XML 1119 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Contingencies and Commitments | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies and Commitments | N. Contingencies and Commitments Contingencies Litigation Alba Matter Civil Suit. On February 27, 2008, Alcoa Inc. received notice that Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. (“Alba”) had filed suit against Alcoa, Alcoa World Alumina LLC (“AWA”), and William Rice (collectively, the “Alcoa Parties”), 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 alleged that certain Alcoa entities and their agents, including Victor Phillip Dahdaleh, had engaged in a conspiracy over a period of 15 years to defraud Alba. The complaint further alleged 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 alleged that Alcoa and the other defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and committed fraud. Alba claimed damages in excess of $1,000. Alba’s complaint sought treble damages with respect to its RICO claims; compensatory, consequential, exemplary, and punitive damages; rescission of the 2005 alumina supply contract; and attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 9, 2012, the Alcoa Parties, without admitting any liability, entered into a settlement agreement with Alba. The agreement called for AWA to pay Alba $85 in two equal installments, one-half at time of settlement and one-half one year later, and for the case against the Alcoa Parties to be dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, AWA and Alba entered into a long-term alumina supply agreement. On October 9, 2012, pursuant to the settlement agreement, AWA paid Alba $42.5, and all claims against the Alcoa Parties were dismissed with prejudice. On October 9, 2013 pursuant to the settlement agreement, AWA paid the remaining $42.5. Based on the settlement agreement, in the 2012 third quarter, Alcoa recorded a $40 charge in addition to the $45 charge it recorded in the 2012 second quarter in respect of the suit (see Agreement with Alumina Limited below). Government Investigations. On February 26, 2008, Alcoa Inc. advised the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) that it had recently become aware of the claims by Alba as alleged in the Alba civil suit, 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. The SEC subsequently commenced a concurrent investigation. Alcoa has been cooperating with the government since that time. In the past year, Alcoa had been seeking settlements of both investigations. In the second quarter of 2013, Alcoa proposed to settle the DOJ matter by offering the DOJ a cash payment of $103. Based on this offer, Alcoa recorded a charge of $103 in the 2013 second quarter. Also in the second quarter of 2013, Alcoa exchanged settlement offers with the SEC. However, the SEC staff rejected Alcoa’s offer of $60 and no charge was recorded. During the remainder of 2013, settlement discussions with both the DOJ and the SEC continued. On January 9, 2014, Alcoa resolved the investigations by the DOJ and the SEC. The settlement with the DOJ was reached with AWA. Under the terms of a plea agreement entered into with the DOJ, effective January 9, 2014, AWA pled guilty to one count of violating the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended (the “FCPA”). As part of the DOJ resolution, AWA agreed to pay a total of $223, including a fine of $209 payable in five equal installments over four years. The first installment of $41.8, plus a one-time administrative forfeiture of $14, will be paid in the first quarter of 2014 (paid on January 22, 2014), and the remaining installments of $41.8 each will be paid in the first quarters of 2015-2018. The DOJ is bringing no case against Alcoa Inc. Effective January 9, 2014, the Company also settled civil charges filed by the SEC in an administrative proceeding relating to the anti-bribery, internal controls, and books and records provisions of the FCPA. Under the terms of the settlement with the SEC, the Company agreed to a settlement amount of $175, but will be given credit for the $14 one-time forfeiture payment, which is part of the DOJ resolution, resulting in a total cash payment to the SEC of $161 payable in five equal installments over four years. The first installment of $32.2 will be paid to the SEC in the first quarter of 2014 (paid on January 22, 2014), and the remaining installments of $32.2 each will be paid in the first quarters of 2015-2018. There was no allegation in the filings by the DOJ and there was no finding by the SEC that anyone at Alcoa Inc. knowingly engaged in the conduct at issue. Based on the resolutions with both the DOJ and SEC, in the 2013 fourth quarter, Alcoa recorded a $288 charge, which includes legal costs of $7, in addition to the $103 charge it recorded in the 2013 second quarter in respect of the investigations (see Agreement with Alumina Limited below). Agreement with Alumina Limited. AWA is a U.S.-based Alcoa World Alumina and Chemicals (“AWAC”) company organized under the laws of Delaware that owns, directly or indirectly, alumina refineries and bauxite mines in the Atlantic region. AWAC is an unincorporated global bauxite mining and alumina refining venture between Alcoa and Alumina Limited. AWAC consists of a number of affiliated operating entities, including AWA, which own or operate bauxite mines and alumina refineries in seven countries. Alcoa owns 60% and Alumina Limited owns 40% of these individual entities, which are consolidated by the Company for financial reporting purposes. In October 2012, Alcoa and Alumina Limited entered into an agreement to allocate the costs of the Alba civil settlement and all legal fees associated with this matter (including the government investigations discussed above) between Alcoa and Alumina Limited on an 85% and 15% basis, respectively, but this would occur only if a settlement is reached with the DOJ and the SEC regarding their investigations. As such, the $85 civil settlement in 2012 and all legal costs associated with the civil suit and government investigations incurred prior to 2013 were allocated on a 60% and 40% basis in the respective periods on Alcoa’s Statement of Consolidated Operations. As a result of the resolutions of the government investigations, the $384 charge and legal costs incurred in 2013 were allocated on an 85% and 15% basis per the allocation agreement with Alumina Limited. Additionally, the $85 civil settlement from 2012 and all legal costs associated with the civil suit and government investigations incurred prior to 2013 were reallocated on the 85% and 15% basis. The following table details the activity related to the Alba matter:
|  | 2013 |  |  | 2012 |
|  | Alcoa |  |  | Alumina Limited |  |  | Total |  |  | Alcoa |  |  | Alumina Limited |  |  | Total |
Government investigations(1) |  | $ | 326 |  |  | $ | 58 |  |  | $ | 384 |  |  | $ | - |  |  | $ | - |  |  | $ | - |
Civil suit(1) |  |  | - |  |  |  | - |  |  |  | - |  |  |  | 51 |  |  |  | 34 |  |  |  | 85 |
Reallocation of civil suit |  |  | 21 |  |  |  | (21 | ) |  |  | - |  |  |  | - |  |  |  | - |  |  |  | - |
Reallocation of legal costs |  |  | 20 |  |  |  | (20 | ) |  |  | - |  |  |  | - |  |  |  | - |  |  |  | - |
Loss before income taxes |  |  | 367 |  |  |  | 17 |  |  |  | 384 |  |  |  | 51 |  |  |  | 34 |  |  |  | 85 |
Benefit for income taxes |  |  | 66 |  |  |  | - |  |  |  | 66 |  |  |  | 18 |  |  |  | - |  |  |  | 18 |
Net loss(2) |  | $ | 301 |  |  | $ | 17 |  |  | $ | 318 |  |  | $ | 33 |  |  | $ | 34 |  |  | $ | 67 |
(1) | The amount in the Total column was recorded in Restructuring and other charges (see Note D).
(2) | In 2013 and 2012, the amount for Alcoa was included in Net (loss) income attributable to Alcoa, and the amount for Alumina Limited was included in Net income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interests.
Other Matters 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, and bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claims. 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. 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 sought, 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 attorneys’ fees and expenses. On June 11, 2012, the court issued its memorandum and order denying plaintiffs’ motion for clarification and/or amendment to the original judgment order. On July 6, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court’s March 9, 2011 judgment. On July 12, 2012, the trial court stayed Alcoa’s motion for assessment of costs pending resolution of plaintiffs’ appeal. The appeal was docketed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as case number 12-5801. On August 29, 2012, the trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees without prejudice to refiling the motion following the resolution of the appeal at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 9, 2013, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s denial of plaintiffs’ claims for lifetime, uncapped retiree healthcare benefits. Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing on May 22, 2013 to which Alcoa filed a response on June 7, 2013. On September 12, 2013, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing. The trial court is now considering Alcoa’s request for an award of costs, which had been stayed pending resolution of the appeal, and the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees, which had been dismissed without prejudice to refiling following resolution of the appeal. On December 17, 2013 the United States Supreme Court docketed the plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as Charles Curtis, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Petitioners v. Alcoa Inc., et al., Docket No.13-728. Alcoa’s opposition to this petition was filed on January 16, 2014 and Petitioners filed their reply on January 29, 2014. 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. Following mediation and further, separate settlement discussions, the parties executed an agreement dated September 30, 2011 resolving the matter in its entirety, and subsequently jointly petitioned (i) the District Court to release Alcoa from the jury verdict and (ii) the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss the matter. On March 13, 2012, the District Court entered an order discharging Alcoa from the jury verdict and, on March 14, 2012, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the matter. This matter is now fully resolved. 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 (“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. On February 23, 2012, Alcoa filed its appeal of the decision of the Consiglio di Stato (this appeal was subsequently withdrawn in March 2013). On March 26, 2012, Alcoa received a letter from the agency (Cassa Conguaglio per il Settore Eletrico (CCSE)) responsible for making and collecting payments on behalf of the Energy Authority demanding payment in the amount of approximately $110 (€85), including interest. By letter dated April 5, 2012, Alcoa informed CCSE that it disputes the payment demand of CCSE since (i) CCSE was not authorized by the Consiglio di Stato decisions to seek payment of any amount, (ii) the decision of the Consiglio di Stato has been appealed (see above), and (iii) in any event, no interest should be payable. On April 29, 2012, Law No. 44 of 2012 (“44/2012”) came into effect, changing the method to calculate the drawback. On February 21, 2013, Alcoa received a revised request letter from CSSE demanding Alcoa’s subsidiary, Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l., make a payment in the amount of $97 (€76), including interest, which reflects a revised calculation methodology by CCSE and represents the high end of the range of reasonably possible loss associated with this matter of $0 to $97 (€76). Alcoa has rejected that demand and has formally challenged it through an appeal before the Administrative Court on April 5, 2013. The Administrative Court scheduled a hearing for December 19, 2013, which was subsequently postponed until April 17, 2014. 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 complied 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 had been incurring higher power costs at its smelters in Italy subsequent to the tariff end date through the end of 2012). 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 was to be based on a calculation prepared by the Italian Government (see below). 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 (€173), which included $20 (€14) to write off a receivable from the Italian Government for amounts due under the now expired tariff structure and $230 (€159) to establish a reserve. 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. Prior to 2012, Alcoa was involved in other legal proceedings related to this matter that sought the annulment of the EC’s July 2006 decision to open an investigation alleging that such decision did not follow the applicable procedural rules and requested injunctive relief to suspend the effectiveness of the EC’s November 19, 2009 decision. However, the decisions by the General Court, and subsequent appeals to the European Court of Justice, resulted in the denial of these remedies. In June 2012, Alcoa received formal notification from the Italian Government with a calculated recovery amount of $375 (€303); this amount was reduced by $65 (€53) for amounts owed by the Italian Government to Alcoa, resulting in a net payment request of $310 (€250). In a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union on September 22, 2012, the EC announced that it had filed an action against the Italian Government on July 18, 2012 to compel it to collect the recovery amount, and on October 17, 2013, the ECJ ordered Italy to so collect. On September 27, 2012, Alcoa received a request for payment in full of the $310 (€250) by October 31, 2012. Following discussions with the Italian Government regarding the timing of such payment, Alcoa paid the requested amount in five quarterly installments of $69 (€50) beginning in October 2012 through December 2013. Notwithstanding the payment request, Alcoa’s estimate of the most probable loss of the ultimate outcome of this matter and the low end of the range of reasonably possible loss, which is $219 (€159) to $418 (€303), remains the $219 (€159) (the U.S. dollar amount reflects the effects of foreign currency movements since 2009) recorded in 2009. At December 31, 2013, Alcoa no longer has a reserve for this matter. Instead, Alcoa has a noncurrent asset of $126 (€91) reflecting the excess of the total of the five payments made to the Italian Government over the reserve Alcoa recorded in 2009. The full extent of the loss will not be known until the final judicial determination, which could be a period of several years. 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. Over a portion of this time, a long-term solution was not able to be reached related to the Fusina smelter, therefore, 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 (44,000 metric-tons-per-year). For the Portovesme smelter, Alcoa executed a new power agreement effective September 1, 2010 through December 31, 2012, replacing the short-term, market-based power contract that was in effect since early 2010. This new agreement along with interruptibility rights (i.e. compensation for power interruptions when grids are overloaded) granted to Alcoa for the Portovesme smelter provided additional time to negotiate a long-term solution (the EC had previously determined that the interruptibility rights were not considered state aid). At the end of 2011, as part of a restructuring of Alcoa’s global smelting system, management decided to curtail operations at the Portovesme smelter during 2012 due to the uncertain prospects for viable, long-term power, along with rising raw materials costs and falling global aluminum prices (mid-2011 to late 2011). As of December 31, 2012, the Portovesme smelter was fully curtailed (150,000 metric-tons-per-year). This curtailment may lead to the permanent closure of the facility; however, Alcoa will keep the smelter in restart condition through June 2014. In June 2013, Alcoa decided to permanently shut down and demolish the Fusina smelter due to persistent uneconomical conditions (see Note D). 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 $95 (€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. On February 4, 2014, the EC announced a decision in this matter stating that the electricity tariffs granted by Spain for year 2005 do not constitute unlawful state aid. Environmental Matters. Alcoa continues to participate in environmental assessments and cleanups at more than 100 locations. 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 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. 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 $509 and $532 at December 31, 2013 and 2012 (of which $48 and $74 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 2013, the remediation reserve was increased by $18 due to a charge of $12 related to the planned demolition of certain structures at the Massena West, NY and Baie Comeau, Quebec, Canada sites (see Note D) and a net charge of $6 associated with a number of other sites. In 2012, the remediation reserve was increased by $206 due to charges of $165 related to the Massena West, NY site (see below), charges totaling $45 related to smelter sites in Canada and Norway (see below), a charge of $14 related to the former East St. Louis, IL site (see below), a reversal of $30 related to the former Sherwin, TX site (see below), and a net charge of $12 associated with a number of other sites. In both periods, the changes to the remediation reserve, except for the aforementioned $12 in 2013, were recorded in Cost of goods sold on the accompanying Statement of Consolidated Operations. Payments related to remediation expenses applied against the reserve were $40 and $22 in 2013 and 2012, respectively. These amounts include expenditures currently mandated, as well as those not required by any regulatory authority or third party. In 2013 and 2012, the change in the reserve also reflects a decrease of $1 and an increase of $1, respectively, due to the effects of foreign currency translation. 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). Beginning in 1998 through 2010, Alcoa submitted a number of Analysis of Alternatives Reports to the EPA documenting the results of river and sediment studies, potential alternatives for remedial actions related to the PCB contamination, and additional information requested by the EPA. Additionally, from 2004 to 2008, Alcoa completed work as outlined in an EPA-approved Remedial Options Pilot Study. In the first half of 2012, Alcoa received final questions and comments from the EPA and other stakeholders on the then most recent revised Analysis of Alternatives Report submitted in March 2010, including a requirement that would increase the scope of the recommended capping alternative. In June 2012, Alcoa submitted a revised Analysis of Alternatives Report, which included four less alternatives than the previous report and addressed the final questions and comments from all stakeholders. These final questions and comments resulted in a change to Alcoa’s recommended capping alternative by increasing the area to be remediated. Consequently, Alcoa increased the reserve associated with the Grasse River by $37 in 2012 to reflect the changes to the recommended alternative. In October 2012, the EPA selected a proposed remedy from the alternatives included in the June 2012 Analysis of Alternatives Report and released a Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP). The alternative selected by the EPA recommends capping PCB contaminated sediments with concentration in excess of one part per million in the main channel of the river and dredging PCB contaminated sediments in the near-shore areas where total PCBs exceed one part per million. This alternative will result in additional estimated costs above that of the alternative recommended by Alcoa in the June 2012 Analysis of Alternatives Report. As a result, Alcoa increased the reserve associated with the Grasse River by an additional $128 in 2012 to reflect such additional estimated costs of the EPA’s proposed remedy. The PRAP was open for public comment until November 29, 2012. The EPA completed its review of the comments received in early 2013 and, on April 5, 2013, issued a final Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD is consistent with the PRAP issued in October 2012, which reflected the EPA’s selection of a remediation alternative estimated to cost $243. No further adjustment to the reserve associated with Grasse River was necessary due to the EPA’s selected alternative as this amount was previously fully accrued. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, the reserve balance associated with this matter was $241 and $243, respectively. Alcoa is in the planning and design phase, which is expected to take approximately two to three years, followed by the actual remediation fieldwork that is expected to take approximately four years. The majority of the project funding is expected to be spent between 2016 and 2020. 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 bauxite residue waste disposal areas (known as the Copano facility). Alcoa’s share of the closure costs is proportional to the total period of operation of the active waste disposal areas. In 2012, Alcoa received a technical analysis of the closure plan for the active waste disposal areas and an operating plan for the Copano facility from Sherwin Alumina Company, both of which were needed in order to develop a closure cost estimate, including an assessment of Alcoa’s potential liability. It was determined that the most probable course of action would result in a smaller liability than originally reserved due to new information related to the amount of storage capacity in the waste disposal areas and revised assumptions regarding Alcoa’s share of the obligation based on the operating plan provided by Sherwin. As such, Alcoa reduced the reserve associated with Sherwin by $30 in 2012. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, the reserve balance associated with Sherwin was $35 and $36, respectively. Approximately half of the project funding is expected to be spent between 2014 and 2019. The remainder is not expected to be spent in the foreseeable future as it is dependent upon the operating life of the active waste disposal areas. 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. In April 2012, in response to comments from the EPA and other stakeholders, Alcoa submitted a revised feasibility study to the EPA, which soon thereafter issued a PRAP identifying a soil cover as the EPA’s recommended alternative. Based on this recommendation, Alcoa submitted a detailed design and cost estimate for implementation of the remedy. A draft consent decree was issued in May 2012 by the EPA and all parties are actively engaged in negotiating a final consent decree and statement of work. As a result, Alcoa increased the reserve associated with East St. Louis by $14 in 2012 to reflect the necessary costs for this remedy. On July 30, 2012, the EPA issued a ROD for this matter and Alcoa began the process of bidding and contracting for the construction work. The ultimate outcome of negotiations and the bidding of the construction work could result in additional liability. On November 1, 2013, the Department of Justice lodged a consent decree on behalf of the EPA for Alcoa to conduct the work outlined in the ROD. Alcoa is waiting final entry of the consent decree to begin work, which is expected in the first half of 2014. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, the reserve balance associated with this matter was $24 and $26, respectively. The majority of the project funding is expected to be spent between 2014 and 2015. 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. (“Trasformazioni”), 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 and Protection of Land and Sea (MOE) issued orders to Trasformazioni 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. Trasformazioni 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. (“Ligestra”), Alumix’s successor, and Trasformazioni agreed to a stay of the court proceedings while investigations were conducted and negotiations advanced towards a possible settlement. In December 2009, Trasformazioni and Ligestra reached an agreement for settlement of the liabilities related to Fusina while negotiations continued 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 in 2009 for Fusina. Based on comments received from the MOE and local and regional environmental authorities, Trasformazioni submitted a revised remediation plan in the first half of 2012; however, such revisions did not require any change to the existing reserve. In October 2013, the MOE approved the project submitted by Alcoa, resulting in no adjustment to the reserve. Alcoa is in the process of negotiating a final administrative agreement for conduct of the work Additionally, due to new information derived from the site investigations conducted at Portovesme, Alcoa increased the reserve by $3 in 2009. In November 2011, Trasformazioni and Ligestra reached an agreement for settlement of the liabilities related to Portovesme, similar to the one for Fusina. A proposed soil remediation project for Portovesme was formally presented to the MOE in June 2012. Neither the agreement with Ligestra nor the proposal to the MOE resulted in a change to the reserve for Portovesme. In November 2013, the MOE rejected the proposed soil remediation project and requested a revised project be submitted in the first quarter of 2014. It is possible that the revised project may result in a change to the existing reserve for Portovesme. Baie Comeau, Quebec, Canada—In August 2012, Alcoa presented an analysis of remediation alternatives to the Quebec Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment, Wildlife and Parks (MDDEP), in response to a previous request, related to known PCBs and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) contained in sediments of the Anse du Moulin bay. As such, Alcoa increased the reserve for Baie Comeau by $25 in 2012 to reflect the estimated cost of Alcoa’s recommended alternative, consisting of both dredging and capping of the contaminated sediments. In July 2013, Alcoa submitted the Environmental Impact Assessment for the project to the MDDEP and this document is currently in the regulatory review process. The ultimate selection of a remedy may result in additional liability at the time the MDDEP issues a final decision. Mosjøen, Norway—In September 2012, Alcoa presented an analysis of remediation alternatives to the Norwegian Environmental Agency (NEA) (formerly the Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency, or “Klif”), in response to a previous request, related to known PAHs in the sediments located in the harbor and extending out into the fjord. As such, Alcoa increased the reserve for Mosjøen by $20 in 2012 to reflect the estimated cost of the baseline alternative for dredging of the contaminated sediments. The ultimate selection of a remedy may result in additional liability at the time the NEA issues a final decision. Other. In March 2013, Alcoa’s subsidiary, Alcoa World Alumina Brasil (AWAB), was notified by the Brazilian Federal Revenue Office (RFB) that approximately $110 (R$220) of value added tax credits previously claimed are being disallowed and a penalty of 50% assessed. Of this amount, AWAB received $41 (R$82) in cash in May 2012. The value added tax credits were claimed by AWAB for both fixed assets and export sales related to the Juruti bauxite mine and São Luís refinery expansion. The RFB has disallowed credits they allege belong to the consortium in which AWAB owns an interest and should not have been claimed by AWAB. Credits have also been disallowed as a result of challenges to apportionment methods used, questions about the use of the credits, and an alleged lack of documented proof. The assessment is currently in the administrative process, which could take approximately two years to complete. AWAB presented defense of its claim to the RFB on April 8, 2013. If AWAB is successful in the administrative process, the RFB would have no further recourse. If unsuccessful in this process, AWAB has the option to litigate at a judicial level. The estimated range of reasonably possible loss is $0 to $65 ($R155), whereby the maximum end of the range represents the sum of the portion of the disallowed credits applicable to the export sales and a 50% penalty of the gross amount disallowed. Additionally, the estimated range of disallowed credits related to AWAB’s fixed assets is $0 to $75 (R$175), which would increase the net carrying value of AWAB’s fixed assets if ultimately disallowed. It is management’s opinion that the allegations have no basis; however, at this time, management is unable to reasonably predict an outcome for this matter. In September 2010, following a corporate income tax audit covering the 2003 through 2005 tax years, an assessment was received as a result of Spain’s tax authorities disallowing certain interest deductions claimed by a Spanish consolidated tax group owned by the Company. An appeal of this assessment in Spain’s Central Tax Administrative Court by the Company was denied in October 2013. In December 2013, the Company filed an appeal of the assessment in Spain’s National Court. Additionally, following a corporate income tax audit of the same Spanish tax group for the 2006 through 2009 tax years, Spain’s tax authorities issued an assessment in July 2013 similarly disallowing certain interest deductions. In August 2013, the Company filed an appeal of this second assessment in Spain’s Central Tax Administrative Court. The combined assessments total $334 (€242). The Company believes it has meritorious arguments to support its tax position and intends to vigorously litigate the assessments through Spain’s court system. However, in the event the Company is unsuccessful, a portion of the assessments may be offset with existing net operating losses available to the Spanish consolidated tax group. Additionally, it is possible that the Company may receive similar assessments for tax years subsequent to 2009. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome for this matter. Between 2000 and 2002, Alcoa Alumínio (Alumínio) sold approximately 2,000 metric tons of metal per month from its Poços de Caldas facility, located in the State of Minas Gerais (the “State”), to Alfio, a customer also located in the State. Sales in the State were exempted from value-added tax (VAT) requirements. Alfio subsequently sold metal to customers outside of the State, but did not pay the required VAT on those transactions. In July 2002, Alumínio received an assessment from State auditors on the theory that Alumínio should be jointly and severally liable with Alfio for the unpaid VAT. In June 2003, the administrative tribunal found Alumínio liable, and Alumínio filed a judicial case in the State in February 2004 contesting the finding. In May 2005, the Court of First Instance found Alumínio solely liable, and a panel of a State appeals court confirmed this finding in April 2006. Alumínio filed a special appeal to the Superior Tribunal of Justice (STJ) in Brasilia (the federal capital of Brazil) later in 2006. In 2011, the STJ (through one of its judges) reversed the judgment of the lower courts, finding that Alumínio should neither be solely nor jointly and severally liable with Alfio for the VAT, which ruling was then appealed by the State. In June 2012, the STJ agreed to have the case reheard before a five-judge panel. A decision from this panel is pending, but additional appeals are likely. At December 31, 2013, the assessment totaled $53 (R$125), including penalties and interest. While the Company believes it has meritorious defenses, the Company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome. 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, safety and health, and tax 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 four consortia that each owns a hydroelectric power project in Brazil. The purpose of Alumínio’s participation is to increase its energy self-sufficiency and provide a long-term, low-cost source of power for its two smelters and one refinery. These projects are known as Machadinho, Barra Grande, Serra do Facão, and Estreito. Alumínio committed to taking a share of the output of the Machadinho and Barra Grande projects each for 30 years and the Serra do Facão and Estreito projects each for 26 years at cost (including cost of financing the project). In the event that other participants in any 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. The Machadinho project reached full capacity in 2002. Alumínio’s investment in this project is 30.99%, which entitles Alumínio to approximately 120 megawatts of assured power. In February 2013, the consortium liquidated the legal entity that owned the facility for tax purposes. The consortium is now an unincorporated joint venture, and, therefore, Alumínio’s share of the assets and liabilities of the consortium are reflected in the respective lines on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet. Prior to February 2013, Alumínio’s investment in Machadinho was accounted for under the equity method. In conjunction with the liquidation, the consortium repaid the remaining outstanding debt related to Machadinho, effectively terminating each partner’s guarantee of such debt. The Barra Grande project reached full capacity in 2006. Alumínio’s investment in this project is 42.18% and is accounted for under the equity method. This entitles Alumínio to approximately 160 megawatts of assured power. Alumínio’s total investment in this project was $143 (R$336) and $159 (R$326) at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The Serra do Facão project reached full capacity in 2010. Alumínio’s investment in this project is 34.97% and is accounted for under the equity method. This entitles Alumínio to approximately 65 megawatts of assured power. Alumínio’s total investment in this project was $82 (R$192) and $98 (R$200) at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Alumínio previously issued a third-party guarantee related to its share of the consortium’s debt; however, in October 2012, the lender released all of the consortium’s investors from their respective guarantees. Even though the Serra do Facão project has been fully operational since 2010, construction costs continue to be incurred to complete the facility related to environmental compliance in accordance with the installation license (costs are not significant in relation to the overall total project). Total estimated project costs are approximately $430 (R$1,000) and Alumínio’s share is approximately $150 (R$350). As of December 31, 2013, approximately $150 (R$350) of Alumínio’s commitment was expended on the project (includes both funds provided by Alumínio and Alumínio’s share of the long-term financing). The Estreito project reached full capacity in March 2013. Alumínio’s investment in this project is 25.49%, which entitles Alumínio to approximately 150 megawatts of assured power. The Estreito consortium is an unincorporated joint venture, and, therefore, Alumínio’s share of the assets and liabilities of the consortium are reflected in the respective lines on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet. Total estimated project costs are approximately $2,200 (R$5,170) and Alumínio’s share is approximately $560 (R$1,320). These amounts reflect an approved increase by the consortium in 2012 of approximately $130 (R$270) to complete the Estreito project due to fluctuations in currency, inflation, and the price and scope of construction, among other factors. As of December 31, 2013, approximately $540 (R$1,270) of Alumínio’s commitment was expended on the project. As of December 31, 2013, Alumínio’s current power self-sufficiency satisfies approximately 70% of 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. The total energy demand has temporarily declined by approximately 260 megawatts due to partial capacity curtailments of 131,000 metric-tons-per-year at both smelters combined. 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) for its share of the pipeline capacity expansion and other operational purposes of the consortium through September 2011. 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 $29 (A$29) was made through December 31, 2013, including $12 (A$12) and $12 (A$11) in 2013 and 2012, respectively. In addition to its equity ownership, Alcoa has an agreement to purchase gas transmission services from the DBNGP. At December 31, 2013, Alcoa has an asset of $315 (A$354) 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 $440 (A$500) as of December 31, 2013. Purchase Obligations. Alcoa is party to unconditional purchase obligations for energy that expire between 2015 and 2036. Commitments related to these contracts total $159 in 2014, $157 in 2015, $145 in 2016, $150 in 2017, $149 in 2018, and $2,091 thereafter. Expenditures under these contracts totaled $163 in 2013, $161 in 2012, and $227 in 2011. Additionally, Alcoa has entered into other purchase commitments for energy, raw materials, and other goods and services, which total $3,319 in 2014, $1,802 in 2015, $1,628 in 2016, $1,552 in 2017, $1,838 in 2018, and $9,856 thereafter. Operating Leases. Certain land and buildings, alumina refinery process control technology, plant equipment, vehicles, and computer equipment are under operating lease agreements. Total expense from continuing operations for all leases was $232 in 2013, $244 in 2012, and $255 in 2011. Under long-term operating leases, minimum annual rentals are $198 in 2014, $165 in 2015, $135 in 2016, $103 in 2017, $80 in 2018, and $244 thereafter. Guarantees. At December 31, 2013, Alcoa has maximum potential future payments for a guarantee issued on behalf of a third party of $542. This guarantee expires in 2019 and relates to project financing for the aluminum complex in Saudi Arabia (see Note I). In February 2013, a guarantee related to project financing for a hydroelectric power project in Brazil was terminated as the outstanding debt of the consortium was repaid in full (see Investments above). Alcoa also has outstanding bank guarantees related to tax matters, outstanding debt, workers compensation, environmental obligations, energy contracts, and customs duties, among others. The total amount committed under these guarantees, which expire at various dates between 2014 and 2022 was $370 at December 31, 2013. Letters of Credit. Alcoa has outstanding letters of credit primarily related to workers’ compensation, energy contracts, and leasing obligations. The total amount committed under these letters of credit, which automatically renew or expire at various dates, mostly in 2014, was $333 at December 31, 2013. Surety Bonds. Alcoa has outstanding surety bonds primarily related to tax matters, contract performance, workers compensation, environmental-related matters, and customs duties. The total amount committed under these bonds, which automatically renew or expire at various dates, mostly in 2014, was $170 at December 31, 2013.

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 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 2: 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 Reference 3: 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 4: 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=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: 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 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration