Contingent Liability Contingent Liability (Notes)	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Contingent Liability [Abstract]
Environmental Contingency	Contingent Liabilities In 2012, the Company identified that a site it owns in Decatur, Alabama, contains hazardous substances in the soil and groundwater as a result of historical operations prior to the Company's ownership. The Company retained an environmental consulting firm to further investigate the contamination including the measurement and monitoring of the site. In August 2013, the site was enrolled in Alabama's voluntary cleanup program. On October 30, 2014, the Company received estimates from its environmental consulting firm for three potential remediation solutions. The estimates included a range of viable remedial approaches. The first solution included limited excavation and removal of the contaminated soil along with an extensive monitoring period. The second solution included the first solution plus the installation of a groundwater extraction system. The third scenario included the first and second solutions plus treatment injections to reduce the degradation time. The estimated expenditures over the life of the three scenarios ranged from $0.3 million to $1.4 million. As the Company had determined that a loss was probable and no scenario was more likely than the other at that time, a liability in the amount of $0.3 million was established in 2014. During 2015, after further evidence had been collected and analyzed, the Company concluded that it was probable that future remediation would be required, and accordingly accrued an additional $0.9 million for the estimated costs. In the third quarter of 2017 the Company received estimates from its environmental consulting firm for two new remediation solutions based on a chemical injection process. The first solution would consist of chemical injections throughout the entire site to directly eliminate the hazardous substances in the soil and groundwater. The second solution would consist of chemical injections around the perimeter of the site to prevent the migration of the hazardous chemicals off-site. Neither solution would require additional excavation or repairs to be made to the property. Additionally, the estimated required monitoring period would be substantially reduced. The estimated expenditures over an 18 month period under the two injection scenarios ranged from $0.9 million to $2.0 million. The Company does not expect to capitalize any amounts related to these remediation options. The Company has determined that it will initially proceed with the method of injecting chemicals around the perimeter of the site to prevent the migration of the hazardous chemicals off-site. As of September 30, 2017, approximately $1.0 million remains accrued for this remediation in other long-term liabilities on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. This estimate was based on the information provided to date and as the remediation efforts proceed, additional information may impact the final cost. As of September 30, 2017, agreement with Alabama’s voluntary cleanup program on viable treatment of the property has not yet been reached and the Company continues to evaluate potential remediation alternatives that could impact the ultimate cost of remediation.

Contingent Liabilities

In 2012, the Company identified that a site it owns in Decatur, Alabama, contains hazardous substances in the soil and groundwater as a result of historical operations prior to the Company's ownership. The Company retained an environmental consulting firm to further investigate the contamination including the measurement and monitoring of the site. In August 2013, the site was enrolled in Alabama's voluntary cleanup program. On October 30, 2014, the Company received estimates from its environmental consulting firm for three potential remediation solutions. The estimates included a range of viable remedial approaches. The first solution included limited excavation and removal of the contaminated soil along with an extensive monitoring period. The second solution included the first solution plus the installation of a groundwater extraction system. The third scenario included the first and second solutions plus treatment injections to reduce the degradation time. The estimated expenditures over the life of the three scenarios ranged from $0.3 million to $1.4 million. As the Company had determined that a loss was probable and no scenario was more likely than the other at that time, a liability in the amount of $0.3 million was established in 2014.

During 2015, after further evidence had been collected and analyzed, the Company concluded that it was probable that future remediation would be required, and accordingly accrued an additional $0.9 million for the estimated costs.

In the third quarter of 2017 the Company received estimates from its environmental consulting firm for two new remediation solutions based on a chemical injection process. The first solution would consist of chemical injections throughout the entire site to directly eliminate the hazardous substances in the soil and groundwater. The second solution would consist of chemical injections around the perimeter of the site to prevent the migration of the hazardous chemicals off-site. Neither solution would require additional excavation or repairs to be made to the property. Additionally, the estimated required monitoring period would be substantially reduced. The estimated expenditures over an 18 month period under the two injection scenarios ranged from $0.9 million to $2.0 million. The Company does not expect to capitalize any amounts related to these remediation options.

The Company has determined that it will initially proceed with the method of injecting chemicals around the perimeter of the site to prevent the migration of the hazardous chemicals off-site. As of September 30, 2017, approximately $1.0 million remains accrued for this remediation in other long-term liabilities on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. This estimate was based on the information provided to date and as the remediation efforts proceed, additional information may impact the final cost. As of September 30, 2017, agreement with Alabama’s voluntary cleanup program on viable treatment of the property has not yet been reached and the Company continues to evaluate potential remediation alternatives that could impact the ultimate cost of remediation.