Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	8. Commitments and Contingencies Waterlink In conjunction with the February 2004 purchase of substantially all of Waterlink Inc.’s (Waterlink) operating assets and the stock of Waterlink’s U.K. subsidiary, environmental studies were performed on Waterlink’s Columbus, Ohio property by environmental consulting firms that provided an identification and characterization of certain areas of contamination. In addition, these firms identified alternative methods of remediating the property and prepared cost evaluations of the various alternatives. The Company concluded from the information in the studies that a loss at this property is probable and recorded the liability. At June 30, 2013 the balance recorded as a component of accounts payable and accrued liabilities and accrued pension and other liabilities was $0.2 million and $1.0 million, respectively. At December 31, 2012 the balance recorded as a component of accrued pension and other liabilities was $1.4 million. Liability estimates are based on an evaluation of, among other factors, currently available facts, existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations, and the remediation experience of experts in groundwater remediation. It is possible that a further change in the estimate of this obligation will occur as remediation progresses. The Company incurred $0.2 million and $0.4 million of environmental remediation costs for the six month periods ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Remediation activities are ongoing and are currently expected to be completed by the end of 2014. Carbon Imports General Anti-Dumping Background: On March 8, 2006, the Company and another U.S. producer of activated carbon (collectively the “Petitioners”) formally requested that the United States Department of Commerce investigate unfair pricing of certain thermally activated carbon imported from the People’s Republic of China. On March 2, 2007, the Commerce Department published its final determination (subsequently amended) finding that imports of the subject merchandise from China were being unfairly priced, or dumped, and that anti-dumping duties should be imposed to offset the amount of the unfair pricing. The resultant tariff rates ranged from 61.95% ad valorem (i.e., of the entered value of the goods) to 228.11% ad valorem. Following a finding by the U.S. International Trade Commission that the domestic industry was injured by unfairly traded imports of activated carbon from China, an anti-dumping order imposing these tariffs was issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce and was published in the Federal Register on April 27, 2007. All imports from China remain subject to the order. Importers of subject activated carbon from China are required to make cash deposits of estimated anti-dumping duties at the time the goods are entered into the United States’ customs territory. Final assessment of duties and duty deposits are subject to revision based on annual retrospective reviews conducted by the Commerce Department. The Company is both a domestic producer, exporter from China (through its wholly-owned subsidiary Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.), and a U.S. importer of the activated carbon that is subject to the anti-dumping order. As such, the Company’s involvement in the Commerce Department’s proceedings is both as a domestic producer (a “petitioner”) and as a foreign exporter (a “respondent”). The Company’s role as an importer, which has in the past (and may in the future) required it to pay anti-dumping duties, results in a contingent liability related to the final amount of tariffs that are ultimately assessed on the imported product following the Commerce Department’s periodic review of relevant shipments and calculation of the anti-dumping duties due. The amount of estimated anti-dumping tariffs payable on goods imported into the United States is subject to review and retroactive adjustment based on the actual amount of dumping that is found on entries made during a given annual period. As a result of proceedings before the Commerce Department that concluded in November 2011, the Company is currently able to import activated carbon from Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) into the United States without posting a cash deposit. As noted above, however, anti-dumping duties could be imposed on these shipments in the future, as a result of on-going proceedings before the Commerce Department. As part of its standard process, the Commerce Department conducts annual reviews of sales made to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer, typically over the prior 12-month period. These reviews will be conducted for at least five years subsequent to a determination in 2013 finding that the anti-dumping duty order should remain in effect, and can result in changes to the anti-dumping tariff rate (either increasing or reducing the rate) applicable to any foreign exporter. Revision of tariff rates has two effects. First, it will alter the actual amount of tariffs that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) will collect for the period reviewed, by either collecting additional duties above those deposited with Customs by the importer at the time of entry or refunding a portion of the duties deposited at the time of importation to reflect a decline in the margin of dumping. If the actual amount of tariffs owed increases, Customs will require the U.S. importer to pay the difference, plus interest. Conversely, if the tariff rate decreases, any difference will be refunded by Customs to the U.S. importer with interest. Second, the revised rate becomes the cash deposit rate applied to future entries, and can either increase or decrease the amount of duty deposits an importer will be required to post at the time of importation. Period of Review I: As an importer of activated carbon from China, and in light of the successful anti-dumping tariff case, the Company was required to pay deposits of estimated anti-dumping duties at the rate of 84.45% ad valorem to Customs on entries made on or after October 11, 2006 through March 1, 2007. From March 2, 2007 through March 29, 2007, the anti-dumping duty deposit rate was 78.89%. From March 30, 2007 through April 8, 2007, the anti-dumping duty deposit rate was 69.54%. Because of limits on the government’s legal authority to impose provisional duties on imports prior to issuance of a final determination, entries made between April 9, 2007 and April 18, 2007 were not subject to anti-dumping duty assessments. For the period from April 19, 2007 through November 9, 2009, estimated anti-dumping duties were deposited at a rate of 69.54% ad valorem. On November 10, 2009, the Commerce Department announced the final results of its review of the tariff period beginning October 11, 2006 through March 31, 2008 (period of review (“POR”) I). Based on the POR I results, the Company’s ongoing duty deposit rate was adjusted from 69.54% to 14.51% (as further adjusted by .07% for certain ministerial errors as published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2009) for entries made subsequent to the announcement. The Department of Commerce determined an assessment rate (final duty to be collected) on the entries made in this period of 31.93% ad valorem, which is substantially lower than the original amounts secured by bonds and cash. Accordingly, the Company reduced its recorded liability for unpaid deposits in POR I and recorded a receivable of $1.6 million reflecting expected refunds for tariff deposits made during POR I as a result of the announced decrease in the POR I tariff assessment rate. The Company had received the $1.6 million as of December 31, 2012. Period of Review II: On April 1, 2009, the Commerce Department published a formal notice allowing parties to request a second annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009 (POR II). Requests for review were due no later than April 30, 2009. The Company, in its capacity as a U.S. producer and separately as a Chinese exporter, elected not to participate in this administrative review. By not participating in the review, the Company’s duty deposits made during POR II became final and are not subject to further adjustment. On November 17, 2010, the Commerce Department announced the results of its review for POR II. Because the Company was not involved in this review its deposit rates did not change from the rate of 14.51%, which was established during POR I. The cooperative respondents involved in POR II that did not receive a company-specific rate received a deposit rate of $0.127 per pound. Period of Review III: On April 1, 2010, the Commerce Department published a formal notice allowing parties to request a third annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010 (“POR III”). On October 31, 2011, the Commerce Department published the results of its review of POR III. Based on the POR III results, the Company’s ongoing duty deposit rate was adjusted to zero. The Company recorded a receivable of $1.1 million reflecting expected refunds for duty deposits made during POR III as a result of the announced decrease in the POR III assessment rate. The Commerce Department continued to assign cooperative respondents involved in POR III a deposit rate of $0.127 per pound. In early December 2011, several separate rate respondents appealed the Commerce Department’s final results of POR III. The Company does not expect any of the appeals to be successful. However, in the event the court finds merit in the arguments raised in the appeals, the Company does not expect the revised rates to materially impact the anticipated $1.1 million of expected refunds for tariff deposits it made during POR III. The main impact that a successful appeal would have is related to the amount of anti-dumping duties assessed on imports by the cooperative respondents that were entered into the United States between April 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009. An initial decision from the court in the POR III appeal process is expected during the third quarter of 2013. Period of Review IV: On April 1, 2011, the Commerce Department published a formal notice allowing parties to request a fourth annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011 (“POR IV”). On November 9, 2012, the Commerce Department published the final results of its review of POR IV. Specifically, Commerce calculated anti-dumping margins for the mandatory respondents it examined ranging from $0.20 per pound (Jacobi Carbons AB and its affiliates) to $0.96 per pound (Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. and its affiliates), and it calculated an anti-dumping margin of $0.47 per pound for the cooperative, separate rate respondents whose shipments of activated carbon to the United States were not individually reviewed. The Commerce Department also calculated a $0.00 anti-dumping margin for Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. The Company, as a Chinese exporter and a U.S. importer, elected not to participate as a respondent in this administrative review. By not participating as a respondent in the review, the Company’s tariff deposits made at a rate of 14.51% during POR IV became final and are not subject to further adjustment. The Company’s ongoing deposit rate continues to be zero which was a result of the company-specific rate calculated in POR III. Appeals challenging the Commerce Department’s final results for POR IV have been commenced before the U.S. Court of International Trade by Jacobi Carbons AB, Ningxia Guanghua Cherishment Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. and its affiliates; Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.; Carbon Activated Corporation and Car Go Worldwide, Inc.; and Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd. The Company does not expect an initial decision from the court concerning these appeals before the end of 2013, and expects that this litigation will not directly impact the Company’s operations. Period of Review V: On April 2, 2012, the Commerce Department published a formal notice allowing parties to request a fifth annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012 (“POR V”). Requests for review were due no later than April 30, 2012. On July 11, 2012, the Commerce Department announced its selection of Jacobi Carbons AB and Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co, Ltd. as the two mandatory respondents for POR V. Albemarle Corporation has requested a review of Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) for POR V. The analysis of POR V data began in 2012 and the preliminary results of the Commerce Department’s review of POR V were announced on May 3, 2013. The Commerce Department calculated preliminary anti-dumping margins for the mandatory respondents that it examined ranging from $0.13 per pound (Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co.) to $0.25 per pound (Jacobi Carbons AB and its affiliates), and as a result, it calculated a preliminary anti-dumping margin of $0.19 per pound for the cooperative, separate rate respondents whose shipments of activated carbon to the United States were not individually reviewed. These preliminary margins are subject to change by the final determination, which will not be issued until mid-November 2013. Sunset Review: In March 2012, the Commerce Department and U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) initiated proceedings as part of a five-year “sunset” review to evaluate whether the anti-dumping order should be continued for an additional five years. The Company, and two other U. S. producers of activated carbon, participated in the review to support continuation of the anti-dumping order for an additional five years. The Company maintained that the continuation of the anti-dumping order was appropriate as the Commerce Department has determined that Chinese producers and exporters have continued — and, absent continuation of the anti-dumping order, will in the future continue — to sell activated carbon in the United States at unfairly low prices. This is demonstrated by the positive anti-dumping duty margins and deposit rates determined during the various annual reviews conducted by the Commerce Department since the anti-dumping order took effect in April 2007. The Company asserted that the disciplining effect of the order played an important role in maintaining fair market pricing of the activated carbon market overall. Without the anti-dumping order in place, the Company argued that Chinese producers and exporters would resume or increase dumping of certain thermally activated carbon in the United States. Since the anti-dumping order was published, the Company has reduced its imports of covered activated carbon products from China and has increased production of activated carbon in the United States. On June 6, 2012, the Commerce Department published in the Federal Register its final results in an expedited sunset review, and determined that absent continuation of the anti-dumping order dumping of Chinese activated carbon in the United States would be likely to continue or recur. As a result, it determined the order should be continued for an additional five years. On June 4, 2012 the ITC voted unanimously to conduct a full review of the anti-dumping order. As a result, the agency utilized a process similar to its original injury investigation, where the agency distributed detailed questionnaires to gather information for its investigation from domestic producers, foreign producers, U.S. importers, and purchasers, and conducted a hearing on December 18, 2012. The Company and the two other U.S. producers of activated carbon, as well as a U.S. importer of activated carbon, participated in the hearing. Based on the information gathered by the agency during its review, the ITC reached a unanimous affirmative determination on February 8, 2013, voting to continue the anti-dumping order for an additional five years. The Commerce Department published a notice in the Federal Register on March 18, 2013, stating that the anti-dumping order will be continued for an additional five years. Period of Review VI: On April 2, 2013, the Commerce Department published a formal notice allowing parties to request a sixth annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013 (“POR VI”). Requests for an administrative review were submitted to the Commerce Department in April of 2013. On June 26, 2013, the Commerce Department announced its selection of Jacobi Carbons AB and Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co, Ltd. as the two mandatory respondents for POR VI. Albemarle Corporation has requested a review of Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) for POR VI. The analysis of POR VI will begin in the third quarter of 2013 and the preliminary results of the Commerce Department’s review of POR VI are anticipated to be announced in late April or early May of 2014. Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act Distributions: Pursuant to the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) of 2000 (repealed effective February 8, 2006), as an affected domestic producer, the Company is eligible to apply for a share of the distributions of certain tariffs collected on imports of subject merchandise from China that entered the United States from October 11, 2006 to September 30, 2007. As a result, the Company is eligible to receive a distribution of duties collected on imports of certain activated carbon that entered the United States during a portion of POR I. In June 2013, June 2012 and July 2011, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the Company applied for such distributions which are typically made in the fourth quarter of each calendar year. There were no additional amounts received by the Company for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010. In November 2009 and December 2008, the Company received distributions of approximately $0.8 million and $0.2 million, respectively, which reflected 59.57% of the total amount of duties then available and distributed by Customs in connection with the anti-dumping order on certain activated carbon from China. CDSOA distributions related to POR I imports were on hold while the POR I final results for certain exporters were under appeal. All POR I appeals were subsequently resolved and Customs issued liquidation instructions in October 2011 for activated carbon entries affected by the appeal process involving POR I. The Company received $1.8 million in December 2012 related to the CDSOA distributions of which $1.5 million was reflected within the Company’s consolidated statement of comprehensive income for the year ended December 31, 2012. On May 31, 2013, Customs announced the preliminary amount of duties available (as of April 30, 2013) for distribution under the CDSOA for fiscal year 2013. The preliminary amount identified for distribution related to certain activated carbon imported from China totaled $86,765 which should be distributed to eligible parties in December 2013. The Company expects to receive 59.57% of the fiscal year 2013 distribution. The Company does not anticipate any further material CDSOA distributions subsequent to the distribution expected to be made in December 2013. Big Sandy Plant By letter dated January 22, 2007, the Company received from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 a report of a hazardous waste facility inspection performed by the EPA and the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection (KYDEP) as part of a Multi Media Compliance Evaluation of the Company’s Big Sandy Plant in Catlettsburg, Kentucky that was conducted on September 20 and 21, 2005. Accompanying the report was a Notice of Violation (NOV) alleging multiple violations of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and corresponding EPA and KYDEP hazardous waste regulations. The alleged violations mainly concern the hazardous waste spent activated carbon regeneration facility. The Company met with the EPA on April 17, 2007 to discuss the inspection report and alleged violations, and submitted written responses in May and June 2007. In August 2007, the EPA notified the Company that it believed there were still significant violations of RCRA that were unresolved by the information provided in the Company’s responses, without specifying the particular violations. During a meeting with the EPA on December 10, 2007, the EPA indicated that the agency would not pursue certain other alleged violations. The Company has taken action to address and remediate a number of the alleged violations. The Company now believes, and the EPA has indicated, that the number of unresolved issues as to alleged continuing violations cited in the January 22, 2007 NOV has been reduced substantially. The EPA can take formal enforcement action to require the Company to remediate any or all of the unresolved alleged continuing violations, which could require the Company to incur substantial additional costs. The EPA can also take formal enforcement action to impose substantial civil penalties with respect to violations cited in the NOV, including those which have been admitted or resolved. By letter dated January 5, 2010, the EPA determined that certain residues resulting from the treatment of the carbon reactivation furnace off-gas are RCRA listed hazardous wastes and the material dredged from the onsite wastewater treatment lagoons were RCRA listed hazardous wastes and that they need to be managed in accordance with RCRA regulations. The Company believes that the cost to treat and/or dispose of the material dredged from the lagoons as hazardous waste could be substantial. However, by letter dated January 22, 2010, the Company received a determination from the KYDEP Division of Waste Management that the materials were not RCRA listed hazardous wastes when recycled, as had been the Company’s practice. The Company believes that pursuant to EPA regulations, KYDEP is the proper authority to make this determination. Thus, the Company believes that there is no basis for the position set forth in the EPA’s January 5, 2010 letter and the Company will vigorously defend any complaint on the matter. By letter dated May 12, 2010 from the Department of Justice Environmental and Natural Resources Division (the “DOJ”), the Company was informed that the DOJ was prepared to take appropriate enforcement action against the Company for the NOV and other violations under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Company met with the DOJ on July 9, 2010 and agreed to permit more comprehensive testing of the lagoons and to share data and analysis already obtained. On July 19, 2010, the EPA sent the Company a formal information request with respect to such data and analysis, which was answered by the Company. In September 2010, representatives of the EPA met with Company personnel for two days at the Big Sandy plant. The visit included an inspection by the EPA and discussion regarding the plan for additional testing of the lagoons and material dredged from the lagoons. The Company, EPA and DOJ have had ongoing meetings and discussions since the September 2010 inspection. The Company has completed testing of some of the material dredged from the lagoons and of materials in one of the lagoons. The results of this testing have been provided to the EPA and the KYDEP. The Company believes that the results are favorable. On March 9, 2012 the KYDEP issued a determination that the material dredged from the lagoons that comes from that portion of the stockpile that has been tested; material currently in the lagoons; and future generated material, no longer contains a hazardous waste. The determination further states that KYDEP will not regulate the material as a solid waste so long as the material is managed in accordance with certain agreed upon procedures. On April 2, 2012 the EPA issued a similar determination with respect to the material dredged from the lagoons that comes from that portion of the stockpile that has been tested. On April 11, 2012, the Company met with the EPA to attempt to negotiate a comprehensive settlement including the extent, if any, of additional testing that should be done on any of the remaining material; the long-term plans for the lagoons including possible process modifications and civil penalties. The EPA indicated that such a comprehensive resolution may be possible but that the agency still expects significant civil penalties with respect to the violations cited in the NOV as well as the alleged CWA violations. The Company believes that the size of any civil penalties, if any, should be reduced since all the alleged violations, except those with respect to the characterization of the certain residues resulting from the treatment of the carbon reactivation furnace off-gas and the material dredged from the onsite wastewater treatment lagoons, have been resolved. The Company believes that there should be no penalties associated with respect to the characterization of the residues resulting from the treatment of the carbon reactivation furnace off-gas and the material dredged from the onsite wastewater treatment lagoons as the Company believes that those materials are not RCRA listed hazardous waste as has been determined by the KYDEP and the testing has shown that the material is not hazardous. The Company accrued $2.0 million as its estimate of potential loss related to civil penalties as of December 31, 2010. In the second quarter of 2012, the Company recorded a reduction of $0.2 million to this estimate. Since April 2012, the Company and the EPA have continued to negotiate the issues. In November 2012 the parties met and agreed in principal to a total civil penalty of $1.6 million. In July 2013 the EPA provided the Company with a draft consent decree. The Company is currently reviewing the draft consent decree and expects to sign a negotiated consent decree in 2013. Frontier Chemical Processing Royal Avenue Site In June 2007, the Company received a Notice Letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) stating that the NYSDEC had determined that the Company is a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) at the Frontier Chemical Processing Royal Avenue Site in Niagara Falls, New York (the “Site”). The Notice Letter requested that the Company and other PRP’s develop, implement and finance a remedial program for Operable Unit #1 at the Site. Operable Unit #1 consists of overburden soils and overburden and upper bedrock groundwater. The Company has joined a PRP group (the “PRP Group”) and has executed a Joint Defense Agreement with the group members. The PRP Group has approximately $7.5 million in a trust account to fund remediation. In August 2008, the Company and over 100 PRP’s entered into a Consent Order with the NYSDEC for additional site investigation directed toward characterization of the Site to better define the scope of the remedial project. The Company contributed monies to the PRP Group to help fund the work required under the Consent Order. The additional site investigation required under the Consent Order was initiated in 2008 and completed in the spring of 2009. A final report of the site investigation was submitted to the NYSDEC in October 2009 and revised in September 2010. By letter dated October 10, 2010, the NYSDEC approved the report and terminated the Consent Order. The PRP Group was issued a Significant Industrial User Permit by the Niagara Falls Water Board (NFWB) in November 2010. The permit allows the shallow ground water flow from the Site to continue to be naturally captured by the adjacent sewer tunnels with subsequent treatment of the ground water at the Niagara Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant. The PRP Group has now proposed and the NYSDEC has agreed to permit onsite thermal treatment of the contaminated soil to achieve the soil clean-up standards. Estimated costs for thermal treatment of soils are $7.5 million to $8 million. In March 2013, the Company, along with over thirty other PRPs, entered into a consent decree with the NYSDEC pursuant to which the work plan for the remedial program was agreed upon. The Company has not determined what portion of the costs associated with the remedial program it will be obligated to bear and the Company cannot predict with any certainty the outcome of this matter or range of potential loss. Pearl River Plant In August 2012, the Company’s Pearl River plant, located in Pearlington, Mississippi, was impacted by Hurricane Isaac. The Company has both property and business interruption insurance coverage for this plant. In January 2013, management filed a claim with its insurance carrier to recover damages for both property and business interruption related to this event. In March 2013, the Company settled its insurance claim and received $0.4 million from its insurance carrier and recorded it as a deduction to cost of products sold (excluding depreciation) for the three months ended March 31, 2013. Accelerated Share Repurchase In November 2012, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized an accelerated share repurchase of Company common stock under a share repurchase program (the “Program”). On November 20, 2012, the Company paid a purchase price of $50 million and received 3,276,002 shares in connection with the inception of the Program. The actual number of shares that the Company will repurchase under the Program will be determined based on a discount to the arithmetic mean of the volume-weighted average prices (VWAP) of the Company’s common stock for each observation date over the course of applicable calculation periods. The calculation period is expected to end no later than the end of September 2013. If the actual number of shares to be repurchased exceeds the number of shares previously delivered, the Company will receive a number of additional shares equal to such excess following the conclusion of the calculation period. If the actual number of shares to be repurchased is less than the number of shares previously delivered, the Company will deliver shares equal to such excess following the conclusion of the calculation period. The Company also retains the right to settle any such deficit in cash. The Company’s outstanding common shares used to calculate earnings per share will be reduced by the number of repurchased shares pursuant to the Program as they are delivered to the Company, and the $50 million purchase price was recorded as a reduction in stockholders’ equity upon its payment. Based on the Company’s VWAP from Program inception through June 30, 2013, the number of shares to be repurchased is estimated to be 236,284 shares less than the shares that were previously delivered. Accordingly, the Company has increased its diluted shares outstanding. Other In addition to the matters described above, the Company is involved in various other legal proceedings, lawsuits and claims, including employment, product warranty and environmental matters of a nature considered normal to its business. It is the Company’s policy to accrue for amounts related to these legal matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the loss amount is reasonably estimable. Management believes that the ultimate liabilities, if any, resulting from such lawsuits and claims will not materially affect the consolidated financial position or liquidity of the Company, but an adverse outcome could be material to the results of operations in a particular period in which a liability is recognized.

8. Commitments and Contingencies

Waterlink

In conjunction with the February 2004 purchase of substantially all of Waterlink Inc.’s (Waterlink) operating assets and the stock of Waterlink’s U.K. subsidiary, environmental studies were performed on Waterlink’s Columbus, Ohio property by environmental consulting firms that provided an identification and characterization of certain areas of contamination. In addition, these firms identified alternative methods of remediating the property and prepared cost evaluations of the various alternatives. The Company concluded from the information in the studies that a loss at this property is probable and recorded the liability. At June 30, 2013 the balance recorded as a component of accounts payable and accrued liabilities and accrued pension and other liabilities was $0.2 million and $1.0 million, respectively. At December 31, 2012 the balance recorded as a component of accrued pension and other liabilities was $1.4 million. Liability estimates are based on an evaluation of, among other factors, currently available facts, existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations, and the remediation experience of experts in groundwater remediation. It is possible that a further change in the estimate of this obligation will occur as remediation progresses. The Company incurred $0.2 million and $0.4 million of environmental remediation costs for the six month periods ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Remediation activities are ongoing and are currently expected to be completed by the end of 2014.

Carbon Imports

General Anti-Dumping Background: On March 8, 2006, the Company and another U.S. producer of activated carbon (collectively the “Petitioners”) formally requested that the United States Department of Commerce investigate unfair pricing of certain thermally activated carbon imported from the People’s Republic of China.

On March 2, 2007, the Commerce Department published its final determination (subsequently amended) finding that imports of the subject merchandise from China were being unfairly priced, or dumped, and that anti-dumping duties should be imposed to offset the amount of the unfair pricing. The resultant tariff rates ranged from 61.95% ad valorem (i.e., of the entered value of the goods) to 228.11% ad valorem. Following a finding by the U.S. International Trade Commission that the domestic industry was injured by unfairly traded imports of activated carbon from China, an anti-dumping order imposing these tariffs was issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce and was published in the Federal Register on April 27, 2007. All imports from China remain subject to the order. Importers of subject activated carbon from China are required to make cash deposits of estimated anti-dumping duties at the time the goods are entered into the United States’ customs territory. Final assessment of duties and duty deposits are subject to revision based on annual retrospective reviews conducted by the Commerce Department.

The Company is both a domestic producer, exporter from China (through its wholly-owned subsidiary Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.), and a U.S. importer of the activated carbon that is subject to the anti-dumping order. As such, the Company’s involvement in the Commerce Department’s proceedings is both as a domestic producer (a “petitioner”) and as a foreign exporter (a “respondent”).

The Company’s role as an importer, which has in the past (and may in the future) required it to pay anti-dumping duties, results in a contingent liability related to the final amount of tariffs that are ultimately assessed on the imported product following the Commerce Department’s periodic review of relevant shipments and calculation of the anti-dumping duties due. The amount of estimated anti-dumping tariffs payable on goods imported into the United States is subject to review and retroactive adjustment based on the actual amount of dumping that is found on entries made during a given annual period. As a result of proceedings before the Commerce Department that concluded in November 2011, the Company is currently able to import activated carbon from Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) into the United States without posting a cash deposit. As noted above, however, anti-dumping duties could be imposed on these shipments in the future, as a result of on-going proceedings before the Commerce Department.

As part of its standard process, the Commerce Department conducts annual reviews of sales made to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer, typically over the prior 12-month period. These reviews will be conducted for at least five years subsequent to a determination in 2013 finding that the anti-dumping duty order should remain in effect, and can result in changes to the anti-dumping tariff rate (either increasing or reducing the rate) applicable to any foreign exporter. Revision of tariff rates has two effects. First, it will alter the actual amount of tariffs that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) will collect for the period reviewed, by either collecting additional duties above those deposited with Customs by the importer at the time of entry or refunding a portion of the duties deposited at the time of importation to reflect a decline in the margin of dumping. If the actual amount of tariffs owed increases, Customs will require the U.S. importer to pay the difference, plus interest. Conversely, if the tariff rate decreases, any difference will be refunded by Customs to the U.S. importer with interest. Second, the revised rate becomes the cash deposit rate applied to future entries, and can either increase or decrease the amount of duty deposits an importer will be required to post at the time of importation.

Period of Review I: As an importer of activated carbon from China, and in light of the successful anti-dumping tariff case, the Company was required to pay deposits of estimated anti-dumping duties at the rate of 84.45% ad valorem to Customs on entries made on or after October 11, 2006 through March 1, 2007. From March 2, 2007 through March 29, 2007, the anti-dumping duty deposit rate was 78.89%. From March 30, 2007 through April 8, 2007, the anti-dumping duty deposit rate was 69.54%. Because of limits on the government’s legal authority to impose provisional duties on imports prior to issuance of a final determination, entries made between April 9, 2007 and April 18, 2007 were not subject to anti-dumping duty assessments. For the period from April 19, 2007 through November 9, 2009, estimated anti-dumping duties were deposited at a rate of 69.54% ad valorem.

On November 10, 2009, the Commerce Department announced the final results of its review of the tariff period beginning October 11, 2006 through March 31, 2008 (period of review (“POR”) I). Based on the POR I results, the Company’s ongoing duty deposit rate was adjusted from 69.54% to 14.51% (as further adjusted by .07% for certain ministerial errors as published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2009) for entries made subsequent to the announcement. The Department of Commerce determined an assessment rate (final duty to be collected) on the entries made in this period of 31.93% ad valorem, which is substantially lower than the original amounts secured by bonds and cash. Accordingly, the Company reduced its recorded liability for unpaid deposits in POR I and recorded a receivable of $1.6 million reflecting expected refunds for tariff deposits made during POR I as a result of the announced decrease in the POR I tariff assessment rate. The Company had received the $1.6 million as of December 31, 2012.

Period of Review II: On April 1, 2009, the Commerce Department published a formal notice allowing parties to request a second annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009 (POR II). Requests for review were due no later than April 30, 2009. The Company, in its capacity as a U.S. producer and separately as a Chinese exporter, elected not to participate in this administrative review. By not participating in the review, the Company’s duty deposits made during POR II became final and are not subject to further adjustment.

On November 17, 2010, the Commerce Department announced the results of its review for POR II. Because the Company was not involved in this review its deposit rates did not change from the rate of 14.51%, which was established during POR I. The cooperative respondents involved in POR II that did not receive a company-specific rate received a deposit rate of $0.127 per pound.

Period of Review III: On April 1, 2010, the Commerce Department published a formal notice allowing parties to request a third annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010 (“POR III”). On October 31, 2011, the Commerce Department published the results of its review of POR III. Based on the POR III results, the Company’s ongoing duty deposit rate was adjusted to zero. The Company recorded a receivable of $1.1 million reflecting expected refunds for duty deposits made during POR III as a result of the announced decrease in the POR III assessment rate. The Commerce Department continued to assign cooperative respondents involved in POR III a deposit rate of $0.127 per pound. In early December 2011, several separate rate respondents appealed the Commerce Department’s final results of POR III. The Company does not expect any of the appeals to be successful. However, in the event the court finds merit in the arguments raised in the appeals, the Company does not expect the revised rates to materially impact the anticipated $1.1 million of expected refunds for tariff deposits it made during POR III. The main impact that a successful appeal would have is related to the amount of anti-dumping duties assessed on imports by the cooperative respondents that were entered into the United States between April 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009. An initial decision from the court in the POR III appeal process is expected during the third quarter of 2013.

Period of Review IV: On April 1, 2011, the Commerce Department published a formal notice allowing parties to request a fourth annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011 (“POR IV”). On November 9, 2012, the Commerce Department published the final results of its review of POR IV. Specifically, Commerce calculated anti-dumping margins for the mandatory respondents it examined ranging from $0.20 per pound (Jacobi Carbons AB and its affiliates) to $0.96 per pound (Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. and its affiliates), and it calculated an anti-dumping margin of $0.47 per pound for the cooperative, separate rate respondents whose shipments of activated carbon to the United States were not individually reviewed. The Commerce Department also calculated a $0.00 anti-dumping margin for Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. The Company, as a Chinese exporter and a U.S. importer, elected not to participate as a respondent in this administrative review. By not participating as a respondent in the review, the Company’s tariff deposits made at a rate of 14.51% during POR IV became final and are not subject to further adjustment. The Company’s ongoing deposit rate continues to be zero which was a result of the company-specific rate calculated in POR III. Appeals challenging the Commerce Department’s final results for POR IV have been commenced before the U.S. Court of International Trade by Jacobi Carbons AB, Ningxia Guanghua Cherishment Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. and its affiliates; Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.; Carbon Activated Corporation and Car Go Worldwide, Inc.; and Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd. The Company does not expect an initial decision from the court concerning these appeals before the end of 2013, and expects that this litigation will not directly impact the Company’s operations.

Period of Review V: On April 2, 2012, the Commerce Department published a formal notice allowing parties to request a fifth annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012 (“POR V”). Requests for review were due no later than April 30, 2012. On July 11, 2012, the Commerce Department announced its selection of Jacobi Carbons AB and Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co, Ltd. as the two mandatory respondents for POR V. Albemarle Corporation has requested a review of Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) for POR V. The analysis of POR V data began in 2012 and the preliminary results of the Commerce Department’s review of POR V were announced on May 3, 2013. The Commerce Department calculated preliminary anti-dumping margins for the mandatory respondents that it examined ranging from $0.13 per pound (Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co.) to $0.25 per pound (Jacobi Carbons AB and its affiliates), and as a result, it calculated a preliminary anti-dumping margin of $0.19 per pound for the cooperative, separate rate respondents whose shipments of activated carbon to the United States were not individually reviewed. These preliminary margins are subject to change by the final determination, which will not be issued until mid-November 2013.

Sunset Review: In March 2012, the Commerce Department and U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) initiated proceedings as part of a five-year “sunset” review to evaluate whether the anti-dumping order should be continued for an additional five years. The Company, and two other U. S. producers of activated carbon, participated in the review to support continuation of the anti-dumping order for an additional five years. The Company maintained that the continuation of the anti-dumping order was appropriate as the Commerce Department has determined that Chinese producers and exporters have continued — and, absent continuation of the anti-dumping order, will in the future continue — to sell activated carbon in the United States at unfairly low prices. This is demonstrated by the positive anti-dumping duty margins and deposit rates determined during the various annual reviews conducted by the Commerce Department since the anti-dumping order took effect in April 2007. The Company asserted that the disciplining effect of the order played an important role in maintaining fair market pricing of the activated carbon market overall. Without the anti-dumping order in place, the Company argued that Chinese producers and exporters would resume or increase dumping of certain thermally activated carbon in the United States. Since the anti-dumping order was published, the Company has reduced its imports of covered activated carbon products from China and has increased production of activated carbon in the United States. On June 6, 2012, the Commerce Department published in the Federal Register its final results in an expedited sunset review, and determined that absent continuation of the anti-dumping order dumping of Chinese activated carbon in the United States would be likely to continue or recur. As a result, it determined the order should be continued for an additional five years.

On June 4, 2012 the ITC voted unanimously to conduct a full review of the anti-dumping order. As a result, the agency utilized a process similar to its original injury investigation, where the agency distributed detailed questionnaires to gather information for its investigation from domestic producers, foreign producers, U.S. importers, and purchasers, and conducted a hearing on December 18, 2012. The Company and the two other U.S. producers of activated carbon, as well as a U.S. importer of activated carbon, participated in the hearing. Based on the information gathered by the agency during its review, the ITC reached a unanimous affirmative determination on February 8, 2013, voting to continue the anti-dumping order for an additional five years. The Commerce Department published a notice in the Federal Register on March 18, 2013, stating that the anti-dumping order will be continued for an additional five years.

Period of Review VI: On April 2, 2013, the Commerce Department published a formal notice allowing parties to request a sixth annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013 (“POR VI”). Requests for an administrative review were submitted to the Commerce Department in April of 2013. On June 26, 2013, the Commerce Department announced its selection of Jacobi Carbons AB and Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co, Ltd. as the two mandatory respondents for POR VI. Albemarle Corporation has requested a review of Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) for POR VI. The analysis of POR VI will begin in the third quarter of 2013 and the preliminary results of the Commerce Department’s review of POR VI are anticipated to be announced in late April or early May of 2014.

Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act Distributions: Pursuant to the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) of 2000 (repealed effective February 8, 2006), as an affected domestic producer, the Company is eligible to apply for a share of the distributions of certain tariffs collected on imports of subject merchandise from China that entered the United States from October 11, 2006 to September 30, 2007. As a result, the Company is eligible to receive a distribution of duties collected on imports of certain activated carbon that entered the United States during a portion of POR I. In June 2013, June 2012 and July 2011, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the Company applied for such distributions which are typically made in the fourth quarter of each calendar year. There were no additional amounts received by the Company for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010. In November 2009 and December 2008, the Company received distributions of approximately $0.8 million and $0.2 million, respectively, which reflected 59.57% of the total amount of duties then available and distributed by Customs in connection with the anti-dumping order on certain activated carbon from China.

CDSOA distributions related to POR I imports were on hold while the POR I final results for certain exporters were under appeal. All POR I appeals were subsequently resolved and Customs issued liquidation instructions in October 2011 for activated carbon entries affected by the appeal process involving POR I. The Company received $1.8 million in December 2012 related to the CDSOA distributions of which $1.5 million was reflected within the Company’s consolidated statement of comprehensive income for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On May 31, 2013, Customs announced the preliminary amount of duties available (as of April 30, 2013) for distribution under the CDSOA for fiscal year 2013. The preliminary amount identified for distribution related to certain activated carbon imported from China totaled $86,765 which should be distributed to eligible parties in December 2013. The Company expects to receive 59.57% of the fiscal year 2013 distribution. The Company does not anticipate any further material CDSOA distributions subsequent to the distribution expected to be made in December 2013.

Big Sandy Plant

By letter dated January 22, 2007, the Company received from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 a report of a hazardous waste facility inspection performed by the EPA and the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection (KYDEP) as part of a Multi Media Compliance Evaluation of the Company’s Big Sandy Plant in Catlettsburg, Kentucky that was conducted on September 20 and 21, 2005. Accompanying the report was a Notice of Violation (NOV) alleging multiple violations of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and corresponding EPA and KYDEP hazardous waste regulations.

The alleged violations mainly concern the hazardous waste spent activated carbon regeneration facility. The Company met with the EPA on April 17, 2007 to discuss the inspection report and alleged violations, and submitted written responses in May and June 2007. In August 2007, the EPA notified the Company that it believed there were still significant violations of RCRA that were unresolved by the information provided in the Company’s responses, without specifying the particular violations. During a meeting with the EPA on December 10, 2007, the EPA indicated that the agency would not pursue certain other alleged violations. The Company has taken action to address and remediate a number of the alleged violations. The Company now believes, and the EPA has indicated, that the number of unresolved issues as to alleged continuing violations cited in the January 22, 2007 NOV has been reduced substantially. The EPA can take formal enforcement action to require the Company to remediate any or all of the unresolved alleged continuing violations, which could require the Company to incur substantial additional costs. The EPA can also take formal enforcement action to impose substantial civil penalties with respect to violations cited in the NOV, including those which have been admitted or resolved.

By letter dated January 5, 2010, the EPA determined that certain residues resulting from the treatment of the carbon reactivation furnace off-gas are RCRA listed hazardous wastes and the material dredged from the onsite wastewater treatment lagoons were RCRA listed hazardous wastes and that they need to be managed in accordance with RCRA regulations. The Company believes that the cost to treat and/or dispose of the material dredged from the lagoons as hazardous waste could be substantial. However, by letter dated January 22, 2010, the Company received a determination from the KYDEP Division of Waste Management that the materials were not RCRA listed hazardous wastes when recycled, as had been the Company’s practice. The Company believes that pursuant to EPA regulations, KYDEP is the proper authority to make this determination. Thus, the Company believes that there is no basis for the position set forth in the EPA’s January 5, 2010 letter and the Company will vigorously defend any complaint on the matter. By letter dated May 12, 2010 from the Department of Justice Environmental and Natural Resources Division (the “DOJ”), the Company was informed that the DOJ was prepared to take appropriate enforcement action against the Company for the NOV and other violations under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Company met with the DOJ on July 9, 2010 and agreed to permit more comprehensive testing of the lagoons and to share data and analysis already obtained. On July 19, 2010, the EPA sent the Company a formal information request with respect to such data and analysis, which was answered by the Company. In September 2010, representatives of the EPA met with Company personnel for two days at the Big Sandy plant. The visit included an inspection by the EPA and discussion regarding the plan for additional testing of the lagoons and material dredged from the lagoons.

The Company, EPA and DOJ have had ongoing meetings and discussions since the September 2010 inspection. The Company has completed testing of some of the material dredged from the lagoons and of materials in one of the lagoons. The results of this testing have been provided to the EPA and the KYDEP. The Company believes that the results are favorable. On March 9, 2012 the KYDEP issued a determination that the material dredged from the lagoons that comes from that portion of the stockpile that has been tested; material currently in the lagoons; and future generated material, no longer contains a hazardous waste. The determination further states that KYDEP will not regulate the material as a solid waste so long as the material is managed in accordance with certain agreed upon procedures. On April 2, 2012 the EPA issued a similar determination with respect to the material dredged from the lagoons that comes from that portion of the stockpile that has been tested.

On April 11, 2012, the Company met with the EPA to attempt to negotiate a comprehensive settlement including the extent, if any, of additional testing that should be done on any of the remaining material; the long-term plans for the lagoons including possible process modifications and civil penalties. The EPA indicated that such a comprehensive resolution may be possible but that the agency still expects significant civil penalties with respect to the violations cited in the NOV as well as the alleged CWA violations. The Company believes that the size of any civil penalties, if any, should be reduced since all the alleged violations, except those with respect to the characterization of the certain residues resulting from the treatment of the carbon reactivation furnace off-gas and the material dredged from the onsite wastewater treatment lagoons, have been resolved. The Company believes that there should be no penalties associated with respect to the characterization of the residues resulting from the treatment of the carbon reactivation furnace off-gas and the material dredged from the onsite wastewater treatment lagoons as the Company believes that those materials are not RCRA listed hazardous waste as has been determined by the KYDEP and the testing has shown that the material is not hazardous.

The Company accrued $2.0 million as its estimate of potential loss related to civil penalties as of December 31, 2010. In the second quarter of 2012, the Company recorded a reduction of $0.2 million to this estimate. Since April 2012, the Company and the EPA have continued to negotiate the issues. In November 2012 the parties met and agreed in principal to a total civil penalty of $1.6 million. In July 2013 the EPA provided the Company with a draft consent decree. The Company is currently reviewing the draft consent decree and expects to sign a negotiated consent decree in 2013.

Frontier Chemical Processing Royal Avenue Site

In June 2007, the Company received a Notice Letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) stating that the NYSDEC had determined that the Company is a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) at the Frontier Chemical Processing Royal Avenue Site in Niagara Falls, New York (the “Site”). The Notice Letter requested that the Company and other PRP’s develop, implement and finance a remedial program for Operable Unit #1 at the Site. Operable Unit #1 consists of overburden soils and overburden and upper bedrock groundwater. The Company has joined a PRP group (the “PRP Group”) and has executed a Joint Defense Agreement with the group members. The PRP Group has approximately $7.5 million in a trust account to fund remediation. In August 2008, the Company and over 100 PRP’s entered into a Consent Order with the NYSDEC for additional site investigation directed toward characterization of the Site to better define the scope of the remedial project. The Company contributed monies to the PRP Group to help fund the work required under the Consent Order. The additional site investigation required under the Consent Order was initiated in 2008 and completed in the spring of 2009. A final report of the site investigation was submitted to the NYSDEC in October 2009 and revised in September 2010. By letter dated October 10, 2010, the NYSDEC approved the report and terminated the Consent Order. The PRP Group was issued a Significant Industrial User Permit by the Niagara Falls Water Board (NFWB) in November 2010. The permit allows the shallow ground water flow from the Site to continue to be naturally captured by the adjacent sewer tunnels with subsequent treatment of the ground water at the Niagara Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant.

The PRP Group has now proposed and the NYSDEC has agreed to permit onsite thermal treatment of the contaminated soil to achieve the soil clean-up standards. Estimated costs for thermal treatment of soils are $7.5 million to $8 million. In March 2013, the Company, along with over thirty other PRPs, entered into a consent decree with the NYSDEC pursuant to which the work plan for the remedial program was agreed upon. The Company has not determined what portion of the costs associated with the remedial program it will be obligated to bear and the Company cannot predict with any certainty the outcome of this matter or range of potential loss.

Pearl River Plant

In August 2012, the Company’s Pearl River plant, located in Pearlington, Mississippi, was impacted by Hurricane Isaac. The Company has both property and business interruption insurance coverage for this plant. In January 2013, management filed a claim with its insurance carrier to recover damages for both property and business interruption related to this event. In March 2013, the Company settled its insurance claim and received $0.4 million from its insurance carrier and recorded it as a deduction to cost of products sold (excluding depreciation) for the three months ended March 31, 2013.

Accelerated Share Repurchase

In November 2012, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized an accelerated share repurchase of Company common stock under a share repurchase program (the “Program”). On November 20, 2012, the Company paid a purchase price of $50 million and received 3,276,002 shares in connection with the inception of the Program. The actual number of shares that the Company will repurchase under the Program will be determined based on a discount to the arithmetic mean of the volume-weighted average prices (VWAP) of the Company’s common stock for each observation date over the course of applicable calculation periods. The calculation period is expected to end no later than the end of September 2013. If the actual number of shares to be repurchased exceeds the number of shares previously delivered, the Company will receive a number of additional shares equal to such excess following the conclusion of the calculation period. If the actual number of shares to be repurchased is less than the number of shares previously delivered, the Company will deliver shares equal to such excess following the conclusion of the calculation period. The Company also retains the right to settle any such deficit in cash. The Company’s outstanding common shares used to calculate earnings per share will be reduced by the number of repurchased shares pursuant to the Program as they are delivered to the Company, and the $50 million purchase price was recorded as a reduction in stockholders’ equity upon its payment. Based on the Company’s VWAP from Program inception through June 30, 2013, the number of shares to be repurchased is estimated to be 236,284 shares less than the shares that were previously delivered. Accordingly, the Company has increased its diluted shares outstanding.

Other

In addition to the matters described above, the Company is involved in various other legal proceedings, lawsuits and claims, including employment, product warranty and environmental matters of a nature considered normal to its business. It is the Company’s policy to accrue for amounts related to these legal matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the loss amount is reasonably estimable. Management believes that the ultimate liabilities, if any, resulting from such lawsuits and claims will not materially affect the consolidated financial position or liquidity of the Company, but an adverse outcome could be material to the results of operations in a particular period in which a liability is recognized.