XML 105 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

Contingencies And Commitments | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2011
Contingencies And Commitments [Abstract] |
Contingencies And Commitments | N. Contingencies and Commitments Contingencies Litigation. On February 27, 2008, Alcoa Inc. received notice that Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. (Alba) had filed suit against Alcoa Inc. and Alcoa World Alumina LLC (collectively, "Alcoa"), and others, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the "Court"), Civil Action number 08-299, styled Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. v. Alcoa Inc., Alcoa World Alumina LLC, William Rice, and Victor Phillip Dahdaleh. The complaint alleges that certain Alcoa entities and their agents, including Victor Phillip Dahdaleh, have engaged in a conspiracy over a period of 15 years to defraud Alba. The complaint further alleges that Alcoa and its employees or agents (1) illegally bribed officials of the government of Bahrain and (or) officers of Alba in order to force Alba to purchase alumina at excessively high prices, (2) illegally bribed officials of the government of Bahrain and (or) officers of Alba and issued threats in order to pressure Alba to enter into an agreement by which Alcoa would purchase an equity interest in Alba, and (3) assigned portions of existing supply contracts between Alcoa and Alba for the sole purpose of facilitating alleged bribes and unlawful commissions. The complaint alleges that Alcoa and the other defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and committed fraud. Alba's complaint seeks compensatory, consequential, exemplary, and punitive damages, rescission of the 2005 alumina supply contract, and attorneys' fees and costs. Alba seeks treble damages with respect to its RICO claims. On February 26, 2008, Alcoa Inc. had advised the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that it had recently become aware of these claims, had already begun an internal investigation, and intended to cooperate fully in any investigation that the DOJ or the SEC may commence. On March 17, 2008, the DOJ notified Alcoa that it had opened a formal investigation and Alcoa has been cooperating with the government. In response to a motion filed by the DOJ on March 27, 2008, the Court ordered the suit filed by Alba to be administratively closed and that all discovery be stayed to allow the DOJ to fully conduct an investigation without the interference and distraction of ongoing civil litigation. The Court further ordered that the case will be reopened at the close of the DOJ's investigation. On November 8, 2011, at Alcoa's request, the Court removed the case from administrative stay and ordered Alba to file an Amended Complaint by November 28, 2011 and a RICO case statement 30 days thereafter for the limited purpose of allowing Alcoa to move to dismiss Alba's lawsuit. Pursuant to the November 8, 2011 order, briefing on the motion to dismiss is to be completed by March 2012. Separately, the DOJ's and SEC's investigations are ongoing. While Alcoa has been engaged in dialogue with both the DOJ and SEC, it is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss with regard to any of the governmental or private party matters discussed above, but such losses may be material in a particular period to Alcoa's results of operations. In November 2006, in Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No. 3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), a class action was filed by plaintiffs representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for certain medical procedures and prescription drugs. Plaintiffs alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated their rights to vested health care benefits. Plaintiffs additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their health benefits would never change. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys' fees. Alcoa had consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a class action. During the fourth quarter of 2007, following briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial, certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a trial date of September 17, 2008. In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24, 2009 and, subsequently, the trial date was moved to September 22, 2009. In June 2009, the court indicated that it would not use an advisory jury at trial. Trial in the matter was held over eight days commencing September 22, 2009 and ending on October 1, 2009 in federal court in Knoxville, TN before the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge. At the conclusion of evidence, the court set a post-hearing briefing schedule for submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the parties and for replies to the same. Post trial briefing was submitted on December 4, 2009. On March 9, 2011, the court issued a judgment order dismissing plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice for the reasons stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. On March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification and/or amendment of the judgment order, which seeks, among other things, a declaration that plaintiffs' retiree benefits are vested subject to an annual cap and an injunction preventing Alcoa, prior to 2017, from modifying the plan design to which plaintiffs are subject or changing the premiums and deductibles that plaintiffs must pay. Also on March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for award of attorney's fees and expenses. Alcoa filed its opposition to both motions on April 11, 2011. The time for plaintiffs to appeal from the court's March 9, 2011 judgment will not begin until the court disposes of these motions. On April 23, 2004, St. Croix Renaissance Group, L.L.L.P. (SCRG), Brownfield Recovery Corp., and Energy Answers Corporation of Puerto Rico (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs") filed a suit against St. Croix Alumina L.L.C. and Alcoa World Alumina, LLC (collectively referred to as "Alcoa") in the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix for claims related to the sale of Alcoa's former St. Croix alumina refinery to Plaintiffs. Alcoa thereafter removed the case to federal court and after a several year period of discovery and motion practice, a jury trial on the matter took place in St. Croix from January 11, 2011 to January 20, 2011. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs and awarded damages as described: on a claim of breaches of warranty, the jury awarded $13; on the same claim, the jury awarded punitive damages in the amount of $6; and on a negligence claim for property damage, the jury awarded $10. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking pre-judgment interest on the jury award. On February 17, 2011, Alcoa filed post-trial motions seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial. On May 31, 2011, the court granted Alcoa's motion for judgment regarding Plaintiffs' $10 negligence award and denied the remainder of Alcoa's motions. Additionally, the court awarded Plaintiffs pre-judgment interest of $2 on the breach of warranty award. As a result of the court's post-trial decisions, Alcoa recorded a charge of $20 in 2011 (See Note D). On June 14, 2011, Alcoa filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding Alcoa's denied post-trial motions. On June 22, 2011, SCRG filed a notice of cross appeal with the Third Circuit Court related to certain pre-trial decisions of the court and of the court's post-trial ruling on the negligence claim. The Third Circuit Court referred this matter to mediation as is its standard practice in appeals. Before 2002, Alcoa purchased power in Italy in the regulated energy market and received a drawback of a portion of the price of power under a special tariff in an amount calculated in accordance with a published resolution of the Italian Energy Authority, Energy Authority Resolution n. 204/1999. In 2001, the Energy Authority published another resolution, which clarified that the drawback would be calculated in the same manner, and in the same amount, in either the regulated or unregulated market. At the beginning of 2002, Alcoa left the regulated energy market to purchase energy in the unregulated market. Subsequently, in 2004, the Energy Authority introduced regulation no. 148/2004 which set forth a different method for calculating the special tariff that would result in a different drawback for the regulated and unregulated markets. Alcoa challenged the new regulation in the Administrative Court of Milan and received a favorable judgment in 2006. Following this ruling, Alcoa continued to receive the power price drawback in accordance with the original calculation method, through 2009, when the European Commission declared all such special tariffs to be impermissible "state aid." In 2010, the Energy Authority appealed the 2006 ruling to the Consiglio di Stato (final court of appeal). On December 2, 2011, the Consiglio di Stato ruled in favor of the Energy Authority and against Alcoa, thus presenting the opportunity for the energy regulators to seek reimbursement from Alcoa of an amount equal to the difference between the actual drawback amounts received over the relevant time period, and the drawback as it would have been calculated in accordance with regulation 148/2004. Any such reimbursement would have to be made by way of a separate claim to Alcoa from the energy authorities and, thus far, no such claim has been presented. At this time, the company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome for this matter. European Commission Matters. In July 2006, the European Commission (EC) announced that it had opened an investigation to establish whether an extension of the regulated electricity tariff granted by Italy to some energy-intensive industries complies with European Union (EU) state aid rules. The Italian power tariff extended the tariff that was in force until December 31, 2005 through November 19, 2009 (Alcoa has been incurring higher power costs at its smelters in Italy subsequent to the tariff end date). The extension was originally through 2010, but the date was changed by legislation adopted by the Italian Parliament effective on August 15, 2009. Prior to expiration of the tariff in 2005, Alcoa had been operating in Italy for more than 10 years under a power supply structure approved by the EC in 1996. That measure provided a competitive power supply to the primary aluminum industry and was not considered state aid from the Italian Government. The EC's announcement expressed concerns about whether Italy's extension of the tariff beyond 2005 was compatible with EU legislation and potentially distorted competition in the European market of primary aluminum, where energy is an important part of the production costs. On November 19, 2009, the EC announced a decision in this matter stating that the extension of the tariff by Italy constituted unlawful state aid, in part, and, therefore, the Italian Government is to recover a portion of the benefit Alcoa received since January 2006 (including interest). The amount of this recovery will be based on a calculation that is being prepared by the Italian Government. Pending formal notification from the Italian Government, Alcoa estimates that a payment in the range of $300 to $500 will be required (the timing of such payment is uncertain). In late 2009, after discussions with legal counsel and reviewing the bases on which the EC decided, including the different considerations cited in the EC decision regarding Alcoa's two smelters in Italy, Alcoa recorded a charge of $250, including $20 to write off a receivable from the Italian Government for amounts due under the now expired tariff structure. On April 19, 2010, Alcoa filed an appeal of this decision with the General Court of the EU. Alcoa will pursue all substantive and procedural legal steps available to annul the EC's decision. On May 22, 2010, Alcoa also filed with the General Court a request for injunctive relief to suspend the effectiveness of the decision, but, on July 12, 2010, the General Court denied such request. On September 10, 2010, Alcoa appealed the July 12, 2010 decision to the European Court of Justice (ECJ); this appeal was dismissed on December 16, 2011. On March 23, 2011, the EC announced that it has decided to refer the Italian Government to the ECJ for failure to comply with the EC's November 19, 2009 decision. Separately, on November 29, 2006, Alcoa filed an appeal before the General Court (formerly the European Court of First Instance) seeking the annulment of the EC's decision to open an investigation alleging that such decision did not follow the applicable procedural rules. On March 25, 2009, the General Court denied Alcoa's appeal. On May 29, 2009, Alcoa appealed the March 25, 2009 ruling before the ECJ. The hearing of the May 29, 2009 appeal was held on June 24, 2010. On July 21, 2011, the ECJ denied Alcoa's appeal. As a result of the EC's November 19, 2009 decision, management had contemplated ceasing operations at its Italian smelters due to uneconomical power costs. In February 2010, management agreed to continue to operate its smelters in Italy for up to six months while a long-term solution to address increased power costs could be negotiated. Also in February 2010, the Italian Government issued a decree, which was converted into law by the Italian Parliament in March 2010, to provide interruptibility rights to certain industrial customers who were willing to be subject to temporary interruptions in the supply of power (i.e. compensation for power interruptions when grids are overloaded) over a three-year period. Alcoa applied for and was granted such rights (expiring on December 31, 2012) related to its Portovesme smelter. In May 2010, the EC stated that, based on their review of the validity of the decree, the interruptibility rights should not be considered state aid. On July 29, 2010, Alcoa executed a new power agreement effective September 1, 2010 through December 31, 2012 for the Portovesme smelter, replacing the short-term, market-based power contract that was in effect since early 2010. Additionally in May 2010, Alcoa and the Italian Government agreed to a temporary idling of the Fusina smelter. As of June 30, 2010, the Fusina smelter was fully curtailed (44 kmt-per-year). At the end of 2011, as part of a restructuring of Alcoa's global smelting system (see Note D), management decided to curtail operations at the Portovesme smelter during the first half of 2012. This action may lead to the permanent closure of the Portovesme smelter, due to the uncertain prospects for viable, long-term power once the current agreement expires at the end of 2012, along with rising raw materials costs and falling global aluminum prices (mid-2011 to late 2011). In January 2007, the EC announced that it had opened an investigation to establish whether the regulated electricity tariffs granted by Spain comply with EU state aid rules. At the time the EC opened its investigation, Alcoa had been operating in Spain for more than nine years under a power supply structure approved by the Spanish Government in 1986, an equivalent tariff having been granted in 1983. The investigation is limited to the year 2005 and is focused both on the energy-intensive consumers and the distribution companies. The investigation provided 30 days to any interested party to submit observations and comments to the EC. With respect to the energy-intensive consumers, the EC opened the investigation on the assumption that prices paid under the tariff in 2005 were lower than a pool price mechanism, therefore being, in principle, artificially below market conditions. Alcoa submitted comments in which the company provided evidence that prices paid by energy-intensive consumers were in line with the market, in addition to various legal arguments defending the legality of the Spanish tariff system. It is Alcoa's understanding that the Spanish tariff system for electricity is in conformity with all applicable laws and regulations, and therefore no state aid is present in the tariff system. While Alcoa does not believe that an unfavorable decision is probable, management has estimated that the total potential impact from an unfavorable decision could be approximately $90 (€70) pretax. Also, while Alcoa believes that any additional cost would only be assessed for the year 2005, it is possible that the EC could extend its investigation to later years. If the EC's investigation concludes that the regulated electricity tariffs for industries are unlawful, Alcoa will have an opportunity to challenge the decision in the EU courts. Environmental Matters. Alcoa continues to participate in environmental assessments and cleanups at a number of locations (more than 100). These include owned or operating facilities and adjoining properties, previously owned or operating facilities and adjoining properties, and waste sites, including Superfund (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)) sites. A liability is recorded for environmental remediation when a cleanup program becomes probable and the costs or damages can be reasonably estimated. As assessments and cleanups proceed, the liability is adjusted based on progress made in determining the extent of remedial actions and related costs and damages. The liability can change substantially due to factors such as the nature and extent of contamination, changes in remedial requirements, and technological changes, among others. Alcoa's remediation reserve balance was $347 and $333 at December 31, 2011 and 2010 (of which $58 and $31 was classified as a current liability), respectively, and reflects the most probable costs to remediate identified environmental conditions for which costs can be reasonably estimated. In 2011, the remediation reserve was increased by $31 due to charges of $18 related to the decision to permanently shut down and demolish a U.S. smelter (see Note D) and a net increase of $13 associated with a number of other sites. In 2010, the remediation reserve was increased by $46 due to charges of $19 related to the Massena West, NY site discussed below, $14 related to the decision to permanently shut down and demolish two U.S. smelters (see Note D), and $11 related to a settlement offer made in late 2010 for outstanding claims resulting from historical discharges into nearby rivers from both smelters in Massena, NY (separate from matter below); a reversal of $9 for previous charges related to a facility located in Russia due to new information; and a net increase of $11 associated with a number of other sites. In both periods, the changes to the remediation reserve, except for the aforementioned $18 in 2011 and $14 in 2010, were recorded in Cost of goods sold on the accompanying Statement of Consolidated Operations. Payments related to remediation expenses applied against the reserve were $19 and $17 in 2011 and 2010, respectively. These amounts include expenditures currently mandated, as well as those not required by any regulatory authority or third party. In 2011 and 2010, the change in the reserve also reflects a decrease of $1 and $3, respectively, due to the effects of foreign currency translation. Also, the change in the 2011 reserve reflects an increase of $3 related to the acquisition of an aerospace fasteners business (see Note F). Included in annual operating expenses are the recurring costs of managing hazardous substances and environmental programs. These costs are estimated to be approximately 2% of cost of goods sold. The following discussion provides details regarding the current status of certain significant reserves related to current or former Alcoa sites. Massena West, NY—Alcoa has been conducting investigations and studies of the Grasse River, adjacent to Alcoa's Massena plant site, under a 1989 order from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued under CERCLA. Sediments and fish in the river contain varying levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Alcoa submitted various Analysis of Alternatives Reports to the EPA starting in 1998 through 2002 that reported the results of river and sediment studies, potential alternatives for remedial actions related to the PCB contamination, and additional information requested by the EPA. In June 2003, the EPA requested that Alcoa gather additional field data to assess the potential for sediment erosion from winter river ice formation and breakup. The results of these additional studies, submitted in a report to the EPA in April 2004, suggest that this phenomenon has the potential to occur approximately every 10 years and may impact sediments in certain portions of the river under all remedial scenarios. The EPA informed Alcoa that a final remedial decision for the river could not be made without substantially more information, including river pilot studies on the effects of ice formation and breakup on each of the remedial techniques. Alcoa submitted to the EPA, and the EPA approved, a Remedial Options Pilot Study (ROPS) to gather this information. The scope of this study included sediment removal and capping, the installation of an ice control structure, and significant monitoring. From 2004 through 2008, Alcoa completed the work outlined in the ROPS. In November 2008, Alcoa submitted an update to the EPA incorporating the new information obtained from the ROPS related to the feasibility and costs associated with various capping and dredging alternatives, including options for ice control. As a result, Alcoa increased the reserve associated with the Grasse River by $40 for the estimated costs of a proposed ice control remedy and for partial settlement of potential damages of natural resources. In late 2009, the EPA requested that Alcoa submit a complete revised Analysis of Alternatives Report in March 2010 to address questions and comments from the EPA and various stakeholders. On March 24, 2010, Alcoa submitted the revised report, which included an expanded list of proposed remedial alternatives, as directed by the EPA. Alcoa increased the reserve associated with the Grasse River by $17 to reflect an increase in the estimated costs of the Company's recommended capping alternative as a result of changes in scope that occurred due to the questions and comments from the EPA and various stakeholders. While the EPA reviews the revised report, Alcoa will continue with its on-going monitoring and field studies activities. In late 2010, Alcoa increased the reserve by $2 based on the most recent estimate of costs expected to be incurred for on-going monitoring and field studies activities. In late 2011, the EPA and various stakeholders completed their review of the March 2010 revised report and submitted questions and comments to Alcoa. As a result, Alcoa increased the reserve by $1 to reflect a revision in the estimate of costs expected to be incurred for on-going monitoring and field studies activities. The ultimate selection of a remedy may result in additional liability. Alternatives analyzed in the most recent Analysis of Alternatives report that are equally effective as the recommended capping remedy range in additional estimated costs between $20 and $100. Alcoa may be required to record a subsequent reserve adjustment at the time the EPA's Record of Decision is issued that may exceed the estimated range. Sherwin, TX—In connection with the sale of the Sherwin alumina refinery, which was required to be divested as part of the Reynolds merger in 2000, Alcoa agreed to retain responsibility for the remediation of the then existing environmental conditions, as well as a pro rata share of the final closure of the active waste disposal areas, which remain in use. Alcoa's share of the closure costs is proportional to the total period of operation of the active waste disposal areas. Alcoa estimated its liability for the active disposal areas by making certain assumptions about the period of operation, the amount of material placed in the area prior to closure, and the appropriate technology, engineering, and regulatory status applicable to final closure. The most probable cost for remediation was reserved. East St. Louis, IL—In response to questions regarding environmental conditions at the former East St. Louis operations, Alcoa and the City of East St. Louis, the owner of the site, entered into an administrative order with the EPA in December 2002 to perform a remedial investigation and feasibility study of an area used for the disposal of bauxite residue from historic alumina refining operations. A draft feasibility study was submitted to the EPA in April 2005. The feasibility study included remedial alternatives that ranged from no further action to significant grading, stabilization, and water management of the bauxite residue disposal areas. As a result, Alcoa increased the environmental reserve for this location by $15 in 2005. The EPA's ultimate selection of a remedy could result in additional liability. Alcoa may be required to record a subsequent reserve adjustment at the time the EPA's Record of Decision is issued. Vancouver, WA—In 1987, Alcoa sold its Vancouver smelter to a company that is now known as Evergreen Aluminum (Evergreen). The purchase and sale agreement contained a provision that Alcoa retain liability for any environmental issues that arise subsequent to the sale that pre-date 1987. As a result of this obligation, Alcoa recorded a reserve for the Vancouver location at that time. Evergreen decommissioned the smelter and cleaned up its portion of the site under a consent order with the Washington Department of Ecology (WDE). In February 2008, Evergreen notified Alcoa that it had identified numerous areas containing contamination that predated 1987. Separately, in September 2008, Alcoa completed a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) under the Washington State Model Toxics Control Act and negotiated a consent decree with the WDE, which requires Alcoa to complete cleanup of PCB contaminated sediments in the Columbia River as well as remediate soil contamination in upland portions of the Vancouver property. In late 2008, Alcoa started cleanup work on the Columbia River and discovered additional contamination and waste materials along the shoreline area and in upland areas. In addition, Evergreen presented additional cost estimates for contaminated areas that were discovered since March 2008. As a result of all of the above items related to the former Vancouver site, Alcoa increased the environmental reserve by $16 in 2008. While continuing the cleanup work on the Columbia River in early 2009, Alcoa discovered more contamination and waste materials, resulting in a $2 increase to the environmental reserve. Later in 2009, cleanup work was completed related to the Evergreen property, the Columbia River, and the upland portions of the Vancouver property. Alcoa submitted a final report on this cleanup work to the WDE near the end of 2009 satisfying the remediation requirements of the consent decree. On March 17, 2010, Alcoa received a letter from the WDE stating that the work performed by Alcoa related to the Columbia River and the upland portions of the Vancouver property met all of the requirements of the consent decree, as well as the industrial cleanup standards under the Washington State Model Toxics Control Act. No additional reserve adjustment was necessary. Fusina and Portovesme, Italy—In 1996, Alcoa acquired the Fusina smelter and rolling operations and the Portovesme smelter, both of which are owned by Alcoa's subsidiary Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l., from Alumix, an entity owned by the Italian Government. At the time of the acquisition, Alumix indemnified Alcoa for pre-existing environmental contamination at the sites. In 2004, the Italian Ministry of Environment (MOE) issued orders to Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. and Alumix for the development of a clean-up plan related to soil contamination in excess of allowable limits under legislative decree and to institute emergency actions and pay natural resource damages. Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. appealed the orders and filed suit against Alumix, among others, seeking indemnification for these liabilities under the provisions of the acquisition agreement. In 2009, Ligestra S.r.l., Alumix's successor, and Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. agreed to a stay on the court proceedings while investigations were conducted and negotiations advanced towards a possible settlement. In December 2009, Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. and Ligestra S.r.l. reached an agreement for settlement of the liabilities related to Fusina while negotiations continue related to Portovesme. The agreement outlines an allocation of payments to the MOE for emergency action and natural resource damages and the scope and costs for a proposed soil remediation project, which was formally presented to the MOE in mid-2010. The agreement is contingent upon final acceptance of the remediation project by the MOE. As a result of entering into this agreement, Alcoa increased the reserve by $12 for Fusina. Additionally, due to new information derived from the site investigations conducted at Portovesme in 2009, Alcoa increased the reserve by $3 in 2009. Other. In addition to the matters discussed above, various other lawsuits, claims, and proceedings have been or may be instituted or asserted against Alcoa, including those pertaining to environmental, product liability, and safety and health matters. While the amounts claimed in these other matters may be substantial, the ultimate liability cannot now be determined because of the considerable uncertainties that exist. Therefore, it is possible that the Company's liquidity or results of operations in a particular period could be materially affected by one or more of these other matters. However, based on facts currently available, management believes that the disposition of these other matters that are pending or asserted will not have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on the financial position of the Company. Commitments Investments. Alumínio, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alcoa, is a participant in several hydroelectric power projects in Brazil for purposes of increasing its energy self-sufficiency and providing a long-term, low-cost source of power for its facilities. Two of these projects, Machadinho and Barra Grande, were completed in 2002 and 2006, respectively. Alumínio committed to taking a share of the output of the Machadinho and Barra Grande projects each for 30 years at cost (including cost of financing the project). In the event that other participants in either one of these projects fail to fulfill their financial responsibilities, Alumínio may be required to fund a portion of the deficiency. In accordance with the respective agreements, if Alumínio funds any such deficiency, its participation and share of the output from the respective project will increase proportionately. Alumínio accounts for the Machadinho and Barra Grande hydroelectric projects as equity method investments. Alumínio's investment participation in these projects is 30.99% for Machadinho and 42.18% for Barra Grande. Its total investment in these projects was $266 (R$496) and $274 (R$461) at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Alcoa's maximum exposure to loss on these completed projects is approximately $300 (R$570), which represents Alumínio's investments in both projects and guarantee of debt for Machadinho only (the guarantee by the participants in the Barra Grande project was released by the lender effective December 29, 2010) as of December 31, 2011. In early 2006, Alumínio acquired an additional 6.41% share in the Estreito hydroelectric power project, reaching 25.49% of total participation in the consortium. This additional share entitles Alumínio to 38 megawatts of assured energy. Alumínio's share of the project is estimated to have installed capacity of approximately 280 megawatts and assured power of approximately 150 megawatts. In December 2006, the consortium obtained the environmental installation license, after completion of certain socioeconomic and cultural impact studies as required by a governmental agency. Construction began in early 2007 and is expected to be completed in 2012 (start-up of the facility began in April 2011 with full capacity expected to be reached in 2012). In early 2010, the consortium approved an increase of approximately $720 (R$1,300) in estimated costs to complete the Estreito project as a result of currency, inflation, and the price and scope of construction, among other factors. Total estimated project costs are approximately $2,600 (R$4,900) and Alumínio's share is approximately $670 (R$1,250). As of December 31, 2011, approximately $630 (R$1,170) of Alumínio's commitment was expended on the project. Construction began on the Serra do Facão hydroelectric power project in early 2007 and was completed in the first half of 2011 (this facility is operating at full capacity). Alumínio's share of the Serra do Facão project is 34.97% and entitles Alumínio to approximately 65 megawatts of assured power. Total estimated project costs are approximately $540 (R$1,000) and Alumínio's share is approximately $190 (R$350). Through March 31, 2009, the participants in the consortium were required to provide capital for their respective share of the project costs. In April 2009, the consortium obtained long-term financing for the estimated remaining costs of construction. At that time, the participants in this project were no longer required to provide capital for their share of the project costs. Instead, the participants were each required to guarantee (expires 2027) a portion of the consortium's debt. In mid-2010, the capacity under the long-term financing arrangement was exhausted; therefore, the participants were once again required to begin providing capital for their share of the remaining costs. As of December 31, 2011, approximately $180 (R$340) of Alumínio's commitment was expended on the project (includes both funds provided by Alumínio and Alumínio's share of the long-term financing). Alumínio accounts for the Serra do Facão hydroelectric power project as an equity method investment and its total investment in this project was $105 (R$196) and $116 (R$195) at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Alcoa's maximum exposure to loss on this project is approximately $220 (R$400), which represents Alumínio's investment and guarantee of debt as of December 31, 2011. With Machadinho, Barra Grande, Serra do Facão, and part of Estreito, Alumínio's current power self-sufficiency is 67% (will be approximately 70% once the Estreito hydroelectric power project described above is completed and operating at full capacity), to meet a total energy demand of approximately 690 megawatts from two smelters (São Luís (Alumar) and Poços de Caldas) and one refinery (Poços de Caldas) in Brazil. In 2004, Alcoa acquired a 20% interest in a consortium, which subsequently purchased the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline (DBNGP) in Western Australia, in exchange for an initial cash investment of $17 (A$24). The investment in the DBNGP, which is classified as an equity investment, was made in order to secure a competitively priced long-term supply of natural gas to Alcoa's refineries in Western Australia. Alcoa has made additional contributions of $141 (A$176), including $16 (A$16) and $9 (A$9) in 2011 and 2010, respectively, for its share of the pipeline capacity expansion and other operational purposes of the consortium. No further expansion of the pipeline's capacity is planned at this time. In late 2011, the consortium initiated a three-year equity call plan to improve its capitalization structure. This plan requires Alcoa to contribute $40 (A$40), of which $5 (A$6) was made in 2011. In addition to its equity ownership, Alcoa has an agreement to purchase gas transmission services from the DBNGP. At December 31, 2011, Alcoa has an asset of $346 (A$342) representing prepayments made under the agreement for future gas transmission services. Alcoa's maximum exposure to loss on the investment and the related contract is approximately $510 (A$510) as of December 31, 2011. Purchase Obligations. Alcoa is party to unconditional purchase obligations for energy that expire between 2012 and 2041. Commitments related to these contracts total $286 in 2012, $300 in 2013, $309 in 2014, $309 in 2015, $308 in 2016, and $6,234 thereafter. Expenditures under these contracts totaled $227 in 2011, $129 in 2010, and $87 in 2009. Additionally, Alcoa has entered into other purchase commitments for energy, raw materials, and other goods and services, which total $3,723 in 2012, $2,198 in 2013, $2,095 in 2014, $1,830 in 2015, $1,823 in 2016, and $10,906 thereafter. Operating Leases. Certain computer equipment, plant equipment, vehicles, and buildings and alumina refinery process control technology are under operating lease agreements. Total expense from continuing operations for all leases was $287 in 2011, $260 in 2010, and $249 in 2009. Under long-term operating leases, minimum annual rentals are $246 in 2012, $159 in 2013, $126 in 2014, $109 in 2015, $86 in 2016, and $564 thereafter. Guarantees. At December 31, 2011, Alcoa has maximum potential future payments for guarantees issued on behalf of certain third parties of $779. These guarantees expire in 2015 through 2027 and relate to project financing for hydroelectric power projects in Brazil and the aluminum complex in Saudi Arabia (see Note 1). Alcoa also has outstanding bank guarantees related to legal, customs duties, and leasing obligations, among others. The total amount committed under these guarantees, which expire at various dates, was $436 at December 31, 2011. Letters of Credit. Alcoa has outstanding letters of credit primarily related to workers' compensation, derivative contracts, and leasing obligations. The total amount committed under these letters of credit, which expire at various dates, mostly in 2012, was $334 at December 31, 2011. Surety Bonds. Alcoa has outstanding surety bonds primarily related to customs duties, self-insurance, and legal obligations. The total amount committed under these bonds, which automatically renew or expire at various dates, mostly in 2012, was $183 at December 31, 2011.

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration