Accruals for environmental matters are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated based on current law and existing technologies. At December 31, 2020, the Company had accrued obligations of $1,244 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $248 million for the remediation of Superfund sites. These obligations are included in "Accrued and other current liabilities" and "Other noncurrent obligations" in the consolidated balance sheets. This is management’s best estimate of the costs for remediation and restoration with respect to environmental matters for which the Company has accrued liabilities, although it is reasonably possible that the ultimate cost with respect to these particular matters could range up to approximately one and a half times that amount. Consequently, it is reasonably possible that environmental remediation and restoration costs in excess of amounts accrued could have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. It is the opinion of the Company’s management, however, that the possibility is remote that costs in excess of the range disclosed will have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Inherent uncertainties exist in these estimates primarily due to unknown conditions, changing governmental regulations and legal standards regarding liability, and emerging remediation technologies for handling site remediation and restoration. As new or additional information becomes available and/or certain spending trends become known, management will evaluate such information in determination of the current estimate of the environmental liability. At December 31, 2019, the Company had accrued obligations of $1,155 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $207 million for the remediation of Superfund sites.

As part of the Company's 2020 Restructuring Program, in the third quarter of 2020, the Company recorded a pretax charge related to environmental remediation matters. This charge resulted from the Company's evaluation of the costs required to manage remediation activities at sites Dow will permanently shut down as part of its 2020 Restructuring Program. In addition, the Company recorded indemnification assets of $50 million related to Dow Silicones' environmental matters. The Company recognized a pretax charge, net of indemnifications, of $56 million, included in "Restructuring, goodwill impairment and asset related charges - net" in the consolidated statements of income and related to Performance Materials & Coatings ($52 million) and Corporate ($4 million). See Note 6 for additional information.

In the third quarter of 2019, the Company recorded a pretax charge related to environmental remediation matters at a number of current and historical locations. The charge primarily resulted from: the culmination of long-standing negotiations and discussions with regulators and agencies, including technical studies supporting higher cost estimates for final or staged remediation plans; the Company’s evaluation of the cost required to manage remediation activities at sites affected by Dow’s separation from DowDuPont and related agreements with Corteva and DuPont; and, the Company’s review of its closure strategies and obligations to monitor ongoing operations and maintenance activities. In addition, the Company recorded indemnification assets of $48 million related to Dow Silicones’ environmental matters. The Company recognized a pretax charge, net of indemnifications, of $399 million related to these environmental matters, included in “Cost of sales” in the consolidated statements of income and related to Packaging & Specialty Plastics ($5 million), Industrial Intermediates & Infrastructure ($8 million), Performance Materials & Coatings ($50 million) and Corporate ($336 million).

On June 12, 2003, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality ("MDEQ") issued a Hazardous Waste Operating License (the "License") to the Company’s Midland, Michigan, manufacturing site (the “Midland Site”), which was renewed and replaced by the MDEQ on September 25, 2015, and included provisions requiring the Company to conduct an investigation to determine the nature and extent of off-site contamination in the City of Midland soils, the Tittabawassee River and Saginaw River sediment and floodplain soils, and the Saginaw Bay, and, if necessary, undertake remedial action. In 2016, final regulatory approval was received from the MDEQ for the City of Midland and the Company is continuing the long term monitoring requirements of the Remedial Action Plan.

The Company, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the State of Michigan ("State") entered into an administrative order on consent (“AOC”), effective January 21, 2010, that requires the Company to conduct a remedial investigation, a feasibility study and a remedial design for the Tittabawassee River, the Saginaw River and the Saginaw Bay, and pay the oversight costs of the EPA and the State under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. These actions, to be conducted under the lead oversight of the EPA, will build upon the investigative work completed under the State Resource Conservation Recovery Act program from 2005 through 2009.

The Tittabawassee River, beginning at the Midland Site and extending down to the first six miles of the Saginaw River, are designated as the first Operable Unit for purposes of conducting the remedial investigation, feasibility study and remedial design work. This work will be performed in a largely upriver to downriver sequence for eight geographic segments of the Tittabawassee and upper Saginaw Rivers. In the first quarter of 2012, the EPA requested the Company address the Tittabawassee River floodplain ("Floodplain") as an additional segment. In January 2015, the Company and the EPA entered into an order to address remediation of the Floodplain. The remedial work is expected to continue over the next two years. The remainder of the Saginaw River and the Saginaw Bay are designated as a second Operable Unit and the work associated with that unit may also be geographically segmented. The AOC does not obligate the Company to perform removal or remedial action; that action can only be required by a separate order. The Company and the EPA have been negotiating orders separate from the AOC that obligate the Company to perform remedial actions under the scope of work of the AOC. The Company and the EPA have entered into six separate orders to perform limited remedial actions in seven of the eight geographic segments in the first Operable Unit, including the Floodplain. Dow has received from the EPA a Notice of Completion of Work for three of these six orders and the Company continues the long-term monitoring requirements. Dow also has entered into a separate order to perform a limited remedial action for certain properties located within the second Operable Unit.

The Company, the EPA, the U.S. Department of Justice and the natural resource damage trustees (which include the Michigan Office of the Attorney General, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Saginaw-Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan) have been engaged in negotiations to seek to resolve potential governmental claims against the Company for natural resource damages related to historical off-site contamination associated with the City of Midland, the Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers and the Saginaw Bay. The Company and the governmental parties started meeting in the fall of 2005 and entered into a Confidentiality Agreement in December 2005.

On July 20, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ("District Court") entered a final consent decree in Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-13292 between the Company and federal, state and tribal trustees to resolve allegations of natural resource damages arising from the historic operations of the Company’s Midland Site. The consent decree required the Company to pay a $15 million cash settlement to be used for long-term maintenance and trustee-selected remediation projects with an additional $7 million to specified local projects managed by third parties. These funds were paid in December 2020. The consent decree further requires the Company to complete 13 additional environmental restoration projects which are valued by the trustees at approximately $77 million, to be conducted over the next several years.

Union Carbide is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that Union Carbide sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on Union Carbide’s premises and Union Carbide’s responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to Union Carbide’s products. Union Carbide expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed against Union Carbide and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future claims.

Based on a study completed by Ankura Consulting Group, LLC ("Ankura") in January 2003, Union Carbide increased its December 31, 2002, asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims for a 15-year period ending in 2017 to $2.2 billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. In subsequent years, Union Carbide compared current asbestos claim and resolution activity to the results of the most recent Ankura study at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual continued to be appropriate.

In 2016, Ankura completed a study to provide estimates for the undiscounted cost of disposing of pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem through the terminal year of 2049, including a reasonable forecast of future defense and processing costs. Based on the study and Union Carbide’s internal review of asbestos claim and resolution activity, Union Carbide determined estimating the liability through the terminal year of 2049 was more appropriate due to increased knowledge and data about the costs to resolve claims and diminished volatility in filing rates. Union Carbide and the Company also determined that estimating and accruing a liability for future asbestos-related defense and processing costs was more appropriate as such costs represent expenditures related to legacy activities that do not contribute to current or future revenue generating activities of Union Carbide and the Company and is also reflective of the manner in which Union Carbide manages its asbestos-related exposure, including careful monitoring of the correlation between defense spending and resolution costs. As a result, in the fourth quarter of 2016, Union Carbide recorded a $1,113 million increase in its asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims, including future defense and processing costs. Each October, Union Carbide requests Ankura to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity through the third quarter of the current year, including asbestos-related defense and processing costs, to determine the appropriateness of updating the most recent study.

In December 2018, Ankura completed a study of Union Carbide's historical asbestos claim and resolution activity through September 30, 2018, including asbestos-related defense and processing costs, and provided estimates for the undiscounted cost of disposing of pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem through the terminal year of 2049. Based on the study and Union Carbide's internal review process, it was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required.

In December 2019, Ankura stated that an update of its December 2018 study would not provide a more likely estimate of future events than the estimate reflected in the study and, therefore, the estimate in the study remained applicable. Based on Union Carbide's internal review process and Ankura's response, Union Carbide determined that no change to the accrual was required. At December 31, 2019, the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem, including future asbestos-related defense and processing costs, was $1,165 million, and approximately 18 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 82 percent related to future claims.

In December 2020, Ankura completed a study of Union Carbide's historical asbestos claim and resolution activity through September 30, 2020, including asbestos-related defense and processing costs, and provided estimates for the undiscounted cost of disposing of pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem through the terminal year of 2049. Based on the study and Union Carbide's internal review process, it was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required. At December 31, 2020, the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem, including future asbestos-related defense and processing costs, was $1,098 million, and approximately 22 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 78 percent related to future claims.

The Company's management believes the amounts recorded by Union Carbide for the asbestos-related liability, including defense and processing costs, reflect reasonable and probable estimates of the liability based upon current, known facts. However, future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed and/or received each year, the average cost of defending and disposing of each such claim, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the United States over a significant period of time, could cause the actual costs for Union Carbide to be higher or lower than those projected or those recorded. Any such events could result in an increase or decrease in the recorded liability.

Because of the uncertainties described above, Union Carbide cannot estimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims facing Union Carbide and Amchem. As a result, it is reasonably possible that an additional cost of disposing of Union Carbide's asbestos-related claims, including future defense and processing costs, could have a material impact on the Company's results of operations and cash flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position.

In 1995, Dow Silicones, then a 50:50 joint venture between the Company and Corning Incorporated ("Corning"), voluntarily filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in order to resolve Dow Silicones’ breast implant liabilities and related matters (the “Chapter 11 Proceeding”). Dow Silicones emerged from the Chapter 11 Proceeding on June 1, 2004 (the “Effective Date”) and is implementing the Joint Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”). The Plan provides funding for the resolution of breast implant and other product liability litigation covered by the Chapter 11 Proceeding. As of June 1, 2016, Dow Silicones is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.

Under the Plan, a product liability settlement program administered by an independent claims office (the “Settlement Facility”) was created to resolve breast implant and other product liability claims. Product liability claimants rejecting the settlement program in favor of pursuing litigation must bring suit against a litigation facility (the “Litigation Facility”). Under the Plan, total payments committed by Dow Silicones to resolving product liability claims are capped at a maximum $2,350 million net present value (“NPV”) determined as of the Effective Date using a discount rate of seven percent (approximately $4,081 million undiscounted at December 31, 2020). Of this amount, no more than $400 million NPV determined as of the Effective Date can be used to fund the Litigation Facility.

In accordance with ASC Topic 450 "Accounting for Contingencies," the Company records a liability for breast implant and other product liability claims (“Implant Liability”), which reflects the estimated impact of the settlement of pending claims. The claim filing deadline passed in June 2019. All claims have been received and are being processed. Based on the claims filed at and before the deadline, Dow Silicones estimates that it will be obligated to contribute an additional $160 million after the Settlement Facility balance is exhausted.

In the third quarter of 2019, with the assistance of a third party consultant ("Consultant"), Dow Silicones updated its Implant Liability estimate, primarily reflecting a decrease in Class 16 claims, a decrease resulting from the passage of time, decreased claim filing activity and administrative costs compared with the previous estimate, and an increase in investment income resulting from insurance proceeds. Based on the Consultant's updated estimate and Dow Silicones own review of claim filing activity, Dow Silicones determined that an adjustment to the Implant Liability was required. Accordingly, in the third quarter of 2019, Dow Silicones decreased its Implant Liability $98 million and decreased its corresponding Class 16 receivable $13 million, both included in “Sundry income (expense) - net” in the consolidated statements of income and related to Corporate. The estimate was updated again in the second quarter of 2020 with the assistance of the Consultant, which primarily reflected decreased administrative costs compared with the previous estimate and an increase in investment income resulting from insurance proceeds.

Dow Silicones is not aware of circumstances that would change the factors used in estimating the Implant Liability and believes the recorded liability reflects the best estimate of the remaining funding obligations under the Plan; however, the estimate relies upon a number of significant assumptions, including: future acceptance rates, disease mix, and payment values will be materially consistent with historical experience; no material negative outcomes in future controversies or disputes over Plan interpretation will occur; and the Plan will not be modified. If actual outcomes related to any of these assumptions prove to be materially different, the future liability to fund the Plan may be materially different than the amount estimated.

The Plan provides that each of Dow Silicones commercial creditors (the “Commercial Creditors”) would receive in cash the sum of (a) an amount equal to the principal amount of their claims and (b) interest on such claims. Upon the Plan becoming effective, Dow Silicones paid approximately $1,500 million to the Commercial Creditors, representing principal and an amount of interest that Dow Silicones considers undisputed. On August 19, 2019, Dow Silicones entered into a settlement agreement with the Commercial Creditors related to the remaining, disputed portion, obligating Dow Silicones to pay $172 million, inclusive of the Commercial Creditors' legal costs. The settlement was approved by the District Court. As a result of the settlement agreement, in the third quarter of 2019, the Company recorded a pretax charge of $50 million, net of indemnifications of $37 million, included in "Sundry Income (expense) - net" in the consolidated statements of income and related to Corporate. The settlement was paid to the Commercial Creditors in the fourth quarter of 2019. The litigation is now concluded.

The amounts recorded by Dow Silicones for the Chapter 11 related matters described above were based upon current, known facts, which management believes reflect reasonable and probable estimates of the liability. However, future events could cause the actual costs for Dow Silicones to be higher or lower than those projected or those recorded. Any such events could result in an increase or decrease in the recorded liability.

In addition to the specific matters described above, the Company is party to a number of other claims and lawsuits arising out of the normal course of business with respect to product liability, patent infringement, employment matters, governmental tax and regulation disputes, contract and commercial litigation, and other actions. Certain of these actions purport to be class actions and seek damages in very large amounts. All such claims are being contested. The Company has an active risk management program consisting of numerous insurance policies secured from many carriers at various times. These policies may provide coverage that could be utilized to minimize the financial impact, if any, of certain contingencies described above. It is the opinion of the Company’s management that the possibility is remote that the aggregate of all such other claims and lawsuits will have a material adverse impact on the results of operations, financial condition and cash flows of the Company.

In connection with the June 1, 2016 ownership restructure of Dow Silicones, the Company is indemnified by Corning for at least 50 percent of future losses associated with certain pre-closing liabilities, including the Implant Liability, Commercial Creditors issues and certain environmental matters described in the preceding sections, subject to certain conditions and limits. The maximum amount of indemnified losses which may be recovered are subject to a cap that declines over time. Indemnified losses are capped at $1 billion between May 31, 2018 and May 31, 2023, and no recoveries are permitted after May 31, 2023. The Company had indemnification assets of $115 million at December 31, 2020 ($100 million at December 31, 2019), of which zero ($37 million at December 31, 2019) was included in "Other current assets" and $115 million ($63 million at December 31, 2019) was included in "Noncurrent receivables" in the consolidated balance sheets.

In December 2010, Dow filed suit in the Federal Court in Ontario, Canada ("Federal Court") alleging that Nova Chemicals Corporation ("Nova") was infringing the Company's Canadian polyethylene patent 2,106,705 (the "'705 Patent"). Nova counterclaimed on the grounds of invalidity and non-infringement. In accordance with Canadian practice, the suit was bifurcated into a merits phase, followed by a damages phase. Following trial in the merits phase, in May 2014 the Federal Court ruled that the Company's '705 Patent was valid and infringed by Nova. Nova appealed to the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal, which affirmed the Federal Court decision in August 2016. Nova then sought leave to appeal its loss to the Supreme Court of Canada ("Court"), which dismissed Nova’s petition in April 2017. As a result, Nova has exhausted all appeal rights on the merits, and it is undisputed that Nova owes the Company the profits it earned from its infringing sales as determined in the trial for the damages phase.

In April 2017, the Federal Court issued a Public Judgment in the damages phase, which detailed its conclusions on how to calculate the profits to be awarded to the Company. In June 2017, the Federal Court ordered Nova to pay $645 million Canadian dollars (equivalent to $495 million U.S. dollars) to the Company, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, for which the Company received payment of $501 million from Nova in July 2017. Although Nova is appealing portions of the damages judgment, certain portions of it are indisputable and can be retained by the Company regardless of the outcome of any further appeals by Nova. As a result of these actions and in accordance with ASC Topic 450-30 "Gain Contingencies," the Company recorded a $160 million pretax gain in the second quarter of 2017.

On September 15, 2020, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Nova's appeal of the damages judgment, thus affirming the trial court's decision in its entirety. In November 2020, Nova filed an application for leave to appeal this decision to the Court. Briefing is expected to be completed in early 2021 and the Company anticipates a decision in the first half of 2021 as to whether the Court will accept the appeal. The Court has complete discretion on whether to grant leave applications. At December 31, 2020, the Company had $341 million (zero at December 31, 2019) included in "Accrued and other current liabilities" and zero ($341 million at December 31, 2019) included in "Other noncurrent obligations" related to the disputed portion of the damages judgment. The Company is confident of its chances to continue to defend the entire judgment if the Court agrees to review it, particularly the trial and appellate courts' determinations on important factual issues, which will be accorded deferential review on appeal.

On September 18, 2019, the Court of the Queen’s Bench in Alberta, Canada, signed a judgment ordering Nova to pay the Company $1.43 billion Canadian dollars (equivalent to approximately $1.08 billion U.S. dollars) by October 11, 2019, for damages the Company incurred through 2012 related to the companies’ jointly-owned ethylene asset in Joffre, Alberta, Canada. The Court of the Queen's Bench in Alberta, Canada, which initially ruled in June 2018, found that Nova failed to operate the ethylene asset at full capacity for more than ten years, and furthermore, that Nova violated several contractual agreements related to the Company receiving its share of the asset’s ethylene production. These actions resulted in reduced productivity and sales for the Company. Nova has appealed the judgment, however, certain portions of it are not in dispute and are owed to the Company regardless of the outcome of Nova's appeal. As a result of these actions and in accordance with ASC Topic 450-30 “Gain Contingencies,” the Company recorded a $186 million pretax gain in the third quarter of 2019, of which $170 million was included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" and $16 million was included in "Selling, general and administrative expenses" in the consolidated statements of income and related to Packaging & Specialty Plastics. In October 2019, Nova paid $1.08 billion Canadian dollars (equivalent to approximately $0.8 billion U.S. dollars) directly to the Company, and remitted $347 million Canadian dollars to the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") for the tax account of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The Company sought a refund of the entire amount remitted to CRA. On March 31, 2020, the Company received the full refund from CRA, equivalent to $259 million U.S. dollars.

In preparation for the June 2020 appellate hearing on the case, Nova provided the Court of the Queen's Bench in Alberta, Canada, an updated schedule of the financial impact of the issues on appeal, which explained that even if Nova prevails on all appeal issues, the Company would still be entitled to retain an amount in excess of the gain recognized in 2019. As a result, the Company recorded an $18 million pretax gain in the second quarter of 2020, of which $12 million was included in "Selling, general and administrative expenses" and $6 million was included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" in the consolidated statements of income and related to Packaging & Specialty Plastics. On September 16, 2020, the Court of Appeal of Alberta issued its decision, affirming the trial court's liability finding, upholding the majority of Dow's damages and requiring the trial court to recalculate a portion of damages. In the fourth quarter of 2020, Nova chose not to petition the Court to review the appellate court decision, making additional portions of the ruling in Dow’s favor final and no longer subject to dispute. As a result, the Company recorded a $552 million pretax gain in the fourth quarter of 2020, of which $538 million was included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" and $14 million was included in "Selling, general and administrative expenses" in the consolidated statements of income and related to Packaging & Specialty Plastics. At December 31, 2020, $323 million ($893 million at December 31, 2019) was included in "Other noncurrent obligations" in the Company's consolidated balance sheets related to the disputed portion of the damages judgment. Dow continues to seek an award of additional damages for the period from 2013 through 2018.

Guarantees arise during the ordinary course of business from relationships with customers, committed accounts receivable facilities and nonconsolidated affiliates when the Company undertakes an obligation to guarantee the performance of others (via delivery of cash or other assets) if specified triggering events occur. With guarantees, such as commercial or financial contracts, non-performance by the guaranteed party triggers the obligation of the Company to make payments to the beneficiary of the guarantee. The majority of the Company’s guarantees relate to debt of nonconsolidated affiliates, which have expiration dates ranging from less than one year to less than three years. The Company’s current expectation is that future payment or performance related to the non-performance of others is considered remote.

The Company has entered into guarantee agreements related to Sadara, a nonconsolidated affiliate. The total of an Islamic bond and additional project financing (collectively “Total Project Financing”) obtained by Sadara was approximately $12.5 billion. Sadara had $10.8 billion of Total Project Financing debt outstanding at December 31, 2019. In November 2020, the remaining project completion conditions related to the Total Project Financing guarantees were fulfilled and the Company's guarantee obligations terminated. Subsequently, the Company provided a new guarantee in the form of a letter of credit for its share of one future debt service schedule payment up to $220 million. The guarantee is in proportion to the Company’s 35 percent ownership interest in Sadara and is expected to remain in effect until the re-profiling of Sadara’s debt is completed which is expected in the first quarter of 2021. See Note 12 for additional information.

In January 2021, Sadara reached an agreement in principle with its lenders to re-profile Sadara's outstanding project financing debt. In conjunction with completion of the Sadara debt re-profiling, the Company expects to guarantee approximately $1.3 billion of Sadara’s debt. The debt re-profiling is expected to include a grace period until June 2026, during which Sadara is obligated to make interest-only payments. Dow will also provide guarantees for its portion of all Sadara interest payments due during the grace period. Dow's pro-rata share of any potential shortfall during the grace period will be funded by a new $500 million revolving credit facility guaranteed by Dow,

which is expected to be established by Sadara in the first quarter of 2021. Dow's existing $220 million letter of credit related to the guarantee of one future Sadara debt service schedule payment will be cancelled upon completion of the full re-profiling of Sadara's debt. All guarantees related to the debt re-profile and revolving credit facility are in proportion to Dow’s 35 percent ownership interest in Sadara. As a result of these actions, the Company does not expect to provide any shareholder loans or equity contributions to Sadara in 2021.

The Company has 106 manufacturing sites in 31 countries. Most of these sites contain numerous individual manufacturing operations, particularly at the Company’s larger sites. Asset retirement obligations are recorded as incurred and reasonably estimable, including obligations for which the timing and/or method of settlement are conditional on a future event that may or may not be within the control of the Company. The retirement of assets may involve such efforts as remediation and treatment of asbestos, contractually required demolition, and other related activities, depending on the nature and location of the assets; and retirement obligations are typically realized only upon demolition of those facilities. In identifying asset retirement obligations, the Company considers identification of legally enforceable obligations, changes in existing law, estimates of potential settlement dates and the calculation of an appropriate discount rate to be used in calculating the fair value of the obligations. The Company has a well-established global process to identify, approve and track the demolition of retired or to-be-retired facilities; and no assets are retired from service until this process has been followed. The Company typically forecasts demolition projects based on the usefulness of the assets; environmental, health and safety concerns; and other similar considerations. Under this process, as demolition projects are identified and approved, reasonable estimates are determined for the time frames during which any related asset retirement obligations are expected to be settled. For those assets where a range of potential settlement dates may be reasonably estimated, obligations are recorded. The Company routinely reviews all changes to items under consideration for demolition to determine if an adjustment to the value of the asset retirement obligation is required.

The Company has recognized asset retirement obligations for the following activities: demolition and remediation activities at manufacturing sites primarily in Europe, United States, Japan, United Arab Emirates, Canada and Argentina; and capping activities at landfill sites in the United States, Brazil and Canada. The Company has also recognized conditional asset retirement obligations related to asbestos encapsulation as a result of planned demolition and remediation activities at manufacturing and administrative sites primarily in the United States, Europe, Argentina and Japan. The aggregate carrying amount of conditional asset retirement obligations recognized by the Company (included in the asset retirement obligations balance shown below) was $14 million at December 31, 2020 ($19 million at December 31, 2019).

The Company has not recognized conditional asset retirement obligations for which a fair value cannot be reasonably estimated in its consolidated financial statements. Assets that have not been submitted/reviewed for potential demolition activities are considered to have continued usefulness and are generally still operating normally. Therefore, without a plan to demolish the assets or the expectation of a plan, such as shortening the useful life of assets for depreciation purposes in accordance with the accounting guidance related to property, plant and equipment, the Company is unable to reasonably forecast a time frame to use for present value calculations. As such, the Company has not recognized obligations for individual plants/buildings at its manufacturing sites where