Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2024

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 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.

Caustic Soda Antitrust. 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 Chemical Corporation d/b/a OxyChem, Shintech Incorporated 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 in the putative class for such direct purchasers seek $861 in single damages from the defendants, in addition to treble damages and attorney's fees. The plaintiffs in the putative class for such indirect purchasers seek approximately $500 in single damages from the defendants, in addition to treble damages (if permitted under applicable state law) and injunctive relief. The defendants' joint motion to dismiss the direct purchaser lawsuits was denied. The defendants' joint motion to dismiss the indirect purchaser lawsuits was granted in part and denied in part. Both groups of cases have proceeded to discovery. On October 16, 2023, the Company entered into a settlement agreement whereby the Company agreed, subject to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, to pay $19 to the direct purchaser plaintiffs and in which the Company admits to no violations of law and will be released from liability and dismissed from the direct purchaser lawsuits with prejudice upon receipt of final court approval of the settlement. Preliminary court approval of the settlement, which remains subject to certification of the class, has been requested and is pending. If the court grants such preliminary approval, notice of the settlement will be disseminated to the settlement class, and the settlement class members will, for a limited time period, have an opportunity to opt-out of or object to the settlement. The Company reserved $19 in connection with the litigation in 2023. Beginning in October 2020, similar class action proceedings were also filed in Canada before the Superior Court of Québec 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 Québec 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.

Ethylene Antitrust. The Company and other ethylene consumers were named as defendants in a civil lawsuit filed by Shell Chemical Europe B.V. ("SCE") in March 2023 in the District Court of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, following the European Commission Decision AT.40410 – Ethylene from July 14, 2020. SCE is a producer of ethylene in the European market and the lawsuit alleges the defendants conspired to lower the purchase price for ethylene and ethylene derivatives by manipulating the monthly contract price. SCE initially sought declaratory relief. In October 2023, SCE amended its claim and is now seeking a judgment establishing that the Company and the co-defendants are jointly and severally liable for alleged damages in the amount of approximately €1,026 million with interest compounding daily from January 1, 2020 and continuing until payment in full, as provided by Dutch law, resulting from artificially lowered prices for ethylene and ethylene derivatives during the specified period. SCE is also seeking reimbursement of costs related to the proceeding plus statutory interest. The Company and other ethylene consumers were also named as defendants in a civil lawsuit filed by Stichting Ethylene Claims ("Stichting") in November 2023 in the District Court of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, following the same European Commission decision. Stichting is a foundation under Dutch Law that claims to represent various parties asserting injury by the same alleged conduct of defendants, seeking a declaratory judgment establishing that the Company and other defendants are jointly and severally liable for an unspecified amount of damages. At this time, the Company is not able to estimate the impact, if any, that the SCE lawsuit and/or the Stichting lawsuit could have on the Company's consolidated financial statements either in the current period or in future periods.

Triad Hunter. In April 2018, Triad Hunter, LLC ("Triad Hunter") filed suit against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in the Court of Common Pleas in Monroe County, Ohio seeking injunctive relief and alleging negligence and trespass at the Natrium Plant with respect to Triad Hunter's well drilling activities in Ohio. On October 27, 2022, the jury returned a verdict finding that the Company had committed trespass and was negligent in conducting salt mining operations at the Natrium Plant. Upon receipt of the jury verdict, the Company reserved approximately $70 for the damages awarded to Triad Hunter. The court subsequently denied Triad Hunter's request to enjoin further solution mining from one of the brine fields at the Natrium Plant. On September 12, 2023, final judgment was entered in the amount of $70 with interest accruing at the rate of 5% from the date the judgment was rendered, as provided by law. The Company appealed the verdict and sought a stay of execution pending appeal on October 30, 2023.

Petro 2 Flash Fire and EDC Storage Tank Explosion. In September 2021, shortly after the turnaround on Westlake Chemical OpCo LP's Petro 2 ethylene facility commenced, there was a flash fire at the quench tower of the Petro 2 facility. In January 2022, an ethylene dichloride storage tank exploded at one of the Company's Lake Charles, Louisiana complexes. Certain employees and contractors working on the sites at the time of the events were injured during these events and multiple lawsuits were filed against us. Final settlements totaling approximately $382 in the aggregate were reached with all of the plaintiffs to fully resolve the lawsuits, but payment by the Company and the insurance carriers has not yet been completed. Certain of the Company's excess insurers have taken the coverage position that there has been insufficient exhaustion of the retention levels beneath their respective attachment points to obligate them to cover these events. The practical effect of this coverage position is that approximately $150 of the $382 total final settlement amount is not being covered by the insurers and, as such, approximately $150 was included in cost of sales in the fourth quarter of 2023. After discussion with the insurers, the Company has decided not to pursue recovery of the approximately $150 from the insurers. The Company reserved for the full final settlement amount in 2023 and, as of March 31, 2024, has an insurance receivable of $13 and a legal accrual of $151 in the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Environmental Contingencies. As of March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, the Company had reserves for environmental contingencies totaling approximately $57 and $58, 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. On September 30, 2023, the court issued an order denying without prejudice the parties' cross motions for summary judgment and set a 30-day deadline for the parties to refile and provide additional briefing on specific aspects of the arguments before the court. The parties each refiled and provided additional briefing by the deadline and the motions are pending before the court. 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.

Sulphur Brine Dome. The Company owns and operates salt solution-mining caverns at the Sulphur Brine Dome in Sulphur, Louisiana. The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources issued Compliance Order No. IMD 2022-027 and several supplements to that order, the latest in October 2023, in response to pressure anomaly events in two of the Company's brine caverns. The brine caverns were not active, operating wells but under ongoing, post-operational monitoring requirements. The compliance order and supplements thereto have required the Company to undertake various activities related to response planning, monitoring, investigation and mitigation of potential impacts in the event of future cavern pressure anomalies or failures. Since December 2022 continuous brine injection has maintained cavern pressure while the Company continues to pursue active monitoring, studies, groundwater monitoring, modeling and other activities under the compliance order and supplements. In September 2023, the Office of Conservation issued an emergency declaration as a conservative step and to ensure that the full suite of powers and resources are available to the government in its response and management of the evolving circumstances at the Sulphur Dome. The capital costs and expenditures required to comply with the compliance order and supplements have been and will continue to be incurred. In response to the most recent supplement to the compliance order, the Company reserved approximately $14 in connection with groundwater monitoring wells and monitoring required by the supplement. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the impact, if any, that other ongoing expenditures or future injunctive relief ordered by the government could have on the Company's consolidated financial statements either in the current period or in future periods.

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 $125 to $200.