Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies The Company is involved in a number of legal and regulatory matters, principally environmental in nature, that are incidental to the normal conduct of its business, including lawsuits, investigations and claims. The outcomes of these matters are inherently unpredictable. The Company believes that, in the aggregate, the outcome of all known legal and regulatory matters will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements; however, specific outcomes with respect to such matters may be material to the Company's consolidated statements of operations in any particular period in which costs, if any, are recognized. The Company's assessment of the potential impact of environmental matters, in particular, is subject to uncertainty due to the complex, ongoing and evolving process of investigation and remediation of such environmental matters, and the potential for technological and regulatory developments. In addition, the impact of evolving claims and programs, such as natural resource damage claims, industrial site reuse initiatives and state remediation programs creates further uncertainty of the ultimate resolution of these matters. The Company anticipates that the resolution of many legal and regulatory matters, and in particular environmental matters, will occur over an extended period of time. Environmental. As of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the Company had reserves for environmental contingencies totaling approximately $57 and $49, respectively, most of which were classified as noncurrent liabilities. The Company's assessment of the potential impact of these environmental contingencies is subject to considerable uncertainty due to the complex, ongoing and evolving process of investigation and remediation, if necessary, of such environmental contingencies, and the potential for technological and regulatory developments. Calvert City Proceedings. For several years, the Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") has been conducting remedial investigation and feasibility studies at the Company's Calvert City, Kentucky facility pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"). As the current owner of the Calvert City facility, the Company was named by the EPA as a potentially responsible party ("PRP") along with Goodrich Corporation ("Goodrich") and its successor-in-interest, PolyOne Corporation ("PolyOne"). On November 30, 2017, the EPA published a draft Proposed Plan, incorporating by reference an August 2015 draft Remedial Investigation ("RI") report, an October 2017 draft Feasibility Study ("FS") report and a new Technical Impracticability Waiver document dated December 19, 2017. The draft Proposed Plan described a preferred remedy that included a containment wall with targeted treatment and supplemental hydraulic containment, as well as active treatment of historical groundwater contamination under the Tennessee River. The EPA estimated that the total remedy would cost $200 to $250 with an estimated $1 to $3 in annual operation and maintenance ("O&M") costs. Each PRP, including the Company, submitted comments to the Proposed Plan and associated documents. The Company's comments also proposed alternative removal options for the groundwater contamination under the Tennessee River. On June 18, 2018, the EPA published an amendment to its Proposed Plan. The amended Proposed Plan addresses the comments filed on the river excavation remedy outlined in the original Proposed Plan. Under the amended Proposed Plan, the EPA proposes an interim approach to address the contamination under the river that would include recovery of any mobile contaminants by an extraction well along with further study of the extent of the contamination and potential treatment options. The EPA's revised estimated cost of implementation is $107, with the estimated annual O&M costs remaining unchanged. In September 2018, the EPA published the EPA's section of the final containment remedy for the on shore portion of the site and the interim remedy for the contamination under the river, as outlined in the amended Proposed Plan. The Company's allocation of liability for remedial or O&M costs, if any, will be determined by the outcome of the contractual dispute with Goodrich/PolyOne, which is the subject of a pending arbitration proceeding as described below. In connection with the 1990 and 1997 acquisitions of the Goodrich chemical manufacturing complex in Calvert City, 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 by Goodrich's operations. In 1993, Goodrich spun off the predecessor of 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; and (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. In May 2017, PolyOne filed a demand for arbitration. In this proceeding, PolyOne seeks to readjust the percentage allocation of costs and to recover approximately $17 from the Company in reimbursement of previously paid remediation costs. The Company has filed a cross demand for arbitration seeking unreimbursed remediation costs incurred during the relevant period. On October 6, 2017, PolyOne filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky seeking for the court, instead of the arbitration panel, to resolve claims asserted by the Company in the arbitration proceedings related to reimbursement of costs incurred by the Company at the Calvert City complex. On May 30, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted the Company's motion to dismiss, concluding that all of PolyOne's claims were the proper subject of the current arbitration panel's jurisdiction, and dismissed PolyOne's action before the court. On July 10, 2018, PolyOne filed another action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, seeking for the court to issue an injunction against continued proceedings in the arbitration. On July 30, 2018, the Court denied PolyOne's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The arbitration hearing began in August 2018 and is ongoing. At this time, the Company is not able to estimate the impact, if any, that the arbitration proceeding could have on the Company's consolidated financial statements either in the current period or in later periods. Any cash expenditures that the Company might incur in the future with respect to the remediation of contamination at the Calvert City 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. Environmental Remediation: Reasonably Possible Matters. The Company's assessment of the potential impact of environmental contingencies is subject to considerable uncertainty due to the complex, ongoing and evolving process of investigation and remediation, if necessary, of such environmental contingencies, and the potential for technological and regulatory developments. As such, in addition to the amounts currently reserved, the Company may be subject to reasonably possible loss contingencies related to environmental matters in the range of $55 to $110. Commitments. The Company became a party to a joint venture investment with Lotte Chemical USA Corporation to build an ethylene facility, LACC. The ethylene facility is located adjacent to the Company's vinyls facility in Lake Charles. Pursuant to the contribution and subscription agreement, the Company agreed to make a maximum capital commitment to LACC of up to $225 to fund the construction costs of the ethylene plant, which represents approximately 10% of the interests in LACC. The construction of the ethylene plant commenced in January 2016, with an anticipated start-up in 2019. As of September 30, 2018, the Company had funded approximately $178 of the Company's portion of the construction costs of the ethylene plant.

Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is involved in a number of legal and regulatory matters, principally environmental in nature, that are incidental to the normal conduct of its business, including lawsuits, investigations and claims. The outcomes of these matters are inherently unpredictable. The Company believes that, in the aggregate, the outcome of all known legal and regulatory matters will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements; however, specific outcomes with respect to such matters may be material to the Company's consolidated statements of operations in any particular period in which costs, if any, are recognized. The Company's assessment of the potential impact of environmental matters, in particular, is subject to uncertainty due to the complex, ongoing and evolving process of investigation and remediation of such environmental matters, and the potential for technological and regulatory developments. In addition, the impact of evolving claims and programs, such as natural resource damage claims, industrial site reuse initiatives and state remediation programs creates further uncertainty of the ultimate resolution of these matters. The Company anticipates that the resolution of many legal and regulatory matters, and in particular environmental matters, will occur over an extended period of time.

Environmental. As of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the Company had reserves for environmental contingencies totaling approximately $57 and $49, respectively, most of which were classified as noncurrent liabilities. The Company's assessment of the potential impact of these environmental contingencies is subject to considerable uncertainty due to the complex, ongoing and evolving process of investigation and remediation, if necessary, of such environmental contingencies, and the potential for technological and regulatory developments.

Calvert City Proceedings. For several years, the Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") has been conducting remedial investigation and feasibility studies at the Company's Calvert City, Kentucky facility pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"). As the current owner of the Calvert City facility, the Company was named by the EPA as a potentially responsible party ("PRP") along with Goodrich Corporation ("Goodrich") and its successor-in-interest, PolyOne Corporation ("PolyOne"). On November 30, 2017, the EPA published a draft Proposed Plan, incorporating by reference an August 2015 draft Remedial Investigation ("RI") report, an October 2017 draft Feasibility Study ("FS") report and a new Technical Impracticability Waiver document dated December 19, 2017. The draft Proposed Plan described a preferred remedy that included a containment wall with targeted treatment and supplemental hydraulic containment, as well as active treatment of historical groundwater contamination under the Tennessee River. The EPA estimated that the total remedy would cost $200 to $250 with an estimated $1 to $3 in annual operation and maintenance ("O&M") costs. Each PRP, including the Company, submitted comments to the Proposed Plan and associated documents. The Company's comments also proposed alternative removal options for the groundwater contamination under the Tennessee River. On June 18, 2018, the EPA published an amendment to its Proposed Plan. The amended Proposed Plan addresses the comments filed on the river excavation remedy outlined in the original Proposed Plan. Under the amended Proposed Plan, the EPA proposes an interim approach to address the contamination under the river that would include recovery of any mobile contaminants by an extraction well along with further study of the extent of the contamination and potential treatment options. The EPA's revised estimated cost of implementation is $107, with the estimated annual O&M costs remaining unchanged. In September 2018, the EPA published the EPA's section of the final containment remedy for the on shore portion of the site and the interim remedy for the contamination under the river, as outlined in the amended Proposed Plan. The Company's allocation of liability for remedial or O&M costs, if any, will be determined by the outcome of the contractual dispute with Goodrich/PolyOne, which is the subject of a pending arbitration proceeding as described below.

In connection with the 1990 and 1997 acquisitions of the Goodrich chemical manufacturing complex in Calvert City, 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 by Goodrich's operations. In 1993, Goodrich spun off the predecessor of 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; and (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. In May 2017, PolyOne filed a demand for arbitration. In this proceeding, PolyOne seeks to readjust the percentage allocation of costs and to recover approximately $17 from the Company in reimbursement of previously paid remediation costs. The Company has filed a cross demand for arbitration seeking unreimbursed remediation costs incurred during the relevant period.

On October 6, 2017, PolyOne filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky seeking for the court, instead of the arbitration panel, to resolve claims asserted by the Company in the arbitration proceedings related to reimbursement of costs incurred by the Company at the Calvert City complex. On May 30, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted the Company's motion to dismiss, concluding that all of PolyOne's claims were the proper subject of the current arbitration panel's jurisdiction, and dismissed PolyOne's action before the court. On July 10, 2018, PolyOne filed another action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, seeking for the court to issue an injunction against continued proceedings in the arbitration. On July 30, 2018, the Court denied PolyOne's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The arbitration hearing began in August 2018 and is ongoing.

At this time, the Company is not able to estimate the impact, if any, that the arbitration proceeding could have on the Company's consolidated financial statements either in the current period or in later periods. Any cash expenditures that the Company might incur in the future with respect to the remediation of contamination at the Calvert City 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.

Environmental Remediation: Reasonably Possible Matters. The Company's assessment of the potential impact of environmental contingencies is subject to considerable uncertainty due to the complex, ongoing and evolving process of investigation and remediation, if necessary, of such environmental contingencies, and the potential for technological and regulatory developments. As such, in addition to the amounts currently reserved, the Company may be subject to reasonably possible loss contingencies related to environmental matters in the range of $55 to $110.

Commitments. The Company became a party to a joint venture investment with Lotte Chemical USA Corporation to build an ethylene facility, LACC. The ethylene facility is located adjacent to the Company's vinyls facility in Lake Charles. Pursuant to the contribution and subscription agreement, the Company agreed to make a maximum capital commitment to LACC of up to $225 to fund the construction costs of the ethylene plant, which represents approximately 10% of the interests in LACC. The construction of the ethylene plant commenced in January 2016, with an anticipated start-up in 2019. As of September 30, 2018, the Company had funded approximately $178 of the Company's portion of the construction costs of the ethylene plant.