Environmental matters and other commitments and contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Environmental matters and other commitments and contingencies	Note 5 – Environmental matters and other commitments and contingencies: We have been named as a defendant for certain environmental sites pursuant to governmental laws and private actions, including facilities currently or previously owned, operated or used by us. These proceedings seek cleanup costs, damages for personal injury or property damage and/or damages for injury to natural resources. Additionally, KSW’s facilities are subject to regulatory oversight and enforcement activities. These activities may identify compliance violations which may result in penalties. Certain of these proceedings involve claims for substantial amounts. On a quarterly basis, we evaluate the potential range of our liability at sites where we have been named a defendant by analyzing and estimating the range of reasonably possible costs to us. At March 31, 2013, we have recorded an accrual of $.3 million related to probable and reasonably estimable environmental remediation costs. The upper end of the range of reasonably possible costs to us for sites where we have been named a defendant, exclusive of our accrual, is approximately $1.7 million. Our cost estimates have not been discounted to present value due to the uncertainty of the timing of the pay out. At each balance sheet date, we make an estimate of the amount of our accrued environmental costs that will be paid out over the subsequent twelve months, and we classify such amount as a current liability. We classify the remainder of the accrued environmental costs as noncurrent liabilities. See Note 6. It is possible our actual costs could differ materially from the amounts we have accrued or the upper end of the estimated range for the sites where we have been named a defendant. Our ultimate liability may be affected by a number of factors, including the imposition of more stringent standards or requirements under environmental laws or regulations, new developments or changes in remedial alternatives and costs or a determination that we are potentially responsible for the release of hazardous substances at other sites. Although we believe our comprehensive general liability insurance policies provide indemnification for certain costs that we incur with respect to our environmental remediation obligations, we do not currently have receivables recorded for any such recoveries. Prior to one of our subsidiaries’ 1996 acquisition of DeSoto, Inc. (“DeSoto”), DeSoto was notified by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (now called the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality or “TCEQ”) that there were certain deficiencies in prior reports to the TCEQ relative to one of DeSoto’s non-operating facilities located in Gainesville, Texas. During 1999, that subsidiary entered into the TCEQ’s Voluntary Cleanup Program as it relates to that facility. We are currently pursuing a Municipal Setting Designation (“MSD”) for this site which would eliminate the need for long-term groundwater remediation and monitoring. We estimate the cost of future remediation under an MSD at approximately $27,000. If we are not successful in obtaining an MSD, remediation activities at this site would likely continue for another two to three years and could cost as much as $1.7 million. In February 2009, we received a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “U.S. EPA”) regarding alleged air permit issues at KSW. The U.S. EPA alleges KSW (i) is exceeding its sulfur dioxide emission limits set forth in its permits, (ii) failed to apply for a permit that would be issued under the U.S. Clean Air Act and the Illinois Environmental Protection Act in connection with the installation of certain equipment in its melt shop, and (iii) failed to monitor pH readings of an air scrubber in the wire galvanizing area of the plant. We disagree with the U.S. EPA’s assertions and we were in discussions with the U.S. EPA throughout 2009. On December 31, 2009, we were notified the case had been referred to the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) for review and follow-up. During the first quarter of 2010, we submitted letters to the DOJ regarding our perspective on the matter. During the second quarter of 2010, the U.S. EPA requested additional information regarding the alleged permit issues and we submitted such information in May 2010. In July 2011, we received a Notice and Finding of Violation (“NOV/FOV”) from the U.S. EPA alleging KSW failed to properly control air emissions and install a baghouse in accordance with terms and conditions of its Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) construction permit issued on June 1, 2000. While we continue to dispute certain of the U.S. EPA’s underlying assertions about the alleged violations contained in the February 2009 NOV and the July 2011 NOV/FOV, we have already undertaken corrective actions to address others and have worked diligently to reach resolution of the matters. KSW met with EPA Region V and the DOJ during August 2011 and February 2012 to discuss both the February 2009 NOV and the July 2011 NOV/FOV. In April 2012, the DOJ informed us that while a formal complaint has been internally approved, it will not be filed if an acceptable settlement can be reached. To date, no formal complaint from the DOJ has been issued. In May 2012, we volunteered to undertake a model ventilation study and install a continuous emissions monitoring system (“CEMS”). In October 2012, KSW and the DOJ entered into a tolling agreement pursuant to which, as amended, the DOJ has agreed to stay any action on these matters until October 2013. In December 2012, KSW met with the EPA and DOJ to discuss the results of the model ventilation study and status of the CEMS and all parties agreed we should conduct two heat release projects as a result of the model ventilation study and proceed with the CEMS plan. KSW is keeping the EPA and DOJ updated on the status of the CEMS and the heat release projects, which are ongoing. KSW has not yet agreed to any additional response actions in connection with the February 2009 NOV or the July 2011 NOV. Therefore, we cannot estimate any potential costs to us to resolve these matters and we can make no assurance our efforts will be successful or that we can avoid any enforcement action or resulting fines from these alleged violations. In April 2013, we received notice from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources requiring the initiation of a site investigation for the potential release of volatile organic compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at our property in Wisconsin. We are in the process of retaining environmental consultants to begin the site investigation. The investigation is in the early stages, and we are unable to determine the extent of contamination, if any, at the site and therefore are not able to estimate any potential cost to us for this matter. Current litigation From time-to-time, we are involved in various environmental, contractual, product liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment and other claims and disputes incidental to our operations. In certain cases, we have insurance coverage for these items. We currently believe the disposition of all claims and disputes, individually or in the aggregate, should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity beyond the accruals we have already provided.

Note 5 – Environmental matters and other commitments and contingencies:

We have been named as a defendant for certain environmental sites pursuant to governmental laws and private actions, including facilities currently or previously owned, operated or used by us. These proceedings seek cleanup costs, damages for personal injury or property damage and/or damages for injury to natural resources. Additionally, KSW’s facilities are subject to regulatory oversight and enforcement activities. These activities may identify compliance violations which may result in penalties. Certain of these proceedings involve claims for substantial amounts.

On a quarterly basis, we evaluate the potential range of our liability at sites where we have been named a defendant by analyzing and estimating the range of reasonably possible costs to us. At March 31, 2013, we have recorded an accrual of $.3 million related to probable and reasonably estimable environmental remediation costs. The upper end of the range of reasonably possible costs to us for sites where we have been named a defendant, exclusive of our accrual, is approximately $1.7 million. Our cost estimates have not been discounted to present value due to the uncertainty of the timing of the pay out. At each balance sheet date, we make an estimate of the amount of our accrued environmental costs that will be paid out over the subsequent twelve months, and we classify such amount as a current liability. We classify the remainder of the accrued environmental costs as noncurrent liabilities. See Note 6.

It is possible our actual costs could differ materially from the amounts we have accrued or the upper end of the estimated range for the sites where we have been named a defendant. Our ultimate liability may be affected by a number of factors, including the imposition of more stringent standards or requirements under environmental laws or regulations, new developments or changes in remedial alternatives and costs or a determination that we are potentially responsible for the release of hazardous substances at other sites. Although we believe our comprehensive general liability insurance policies provide indemnification for certain costs that we incur with respect to our environmental remediation obligations, we do not currently have receivables recorded for any such recoveries.

Prior to one of our subsidiaries’ 1996 acquisition of DeSoto, Inc. (“DeSoto”), DeSoto was notified by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (now called the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality or “TCEQ”) that there were certain deficiencies in prior reports to the TCEQ relative to one of DeSoto’s non-operating facilities located in Gainesville, Texas. During 1999, that subsidiary entered into the TCEQ’s Voluntary Cleanup Program as it relates to that facility. We are currently pursuing a Municipal Setting Designation (“MSD”) for this site which would eliminate the need for long-term groundwater remediation and monitoring. We estimate the cost of future remediation under an MSD at approximately $27,000. If we are not successful in obtaining an MSD, remediation activities at this site would likely continue for another two to three years and could cost as much as $1.7 million.

In February 2009, we received a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “U.S. EPA”) regarding alleged air permit issues at KSW. The U.S. EPA alleges KSW (i) is exceeding its sulfur dioxide emission limits set forth in its permits, (ii) failed to apply for a permit that would be issued under the U.S. Clean Air Act and the Illinois Environmental Protection Act in connection with the installation of certain equipment in its melt shop, and (iii) failed to monitor pH readings of an air scrubber in the wire galvanizing area of the plant. We disagree with the U.S. EPA’s assertions and we were in discussions with the U.S. EPA throughout 2009. On December 31, 2009, we were notified the case had been referred to the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) for review and follow-up. During the first quarter of 2010, we submitted letters to the DOJ regarding our perspective on the matter. During the second quarter of 2010, the U.S. EPA requested additional information regarding the alleged permit issues and we submitted such information in May 2010.

In July 2011, we received a Notice and Finding of Violation (“NOV/FOV”) from the U.S. EPA alleging KSW failed to properly control air emissions and install a baghouse in accordance with terms and conditions of its Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) construction permit issued on June 1, 2000.

While we continue to dispute certain of the U.S. EPA’s underlying assertions about the alleged violations contained in the February 2009 NOV and the July 2011 NOV/FOV, we have already undertaken corrective actions to address others and have worked diligently to reach resolution of the matters. KSW met with EPA Region V and the DOJ during August 2011 and February 2012 to discuss both the February 2009 NOV and the July 2011 NOV/FOV. In April 2012, the DOJ informed us that while a formal complaint has been internally approved, it will not be filed if an acceptable settlement can be reached. To date, no formal complaint from the DOJ has been issued. In May 2012, we volunteered to undertake a model ventilation study and install a continuous emissions monitoring system (“CEMS”). In October 2012, KSW and the DOJ entered into a tolling agreement pursuant to which, as amended, the DOJ has agreed to stay any action on these matters until October 2013. In December 2012, KSW met with the EPA and DOJ to discuss the results of the model ventilation study and status of the CEMS and all parties agreed we should conduct two heat release projects as a result of the model ventilation study and proceed with the CEMS plan. KSW is keeping the EPA and DOJ updated on the status of the CEMS and the heat release projects, which are ongoing.

KSW has not yet agreed to any additional response actions in connection with the February 2009 NOV or the July 2011 NOV. Therefore, we cannot estimate any potential costs to us to resolve these matters and we can make no assurance our efforts will be successful or that we can avoid any enforcement action or resulting fines from these alleged violations.

In April 2013, we received notice from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources requiring the initiation of a site investigation for the potential release of volatile organic compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at our property in Wisconsin. We are in the process of retaining environmental consultants to begin the site investigation. The investigation is in the early stages, and we are unable to determine the extent of contamination, if any, at the site and therefore are not able to estimate any potential cost to us for this matter.

Current litigation

From time-to-time, we are involved in various environmental, contractual, product liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment and other claims and disputes incidental to our operations. In certain cases, we have insurance coverage for these items. We currently believe the disposition of all claims and disputes, individually or in the aggregate, should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity beyond the accruals we have already provided.