| Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | Note 19. Commitments and Contingent Liabilities Litigation 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. 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. 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. Asbestos In the separation, DuPont assigned its asbestos docket to Chemours. At March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, there were approximately 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 March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, Chemours had an accrual of $37 related to these matters. Benzene In the separation, DuPont assigned its benzene docket to Chemours. At March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, there were 21 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 Prior to the fourth quarter of 2014, the performance chemicals segment of DuPont made “PFOA” (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt) at its Fayetteville, North Carolina plant 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. Chemours maintained accruals of $22 related to the PFOA matters discussed below at March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018. 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 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 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 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 cost 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 March 31, 2019, approximately $1.6 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 is included in the $22 accrued for these matters at March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018. 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 ostensible 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 54 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. 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 seeks damages including remediation and other costs and punitive damages. PFAS DuPont and Chemours have been named in other litigations brought by individuals, water districts, businesses, and a putative national medical monitoring putative class action alleging exposure to and/or contamination from perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds (“PFAS”), including PFOA. Aqueous Film Forming Foam Matters DuPont and Chemours have been named in four matters involving aqueous film forming foam (“AFFF”), which is used to extinguish hydrocarbon-based (i.e., Class B) fires and subject to U.S. military specifications. Some matters have been transferred to a multidistrict litigation (“AFFF MDL”) in South Carolina federal court. In February 2019, two commercial dairy farms near Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico filed lawsuits in federal court in New Mexico against DuPont and Chemours, as well as against several manufacturers of AFFF. These cases allege that decades of use of AFFF for firefighting practice at the nearby Air Force base contaminated the groundwater, the aquifer, and the property with PFAS, including PFOA and “PFOS” (perfluorooctane sulfonic acid) and threatens their milk and crop production. These cases allege that DuPont and Chemours manufactured AFFF and its non-defined “constituents.” Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for investigating, monitoring, remediating, treating, and otherwise responding to the contamination, and punitive damages. Also in February 2019, the City of Dayton, Ohio (“City”) filed an amended complaint to add DuPont and Chemours as defendants to a lawsuit filed in Ohio federal court against numerous AFFF manufacturers. The City alleges that decades of AFFF use in firefighting practice at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio and at the City’s own firefighting practice center contaminated the drinking water supply. The City alleges that DuPont and Chemours manufactured AFFF and its non-defined “constituents.” The City seeks to recover damages for investigating, monitoring, remediating, treating, and otherwise responding to the PFAS contamination and punitive damages. The case was transferred to the AFFF MDL. In April 2019, the Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority filed a complaint in New Jersey federal court against AFFF manufacturers, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), DuPont, and Chemours regarding use of AFFF at William J. Hughes Technical Center in New Jersey, an FAA-owned site. Plaintiffs allege that DuPont manufactured, marketed, sold, or otherwise promoted the use of AFFF and that Chemours is responsible for sharing DuPont liabilities. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages including clean-up costs, compensatory, and punitive damages regarding contamination of its drinking water wells. 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 Company (“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 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 January 2019, the Town of East Hampton , New York ( “Town”) filed a lawsuit against DuPont, Chemours , and numerous other defendants in New York state court alleging that it has and will incur costs for assessment, remediation, an d response to address PFAs contamination, including PFOA and PFOS in drinking water and the environment. As to DuPont and Chemours, the Town alleges that PFOA and/or PFOS washed from clothing or cleaning supplies to cesspools and then subsurface water. In addition to cost recovery, the Town seeks natural resource damages, compensatory and punitive damages , and injunctive relief. Other defendants, identified as manufacturers of AFFF , transferred the case to the AFFF MDL. In February 2019, the Ridgewood City Water Department (“Ridgewood Water”), a public water supplier in Bergen County, New Jersey filed a lawsuit in New Jersey state court against DuPont, Chemours, and numerous other defendants. As to DuPont and Chemours, Ridgewood Water alleges that “PTFE” (polytetrafluoroethylene fluoropolymers) is one of the sources of alleged PFAS contamination, including PFOA and PFOS. Ridgewood Water seeks declaratory relief requiring defendants to pay for assessment, remediation, and response costs, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. In March 2019, the NJ DEP issued two Directives and filed four lawsuits against defendants, including Chemours. Of these actions, the State-wide PFAS Directive and the lawsuits concerning the Company’s Chambers Works, New Jersey and Parlin, New Jersey sites involve PFAS. All the NJ DEP matters are described further below. PFOA and PFAS Summary There may be additional lawsuits filed related to PFOA and/or PFAS, including DuPont’s use of PFOA, its manufacture of PFOA, or its customers’ use of DuPont products. Any such litigation could result in Chemours incurring additional costs and liabilities. 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. 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, LLC (“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 resource damage 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, WPCA, ISRA, 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. Management believes that a loss is reasonably possible as to these matters, but not estimable for reasons including that these 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, 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 damages under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA,” often referred to as “Superfund”). 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. GenX and Other Perfluorinated and Polyfluorinated Compounds At its Fayetteville, North Carolina facility, the Company continues to capture and separately dispose of process waste water containing the polymerization processing aid hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (“HFPO Dimer Acid,” sometimes referred to as “GenX” or “C3 Dimer Acid”) and other perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds. The Company believes that discharges to the Cape Fear River, site surface water, groundwater, and air emissions have not impacted the safety of drinking water in North Carolina and is cooperating with a variety of ongoing inquiries and investigations from federal, state, and local authorities, regulators, and other governmental entities, including an ongoing investigation being conducted by 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. In September 2017, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (“NC DEQ”) issued a 60-day notice of intent to suspend the permit for the Fayetteville facility and the State of North Carolina filed an action in North Carolina state court regarding the discharges seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as other relief, including abatement and site correction. A partial Consent Order was entered partially resolving the State’s action in return for the Company’s agreement to continue and supplement the voluntary waste water disposal measures it had previously commenced and to provide certain information. In November 2017, the NC DEQ informed the Company that it was suspending the process waste water discharge permit for the Fayetteville facility. The Company thereafter commenced the capture and separate disposal of all process waste water from the Fayetteville facility related to the Company’s own operations. In addition, 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. On July 13, 2018, Cape Fear River Watch (“CFRW”), a non-profit organization, sued the NC DEQ in North Carolina state court, seeking to require the NC DEQ to take additional actions as to the Fayetteville facility. 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. On February 25, 2019, the North Carolina Superior Court for Bladen County approved a Consent Order between NC DEQ and the Company resolving the State’s and CFRW’s lawsuits and other matters (including issues regarding the legislation referenced above and Notices of Violation (“NOVs”) issued by the State) and litigation brought by CFRW. Under its terms, Chemours paid $13 in March 2019 to cover a civil penalty and investigative costs and continues to take additional actions to address site surface water, groundwater, and air emissions, including installing technology to abate future emissions by specified dates and meeting specified emissions reductions (with stipulated penalties for failures to do so). In connection with the approved Consent Order, the Company accrued an additional $27 during the first quarter of 2019 and had total accrued liabilities of $83 for this matter at March 31, 2019, of which, $58 is treated as accrued litigation costs. The Company’s estimated liability 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 properties, the type of water treatment system required, the cost of proposed water treatment systems and any related operation, maintenance, and monitoring (“OM&M”) requirements, assessed fines and penalties, and other charges contemplated by the Consent Order. In February 2019, the Company received an NOV from the EPA alleging certain TSCA violations at its Fayetteville site. Matters raised in the NOV could have the potential to affect operations at the Fayetteville site. 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. It is also possible that issues relating to site discharges could result in further litigation or regulatory demands with regard to the Fayetteville facility, including potential permit modifications. If such issues arise, if the Consent Order is modified, or as implementation of the obligations under the Consent Order proceed, an additional loss is reasonably possible but not estimable at this time. 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 Environmental Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice regarding their investigation into a potential violation of the CWA . Although the Company is not able at this point to predict the outcome of that investigation, it is reasonably possible that it could result in a criminal or civil proceeding, the imposition of fines and penalties, and/or other remedies. Civil actions have been filed against DuPont and Chemours in North Carolina federal court relating to discharges from the Fayetteville site. 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. It is possible that additional litigation may be filed against the Company and/or DuPont concerning the discharges. 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 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 possible that these matters could materially affect the Company’s financial results and operations. 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, and it is possible that similar developments to those described above and centering on the Fayetteville site could arise in other locations. 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 while the claim is studied and reviewed. Chemours, as the third-party affected, has filed an appeal. The Company has declared force majeure with its vendors while plant construction is idled. Chemours’ project permits fully comply with the laws and regulations at the federal, state, and municipal levels, and the Company is working with local and federal authorities, along with community leaders, to address the complaint. Management determined that these delays represented a trigger event, which required the long-lived assets under construction at the facility and the Mining Solutions reporting unit’s goodwill to be tested for impairment at March 31, 2019. No impairments were noted as a result of these tests. If the Company is unable to resume construction on the facility, a significant portion of the associated long-lived assets could be impaired. Environmental Chemours, due to the terms of its 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 by Chemours or other parties. 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. At March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the consolidated balance sheets included liabilities relating to these matters of $233 and $226, respectively, which, in management’s opinion, are appropriate based on existing facts and circumstances. 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, 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 $450 above the amount accrued at March 31, 2019. For the three months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, Chemours incurred environmental remediation expenses of $15 and $11, respectively. |
