XML 35 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.5.0.2

Contingencies and Commitments | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies and Commitments | J. Contingencies and Commitments Contingencies Litigation On June 5, 2015, Alcoa World Alumina LLC (“AWA”) and St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C. (“SCA”) filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to resolve a dispute between Arconic and Glencore Ltd. (“Glencore”) with respect to claimed obligations under a 1995 asset purchase agreement between Arconic and Glencore. The dispute arose from Glencore’s demand that Arconic indemnify it for liabilities it may have to pay to Lockheed Martin (“Lockheed”) related to the St. Croix alumina refinery. Lockheed had earlier filed suit against Glencore in federal court in New York seeking indemnity for liabilities it had incurred and would incur to the U.S. Virgin Islands to remediate certain properties at the refinery property and claimed that Glencore was required by an earlier, 1989 purchase agreement to indemnify it. Glencore had demanded that Arconic indemnify and defend it in the Lockheed case and threatened to claim against Arconic in the New York action despite exclusive jurisdiction for resolution of disputes under the 1995 purchase agreement being in Delaware. After Glencore conceded that it was not seeking to add Arconic to the New York action, AWA and SCA dismissed their complaint in the Chancery Court case and on August 6, 2015 filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in Delaware Superior Court. AWA and SCA filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on September 16, 2015. Glencore answered AWA’s and SCA’s complaint and asserted counterclaims on August 27, 2015, and on October 2, 2015 filed its own motion for judgment on the pleadings. Argument on the parties’ motions was held by the court on December 7, 2015, and by order dated February 8, 2016, the court granted Arconic’s motion and denied Glencore’s motion, resulting in Arconic not being liable to indemnify Glencore for the Lockheed action. The decision also leaves for pretrial discovery and possible summary judgment or trial Glencore’s claims for costs and fees it incurred in defending and settling an earlier Superfund action brought against Glencore by the Government of the Virgin Islands. On February 17, 2016, Glencore filed notice of its application for interlocutory appeal of the February 8, 2016 ruling. AWA and SCA filed an opposition to that application on February 29, 2016. On March 10, 2016, the court denied Glencore’s motion for interlocutory appeal and on the same day entered judgment on claims other than Glencore’s claims for costs and fees it incurred in defending and settling the earlier Superfund action brought against Glencore by the Government of the Virgin Islands. On March 29, 2016, Glencore filed a withdrawal of its notice of interlocutory appeal, and on April 6, 2016, Glencore filed an appeal of the court’s March 10, 2016 judgment to the Delaware Supreme Court, which set the appeal for argument for November 2, 2016. On November 4, 2016, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Delaware Superior Court. Remaining in the case are Glencore’s claims for costs and fees it incurred in defending and settling an earlier superfund action brought against Glencore by the Government of the Virgin Islands. These claims are not material. Before 2002, Arconic 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, Arconic 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. Arconic challenged the new regulation in the Administrative Court of Milan and received a favorable judgment in 2006. Following this ruling, Arconic 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 Arconic, thus presenting the opportunity for the energy regulators to seek reimbursement from Arconic 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, Arconic filed its appeal of the decision of the Consiglio di Stato (this appeal was subsequently withdrawn in March 2013). On March 26, 2012, Arconic 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, Arconic 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, Arconic received a revised request letter from CCSE demanding Arconic’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). Arconic rejected that demand and 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, and further postponed until June 19, 2014. On that date, the Administrative Court listened to Arconic’s oral argument, and on September 2, 2014, rendered its decision. The Administrative Court declared the payment request of CCSE and the Energy Authority to Arconic to be unsubstantiated based on the 148/2004 resolution with respect to the January 19, 2007 through November 19, 2009 timeframe. On December 18, 2014, the CCSE and the Energy Authority appealed the Administrative Court’s September 2, 2014 decision; however, a date for the hearing has not been scheduled. As a result of the conclusion of the European Commission Matter on January 26, 2016 (see Note N in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015), management modified its outlook with respect to a portion of the pending legal proceedings related to this matter. As such, a charge of $37 (€34) was recorded in Restructuring and other charges for the year ended December 31, 2015 to establish a partial reserve for this matter. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably predict the ultimate outcome for this matter. Environmental Matters Arconic participates 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. Arconic’s remediation reserve balance was $602 and $604 at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 (of which $54 and $50 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 the 2016 third quarter and nine-month period, the remediation reserve was increased by $13 and $26, respectively. The change in both periods was due to a net charge associated with a number of sites and was recorded in Cost of goods sold on the accompanying Statement of Consolidated Operations. Payments related to remediation expenses applied against the reserve were $24 and $49 in the 2016 third quarter and nine-month period, respectively. These amounts include expenditures currently mandated, as well as those not required by any regulatory authority or third party. In the 2016 third quarter and nine-month period, the change in the reserve also reflects an increase of $7 and $18, respectively, due to the effects of foreign currency translation and an increase of $3 for the nine-month period, related to the acquisition of RTI (see Note E). 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 Arconic sites. Massena West, NY—Arconic has an ongoing remediation project related to the Grasse River, which is adjacent to Arconic’s Massena plant site. Many years ago, it was determined that sediments and fish in the river contain varying levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The project, which was selected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a Record of Decision (ROD) issued in April 2013, is aimed at 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. At September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the reserve balance associated with this matter was $230 and $234, respectively. Arconic is in the planning and design phase, which is expected to be completed in 2017. Subsequently in 2017, the actual remediation fieldwork is expected to commence and take approximately four years. The majority of the project funding is expected to be spent between 2017 and 2021. 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, Arconic 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). Arconic’s share of the closure costs is proportional to the total period of operation of the active waste disposal areas. At September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the reserve balance associated with Sherwin was $30. Based on current conditions, approximately half of the projected funding is expected to be spent through 2019, with the balance spent dependent upon the schedule to complete closure of the waste disposal area. East St. Louis, IL—Arconic has an ongoing remediation project related to an area used for the disposal of bauxite residue from former alumina refining operations. The project, which was selected by the EPA in a ROD issued in July 2012, is aimed at implementing a soil cover over the affected area. On November 1, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice lodged a consent decree on behalf of the EPA for Arconic to conduct the work outlined in the ROD. This consent decree was entered as final in February 2014 by the U.S. Department of Justice. As a result, Arconic began construction in March 2014; the field work on this project was completed at the end of June 2016. The completion report was approved by the EPA in September 2016. This matter has now transitioned into a long-term inspection and monitoring program (Arconic has a second project in East St. Louis that is separate from the matter presented herein on which Arconic is expecting an EPA decision at some point in 2017 – any resulting liability is not expected to be material). At September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the reserve balance associated with this matter was $3 and $8, respectively. Fusina and Portovesme, Italy—In 1996, Arconic acquired the Fusina smelter and rolling operations and the Portovesme smelter, both of which are owned by Arconic’s subsidiary Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. (“Trasformazioni”), from Alumix, an entity owned by the Italian Government. The rolling operations are currently owned by a new Arconic subsidiary Fusina Rolling S.r.l. At the time of the acquisition, Alumix indemnified Arconic 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 initial agreement for settlement of the liabilities related to Fusina while negotiations continued related to Portovesme (see below). The agreement outlined 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 was contingent upon final acceptance of the remediation project by the MOE. As a result of entering into this agreement, Arconic 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 Arconic, resulting in no adjustment to the reserve. In January 2014, in anticipation of Arconic reaching a final administrative agreement with the MOE, Arconic and Ligestra entered into a final agreement related to Fusina for allocation of payments to the MOE for emergency action and natural resource damages and the costs for the approved soil remediation project. The agreement resulted in Ligestra assuming 50% to 80% of all payments and remediation costs. On February 27, 2014, Arconic and the MOE reached a final administrative agreement for conduct of work. The agreement includes both a soil and groundwater remediation project estimated to cost $33 (€24) and requires payments of $25 (€18) to the MOE for emergency action and natural resource damages. The remediation projects are slated to begin as soon as Arconic receives final approval from the Ministry of Infrastructure. Based on the final agreement with Ligestra, Arconic’s share of all costs and payments is $17 (€12), of which $9 (€6) related to the damages will be paid annually over a 10-year period, which began in April 2014, and was previously fully reserved. Separately, in 2009, due to additional information derived from the site investigations conducted at Portovesme, Arconic increased the reserve by $3. 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 May 2014, Trasformazioni and Ligestra submitted a revised soil remediation project that addressed certain stakeholders’ concerns. Arconic increased the reserve by $3 in 2014 to reflect the estimated higher costs associated with the revised soil remediation project, as well as current operating and maintenance costs of the Portovesme site. In October 2014, the MOE required a further revised project be submitted to reflect the removal of a larger volume of contaminated soil than what had been proposed, as well as design changes for the cap related to the remaining contaminated soil left in place and the expansion of an emergency containment groundwater pump and treatment system that was previously installed. Trasformazioni and Ligestra submitted the further revised soil remediation project in February 2015. As a result, Arconic increased the reserve by $7 in March 2015 to reflect the increase in the estimated costs of the project. In October 2015, Arconic received a final ministerial decree approving the February 2015 revised soil remediation project. Work on the soil remediation project commenced in the second quarter of 2016 and is expected to be completed in 2019. Arconic and Ligestra are now working on a final groundwater remediation project, which will be submitted to the MOE for approval in 2017. The ultimate outcome of this matter may result in a change to the existing reserve for Portovesme. Baie Comeau, Quebec, Canada—In August 2012, Arconic 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, Arconic increased the reserve for Baie Comeau by $25 in 2012 to reflect the estimated cost of Arconic’s recommended alternative, consisting of both dredging and capping of the contaminated sediments. In July 2013, Arconic submitted the Environmental Impact Assessment for the project to the MDDEP. The MDDEP notified Arconic that the project as it was submitted was approved and a final ministerial decree was issued in July 2015. As a result, no further adjustment to the reserve was required in 2015. The decree provided final approval for the project and Arconic started work on the final project design with construction on the project expected to begin in 2017. Completion of the final project design and construction contract may result in additional liability in a future period. Mosjøen, Norway—In September 2012, Arconic 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, Arconic increased the reserve for Mosjøen by $20 in 2012 to reflect the estimated cost of the baseline alternative for dredging of the contaminated sediments. A proposed project reflecting this alternative was formally presented to the NEA in June 2014, and was resubmitted in late 2014 to reflect changes by the NEA. The revised proposal did not result in a change to the reserve for Mosjøen. In April 2015, the NEA notified Arconic that the revised project was approved and required submission of the final project design before issuing a final order. Arconic completed and submitted the final project design, which identified a need to stabilize the related wharf structure to allow for the sediment dredging in the harbor. As a result, Arconic increased the reserve for Mosjøen by $11 in June 2015 to reflect the estimated cost of the wharf stabilization. Also in June 2015, the NEA issued a final order approving the project as well as the final project design. In September 2015, Arconic increased the reserve by $1 to reflect the potential need (based on prior experience with similar projects) to perform additional dredging if the results of sampling, which is required by the order, don’t achieve the required cleanup levels. Project construction commenced in the first quarter of 2016 and is expected to be completed by the end of 2017. Tax 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, which was denied in January 2015. The Company filed an appeal of this second assessment in Spain’s National Court in March 2015. At September 30, 2016, the combined assessments total $296 (€244), including interest. 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. In March 2013, Arconic’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. AWAB presented defense of its claim to the RFB on April 8, 2013. If AWAB is successful in this administrative process, the RFB would have no further recourse. If unsuccessful in this process, AWAB has the option to litigate at a judicial level. Separately from AWAB’s administrative appeal, in June 2015, new tax law was enacted repealing the provisions in the tax code that were the basis for the RFB assessing a 50% penalty in this matter. As such, the estimated range of reasonably possible loss is $0 to $32 (R$103), whereby the maximum end of the range represents the portion of the disallowed credits applicable to the export sales and excludes the 50% penalty. Additionally, the estimated range of disallowed credits related to AWAB’s fixed assets is $0 to $36 (R$117), 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. Between 2000 and 2002, Arconic’s subsidiary, 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 August 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 September 30, 2016, the assessment totaled $43 (R$140), including penalties and interest. While the Company believes it has meritorious defenses, the Company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome. Other In connection with the sale in 2001 of Reynolds Metals Company’s (“Reynolds,” a subsidiary of Arconic), alumina refinery in Gregory, Texas, Reynolds assigned an Energy Services Agreement (“ESA”) with Gregory Power Partners (“Gregory Power”) for purchase of steam and electricity by the refinery. On January 11, 2016, Sherwin Alumina Company, LLC (“Sherwin”), the current owner of the refinery, and one of its affiliate entities, filed bankruptcy petitions in Corpus Christi, Texas for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On January 26, 2016, Gregory Power delivered notice to Reynolds that Sherwin’s bankruptcy filing constitutes a breach of the ESA; on January 29, 2016, Reynolds responded that the filing does not constitute a breach. Sherwin informed the bankruptcy court that it intends to cease operations because it is not able continue its bauxite supply agreement and thereafter Gregory Power filed a complaint in the bankruptcy case against Reynolds alleging breach of the ESA. On October 4, 2016, the State of Texas filed suit against Sherwin in the bankruptcy proceeding seeking to hold Sherwin responsible for remediation of alleged environmental conditions at the facility. On October 11, 2016, Sherwin filed a similar suit against Reynolds in the case. The outcome of this matter is neither estimable nor probable. In addition to the matters discussed above, various other lawsuits, claims, and proceedings have been or may be instituted or asserted against Arconic, 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 Arconic has an investment in a joint venture for the development, construction, ownership, and operation of an integrated aluminum complex (bauxite mine, alumina refinery, aluminum smelter, and rolling mill) in Saudi Arabia. The joint venture is owned 74.9% by the Saudi Arabian Mining Company (known as “Ma’aden”) and 25.1% by Arconic and consists of three separate companies as follows: one each for the mine and refinery, the smelter, and the rolling mill. Arconic accounts for its investment in the joint venture under the equity method. Capital investment in the project is expected to total approximately $10,800 (SAR 40.5 billion) and has been funded through a combination of equity contributions by the joint venture partners and project financing by the joint venture, which has been guaranteed by both partners (see below). Both the equity contributions and the guarantees of the project financing are based on the joint venture’s partners’ ownership interests. Originally, it was estimated that Arconic’s total equity investment in the joint venture would be approximately $1,100, of which Arconic has contributed $982, including $1 in the 2016 nine-month period. Based on changes to both the project’s capital investment and equity and debt structure from the initial plans, the estimated $1,100 equity contribution may be reduced. As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the carrying value of Arconic’s investment in this project was $863 and $928, respectively. The smelting and rolling mill companies have project financing totaling $4,207 (reflects principal repayments made through September 30, 2016), of which $1,056 represents Arconic’s share (the equivalent of Arconic’s 25.1% interest in the smelting and rolling mill companies). In conjunction with the financings, Arconic issued guarantees on behalf of the smelting and rolling mill companies to the lenders in the event that such companies default on their debt service requirements through 2017 and 2020 for the smelting company and 2018 and 2021 for the rolling mill company (Ma’aden issued similar guarantees for its 74.9% interest). Arconic’s guarantees for the smelting and rolling mill companies cover total debt service requirements of $100 in principal and up to a maximum of approximately $35 in interest per year (based on projected interest rates). At September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the combined fair value of the guarantees was $3 and $7, respectively, which was included in Other noncurrent liabilities and deferred credits on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet. The mining and refining company has project financing totaling $2,232, of which $560 represents AWAC’s 25.1% interest in the mining and refining company. In conjunction with the financings, Arconic, on behalf of AWAC, issued guarantees to the lenders in the event that the mining and refining company defaults on its debt service requirements through 2019 and 2024 (Ma’aden issued similar guarantees for its 74.9% interest). Arconic’s guarantees for the mining and refining company cover total debt service requirements of $120 in principal and up to a maximum of approximately $30 in interest per year (based on projected interest rates). At both September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the combined fair value of the guarantees was $3, which was included in Other noncurrent liabilities and deferred credits on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet. In the event Arconic would be required to make payments under the guarantees, 40% of such amount would be contributed to Arconic by Alumina Limited, consistent with its ownership interest in AWAC. In 2004, AofA 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 was classified as an equity investment, was made in order to secure a competitively priced long-term supply of natural gas to AofA’s refineries in Western Australia. AofA 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. In late 2011, the consortium initiated a three-year equity call plan to improve its capitalization structure. This plan required AofA to contribute $39 (A$40), all of which was made through December 2014. Following the completion of the three-year equity call plan in December 2014, the consortium initiated a new equity call plan to further improve its capitalization structure. This plan required AofA to contribute $30 (A$36) through mid-2016, of which $20 (A$27) was made through March 31, 2016, including $3 (A$5) in the 2016 first quarter. In April 2016, AofA sold its interest in the consortium (see Note G), effectively terminating its remaining obligation to make contributions under the current equity call plan. As part of the sale transaction, AofA will maintain its current access to approximately 30% of the DBNGP transmission capacity for gas supply to its three alumina refineries in Western Australia under an existing agreement to purchase gas transmission services from the DBNGP. At September 30, 2016, AofA has an asset of $288 (A$373) representing prepayments made under the agreement for future gas transmission services. On April 8, 2015, AofA secured a new 12-year gas supply agreement to power its three alumina refineries in Western Australia beginning in July 2020. This agreement was conditional on the completion of a third-party acquisition of the related energy assets from the then-current owner, which occurred in June 2015. The terms of AofA’s gas supply agreement required a prepayment of $500 to be made in two installments. The first installment of $300 was made at the time of the completion of the third-party acquisition in June 2015 and the second installment of $200 was made in April 2016. Both of these amounts were included in (Increase) in noncurrent assets on the accompanying Statement of Consolidated Cash Flows in the respective periods. At September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, Arconic has an asset of $504 (A$654) and $288 (A$395), respectively, representing the respective prepayments made under this agreement, which were included in Other noncurrent assets on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet.

X
- References No definition available. + 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 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 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=68068213&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: 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 4: 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 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=73718637&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration