Commitments and Contingencies (Notes)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and ContingenciesThe 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 outcome 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, under certain circumstances, if required to recognize costs in a specific period, when combined with other factors, outcomes with respect to such matters may be material to the Company's consolidated statements of operations in such period. 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.

Antitrust Proceedings. The Company and other caustic soda producers were named as defendants in multiple purported class action civil lawsuits filed since March 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda, restrict domestic (U.S.) supply of caustic soda and allocate caustic soda customers. The other defendants named in the lawsuits are Olin Corporation, K.A. Steel Chemicals (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Olin), Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation d/b/a OxyChem, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd., Shintech Incorporated, Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. Each of the lawsuits is filed on behalf of the respective named plaintiff or plaintiffs and a putative class comprised of either direct purchasers or indirect purchasers of caustic soda in the U.S. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive relief. Three of the defendants, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd. and Formosa Plastics Corporation, were dismissed on jurisdictional or other grounds. The other six defendants, including the Company, remain in the case. The defendants' joint motion to dismiss the direct purchaser lawsuits was denied and the cases have proceeded to discovery. Beginning in October 2020, similar class action proceedings were also filed in Canada before the Superior Court of Quebec as well as before the Federal Court. These proceedings seek the certification or authorization of a class action on behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased caustic soda (including, in one of the cases, those who merely purchased products containing caustic soda) from October 1, 2015 through the present or such date deemed appropriate by the court. On December 10, 2021, the Superior Court of Quebec stayed its proceedings until after a final certification decision is released in the Federal Court proceedings. At this time, the Company is not able to estimate the impact, if any, that these lawsuits could have on the Company's consolidated financial statements either in the current period or in future periods.

Environmental. As of March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the Company had reserves for environmental contingencies totaling approximately $57 and $56, respectively, most of which was 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, Avient Corporation (formerly known as PolyOne Corporation, "Avient"). 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 Technical Impracticability Waiver document dated December 19, 2017. On June 18, 2018, the EPA published an amendment to its Proposed Plan. The amended Proposed Plan describes a final remedy for the onshore portion of the site comprised of a containment wall, targeted treatment and supplemental hydraulic containment. The amended Proposed Plan also describes 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 estimated cost of implementation is $107, with an estimated $1 to $3 in annual operation and maintenance ("O&M") costs. In September 2018, the EPA published the Record of Decision ("ROD") for the site, formally selecting the preferred final and interim remedies outlined in the amended Proposed Plan. In October 2018, the EPA issued Special Notice letters to the PRPs for the remedial design phase of work under the ROD. In April 2019, the PRPs and the EPA entered into an administrative settlement agreement and order on consent for remedial design. In October 2019, the PRPs received special notice letters for the remedial action phase of work at the site. The Company, jointly with the other PRPs, submitted a good faith offer response in December 2019. On September 17, 2020, the EPA and the Department of Justice filed a proposed consent decree for the remedial action with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. On November 16, 2020, the Department of Justice filed a motion to approve and enter the consent decree. On January 28, 2021, the Court granted the unopposed motion to enter the consent decree, which became effective the same day. The Company's allocation of liability for remedial and O&M costs at the Calvert City site, if any, is governed by a series of agreements between the Company, Goodrich and Avient. These agreements and the associated litigation are 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 Avient, and that predecessor assumed Goodrich's indemnification obligations relating to preexisting contamination. In 2003, litigation arose among the Company, Goodrich and Avient 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) Avient 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 Avient 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, Avient filed a demand for arbitration. In this proceeding, Avient sought to readjust the percentage allocation of future costs and to recover approximately $11 from the Company in reimbursement of previously paid remediation costs. The Company's cross demand for arbitration seeking unreimbursed remediation costs incurred during the relevant period was dismissed from the proceedings when Avient paid such costs in full at the beginning of the arbitration hearing.

On July 10, 2018, Avient sued the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky and sought to invalidate the arbitration provisions in the parties' 2007 settlement agreement and enjoin the arbitration it had initiated in 2017. On July 30, 2018, the district court refused to enjoin the arbitration and, on January 15, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss Avient's suit. On February 13, 2019, Avient appealed those decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The court of appeals issued an opinion and final order on September 6, 2019, affirming the district court.

The arbitration hearing began in August 2018 and concluded in December 2018. On May 22, 2019, the arbitration panel issued its final award. It determined that Avient was responsible for 100% of the allocable costs at issue in the proceeding and that Avient would remain responsible for 100% of the costs to operate the existing groundwater remedy at the Calvert City site. In August 2019, Avient filed a motion to vacate before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, seeking to invalidate the final award under the Federal Arbitration Act. On February 11, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky denied Avient's motion to vacate and affirmed the arbitration final award. Avient did not file a notice of appeal before the March 10, 2020 deadline to contest the court's decision. Accordingly, the final award was affirmed and the arbitration proceeding is fully and finally resolved.

In March 2022, the Company filed a demand for arbitration seeking reimbursement for certain allocable costs incurred during the applicable period since May 2017, and which Avient has failed to pay or disputed as not subject to indemnity under the 1990 and 1997 agreements. In April 2022, Avient filed a complaint in the federal district court for the Western District of Kentucky disputing the enforceability of the 2007 settlement agreement and seeking to enjoin arbitration. Avient claims that the allocable costs at issue are up to $22, for which Avient claims the Company is totally liable. The Company disputes these claims and at this time, the Company believes it is unlikely that any remediation costs allocable to it would result in material expenditures 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 $65 to $130.