XML 41 R30.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3.a.u2

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | Note 22. Commitments and Contingent Liabilities Asset Retirement Obligations Chemours has recorded asset retirement obligations, which are inclusive of costs related to closure, reclamation, and removal for mining operations in the production of TiO2 in the Titanium Technologies segment; cap, cover, and post-closure maintenance of landfills in all segments; and, shipment and disposal of stored waste in all segments. The following table sets forth the activity in the Company’s asset retirement obligations for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018.
|  | Year Ended December 31, |
|  | 2019 |  |  | 2018 |
Balance at January 1, |  | $ | 57 |  |  | $ | 48 |
Accretion expense |  |  | 7 |  |  |  | 10 |
Settlements and payments |  |  | (3 | ) |  |  | (1 | )
Balance at December 31, |  | $ | 61 |  |  | $ | 57 |
Current portion |  | $ | 7 |  |  | $ | 6 |
Non-current portion |  |  | 54 |  |  |  | 51 |
Litigation Overview In addition to the matters discussed below, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, from time to time, are subject to various lawsuits, claims, assessments, and proceedings with respect to product liability, intellectual property, personal injury, commercial, contractual, employment, governmental, environmental, anti-trust, and other such matters that arise in the ordinary course of business. In addition, Chemours, by virtue of its status as a subsidiary of DuPont prior to the separation, is subject to or required, under the separation-related agreements executed prior to the separation, to indemnify DuPont against various pending legal proceedings. It is not possible to predict the outcomes of these various lawsuits, claims, assessments, or proceedings. Except as noted below, while management believes it is reasonably possible that Chemours could incur losses in excess of the amounts accrued, if any, for the aforementioned proceedings, it does not believe any such loss would have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Additional disputes between Chemours and DuPont may also arise with respect to indemnification matters, including disputes based on matters of law or contract interpretation. If and to the extent these disputes arise, they could materially adversely affect Chemours. The Company accrues for litigation matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred, and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. Legal costs such as outside counsel fees and expenses are recognized in the period in which the expense was incurred. Management believes the Company’s litigation accruals are appropriate based on the facts and circumstances for each matter, which are discussed in further detail below. The following table sets forth the components of the Company’s accrued litigation at December 31, 2019 and 2018.
|  | December 31, 2019 |  |  | December 31, 2018 |
Asbestos |  | $ | 34 |  |  | $ | 37 |
PFOA |  |  | 20 |  |  | 22 |
All other matters |  |  | 6 |  |  | 5 |
Total accrued litigation |  | $ | 60 |  |  | $ | 64 |
The following table sets forth the current and long-term components of the Company’s accrued litigation and their balance sheet locations at December 31, 2019 and 2018.
|  | Balance Sheet Location |  | December 31, 2019 |  |  | December 31, 2018 |
Accrued Litigation: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Current accrued litigation |  | Other accrued liabilities (Note 19) |  | $ | 10 |  |  | $ | 11 |
Long-term accrued litigation |  | Other liabilities (Note 21) |  |  | 50 |  |  |  | 53 |
Total accrued litigation |  |  |  | $ | 60 |  |  | $ | 64 |
Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina For information regarding the Company’s ongoing litigation and environmental remediation matters at its Fayetteville Works site in Fayetteville, North Carolina (“Fayetteville”), refer to “Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina” under the “Environmental Overview” within this “Note 22 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”. Asbestos In the Separation, DuPont assigned its asbestos docket to Chemours. At December 31, 2019 and 2018, there were approximately 1,100 and 1,300 lawsuits pending against DuPont alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. These cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases involve similar allegations by DuPont employees or household members of contractors or DuPont employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of exposure to DuPont products. At December 31, 2019 and 2018, Chemours had an accrual of $34 and $37 related to these matters, respectively. Benzene In the Separation, DuPont assigned its benzene docket to Chemours. At December 31, 2019 and 2018 there were 16 and 19 cases pending against DuPont alleging benzene-related illnesses, respectively. These cases consist of premises matters involving contractors and deceased former employees who claim exposure to benzene while working at DuPont sites primarily in the 1960s through the 1980s, and product liability claims based on alleged exposure to benzene found in trace amounts in aromatic hydrocarbon solvents used to manufacture DuPont products such as paints, thinners, and reducers. Management believes that a loss is reasonably possible as to the docket as a whole; however, given the evaluation of each benzene matter is highly fact-driven and impacted by disease, exposure, and other factors, a range of such losses cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. PFOA Chemours does not, and has never, used “PFOA” (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt) as a polymer processing aid and/or sold it as a commercial product. Prior to the Separation, the performance chemicals segment of DuPont made PFOA at Fayetteville and used PFOA as a processing aid in the manufacture of fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers at certain sites, including: Washington Works, Parkersburg, West Virginia; Chambers Works, Deepwater, New Jersey; Dordrecht Works, Netherlands; Changshu Works, China; and, Shimizu, Japan. These sites are now owned and/or operated by Chemours. At December 31, 2019 and 2018, Chemours maintained accruals of $20 and $22, respectively, related to PFOA matters under the Leach Settlement as discussed below. These accruals relate to DuPont’s obligations under agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and voluntary commitments to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJ DEP”). These obligations and voluntary commitments include surveying, sampling, and testing drinking water in and around certain Company sites, and offering treatment or an alternative supply of drinking water if tests indicate the presence of PFOA in drinking water at or greater than the state or the national health advisory. The Company will continue to work with the EPA and other authorities regarding the extent of work that may be required with respect to these matters. Leach Settlement In 2004, DuPont settled a class action captioned Leach v. DuPont, filed in West Virginia state court, alleging that approximately 80,000 residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. Among the settlement terms, DuPont funded a series of health studies by an independent science panel of experts (“C8 Science Panel”) to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and disease. The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and diagnosed high cholesterol. Under the terms of the settlement, DuPont is obligated to fund up to $235 for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and pay the administrative costs associated with the program, including class counsel fees. The court-appointed Director of Medical Monitoring implemented the program and testing is ongoing with associated payments to service providers disbursed from an escrow account which the Company replenishes pursuant to the settlement agreement. As of December 31, 2019, approximately $1.7 has been disbursed from escrow related to medical monitoring. While it is reasonably possible that the Company will incur additional costs related to the medical monitoring program, such costs cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties surrounding the level of participation by eligible class members and the scope of testing. In addition, under the Leach settlement agreement, DuPont must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts and private well users. At separation, this obligation was assigned to Chemours, and $20 and $22 was accrued for these matters at December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. PFOA Leach Class Personal Injury Further, under the Leach settlement, class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for those diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. Approximately 3,500 lawsuits were subsequently filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia and consolidated in multi-district litigation (“MDL”) in Ohio federal court. These were resolved in March 2017 when DuPont entered into an agreement settling all MDL cases and claims, including all filed and unfiled personal injury cases and claims that were part of the plaintiffs’ counsel’s claims inventory, as well as cases tried to a jury verdict (“MDL Settlement”) for $670.7 in cash, with half paid by Chemours, and half paid by DuPont. Concurrently with the MDL Settlement, DuPont and Chemours agreed to a limited sharing of potential future PFOA costs (indemnifiable losses, as defined in the separation agreement between DuPont and Chemours) for a period of five years. During that five-year period, Chemours will annually pay future PFOA costs up to $25 and, if such amount is exceeded, DuPont will pay any excess amount up to the next $25 (which payment will not be subject to indemnification by Chemours), with Chemours annually bearing any further excess costs under the terms of the separation agreement. After the five-year period, this limited sharing agreement will expire, and Chemours’ indemnification obligations under the separation agreement will continue unchanged. Chemours has also agreed that it will not contest its indemnification obligations to DuPont under the separation agreement for PFOA costs on the basis of defenses generally applicable to the indemnification provisions under the separation agreement, including defenses relating to punitive damages, fines or penalties, or attorneys’ fees, and waives any such defenses with respect to PFOA costs. Chemours has, however, retained other defenses, including as to whether any particular PFOA claim is within the scope of the indemnification provisions of the separation agreement. While all MDL lawsuits were dismissed or resolved through the MDL Settlement, the MDL Settlement did not resolve PFOA personal injury claims of plaintiffs who did not have cases or claims in the MDL or personal injury claims based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11, 2017. Since the resolution of the MDL, approximately 61 personal injury cases have been filed and are pending in West Virginia or Ohio courts alleging status as a Leach class member. These cases are consolidated before the MDL court. A two-plaintiff trial commenced in January 2020, and a six-plaintiff trial is scheduled for June 2020. State of Ohio In February 2018, the State of Ohio initiated litigation against DuPont regarding historical PFOA emissions from the Washington Works site. Chemours is an additional named defendant. Ohio alleges damage to natural resources and fraudulent transfer in the spin-off that created Chemours and seeks damages including remediation and other costs and punitive damages. PFAS DuPont and Chemours have received governmental and regulatory inquiries and have been named in other litigations, including class actions, brought by individuals, municipalities, businesses and water districts alleging exposure to and/or contamination from perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds (“PFAS”), including PFOA. Many actions include an allegation of fraudulent transfer in the spin-off that created Chemours. Chemours has declined DuPont’s requests for indemnity for fraudulent transfer claims. In January 2020, Chemours received a letter informing it that the U.S. Department of Justice, Consumer Protection Branch, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are considering whether to open a criminal investigation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and asking that it retain its documents regarding PFAS and food contact applications. Based upon the letter, we are presently unable to predict the duration, scope, or result of any potential governmental, criminal, or civil proceeding that may result, the imposition of fines and penalties, and/or other remedies. We are also unable to develop a reasonable estimate of a possible loss or range of losses, if any. Aqueous Film Forming Foam Matters Chemours does not, and has never, manufactured aqueous film forming foam (“AFFF”). DuPont and Chemours have been named in 154 matters, involving AFFF, which is used to extinguish hydrocarbon-based (i.e., Class B) fires and subject to U.S. military specifications. Most matters have been transferred to or filed directly into a multidistrict litigation (“AFFF MDL”) in South Carolina federal court or identified by a party for transfer. The matters pending in the AFFF MDL allege damages as a result of contamination, in most cases due to migration from military installations or airports, or personal injury from exposure to AFFF. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for investigating, monitoring, remediating, treating, and otherwise responding to the contamination. Others have claims for personal injury, property diminution and punitive damages. There are 8 AFFF lawsuits currently pending outside the AFFF MDL that have not been designated by a party for inclusion in the MDL. These matters are: Valero Refining (“Valero”) has six pending state court lawsuits filed commencing in June 2019 regarding its Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, California, and Louisiana facilities. These lawsuits allege that several defendants that designed, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold AFFF or PFAS incorporated into AFFF have caused Valero to incur damages and costs including remediation, AFFF disposal, and replacement. Valero also alleges fraudulent transfer. In August 2019, a putative class action was filed in Alaska state court seeking class status for property owners whose groundwater has been contaminated by AFFF use at Fairbanks International Airport, a nearby fire training facility, and other state operations. Damages sought include cost of remediation, monitoring, medical monitoring, diminution of property value, cost of replacement water, and punitive damages. Plaintiffs also allege fraudulent transfer. In September 2019, a lawsuit alleging personal injury resulting from exposure to AFFF in Long Island drinking water was filed by four individuals in New York state court. Plaintiffs also allege violation of New York Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act and seek compensatory and punitive damages, and medical monitoring. State Natural Resource Damages Matters In addition to the State of New Jersey actions (as detailed below) and the State of Ohio action (as detailed above), the states of Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, and Michigan have filed lawsuits against defendants, including DuPont and Chemours, relating to the alleged contamination of state natural resources with PFAS compounds either from AFFF and/or other unidentified sources. These lawsuits seek damages including costs to investigate, clean up, restore, treat, monitor, or otherwise respond to contamination to natural resources. The lawsuits include counts for fraudulent transfer. Other PFAS Matters DuPont has also been named in approximately 51 lawsuits pending in New York courts, which are not part of the Leach class, brought by individual plaintiffs alleging negligence and other claims in the release of PFAS, including PFOA, into drinking water, and seeking medical monitoring, compensatory, and punitive damages against current and former owners and suppliers of a manufacturing facility in Hoosick Falls, New York. Two other lawsuits in New York have been filed by a business seeking to recover its losses and by nearby property owners and residents in a putative class action seeking medical monitoring, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief. In May 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama filed suit against numerous carpet manufacturers located in Dalton, Georgia and suppliers and former suppliers, including DuPont, in Alabama state court. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance, and trespass in the release of PFAS, including PFOA, into a river leading to the town’s water source, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2018, the New Jersey-American Water Company, Inc. (“NJAW”) filed suit against DuPont and Chemours in New Jersey federal court alleging that discharges in violation of the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (“Spill Act”), were made into groundwater utilized in the NJAW Penns Grove water system. NJAW alleges that damages include costs associated with remediating, operating, and maintaining its system, and attorney fees. In October 2018, a putative class action was filed in Ohio federal court against 3M, DuPont, Chemours, and other defendants seeking class action status for U.S. residents having a detectable level of PFAS in their blood serum. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including the establishment of a “PFAS Science Panel.” In December 2018, the owners of a dairy farm filed a lawsuit in Maine state court against numerous defendants including DuPont and Chemours alleging that their dairy farm was contaminated by PFAS, including perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”) and PFOA present in treated municipal sewer sludge used in agricultural spreading applications on their farm. The complaint asserts negligence, trespass, and other tort and state statutory claims and seeks damages. In May 2019, a putative class action was filed in Delaware state court against two electroplating companies alleging that they are responsible for PFAS contamination, including PFOA and PFOS, in drinking water and the environment in the nearby community. The suit also names 3M, DuPont, and Chemours, asserting they sold PFAS containing materials to the electroplating companies. The putative class of residents alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass, and other claims and seeks medical monitoring, personal injury and property damages, and punitive damages. Commencing in August 2019, eight Long Island water suppliers filed lawsuits in New York federal court against defendants including DuPont and Chemours regarding alleged PFAS, PFOA, and PFOS contamination through releases from industrial and manufacturing facilities and business locations where PFAS-contaminated water was used for irrigation and sites where consumer products were disposed. The complaints allege products liability, negligence, nuisance, trespass, and fraudulent transfer. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages. In November 2019, 30 residents filed a lawsuit in New Jersey state court against DuPont, Chemours, and other defendants alleging that they are responsible for PFAS contamination including PFOA and PFOS in groundwater and drinking water. Plaintiffs have claims for medical monitoring, property value diminution, trespass, and punitive damages. In November 2019, the City of Rome, Georgia filed suit against numerous carpet manufacturers located in Dalton, Georgia, suppliers, DuPont, and Chemours in Georgia state court alleging negligence, nuisance, and trespass in the release of perfluorinated compounds, including PFOA, into a river leading to the town’s water source. City of Rome alleges damages to property and lost profits, and expenses for abatement and remediation and punitive damages. In December 2019, a putative class action was filed in Georgia state court on behalf of customers of the Rome, Georgia water division and the Floyd County, Georgia water department against numerous carpet manufacturers located in Dalton, Georgia, suppliers, DuPont, and Chemours in Georgia state court alleging negligence and nuisance and related to the release of perfluorinated compounds, including PFOA, into a river leading to their water sources. Damages sought include compensatory damages for increased water surcharges as well as punitive damages and injunctive relief for abatement and remediation. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Directives and Litigation In March 2019, the NJ DEP issued two Directives and filed four lawsuits against Chemours and other defendants. The Directives are: (i) a state-wide PFAS Directive issued to DuPont, DowDuPont, DuPont Specialty Products USA (“DuPont SP USA”), Solvay S.A., 3M, and Chemours seeking a meeting to discuss future costs for PFAS related costs incurred by the NJ DEP and establishing a funding source for such costs by the Directive recipients, and information relating to historic and current use of certain PFAS compounds; and, (ii) a Pompton Lakes Natural Resources Damages (“NRD”) Directive to DuPont and Chemours demanding $0.1 to cover the cost of preparation of a natural resource damage assessment plan and access to related documents. The lawsuits filed in New Jersey state courts by the NJ DEP are: (i) in Salem County, against DuPont, 3M, and Chemours primarily alleging clean-up and removal costs and damages and natural resource damages under the Spill Act, the Water Pollution Control Act (“WPCA”), the Industrial Site Recovery Act (“ISRA”), and common law regarding past and present operations at Chambers Works, a site assigned to Chemours at separation; (ii) in Middlesex County, against DuPont, DuPont SP USA, 3M, and Chemours primarily alleging clean-up and removal costs and damages and natural resource damages under the Spill Act, ISRA, WPCA, and common law regarding past and present operations at Parlin, a DuPont owned site; (iii) in Gloucester County, against DuPont and Chemours primarily alleging clean-up and removal costs and damages and natural resource damages under the Spill Act, WPCA, and common law regarding past operations at Repauno, a non-operating remediation site assigned to Chemours at separation which has been sold; and (iv) in Passaic County, against DuPont and Chemours primarily alleging clean-up and removal costs and damages and natural resource damages under the Spill Act, WPCA, and common law regarding past operations at Pompton Lakes, a non-operating remediation site assigned to Chemours at separation. The alleged pollutants listed in the Salem County and Middlesex County matters above include PFAS. Each lawsuit also alleges fraudulent transfer. DuPont requested that Chemours defend and indemnify it in these matters. Chemours has accepted the defense while reserving rights and declining DuPont’s demand as to matters under ISRA, fraudulent transfer, or involving other DuPont entities. PFOA and PFAS Summary Management believes that it is reasonably possible that the Company could incur losses related to PFOA and/or PFAS matters in excess of amounts accrued, but any such losses are not estimable at this time due to various reasons, including, among others, that such matters are in their early stages and have significant factual issues to be resolved. U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc. There are six lawsuits, including one putative class action in which class certification was denied, pending against DuPont by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana. Several of the lawsuits allege that Chemours is now responsible for DuPont environmental liabilities. The lawsuits include allegations for personal injury damages, property diminution, and other damages. At separation, DuPont assigned Chemours its former plant site, which is located south of the residential portion of the Superfund area, and its responsibility for the environmental remediation at the Superfund site. Management believes a loss is reasonably possible, but not estimable at this time due to various reasons including, among others, that such matters are in their early stages and have significant factual issues to be resolved. Securities Litigation Commencing in October 2019, two putative class action complaints were filed in Delaware federal court alleging that Chemours and certain of its officers violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements and omissions in public disclosures regarding environmental liabilities assigned to Chemours in connection with its spin-off from DuPont. The complaints seek a class of purchasers of Chemours stock between February 16, 2017 and August 1, 2019 and allege compensatory damages and fees. The Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. In January 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff for the consolidated litigation and set a schedule providing for the filing of a consolidated amended complaint in March 2020. Management believes that it is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this litigation or to estimate the loss or range of loss as the matter is in the early stages with significant issues to be resolved. If the Company were not to prevail in the litigation, the impact could be material to the Company’s results of operations, financial position, and cash flows. Mining Solutions Facility Construction Stoppage In March 2018, a civil association in Mexico filed a complaint against the government authorities involved in the permitting process of the Company’s new Mining Solutions facility under construction in Gomez Palacio, Durango, Mexico. The claimant sought and obtained a suspension from the district judge to stop the Company’s construction work. The suspension was subsequently lifted on appeal, and the matter is before the Supreme Court of Mexico. A second similar complaint was filed in September 2019 and, again, a suspension of construction was granted. Chemours has filed an appeal. In the event that the suspension of construction is ultimately upheld, the Company would incur $26 of contract termination fees with a third-party services provider. At December 31, 2019 the Company had $144 long-lived assets under construction at the facility, $7 of other related prepaid costs, and $51 of the Company’s goodwill assigned to the Mining Solutions reporting unit. Management believes these amounts are recoverable as of December 31, 2019. Environmental Overview Chemours, due to the terms of the Separation-related agreements with DuPont, is subject to contingencies pursuant to environmental laws and regulations that in the future may require further action to correct the effects on the environment of prior disposal practices or releases of chemical substances, which are attributable to DuPont’s activities before it spun-off Chemours. Much of this liability results from CERCLA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and similar state and global laws. These laws require Chemours to undertake certain investigative, remediation, and restoration activities at sites where Chemours conducts or once conducted operations or at sites where Chemours-generated waste was disposed. The accrual also includes estimated costs related to a number of sites identified for which it is probable that environmental remediation will be required, but which are not currently the subject of enforcement activities. Chemours accrues for remediation activities when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and a reasonable estimate of the liability can be made. Where the available information is sufficient to estimate the amount of liability, that estimate has been used. Where the available information is only sufficient to establish a range of probable liability, and no point within the range is more likely than any other, the lower end of the range has been used. Estimated liabilities are determined based on existing remediation laws and technologies and the Company’s planned remedial responses, which are derived from in-depth environmental studies, sampling, testing, and analyses. Inherent uncertainties exist in such evaluations, primarily due to unknown environmental conditions, changing governmental regulations regarding liability, and emerging remediation technologies. These accruals are adjusted periodically as remediation efforts progress and as additional technological, regulatory, and legal information becomes available. Environmental liabilities and expenditures include claims for matters that are liabilities of DuPont and its subsidiaries, which Chemours may be required to indemnify pursuant to the separation-related agreements. These accrued liabilities are undiscounted and do not include claims against third parties. Costs related to environmental remediation are charged to expense in the period that the associated liability is accrued. The following table sets forth the components of the Company’s environmental remediation liabilities at December 31, 2019 and 2018, and for the five sites that are deemed the most significant by management, including Fayetteville as further discussed below.
|  | December 31, 2019 |  |  | December 31, 2018 |
Chambers Works, Deepwater, New Jersey |  | $ | 20 |  |  | $ | 18 |
East Chicago, Indiana |  |  | 17 |  |  |  | 21 |
Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina |  |  | 201 |  |  |  | 75 |
Pompton Lakes, New Jersey |  |  | 43 |  |  |  | 45 |
USS Lead, East Chicago, Indiana |  |  | 13 |  |  |  | 15 |
All other sites |  |  | 112 |  |  |  | 117 |
Total accrued environmental remediation |  | $ | 406 |  |  | $ | 291 |
The following table sets forth the current and long-term components of the Company’s environmental remediation liabilities and their balance sheet locations at December 31, 2019 and 2018.
|  | Balance Sheet Location |  | December 31, 2019 |  |  | December 31, 2018 |
Environmental Remediation: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Current environmental remediation |  | Other accrued liabilities (Note 19) |  | $ | 74 |  |  | $ | 139 |
Long-term environmental remediation |  | Other liabilities (Note 21) |  |  | 332 |  |  |  | 152 |
Total environmental remediation |  |  |  | $ | 406 |  |  | $ | 291 |
The time-frame for a site to go through all phases of remediation (investigation and active clean-up) may take about 15 to 20 years, followed by several years of OM&M activities. Remediation activities, including OM&M activities, vary substantially in duration and cost from site to site. These activities, and their associated costs, depend on the mix of unique site characteristics, evolving remediation technologies, and diverse regulatory requirements, as well as the presence or absence of other potentially responsible parties. In addition, for claims that Chemours may be required to indemnify DuPont pursuant to the Separation-related agreements, Chemours, through DuPont, has limited available information for certain sites or is in the early stages of discussions with regulators. For these sites in particular, there may be considerable variability between the clean-up activities that are currently being undertaken or planned and the ultimate actions that could be required. Therefore, considerable uncertainty exists with respect to environmental remediation costs and, under adverse changes in circumstances, although deemed remote, the potential liability may range up to approximately $530 above the amount accrued at December 31, 2019. For the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017, Chemours incurred environmental remediation expenses of $200, $101, and $48, respectively. Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina Fayetteville has been in operation since the 1970s and is located next to the Cape Fear River southeast of the City of Fayetteville, North Carolina. Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (“HFPO Dimer Acid,” sometimes referred to as “GenX” or “C3 Dimer Acid”) is manufactured at Fayetteville. The Company has operated the site since its separation from DuPont in 2015. The Company believes that discharges from Fayetteville to the Cape Fear River, site surface water, groundwater, and air emissions have not impacted the safety of drinking water in North Carolina. The Company is cooperating with a variety of ongoing inquiries and investigations from federal, state, and local authorities, regulators, and other governmental entities. Consent Order with North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (“NC DEQ”) In September 2017, the NC DEQ issued a 60-day notice of intent to suspend the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit for Fayetteville, and the State of North Carolina filed an action in North Carolina state court regarding site discharges, seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as other relief, including abatement and site correction. The state court entered a partial consent order resolving NC DEQ’s motion for a temporary restraining order. In November 2017, NC DEQ informed the Company that it was suspending the NPDES permit for Fayetteville. The Company thereafter commenced the capture and separate disposal of all process wastewater from Fayetteville related to the Company’s own operations. In June 2018, the North Carolina Legislature enacted legislation (i) granting the governor the authority, in certain circumstances, to require a facility with unauthorized PFAS discharges to cease operations, and (ii) granting the governor the authority, in certain circumstances, to direct the NC DEQ secretary to order a PFAS discharger to establish permanent replacement water supplies for parties whose water was contaminated by the discharge. In July 2018, Cape Fear River Watch (“CFRW”), a non-profit organization, sued NC DEQ in North Carolina state court, seeking to require NC DEQ to take additional actions at Fayetteville. On August 29, 2018, CFRW sued the Company in North Carolina federal court for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and penalties. In February 2019, the North Carolina Superior Court for Bladen County approved a Consent Order (“CO”) between NC DEQ, CFRW and the Company, resolving the State’s and CFRW’s lawsuits and other matters (including Notices of Violation (“NOVs”) issued by the State). Under the terms of the CO, Chemours paid $13 in March 2019 to cover a civil penalty and investigative costs and agreed to certain compliance measures (with stipulated penalties for failures to do so), including the following:
| • | Install a thermal oxidizer to control all PFAS in process streams from certain processes at Fayetteville at an efficiency of 99.99%;
| • | Develop, submit, and implement, subject to approval from NC DEQ and CFRW, a plan for interim actions that are economically and technologically feasible to achieve the maximum PFAS reduction from Fayetteville to the Cape Fear River within a two-year period;
| • | Develop and implement, subject to approval, a Corrective Action Plan that complies with North Carolina’s groundwater standards and guidance provided by NC DEQ. At a minimum, the Corrective Action Plan must require Chemours to reduce the total loading of PFAS originating from Fayetteville to surface water by at least 75% from baseline, as defined by the CO; and,
| • | Provide and properly maintain permanent drinking water supplies, including via whole-building filtration units and reverse osmosis (“RO”) units to qualifying surrounding properties with private drinking water wells.
The following table sets forth the components of the Company’s accrued environmental remediation liabilities related to PFAS at Fayetteville at December 31, 2019 and 2018.
|  | December 31, 2019 |  |  | December 31, 2018 |
On-site remediation |  | $ | 155 |  |  | $ | 10 |
Off-site groundwater remediation |  |  | 46 |  |  |  | 65 |
Total accrued liabilities |  | $ | 201 |  |  | $ | 75 |
The following table sets forth the current and long-term components of the Company’s accrued environmental remediation liabilities related to PFAS at Fayetteville and their balance sheet locations at December 31, 2019 and 2018.
|  | Balance Sheet Location |  | December 31, 2019 |  |  | December 31, 2018 |
Current accrued liabilities |  | Other accrued liabilities (Note 19) |  | $ | 20 |  |  | $ | 75 |
Long-term accrued liabilities |  | Other liabilities (Note 21) |  |  | 181 |  |  |  | — |
Total accrued liabilities |  |  |  | $ | 201 |  |  | $ | 75 |
Emissions to air Fayetteville operates multiple permitted air discharge stacks, blowers, and vents as part of its manufacturing activities. A thermal oxidizer (“TO”) became fully operational at the site on December 27, 2019, and Chemours switched to the permitted operating scenario for the TO on December 31, 2019 as set forth in the CO. The TO is designed to reduce aerial PFAS emissions from Fayetteville, and, within 90 days of installation, Chemours and North Carolina Division of Air Quality will conduct testing to confirm whether the TO is destroying 99.99% of all PFAS air emissions routed to it, utilizing a 2017 baseline. Environmental costs are capitalized and subsequently depreciated if the costs extend the useful life of the property, increase the property’s capacity, and/or reduce or prevent contamination from future operations. Off-site replacement drinking water supplies The CO requires the Company to provide permanent replacement drinking water supplies, including via connection to public water supply, whole building filtration units and/or RO units, to qualifying surrounding residents, businesses, schools, and public buildings with private drinking water wells. The qualifying area residents whose drinking water wells have tested above the state provisional health goal of 140 parts per trillion (ppt) for GenX may be eligible for public water or a whole building filtration system. Area residents whose drinking water wells have tested above 10 ppt for GenX or other perfluorinated compounds (“Table 3 Compounds”) are eligible for three under-sink RO units. The Company provides bottled drinking water to a residence when it becomes eligible for a replacement drinking water supply, and continues to provide delivery of bottled drinking water to these homeowners until the eligible supply is established or installed. The Company’s estimated liability for off-site replacement drinking water supplies is based on management’s assessment of the current facts and circumstances for this matter, which are subject to various assumptions that include, but are not limited to, the number of affected surrounding properties, response rates to the Company’s offer, the type of water treatment systems selected (i.e., whole building filtration or RO units), the cost of the selected water treatment systems, and any related operation, maintenance, and monitoring (“OM&M”) requirements, assessed fines and penalties, and other charges contemplated by the CO. For off-site drinking water supplies, OM&M is accrued for 20 years on an undiscounted basis based on the Company’s current plans under the CO. It is estimated that $46 of disbursements related to off-site replacement drinking water supplies will be made over approximately 20 years. On-site surface water and groundwater remediation Abatement and remediation measures already taken by Chemours, including the capture and separate disposal of its operations’ process wastewater and other interim actions, have addressed and abated nearly all PFAS discharges from the Company’s continuing operations at Fayetteville. However, the Company continues to have active dialogue with NC DEQ and other stakeholders regarding the potential remedies that are both economically and technologically feasible to achieve the CO objectives related to site surface water and groundwater. In the fourth quarter of 2019, the Company completed and submitted its Cape Fear River PFAS Loading Reduction Plan - Supplemental Information Report and Corrective Action Plan (“CAP”) to NC DEQ. The Supplemental Information Report provides information to support the evaluation of potential remedial options to reduce PFAS loadings to surface waters, including interim alternatives. The CAP describes potential remediation activities to address PFAS in on-site groundwater and surface waters at the site, in accordance with the requirements of the CO and the North Carolina groundwater standards, and builds on the previous submissions to NC DEQ. The NC DEQ has made the CAP available for public review and comment until March 6, 2020. The Company’s estimated liability for the remediation activities that are probable and estimable is based on the CAP and management’s assessment of the current facts and circumstances, which are subject to various assumptions including the transport pathways (being pathways by which PFAS reaches the Cape Fear River) which will require remedial actions, the types of site surface water and on-site remedies and treatment systems selected and implemented, the estimated cost of such potential remedies and treatment systems, and any related OM&M requirements, and other charges contemplated by the CO. The CAP also addresses remediation of on-site groundwater and proposes an interim action of extraction of groundwater from existing monitoring wells and treatment prior to discharge. Chemours also proposes to simultaneously proceed with detailed design and engineering of a permanent on-site groundwater treatment system alternative, including collection of extensive pre-design data, while holding a final decision on which alternative should be selected, with approval by NC DEQ, until that design and engineering work is complete (approximately two years). The actual cost of a permanent on-site groundwater treatment system primarily depends on the determination of certain significant design details, notably the actual barrier wall installation method (i.e., slurry wall vs. steel sheets), configuration of extraction wells, and extraction rates. Accordingly, in the fourth quarter of 2019, based on the CO, the CAP, and management’s plans, which are based on current regulations and technology, the Company accrued an additional $132 related to the estimated cost of on-site remediation. The incremental estimated remediation liability, based on current potential remedial options, is primarily comprised of $42 of construction costs, which are projected to be paid through 2025, and $88 of related OM&M requirements, which is projected to be paid over a period of approximately 20 years. The final costs of any selected remediation will depend primarily on the final approved design and actual labor and material costs. It is possible that issues relating to site discharges in various transport pathways, the selection of remediation alternatives to achieve PFAS loading reductions, or the operating effectiveness of the TO could result in further litigation and/or regulatory demands with regards to Fayetteville, including potential permit modifications. It is also possible that, as additional data is collected on the transport pathways and dialogue continues with NC DEQ and other stakeholders, the type or extent of remediation actions required to achieve the objectives committed to in the CO may change (increase or decrease). If such issues arise, or if the CO is amended, an additional loss is reasonably possible, but not estimable at this time. Other matters related to Fayetteville The Company has responded to grand jury subpoenas, produced witnesses before a grand jury and for interviews with government investigators and attorneys, and met with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina and the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice regarding their ongoing investigation into a potential violation of the CWA. We are presently unable to predict the duration, scope or result of any potential criminal or civil proceeding, including whether fines, penalties, and/or other remedies will be imposed. As such, management believes that it is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this matter or to estimate the loss or range of losses, if any, that could result from this matter. A Notice of Violation (NOV) was received from the EPA in February 2019 alleging certain TSCA violations at Fayetteville. Matters raised in the NOV could have the potential to affect operations at Fayetteville. The Company responded to the EPA in March 2019 asserting that the Company has not violated environmental laws. At this time, management does not believe that a loss is probable related to the matters in this NOV. In 2019, civil actions have been filed against DuPont and Chemours in North Carolina federal court relating to discharges from Fayetteville. These actions include a consolidated action brought by public water suppliers seeking damages and injunctive relief, a consolidated purported class action seeking medical monitoring, and property damage and/or other monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of the putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or that draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River, and an action by private well owners seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Ruling on the Company’s motions in April 2019, the court dismissed the medical monitoring, injunctive demand, and many other alleged causes of actions in these lawsuits. It is possible that additional litigation may be filed against the Company and/or DuPont concerning the discharges. It is not possible at this point to predict the timing, course, or outcome of all governmental and regulatory inquiries and notices and litigation, and it is reasonably possible that these matters could materially affect the Company’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. In addition, local communities, organizations, and federal and state regulatory agencies have raised questions concerning HFPO Dimer Acid and other perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds at certain other manufacturing sites operated by the Company. It is possible that additional developments similar to those described above and centering on Fayetteville could arise in other locations. Sale of East Chicago, Indiana On June 29, 2018, the Company sold its East Chicago, Indiana site to a third party for $1. In connection with the sale, the buyer has agreed to assume all costs associated with environmental remediation activities at the site in excess of $21, which will remain the responsibility of Chemours. At the time of the sale, the Company had accrued the full $21, and will reimburse the buyer through a series of progress payments to be made at defined intervals as certain tasks are completed. The Company recognized a gain of $3 on the sale, which includes the purchase price of $1, plus $2 in environmental remediation liabilities that were assumed by the buyer on the occurrence of the sale. Sale of Potomac River, West Virginia On September 27, 2018, the Company sold its Potomac River, West Virginia site to a third party for $4. In connection with the sale, the buyer has agreed to assume certain future environmental remediation costs, and Chemours has retained $4 in existing environmental remediation liabilities, which is a component of all other sites in the significant sites table above. The Company recognized a $3 gain on the sale, which was deferred and will be recognized as the Company completes certain environmental remediation activities at the site. Sale of Oakley, California On September 9, 2019, the Company sold its Oakley, California site to a third party for $7, of which $4 was received at closing with receipt of the remaining $3 of proceeds contingent upon the completion of certain future environmental remediation activities at the site. In connection with the sale, Chemours has retained $10 in existing environmental remediation liabilities, which is a component of all other sites in the significant sites table above. The Company recognized a $2 gain on the sale, which was deferred and will be recognized as the Company completes certain environmental remediation activities at the site.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration