| Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | Commitments and Contingent Liabilities PPG is involved in a number of lawsuits and claims, both actual and potential, including some that it has asserted against others, in which substantial monetary damages are sought. These lawsuits and claims may relate to contract, patent, environmental, product liability, antitrust and other matters arising out of the conduct of PPG’s current and past business activities. To the extent that these lawsuits and claims involve personal injury and property damage, PPG believes it has adequate insurance; however, certain of PPG’s insurers are contesting coverage with respect to some of these claims, and other insurers, as they had prior to the asbestos settlement described below, may contest coverage in the future. PPG’s lawsuits and claims against others include claims against insurers and other third parties with respect to actual and contingent losses related to environmental, asbestos and other matters. The results of any current or future litigation and claims are inherently unpredictable. However, management believes that, in the aggregate, the outcome of all lawsuits and claims involving PPG, including asbestos-related claims, will not have a material effect on PPG’s consolidated financial position or liquidity; however, such outcome may be material to the results of operations of any particular period in which costs, if any, are recognized. Foreign Tax Matter In June 2014, PPG received a notice from a Foreign Tax Authority (“FTA”) inviting the Company to pay interest totaling approximately $70 million for failure to withhold taxes on a 2009 intercompany dividend. Prior to the payment of the dividend, PPG obtained a ruling from the FTA which indicated that the dividend was tax-exempt and eligible for a simplified no-withholding procedure provided that certain administrative criteria were met. The FTA is now asserting that PPG did not meet all of the administrative criteria for the simplified procedure, and consequently taxes should have been withheld by the dividend payer, which would have made the dividend recipient eligible for a refund. The Company disagrees with the FTA's assertion. In March 2015, PPG received a formal assessment from the FTA. PPG plans to vigorously defend against the assessment. Asbestos Matters For over 30 years, PPG has been a defendant in lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. Most of PPG’s potential exposure relates to allegations by plaintiffs that PPG should be liable for injuries involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products, known as Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (“PC”). PPG and Corning Incorporated are each 50% shareholders of PC. PPG has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all claims for any injuries caused by PC products. As of the April 16, 2000 order which stayed and enjoined asbestos claims against PPG (as discussed below), PPG was one of many defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving approximately 114,000 claims served on PPG. During the period of the stay, which expired on its own terms on May 27, 2016, PPG generally has not been aware of the dispositions, if any, of these asbestos claims. Background of PC Bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania located in Pittsburgh, Pa. Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2000, PPG recorded an after-tax charge of $35 million for the write-off of all of its investment in PC. As a consequence of the bankruptcy filing and various motions and orders in that proceeding, the asbestos litigation against PPG (as well as against PC) had been stayed and the filing of additional asbestos suits against them had been enjoined until 30 days after the effective date of a confirmed plan of reorganization for PC substantially in accordance with the settlement arrangement among PPG and several other parties discussed below. The stay expired on May 27, 2016, 30 days after the effective date of a confirmed plan of reorganization. On May 14, 2002, PPG announced that it had agreed with several other parties, including certain of its insurance carriers, the official committee representing asbestos claimants in the PC bankruptcy, and the legal representatives of future asbestos claimants appointed in the PC bankruptcy, on the terms of a settlement arrangement relating to certain asbestos claims against PPG and PC (the “2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement”). On March 28, 2003, Corning Incorporated announced that it had separately reached its own arrangement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the settlement of certain asbestos claims against Corning Incorporated and PC (the “2003 Corning Settlement Arrangement”). The terms of the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement and the 2003 Corning Settlement Arrangement were incorporated into a bankruptcy reorganization plan for PC along with a disclosure statement describing the plan, which PC filed with the Bankruptcy Court on April 30, 2003. Amendments to the plan and disclosure statement were subsequently filed. On November 26, 2003, after considering objections to the second amended disclosure statement and plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving such disclosure statement and directing that it be sent to creditors, including asbestos claimants, for voting. In March 2004, the second amended PC plan of reorganization (the “second amended PC plan of reorganization”) received the required votes to approve the plan with a channeling injunction for present and future asbestos claimants under §524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. After voting results for the second amended PC plan of reorganization were received, the Bankruptcy Court judge conducted a hearing regarding the fairness of the settlement, including whether the plan would be fair with respect to present and future claimants, whether such claimants would be treated in substantially the same manner, and whether the protection provided to PPG and its participating insurers would be fair in view of the assets they would convey to the asbestos settlement trust (the “Trust”) to be established as part of the second amended PC plan of reorganization. At that hearing, creditors and other parties in interest raised objections to the second amended PC plan of reorganization. Following that hearing, the Bankruptcy Court scheduled oral arguments for the contested items. The Bankruptcy Court heard oral arguments on the contested items on November 17-18, 2004. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court agreed to consider certain post-hearing written submissions. In a further development, on February 2, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court established a briefing schedule to address whether certain aspects of a decision of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in an unrelated case had any applicability to the second amended PC plan of reorganization. Oral arguments on these matters were subsequently held in March 2005. During an omnibus hearing on February 28, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court judge stated that she was prepared to rule on the PC plan of reorganization in the near future, provided certain amendments were made to the plan. Those amendments were filed, as directed, on March 17, 2006. After further conferences and supplemental briefings, in December 2006, the court denied confirmation of the second amended PC plan of reorganization, on the basis that the plan was too broad in the treatment of allegedly independent asbestos claims not associated with PC. Terms of 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement PPG had no obligation to pay any amounts under the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement until 30 days after the second amended PC plan of reorganization was finally approved by an appropriate court order that was no longer subject to appellate review (the “Effective Date”). If the second amended PC plan of reorganization had been approved as proposed, PPG and certain of its insurers (along with PC) would have made payments on the Effective Date to the Trust, which would have provided the sole source of payment for all present and future asbestos bodily injury claims against PPG, its subsidiaries or PC alleged to be caused by the manufacture, distribution or sale of asbestos products by these companies. PPG would have conveyed the following assets to the Trust: (i) the stock it owns in PC and Pittsburgh Corning Europe, (ii) 2,777,778 shares of PPG’s common stock and (iii) aggregate cash payments to the Trust of approximately $998 million , payable according to a fixed payment schedule over 21 years, beginning on June 30, 2003, or, if later, the Effective Date. PPG would have had the right, in its sole discretion, to prepay these cash payments to the Trust at any time at a discount rate of 5.5% per annum as of the prepayment date. In addition to the conveyance of these assets, PPG would have paid $30 million in legal fees and expenses on behalf of the Trust to recover proceeds from certain historical insurance assets, including policies issued by certain insurance carriers that were not participating in the settlement, the rights to which would have been assigned to the Trust by PPG. Under the proposed 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement, PPG’s participating historical insurance carriers would have made cash payments to the Trust of approximately $1.7 billion between the Effective Date and 2023. These payments could also have been prepaid to the Trust at any time at a discount rate of 5.5% per annum as of the prepayment date. In addition, as referenced above, PPG would have assigned to the Trust its rights, insofar as they related to the asbestos claims to have been resolved by the Trust, to the proceeds of policies issued by certain insurance carriers that were not participating in the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement and from the estates of insolvent insurers and state insurance guaranty funds. Under the proposed 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement, PPG would have granted asbestos releases to all participating insurers, subject to a coverage-in-place agreement with certain insurers for the continuing coverage of premises claims (discussed below). PPG would have granted certain participating insurers full policy releases on primary policies and full product liability releases on excess coverage policies. PPG would have also granted certain other participating excess insurers credit against their product liability coverage limits. If the second amended PC plan of reorganization incorporating the terms of the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement and the 2003 Corning Settlement Arrangement had been approved by the Bankruptcy Court, the Court would have entered a channeling injunction under §524(g) and other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, prohibiting present and future claimants from asserting bodily injury claims after the Effective Date against PPG or its subsidiaries or PC relating to the manufacture, distribution or sale of asbestos-containing products by PC or PPG or its subsidiaries. The injunction would have also prohibited codefendants in those cases from asserting claims against PPG for contribution, indemnification or other recovery. All such claims would have been filed with the Trust and only paid from the assets of the Trust. Modified Third Amended PC Plan of Reorganization To address the issues raised by the Bankruptcy Court in its December 2006 ruling, the interested parties engaged in extensive negotiations regarding the terms of a third amended PC plan of reorganization, including modifications to the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement. A modified third amended PC plan of reorganization (the “third amended PC plan of reorganization”), including a modified PPG settlement arrangement (the “2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement”), was filed with the Bankruptcy Court on January 29, 2009. The parties also filed a disclosure statement describing the third amended PC plan of reorganization with the court. The third amended PC plan of reorganization also includes a modified settlement arrangement of Corning Incorporated. Several creditors and other interested parties filed objections to the disclosure statement. Those objections were overruled by the Bankruptcy Court by order dated July 6, 2009 approving the disclosure statement. The third amended PC plan of reorganization and disclosure statement were then sent to creditors, including asbestos claimants, for voting. The report of the voting agent, filed on February 18, 2010, revealed that all voting classes, including asbestos claimants, voted overwhelmingly in favor of the third amended PC plan of reorganization, which included the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement. In light of the favorable vote on the third amended PC plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court conducted a hearing regarding the fairness of the proposed plan, including whether (i) the plan would be fair with respect to present and future claimants, (ii) such claimants would be treated in substantially the same manner, and (iii) the protection provided to PPG and its participating insurers would be fair in view of the assets they would convey to the Trust to be established as part of the third amended PC plan of reorganization. The hearing was held in June of 2010. The remaining objecting parties (a number of objections were resolved through plan amendments and stipulations filed before the hearing) appeared at the hearing and presented their cases. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court established a briefing schedule for its consideration of confirmation of the plan and the objections to confirmation. That briefing was completed and final oral arguments held in October 2010. On June 16, 2011 the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision denying confirmation of the third amended PC plan of reorganization. Following the June 16, 2011 ruling, the third amended PC plan of reorganization was the subject of negotiations among the parties in interest, amendments, proposed amendments and hearings. PC then filed an amended PC plan of reorganization on August 17, 2012. Objections to the plan, as amended, were filed by three entities. One set of objections was resolved by PC, and another set merely restated for appellate purposes objections filed by a party that the Bankruptcy Court previously overruled. The Bankruptcy Court heard oral argument on the one remaining set of objections filed by the remaining affiliated insurer objectors on October 10, 2012. At the conclusion of that argument, the Bankruptcy Court set forth a schedule for negotiating and filing language that would resolve some, but not all, of the objections to confirmation advanced by the insurer objectors. On October 25, 2012, PC filed a notice regarding proposed confirmation order language that resolved those specific objections. Following additional hearings and status conferences, technical amendments to the PC plan of reorganization were filed on May 15, 2013. On May 16, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued a memorandum opinion and interim order confirming the PC plan of reorganization, as amended, and setting forth a schedule for motions for reconsideration. Following the filing of motions for reconsideration, the Bankruptcy Court, on May 24, 2013, issued a revised memorandum opinion and final order confirming the modified third amended plan of reorganization and issuing the asbestos permanent channeling injunction. The remaining insurer objectors filed a motion for reconsideration on June 6, 2013. On November 12, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order granting in part (by clarifying the scope of the channeling injunction in accordance with the agreement of the parties as expressed at the time of final argument on the motion for reconsideration) and otherwise denying the motion for reconsideration. Notices of appeal to the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania were filed by the remaining objecting parties. On March 17, 2014, the appeal of the remaining non-insurer objecting party was dismissed voluntarily, leaving only two affiliated insurance companies as appellants. On September 30, 2014, the District Court issued a memorandum opinion and order affirming the confirmation order. On October 28, 2014, the remaining insurance company objectors filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the affirmance order. In addition to the notice of appeal, the objecting insurers filed a motion with the District Court, which was opposed by PPG and the other plan proponents and plan supporters, that sought relief from the confirmation order based on alleged misconduct by members of the plaintiffs’ bar in the prosecution of certain asbestos claims in the tort system. On August 12, 2015, the District Court denied that motion. The objecting insurers filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals challenging this decision as well. The two appeals were subsequently consolidated for disposition by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed both appeals, by agreement of the parties, on January 7, 2016. During February 2016, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the trustees of the Trust. Also in February, a motion to approve technical amendments to the PC plan of reorganization was filed. No objections to that motion were filed, and the Bankruptcy Court granted the motion on March 24, 2016. On April 26, 2016, PC filed a notice advising the Bankruptcy Court that all conditions precedent set forth in Section 8.2 of the third amended PC Plan of reorganization had been waived or satisfied and that the effective date would occur on April 27, 2016. As a result, PPG's initial contributions were due on or before June 9, 2016 (the "Funding Effective Date"). Asbestos Claims Subject to Bankruptcy Court’s Channeling Injunction The Bankruptcy Court's channeling injunction, entered under §524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits present and future claimants from asserting asbestos claims against PC. With regard to PPG, the channeling injunction by its terms prohibits present and future claimants from asserting claims against PPG that arise, in whole or in part, out of exposure to Unibestos, or any other asbestos or asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold and/or distributed by PC, or asbestos on or emanating from any PC premises. The injunction by its terms also prohibits codefendants in these cases that are subject to the channeling injunction from asserting claims against PPG for contribution, indemnification or other recovery. Such injunction also precludes the prosecution of claims against PPG arising from alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products to the extent that a claimant is alleging or seeking to impose liability, directly or indirectly, for the conduct of, claims against or demands on PC by reason of PPG’s: (i) ownership of a financial interest in PC; (ii) involvement in the management of PC, or service as an officer, director or employee of PC or a related party; (iii) provision of insurance to PC or a related party; or (iv) involvement in a financial transaction affecting the financial condition of PC or a related party. The foregoing PC related claims are referred to as “PC Relationship Claims” and constitute, in PPG management’s opinion, the vast majority of the pending asbestos personal injury claims against PPG. All claims channeled to the Trust will be paid only from the assets of the Trust. Asbestos Claims Retained by PPG The channeling injunction does not extend to any claim against PPG that arises out of exposure to any asbestos or asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold and/or distributed by PPG or its subsidiaries, or for which they are otherwise alleged to be liable, that is not a PC Relationship Claim, and in this respect differs from the channeling injunction contemplated by the second amended PC plan of reorganization filed in 2003. While management believes that the vast majority of the approximately 114,000 claims against PPG alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos relate to products manufactured, distributed or sold by PC, the potential liability for any non-PC Relationship Claims is retained by PPG. Because a determination of whether an asbestos claim is a non-PC Relationship Claim would typically not be known until shortly before trial and because the filing and prosecution of asbestos claims (other than certain premises claims) against PPG had been enjoined since April 2000, the actual number of non-PC Relationship Claims that may be pending at the expiration of the stay or the number of additional claims that may be filed against PPG in the future cannot be determined at this time. PPG intends to defend against all such claims vigorously and their ultimate resolution in the court system is expected to occur over a period of years. In addition, similar to what was contemplated by the second amended PC plan of reorganization, the channeling injunction does not extend to claims against PPG alleging personal injury caused by asbestos on premises owned, leased or occupied by PPG (so called “premises claims”), which generally had been subject to the stay imposed by the Bankruptcy Court, although motions to lift the stay as to individual premises claims have been granted from time to time. Historically, a small proportion of the claims against PPG and its subsidiaries have been premises claims, and based upon review and analysis, PPG believes that the number of premises claims currently comprises less than 2% of the total asbestos related claims against PPG. Beginning in late 2006, the Bankruptcy Court lifted the stay with respect to certain premises claims against PPG. As a result, PPG and its primary insurers have settled approximately 580 premises claims. PPG’s insurers agreed to provide insurance coverage for a major portion of the payments made in connection with the settled claims, and PPG accrued the portion of the settlement amounts not covered by insurance. Primarily as a result of motions practice in the Bankruptcy Court with respect to the application of the stay to premises claims, PPG faces approximately 250 active premises claims. PPG is currently engaged in the process of settling or otherwise resolving approximately 45 of these claims. Of the remaining 205 active premises claims, approximately 115 such claims have been initiated in lawsuits filed in various state courts, primarily in Louisiana, West Virginia, Ohio, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, and are the subjects of active litigation and are being defended by PPG. PPG believes that any financial exposure resulting from such premises claims, taking into account available insurance coverage, will not have a material adverse effect on PPG’s consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations. PPG’s Funding Obligations On April 26, 2016, PPG's equity interest in PC was canceled. On the Funding Effective Date, PPG conveyed the stock it owned in Pittsburgh Corning Europe ("PCE") and transferred 2,777,778 shares of PPG’s common stock. PPG had the right, in its sole discretion, to prepay future pre-tax cash payments to the Trust at any time at a discount rate of 5.5% per annum as of the prepayment date or $61 million . PPG exercised that right and made a cash payment to the Trust in the amount of $764 million on the Funding Date, thereby satisfying PPG's cash payment obligations due to the Trust on the Funding Effective Date and in the future. PPG’s historical insurance carriers participating in the third amended PC plan of reorganization are required to make cash payments to the Trust of approximately $1.7 billion between the Funding Effective Date and 2027. These payments can also be prepaid to the Trust at any time at a discount rate of 5.5% per annum as of the prepayment date. PPG granted asbestos releases and indemnifications to all participating insurers, subject to amended coverage-in-place arrangements with certain insurers for remaining coverage of premises claims. PPG granted certain participating insurers full policy releases on primary policies and full product liability releases on excess coverage policies. PPG also granted certain other participating excess insurers credit against their product liability coverage limits. PPG’s obligation under the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement at December 31, 2008 was $162 million less than the amount that would have been due under the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement. This reduction is attributable to a number of negotiated provisions in the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement, including the provisions relating to the channeling injunction under which PPG retains liability for any non-PC Relationship Claims. PPG will retain such amount as a reserve for asbestos-related claims that will not be channeled to the Trust, as this amount represents PPG’s best estimate of its liability for these claims. PPG does not have sufficient current claim information or settlement history on which to base a better estimate of this liability, in light of the fact that the Bankruptcy Court’s stay has been in effect since 2000. As a result, PPG’s reserve at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 for asbestos-related claims that will not be channeled to the Trust is $162 million . This amount is included within "Other liabilities" on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. In addition, under the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement, PPG will retain for its own account rights to recover proceeds from certain historical insurance assets, including policies issued by non-participating insurers. Rights to recover these proceeds would have been assigned to the Trust by PPG under the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement. Following the effective date of the third amended PC plan of reorganization, as amended, and the lifting of the Bankruptcy Court stay, PPG will monitor the activity associated with asbestos claims which are not channeled to the Trust pursuant to the third amended PC plan of reorganization, and evaluate its estimated liability for such claims and related insurance assets then available to the Company as well as underlying assumptions on a periodic basis to determine whether any adjustment to its reserve for these claims is required. Consolidated Balance Sheet Asbestos Settlement Liability Equity Forward (Asset) Liability Pre-tax Cash Outflow ($ in millions) Current Long-term Balances as of December 31, 2015 $ 796 252 (223 ) — — 2016 Activity Change in fair value: PPG stock 34 — — 34 — Equity forward instrument — — (35 ) (35 ) — Accretion of asbestos liability — 6 — 6 — Settlement of equity forward instrument with counterparty — — (49 ) — (49 ) Contribution of PCE shares and relinquishment of PC investment (15 ) — — — — Contribution of 2,777,778 shares of PPG stock to the PC Trust (308 ) — 308 — — Contribution of cash to the PC Trust (506 ) (258 ) — — (764 ) Reclassifications (1 ) — (1 ) — — Balance as of and Activity for the six months ended June 30, 2016 $ — $ — $ — $ 5 $ (813 ) On June 9, 2016, PPG fully funded its portion of the Trust that was established by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in May 2016. The following table outlines the impact on PPG's financial statements for the six months ended June 30, 2016 including the change in fair value of the PPG stock contributed to the Trust and the equity forward instrument and the increase in the net present value of the payments made to the trust. Consolidated Balance Sheet Asbestos Settlement Liability Equity Forward (Asset) Liability Pre-tax Cash Outflow ($ in millions) Current Long-term Balances as of December 31, 2015 $ 796 252 (223 ) — — 2016 Activity Change in fair value: PPG stock 34 — — 34 — Equity forward instrument — — (35 ) (35 ) — Accretion of asbestos liability — 6 — 6 — Settlement of equity forward instrument with counterparty — — (49 ) — (49 ) Contribution of PCE shares and relinquishment of PC investment (15 ) — — — — Contribution of 2,777,778 shares of PPG stock to the PC Trust (308 ) — 308 — — Contribution of cash to the PC Trust (506 ) (258 ) — — (764 ) Reclassifications (1 ) — (1 ) — — Balance as of and Activity for the six months ended June 30, 2016 $ — $ — $ — $ 5 $ (813 ) Environmental Matters It is PPG’s policy to accrue expenses for environmental contingencies when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Reserves for environmental contingencies are exclusive of claims against third parties and are generally not discounted. In management’s opinion, the Company operates in an environmentally sound manner and the outcome of the Company’s environmental contingencies will not have a material effect on PPG’s financial position or liquidity; however, any such outcome may be material to the results of operations of any particular period in which costs, if any, are recognized. Management anticipates that the resolution of the Company’s environmental contingencies will occur over an extended period of time. See Note 13, "Commitments and Contingent Liabilities," under Item 8 of the 2015 Form 10-K for additional description of the following environmental matters. As of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , PPG had reserves for environmental contingencies associated with PPG’s former chromium manufacturing plant in Jersey City, N.J. and associated sites (“New Jersey Chrome”) and for other environmental contingencies, including National Priority List sites and legacy glass and chemical manufacturing sites. These reserves are reported as "Accounts payable and accrued liabilities" and "Other liabilities" in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet. Environmental Reserves ($ in millions) June 30, 2016 December 31, 2015 New Jersey Chrome $ 121 $ 133 Other 97 100 Total $ 218 $ 233 Current portion $ 57 $ 51 Pre-tax charges against income for environmental remediation costs are included in "Other charges" in the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of income. The pre-tax charges and cash outlays related to such environmental remediation for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 were as follows: Three Months Ended Six Months Ended ($ in millions) 2016 2015 2016 2015 Environmental remediation pre-tax charges $ 3 $ 1 8 6 Cash outlays for environmental remediation activities $ 9 $ 20 23 56 Remediation: New Jersey Chrome In June 2009, PPG entered into a settlement agreement with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) and Jersey City (which had asserted claims against PPG for lost tax revenue) which was in the form of a Judicial Consent Order (the "JCO"). Under the JCO, PPG accepted sole responsibility for the remediation activities at its former chromium manufacturing location in Jersey City, New Jersey and 19 additional sites. The principal contaminant of concern is hexavalent chromium. The JCO also provided for the appointment of a court-approved Site Administrator who is responsible for establishing a master schedule for the remediation of the 20 PPG sites which existed at that time. One site was subsequently removed from the JCO process during 2014 and will be remediated separately at a future date. A total of 19 sites remain subject to the JCO process. The most significant assumptions underlying the estimate of remediation costs for all New Jersey Chrome sites are those related to the extent and concentration of chromium impacts in the soil, as these determine the quantity of soil that must be treated in place, the quantity that will have to be excavated and transported for offsite disposal, and the nature of disposal required. The reserve for the estimated costs to remediate all New Jersey Chrome sites are exclusive of any third party indemnification, as the recovery of any such amounts is uncertain. Groundwater remediation at PPG's former chromium manufacturing site in Jersey City and five adjacent sites is expected to occur over several years after NJDEP's approval of a work plan. Ongoing groundwater monitoring will be utilized to develop a final groundwater remedial action work plan which is currently expected to be submitted to NJDEP no later than 2020. PPG’s financial reserve for remediation of all New Jersey Chrome sites is $121 million at June 30, 2016 . The major cost components of this liability continue to be related to transportation and disposal of impacted soil, as well as construction services. These components each account for approximately 32% and 40% of the accrued amount, respectively. There are multiple, future events yet to occur, including further remedy sele |
