Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies	13. Commitments and Contingencies The Company is subject to environmental laws and regulations that can impose civil and criminal sanctions and that may require it to mitigate the effects of contamination caused by the release or disposal of hazardous substances into the environment. Under one law, an owner or operator of property may be held strictly liable for remediating contamination without regard to whether that person caused the contamination, and without regard to whether the practices that resulted in the contamination were legal at the time they occurred. Because several of the Company’s production sites have a history of industrial use, it is impossible to predict precisely what effect these legal requirements will have on the Company. Contract Disputes with Goodrich and PolyOne. In connection with the 1990 and 1997 acquisitions of the Goodrich Corporation (“Goodrich”) chemical manufacturing complex in Calvert City, Kentucky, Goodrich agreed to indemnify the Company for any liabilities related to preexisting contamination at the complex. For its part, the Company agreed to indemnify Goodrich for post-closing contamination caused by the Company’s operations. The soil and groundwater at the complex, which does not include the Company’s nearby PVC facility, had been extensively contaminated under Goodrich’s operations. In 1993, Goodrich spun off the predecessor of PolyOne Corporation (“PolyOne”), and that predecessor assumed Goodrich’s indemnification obligations relating to preexisting contamination. In 2003, litigation arose among the Company, Goodrich and PolyOne with respect to the allocation of the cost of remediating contamination at the site. The parties settled this litigation in December 2007 and the case was dismissed. In the settlement the parties agreed that, among other things: (1) PolyOne would pay 100% of the costs (with specified exceptions), net of recoveries or credits from third parties, incurred with respect to environmental issues at the Calvert City site from August 1, 2007 forward; (2) either the Company or PolyOne might, from time to time in the future (but not more than once every five years), institute an arbitration proceeding to adjust that percentage; and (3) the Company and PolyOne would negotiate a new environmental remediation utilities and services agreement to cover the Company’s provision to or on behalf of PolyOne of certain environmental remediation services at the site. The current environmental remediation activities at the Calvert City complex do not have a specified termination date but are expected to last for the foreseeable future. The costs incurred by PolyOne to provide the environmental remediation services were $3,287 in 2011. On March 17, 2010, the Company received notice of PolyOne’s intention to commence an arbitration proceeding under the settlement agreement. In this proceeding, PolyOne seeks to readjust the percentage allocation of costs and to recover approximately $1,400 from the Company in reimbursement of previously paid remediation costs. The arbitration is currently stayed. Administrative Proceedings. There are several administrative proceedings in Kentucky involving the Company, Goodrich and PolyOne related to the same manufacturing complex in Calvert City. In 2003, the Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet (the “Cabinet”) re-issued Goodrich’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) permit which requires Goodrich to remediate contamination at the Calvert City manufacturing complex. Both Goodrich and PolyOne challenged various terms of the permit in an attempt to shift Goodrich’s clean-up obligations under the permit to the Company. The Company intervened in the proceedings. The Cabinet has suspended all corrective action under the RCRA permit in deference to a remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RIFS”) being conducted pursuant to an Administrative Settlement Agreement (“AOC”), which became effective on December 9, 2009. See “Change in Regulatory Regime” below. The proceedings have been postponed. Periodic status conferences will be held to evaluate whether additional proceedings will be required. On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings, which was denied on December 29, 2011. Change in Regulatory Regime. In May 2009, the Cabinet sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) requesting the EPA’s assistance in addressing contamination at the Calvert City site under the U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). In its response to the Cabinet also in May 2009, the EPA stated that it concurred with the Cabinet’s request and would incorporate work previously conducted under the Cabinet’s RCRA authority into the EPA’s cleanup efforts under CERCLA. Since 1983, the EPA has been addressing contamination at an abandoned landfill adjacent to the Company’s plant which had been operated by Goodrich and which was being remediated pursuant to CERCLA. During the past two years, the EPA has directed Goodrich and PolyOne to conduct additional investigation activities at the landfill and at the Company’s plant. In June 2009, the EPA notified the Company that the Company may have potential liability under section 107(a) of CERCLA at its plant site. Liability under section 107(a) of CERCLA is strict and joint and several. The EPA also identified Goodrich and PolyOne, among others, as potentially responsible parties at the plant site. The Company negotiated, in conjunction with the other potentially responsible parties, the AOC and an order to conduct the RIFS. The parties submitted and received EPA approval for a RIFS work plan to implement the AOC. The parties are currently conducting the RIFS. Monetary Relief. Except as noted above with respect to the settlement of the contract litigation among the Company, Goodrich and PolyOne, none of the court, the Cabinet nor the EPA has established any allocation of the costs of remediation among the various parties that are involved in the judicial and administrative proceedings discussed above. At this time, the Company is not able to estimate the loss or reasonable possible loss, if any, on the Company’s financial statements that could result from the resolution of these proceedings. Any cash expenditures that the Company might incur in the future with respect to the remediation of contamination at the complex would likely be spread out over an extended period. As a result, the Company believes it is unlikely that any remediation costs allocable to it will be material in terms of expenditures made in any individual reporting period. EPA Audit of Ethylene Units in Lake Charles. During 2007, the EPA conducted an audit of the Company’s ethylene units in Lake Charles, Louisiana, with a focus on leak detection and repair, or LDAR. As a result of the audit, the EPA brought allegations that the Company had violated certain environmental laws and regulations pertaining to LDAR. The Company has agreed to settle this matter by paying a cash penalty of $500 and has recorded an accrual in such amount. In addition to the matters described above, the Company is involved in various routine legal proceedings incidental to the conduct of its business. The Company does not believe that any of these routine legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

13. Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is subject to environmental laws and regulations that can impose civil and criminal sanctions and that may require it to mitigate the effects of contamination caused by the release or disposal of hazardous substances into the environment. Under one law, an owner or operator of property may be held strictly liable for remediating contamination without regard to whether that person caused the contamination, and without regard to whether the practices that resulted in the contamination were legal at the time they occurred. Because several of the Company’s production sites have a history of industrial use, it is impossible to predict precisely what effect these legal requirements will have on the Company.

Contract Disputes with Goodrich and PolyOne. In connection with the 1990 and 1997 acquisitions of the Goodrich Corporation (“Goodrich”) chemical manufacturing complex in Calvert City, Kentucky, Goodrich agreed to indemnify the Company for any liabilities related to preexisting contamination at the complex. For its part, the Company agreed to indemnify Goodrich for post-closing contamination caused by the Company’s operations. The soil and groundwater at the complex, which does not include the Company’s nearby PVC facility, had been extensively contaminated under Goodrich’s operations. In 1993, Goodrich spun off the predecessor of PolyOne Corporation (“PolyOne”), and that predecessor assumed Goodrich’s indemnification obligations relating to preexisting contamination.

In 2003, litigation arose among the Company, Goodrich and PolyOne with respect to the allocation of the cost of remediating contamination at the site. The parties settled this litigation in December 2007 and the case was dismissed. In the settlement the parties agreed that, among other things: (1) PolyOne would pay 100% of the costs (with specified exceptions), net of recoveries or credits from third parties, incurred with respect to environmental issues at the Calvert City site from August 1, 2007 forward; (2) either the Company or PolyOne might, from time to time in the future (but not more than once every five years), institute an arbitration proceeding to adjust that percentage; and (3) the Company and PolyOne would negotiate a new environmental remediation utilities and services agreement to cover the Company’s provision to or on behalf of PolyOne of certain environmental remediation services at the site. The current environmental remediation activities at the Calvert City complex do not have a specified termination date but are expected to last for the foreseeable future. The costs incurred by PolyOne to provide the environmental remediation services were $3,287 in 2011. On March 17, 2010, the Company received notice of PolyOne’s intention to commence an arbitration proceeding under the settlement agreement. In this proceeding, PolyOne seeks to readjust the percentage allocation of costs and to recover approximately $1,400 from the Company in reimbursement of previously paid remediation costs. The arbitration is currently stayed.

Administrative Proceedings. There are several administrative proceedings in Kentucky involving the Company, Goodrich and PolyOne related to the same manufacturing complex in Calvert City. In 2003, the Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet (the “Cabinet”) re-issued Goodrich’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) permit which requires Goodrich to remediate contamination at the Calvert City manufacturing complex. Both Goodrich and PolyOne challenged various terms of the permit in an attempt to shift Goodrich’s clean-up obligations under the permit to the Company. The Company intervened in the proceedings. The Cabinet has suspended all corrective action under the RCRA permit in deference to a remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RIFS”) being conducted pursuant to an Administrative Settlement Agreement (“AOC”), which became effective on December 9, 2009. See “Change in Regulatory Regime” below. The proceedings have been postponed. Periodic status conferences will be held to evaluate whether additional proceedings will be required. On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings, which was denied on December 29, 2011.

Change in Regulatory Regime. In May 2009, the Cabinet sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) requesting the EPA’s assistance in addressing contamination at the Calvert City site under the U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). In its response to the Cabinet also in May 2009, the EPA stated that it concurred with the Cabinet’s request and would incorporate work previously conducted under the Cabinet’s RCRA authority into the EPA’s cleanup efforts under CERCLA. Since 1983, the EPA has been addressing contamination at an abandoned landfill adjacent to the Company’s plant which had been operated by Goodrich and which was being remediated pursuant to CERCLA. During the past two years, the EPA has directed Goodrich and PolyOne to conduct additional investigation activities at the landfill and at the Company’s plant. In June 2009, the EPA notified the Company that the Company may have potential liability under section 107(a) of CERCLA at its plant site. Liability under section 107(a) of CERCLA is strict and joint and several. The EPA also identified Goodrich and PolyOne, among others, as potentially responsible parties at the plant site. The Company negotiated, in conjunction with the other potentially responsible parties, the AOC and an order to conduct the RIFS. The parties submitted and received EPA approval for a RIFS work plan to implement the AOC. The parties are currently conducting the RIFS.

Monetary Relief. Except as noted above with respect to the settlement of the contract litigation among the Company, Goodrich and PolyOne, none of the court, the Cabinet nor the EPA has established any allocation of the costs of remediation among the various parties that are involved in the judicial and administrative proceedings discussed above. At this time, the Company is not able to estimate the loss or reasonable possible loss, if any, on the Company’s financial statements that could result from the resolution of these proceedings. Any cash expenditures that the Company might incur in the future with respect to the remediation of contamination at the complex would likely be spread out over an extended period. As a result, the Company believes it is unlikely that any remediation costs allocable to it will be material in terms of expenditures made in any individual reporting period.

EPA Audit of Ethylene Units in Lake Charles. During 2007, the EPA conducted an audit of the Company’s ethylene units in Lake Charles, Louisiana, with a focus on leak detection and repair, or LDAR. As a result of the audit, the EPA brought allegations that the Company had violated certain environmental laws and regulations pertaining to LDAR. The Company has agreed to settle this matter by paying a cash penalty of $500 and has recorded an accrual in such amount.

In addition to the matters described above, the Company is involved in various routine legal proceedings incidental to the conduct of its business. The Company does not believe that any of these routine legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.