| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | 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. During September 2016, legislation was passed in the foreign taxing jurisdiction which would preclude the assessment of interest for failure to meet the administrative criteria. The new legislation is subject to a 100-day period during which the public may seek a referendum on the legislation. If retroactive relief does not occur, PPG plans to vigorously defend against the assessment. Asbestos Matters For over 40 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 manufactured and distributed by PPG's former 50% affiliate Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (“PC”). Additionally, PPG faces claims alleging personal injury arising out of exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold and/or distributed by PPG or its subsidiaries and claims alleging personal injury caused by asbestos on premises owned, leased or occupied by PPG. PPG has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all claims for any injuries caused by PC products. Background of the Pittsburgh Corning Corporation Asbestos Bankruptcy On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Bankruptcy Court subsequently entered a series of orders enjoining the prosecution of asbestos litigation against PPG until after the effective date of a confirmed PC plan of reorganization. During the pendency of this injunction, PPG and certain of its historical liability insurers worked to negotiate a settlement that would resolve the Company’s liability for PC-related asbestos claims through the creation of a trust pursuant to Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code that would be funded in part by PPG and its participating insurers. That settlement was ultimately incorporated into a PC plan of reorganization that was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court on May 24, 2013. On April 26, 2016, PC filed a notice advising the Bankruptcy Court that all conditions precedent set forth in the PC plan of reorganization had been waived or satisfied and that the effective date of the PC plan of reorganization would occur on April 27, 2016. Asbestos Claims Subject to Bankruptcy Court’s Channeling Injunction In accordance with the PC plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court entered a channeling injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code that, by its terms, prohibits present and future claimants from asserting claims against PPG that arise, in whole or in part, out of exposure to 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 cases that are subject to the channeling injunction from asserting claims against PPG for contribution, indemnification or other recovery. The 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. A trust has been established under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Trust”) which has been created for the benefit of current and future asbestos claimants whose claims are channeled to the Trust by the channeling injunction. The Trust is the sole recourse for holders of PC Relationship Claims. PPG and its affiliates have no further liability or responsibility for, and will be permanently protected from, such asbestos claims. PPG’s Trust Funding Obligations In accordance with the PC plan of reorganization, on April 26, 2016, PPG's equity interest in PC was canceled. On June 9, 2016 (the "Funding Effective Date"), PPG conveyed to the Trust the stock it owned in Pittsburgh Corning Europe and transferred to the Trust 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. PPG exercised that right and made a cash payment to the Trust in the amount of $764 million on the Funding Effective Date, thereby satisfying all of PPG's present and future cash payment obligations to the Trust. PPG’s historical insurance carriers participating in the settlement memorialized in the PC plan of reorganization also are required to make cash payments to the Trust of approximately $1.7 billion between the Funding Effective Date and 2027. PPG granted asbestos releases and indemnifications to all participating insurers, subject to amended coverage-in-place arrangements with certain insurers for remaining coverage of premises claims. PPG also granted certain participating insurers full policy releases on primary policies and full product liability releases on excess coverage policies. Further, PPG granted certain other participating excess insurers credit against their product liability coverage limits. The following table outlines the impact on PPG's financial statements for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 including the change in fair value of the PPG stock contributed to the Trust and the equity forward instrument and the increase in the net present value of the payments made to the trust. Consolidated Balance Sheet Asbestos Settlement Liability Equity Forward (Asset) Liability Pre-tax Cash Outflow ($ 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 nine months ended September 30, 2016 $ — $ — $ — $ 5 $ (813 ) 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. While management believes that the vast majority of the approximately 114,000 claims pending against PPG in 2000 that alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos were PC Relationship Claims, the potential liability for any non-PC Relationship Claims has been retained by PPG. Because a determination of whether an asbestos claim is a non-PC Relationship Claim will typically not be known until shortly before trial, and because the filing and prosecution of asbestos claims (other than certain premises claims) against PPG was enjoined from April 2000 through August 2016, the actual number of non-PC Relationship Claims that are pending and the number of additional claims that may be filed against PPG in the future cannot be determined at this time. In addition, 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 also been subject to the stay imposed by the Bankruptcy Court. 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 620 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. PPG currently faces approximately 260 active premises claims. PPG is engaged in the process of settling or otherwise resolving some of these claims while others remain in active litigation. Although PPG has successfully defended asbestos claims brought against it in the past, in view of the number of claims, and the significant verdicts that other companies have experienced in asbestos litigation, the result of any future litigation of such claims is inherently unpredictable. PPG intends to defend against all asbestos claims vigorously, and their ultimate settlement or resolution in the court system is expected to occur over a period of years. In 2009, PPG established a $162 million reserve for asbestos-related claims that will not be channeled to the Trust. This amount, which is included within "Other liabilities" on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, 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 was in effect from April 2000 through August 2016. PPG will monitor the activity associated with asbestos claims which are not channeled to the Trust and evaluate, on a periodic basis, its estimated liability for such claims, its insurance assets then available to the Company, and all underlying assumptions to determine whether any adjustment to the reserve for these claims is required. The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including (i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) the amounts required to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iii) the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims; (iv) the unpredictable aspects of the litigation process, including a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are scheduled; (v) the outcome of any trials, including potential judgments or jury verdicts; (vi) the lack of specific information in many cases concerning exposure for which PPG is allegedly responsible, and the claimants’ alleged diseases resulting from such exposure; and (vii) potential changes in applicable federal and/or state tort liability law. All of these factors may have a material effect upon future asbestos-related liability estimates. As a potential offset to any future asbestos financial exposure, under the PC plan of reorganization PPG retained for its own account rights to recover proceeds from certain historical insurance assets, including policies issued by non-participating insurers. While the ultimate outcome of PPG’s asbestos litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, PPG believes that any financial exposure resulting from its asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse effect on PPG’s consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations. 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 September 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) September 30, 2016 December 31, 2015 New Jersey Chrome $ 112 $ 133 Other 97 100 Total $ 209 $ 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 nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015 were as follows: Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended ($ in millions) 2016 2015 2016 2015 Environmental remediation pre-tax charges $ 3 $ 3 11 9 Cash outlays for environmental remediation activities $ 12 $ 18 35 84 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, New Jersey (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 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 $112 million at September 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 33% and 39% of the accrued amount, respectively. There are multiple, future events yet to occur, including further remedy selection and design, remedy implementation and execution and applicable governmental agency or community organization approvals. Considerable uncertainty exists regarding the timing of these future events for the New Jersey Chrome sites. Final resolution of these events is expected to occur over the next several years. As these events occur and to the extent that the cost estimates of the environmental remediation remedies change, the existing reserve for this environmental remediation matter will be adjusted. Remediation: Other Legacy Sites Among other sites at which PPG is managing environmental liabilities, remedial actions are occurring at a legacy chemical manufacturing site in Barberton, Ohio and legacy plate glass manufacturing sites near Ford City, Pennsylvania and in Kokomo, Indiana. With respect to certain waste sites where PPG is alleged to have contributed contaminants, the financial condition of other potentially responsible parties contributes to the uncertainty of estimating PPG’s final costs. Although contributors of waste to sites involving other potentially responsible parties may face governmental agency assertions of joint and several liability, in general, final allocations of costs are made based on the relative contributions of wastes to such sites. PPG is generally not a major contributor to such sites. In March 2016, the Natural Resource Trustees for the Calcasieu River Estuary (the United States Department of the Interior, acting through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States Department of Commerce, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries) reached an agreement in principle with PPG and two other potentially responsible parties to resolve the Trustees’ claims for natural resource damages alleged to have been caused by the release of hazardous substances into the Estuary. PPG's share of this settlement is estimated to be approximately $3.6 million , for which a reserve has been established. Remediation: Reasonably Possible Matters In addition to the amounts currently reserved for environmental remediation, the Company may be subject to loss contingencies related to environmental matters estimated to be as much as $75 million to $200 million . Such unreserved losses are reasonably possible but are not currently considered to be probable of occurrence. These reasonably possible unreserved losses relate to environmental matters at a number of sites. The loss contingencies related to these sites include significant unresolved issues such as the nature and extent of contamination at these sites and the methods that may have to be employed to remediate them. The impact of evolving programs, such as natural resource damage claims, industrial site re-use initiatives and domestic and international remediation programs, also adds to the present uncertainties with regard to the ultimate resolution of this unreserved exposure to future loss. The Company’s assessment of the potential impact of these environmental contingencies is subject to considerable uncertainty due to the complex, ongoing and evolving process of investigation and remediation, if necessary, of such environmental contingencies, and the potential for technological and regulatory developments. Other Matters The Company had outstanding letters of credit and surety bonds of $175 million and guarantees of $21 million as of September 30, 2016 . The Company does not believe any loss related to such guarantees is likely. |
