract specifications. BWCC’s motion for an injunction to prevent further draws on BWCC’s letters of credit for such claims was denied on May 21, 2014 and a related temporary restraining order against the customer was vacated on the same date. The customer has certified that BWCC achieved substantial completion on the project effective July 19, 2014, following which the customer will have no further claims for Delay LDs.

BWCC’s aggregate liquidated damages cap under the contract is approximately $37.4 million, which also includes an $18.7 million cap for performance LDs. There is a risk that the customer will attempt to call all or part of the letters of credit during the pendency of this matter. We believe any such call would be wrongful and entitle us to return of the funds and other damages. As of June 30, 2014, we had made provisions in our financial statements totaling $12.8 million based on Delay LDs called to date and management’s estimation of further calls against the letters of credit and had not recorded offsetting claims revenue in our financial statements.

BWCC has submitted claims to the customer based on the customer’s failure to supply fuel complying with the contract specifications that has resulted (and continues to result) in further delays, reduced plant performance abilities and damage to plant equipment. Following the customer’s denial of BWCC’s change order request relating to schedule delays, delay costs and extra work, on January 16, 2014, BWCC filed suit against the customer in the Court of Common Pleas, Summit County, Ohio, Case No. 2014 01 0208, seeking damages in excess of $37 million (the “Ohio suit”). On or about January 30, 2014, BWCC’s customer filed suit against BWCC in the Superior Court of Coos County, New Hampshire, Case No. 214-2014-CV-14 alleging breach of contract and seeking unspecified amounts (the “New Hampshire suit”). On June 26, 2014, the Ohio suit was dismissed on jurisdictional and forum non conveniens grounds. BWCC is considering its response to the New Hampshire suit and still intends to seek recovery of damages incurred to date in excess of $50 million.

We believe BWCC has sound legal and factual bases for its claims. BWCC intends to aggressively pursue recovery on its claims, including recovery of the wrongful calls against BWCC’s letters of credit. However, it is premature to predict the outcome of this matter. The litigation could be lengthy, and if BWCC’s customer were to prevail completely or substantially in this matter, the outcome could have a material adverse effect on our financial statements.