2.2.0.25falsefalse006210 - Disclosure - CONTINGENCIEStruefalsefalse1falsefalseUSDfalsefalse1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010
USD ($)
USD ($) / shares
$c00032http://www.sec.gov/CIK0000072020duration2010-01-01T00:00:002010-12-31T00:00:00u000Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170u001Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0u002Dividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDUSD$2true0gas_NotesToFinancialStatementsAbstractgasfalsenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherxbrli:stringItemTypestringNo definition available.falsefalse3false0gas_ContingenciesTextBlockgasfalsenadurationLoss contingency disclosures excluding environmental contingencies, warranties and unconditional purchase obligations (all of...falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseterselabel1falsefalsefalse00<div style="LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><table style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" align="center" border="0"><tr style="LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5" valign="top"><td style="WIDTH: 23px; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">20.</font></div></td><td style="LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5" width="958"><div style="LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">CONTINGENCIES</font></div></td></tr></table></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">The following contingencies of Nicor are in various stages of investigation or disposition.  Although in some cases the company is unable to estimate the amount of loss reasonably possible in addition to any amounts already recognized, it is possible that the resolution of these contingencies, either individually or in aggregate, will require the company to take charges against, or will result in reductions in, future earnings.  It is the opinion of management that the resolution of these contingencies, either individually or in aggregate, could be material to earnings in a particular period but is not expected to have a material adverse impact on Nicor’s liquidity or financial condition.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold">PBR Plan.  </font>Nicor Gas’ PBR plan for natural gas costs went into effect in 2000 and was terminated by the company effective January 1, 2003.  Under the PBR plan, Nicor Gas’ total gas supply costs were compared to a market-sensitive benchmark.  Savings and losses relative to the benchmark were determined annually and shared equally with sales customers.  The PBR plan is currently under ICC review.  There are allegations that the company acted improperly in connection with the PBR plan, and the ICC and others are reviewing these allegations.  On June 27, 2002, the Citizens Utility Board (“CUB”) filed a motion to reopen the record in the ICC’s proceedings to review the PBR plan (the “ICC Proceedings”).  As a result of the motion to reopen, Nicor Gas, the staff of the ICC and CUB entered into a stipulation providing for additional discovery.  The Illinois Attorney General’s Office (“IAGO”) has also intervened in this matter.  In addition, the IAGO issued Civil Investigation Demands (“CIDs”) to CUB and the ICC staff.  The CIDs ordered that CUB and the ICC staff produce all documents relating to any claims that Nicor Gas may have presented, or caused to be presented, false information related to its PBR plan.  The company has committed to cooperate fully in the reviews of the PBR plan.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In response to these allegations, on July 18, 2002, the Nicor Board of Directors appointed a special committee of independent, non-management directors to conduct an inquiry into issues surrounding natural gas purchases, sales, transportation, storage and such other matters as may come to the attention of the special committee in the course of its investigation.  The special committee presented the report of its counsel (“Report”) to Nicor’s Board of Directors on October 28, 2002.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In response, the Nicor Board of Directors directed the company’s management to, among other things, make appropriate adjustments to account for, and fully address, the adverse consequences to ratepayers of the items noted in the Report, and conduct a detailed study of the adequacy of internal accounting and regulatory controls.  The adjustments were made in prior years’ financial statements resulting in a $24.8 million liability.  Included in such $24.8 million liability is a $4.1 million loss contingency.  A $1.8 </font><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">million adjustment to the previously recorded liability, which is discussed below, was made in 2004 increasing the recorded liability to $26.6 million.  Nicor Gas estimates that there is $26.9 million due to the company from the 2002 PBR plan year, which has not been recognized in the financial statements due to uncertainties surrounding the PBR plan.  In addition, interest due to the company on certain components of these amounts has not been recognized in the financial statements due to the same uncertainties.  By the end of 2003, the company completed steps to correct the weaknesses and deficiencies identified in the detailed study of the adequacy of internal controls.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Pursuant to the agreement of all parties, including the company, the ICC re-opened the 1999 and 2000 purchased gas adjustment filings for review of certain transactions related to the PBR plan and consolidated the reviews of the 1999-2002 purchased gas adjustment filings with the PBR plan review.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">On February 5, 2003, CUB filed a motion for $27 million in sanctions against the company in the ICC Proceedings.  In that motion, CUB alleged that Nicor Gas’ responses to certain CUB data requests were false.  Also on February 5, 2003, CUB stated in a press release that, in addition to $27 million in sanctions, it would seek additional refunds to consumers.  On March 5, 2003, the ICC staff filed a response brief in support of CUB’s motion for sanctions.  On May 1, 2003, the ALJs assigned to the proceeding issued a ruling denying CUB’s motion for sanctions.  CUB has filed an appeal of the motion for sanctions with the ICC, and the ICC has indicated that it will not rule on the appeal until the final disposition of the ICC Proceedings.  It is not possible to determine how the ICC will resolve the claims of CUB or other parties to the ICC Proceedings.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In 2004, the company became aware of additional information relating to the activities of individuals affecting the PBR plan for the period from 1999 through 2002, including information consisting of third party documents and recordings of telephone conversations from Entergy-Koch Trading, LP (“EKT”), a natural gas, storage and transportation trader and consultant with whom Nicor did business under the PBR plan.  Review of additional information completed in 2004 resulted in the $1.8 million adjustment to the previously recorded liability referenced above.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">The evidentiary hearings on this matter were stayed in 2004 in order to permit the parties to undertake additional third party discovery from EKT.  In December 2006, the additional third party discovery from EKT was obtained and the ALJs issued a scheduling order that provided for Nicor Gas to submit direct testimony by April 13, 2007.  In its direct testimony, Nicor Gas seeks a reimbursement of approximately $6 million, which includes interest due to the company, as noted above, of $1.6 million, as of March 31, 2007.  In September 2009, the staff of the ICC, IAGO and CUB submitted direct testimony to the ICC requesting refunds of $109 million, $255 million and $286 million, respectively.  No date has been set for evidentiary hearings on this matter.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Nicor is unable to predict the outcome of the ICC’s review or the company’s potential exposure thereunder.  Because the PBR plan and historical gas costs are still under ICC review, the final outcome could be materially different than the amounts reflected in the company’s financial statements as of December 31, 2010.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Litigation relating to proposed merger</font>.  Nicor, its board of directors, AGL Resources and one or both of AGL Resources’ acquisition subsidiaries and, in one instance, Nicor’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer have been named as defendants in five putative class action lawsuits brought by purported Nicor shareholders challenging Nicor’s proposed merger with AGL Resources. The first shareholder action was filed on December 7, 2010 in the Eighteenth Circuit Court of DuPage County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division (<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Joseph Pirolli v. Nicor Inc., et al.</font>).  The other four actions were filed between December 10, 2010 and December 17, 2010 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division (<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Maxine Phillips v. Nicor Inc., et al.</font>, filed December 10, 2010; <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Plumbers Local #65 Pension Fund v. Nicor Inc., et al.</font>, filed December 13, 2010; <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Gus Monahu v. Nicor Inc., et al.</font>, filed December 17, 2010; and <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Roberto R. Vela v. Russ M. Strobel, et al.</font>, filed December 17, 2010).</font></div><br /><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">The shareholder actions variously allege, among other things, that the Nicor Board breached its fiduciary duties to Nicor and its shareholders by (i) approving the sale of Nicor to AGL Resources at an inadequate purchase price (and thus failing to maximize value to Nicor shareholders); (ii) conducting an inadequate sale process by agreeing to preclusive deal protection provisions in the Merger Agreement; and (iii) failing to disclose material information regarding the proposed merger to Nicor shareholders.  The complaints also allege that AGL Resources, Nicor and the acquisition subsidiaries aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The shareholder actions seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief, including orders enjoining the defendants from consummating the proposed merger and, in certain instances, damages.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">On January 10, 2011, the four actions filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division were consolidated.  Nicor believes the claims asserted in each lawsuit to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.  The final disposition of these shareholder litigation-related matters is not expected to have a material adverse impact on the company’s liquidity or financial condition.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Mercury.</font>  Nicor Gas has incurred, and expects to continue to incur, costs related to its historical use of mercury in various kinds of company equipment.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">As of December 31, 2010, Nicor Gas had remaining an estimated liability of $0.6 million related to inspection, cleanup and legal defense costs.  This represents management’s best estimate of future costs based on an evaluation of currently available information.  Actual costs may vary from this estimate.  Nicor Gas remains a defendant in several private lawsuits that were filed on August 29, 2000, all in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, seeking a variety of unquantified damages (including bodily injury and property damages) allegedly caused by mercury spillage resulting from the removal of mercury-containing regulators.  Potential liabilities relating to these claims have been assumed by a contractor’s insurer subject to certain limitations.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">The final disposition of these mercury-related matters is not expected to have a material adverse impact on the company’s liquidity or financial condition.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Manufactured Gas Plant Sites.</font>  Manufactured gas plants were used in the 1800s and early to mid 1900s to produce manufactured gas from coal, creating a coal tar byproduct.  Current environmental laws may require the cleanup of coal tar at certain former manufactured gas plant sites.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Nicor Gas has identified properties for which it may have some responsibility.  Most of these properties are not presently owned by the company.  Nicor Gas and Commonwealth Edison Company (“ComEd”) are parties to an agreement to cooperate in cleaning up residue at many of these properties.  The agreement allocates to Nicor Gas 51.73 percent of cleanup costs for 24 sites, no portion of the cleanup costs for 14 other sites and 50 percent of general remediation program costs that do not relate exclusively to particular sites.  Information regarding preliminary site reviews has been presented to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for certain properties.  More detailed investigations and remedial activities are complete, in progress or planned at many of these sites.  The results of the detailed site-by-site investigations will determine the extent additional remediation is necessary and provide a basis for estimating additional future costs.  As of December 31, 2010, the company had recorded a liability in connection with these matters of $28.7 million.  In accordance with ICC authorization, the company has been recovering, and expects to continue to recover, these costs from its customers, subject to annual prudence reviews.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In April 2002, Nicor Gas was named as a defendant, together with ComEd, in a lawsuit brought by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (the “MWRDGC”) under the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act seeking recovery of past and future remediation costs and a declaration of the level of appropriate cleanup for a former manufactured gas plant site in Skokie, Illinois now owned by the MWRDGC.  In January 2003, the suit was amended to </font><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">include a claim under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.  The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  Management cannot predict the outcome of this litigation or the company’s potential exposure thereto, if any, and has not recorded a liability associated with this contingency.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Since costs and recoveries relating to the cleanup of manufactured gas plant sites are passed directly through to customers in accordance with ICC regulations, subject to an annual ICC prudence review, the final disposition of manufactured gas plant matters is not expected to have a material impact on the company’s financial condition or results of operations.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"></font> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Municipal Tax Matters.</font>  Many municipalities in Nicor Gas’ service territory have enacted ordinances that impose taxes on gas sales to customers within municipal boundaries.  Most of these municipal taxes are imposed on Nicor Gas based on revenues generated by Nicor Gas within the municipality.  Other municipal taxes are imposed on natural gas consumers within the municipality but are collected from consumers and remitted to the municipality by Nicor Gas.  A number of municipalities have instituted audits of Nicor Gas’ tax remittances.  In May 2007, five of those municipalities filed an action against Nicor Gas in state court in DuPage County, Illinois relating to these tax audits.  Following a dismissal of this action without prejudice by the trial court, the municipalities filed an amended complaint.  The amended complaint seeks, among other things, compensation for alleged unpaid taxes.  Nicor Gas is contesting the claims in the amended complaint.  In December 2007, 25 additional municipalities, all represented by the same audit firm involved in the lawsuit, issued assessments to Nicor Gas claiming that it failed to provide information requested by the audit firm and owed the municipalities back taxes.  Nicor Gas believes the assessments are improper and has challenged them.  While the company is unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to reasonably estimate its potential exposure related thereto, if any, and has not recorded a liability associated with this contingency, the final disposition of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse impact on the company’s liquidity or financial condition.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Other.  </font>In addition to the matters set forth above, the company is involved in legal or administrative proceedings before various courts and agencies with respect to general claims, taxes, environmental, gas cost prudence reviews and other matters.  Although unable to determine the ultimate outcome of these other contingencies, management believes that these amounts are appropriately reflected in the financial statements, including the recording of appropriate liabilities when reasonably estimable.</font></div>20.CONTINGENCIESThe following contingencies of Nicor are in various stages of investigation or disposition.  Although in some cases the company isfalsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherus-types:textBlockItemTypestringLoss contingency disclosures excluding environmental contingencies, warranties and unconditional purchase obligations (all of which have their own elements in this taxonomy), describes any existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as of the balance sheet date (or prior to issuance of the financial statements) as to a probable or reasonably possible loss incurred by an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur, and typically discloses the amount of loss recorded or a range of possible loss, or an assertion that no reasonable estimate can be made combined with environmental loss contingency disclosures of 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. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire inventory disclosure including data and tables.No authoritative reference available.falsefalse12CONTINGENCIESUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue