Commitments and Contingencies | 11. Commitments and Contingencies Waterlink In conjunction with the February 2004 purchase of substantially all of Waterlink Inc.’s (Waterlink) operating assets and the stock of Waterlink’s U.K. subsidiary, environmental studies were performed on Waterlink’s Columbus, Ohio property by environmental consulting firms that provided an identification and characterization of certain areas of contamination. In addition, these firms identified alternative methods of remediating the property and prepared cost evaluations of the various alternatives. The Company concluded from the information in the studies that a loss at this property was probable and recorded the liability. As of both September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the balance recorded was $0.3 million as a component of accrued pension and other liabilities. The Company has determined that there has been insufficient progress to complete the remediation project by the end of 2016. The Company has further determined that additional site characterization work is needed to establish the next steps. No estimates regarding the timing or potential cost of these activities can be made until the additional site characterization work is finished. Planning for the additional characterization work has begun. Implementation timing will depend on acceptance by the Ohio Voluntary Action Program administrators. Liability estimates are based on an evaluation of, among other factors, currently available facts, existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations, and the experience of experts in groundwater remediation. It is possible that a further change in the estimate of this obligation will occur as remediation progresses. Carbon Imports General Anti-Dumping Background: In March 2006, the Company and another U.S. producer of activated carbon (collectively, the “Petitioners”) requested that the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce Department) investigate unfair pricing of certain thermally activated carbon imported from the People’s Republic of China (China). In 2007, the Commerce Department found that imports of the subject merchandise from China were being unfairly priced (or “dumped”). Following a finding by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that the domestic industry was injured by unfairly traded imports of activated carbon from China, the Commerce Department issued an anti-dumping order imposing tariffs on Chinese imports to offset the amount of the unfair pricing. The Commerce Department published the antidumping order in the Federal Register in April 2007, and all imports from China remain subject to it. Importers of subject activated carbon from China are required to make cash deposits of estimated anti-dumping duties at the time the goods are entered into the U.S. customs territory. Final assessment of duties and duty deposits are subject to revision based on annual retrospective reviews conducted by the Commerce Department. The Company is a domestic producer, exporter from China (through its wholly-owned subsidiary Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (Calgon Carbon Tianjin)), and a U.S. importer of the activated carbon that is subject to the anti-dumping order. As such, the Company’s involvement in the Commerce Department’s proceedings is both as a domestic producer (a “petitioner”) and as a foreign exporter (a “respondent”). The Company’s role as an importer, which has in the past (and may in the future) required it to pay anti-dumping duties, results in a contingent liability related to the final amount of tariffs that are ultimately assessed on the imported product following the Commerce Department’s annual review of relevant shipments and calculation of the anti-dumping duties due. As a result of proceedings before the Commerce Department that concluded in September 2016, the Company is currently required to post a duty of $0.616 per pound when importing activated carbon from Calgon Carbon Tianjin into the U.S. The impact of the tariffs to the Company’s financial results was not material for the nine months ended September 30, 2016, and 2015, respectively. However, the Company’s ultimate assessment rate and future cash deposit rate on such imports could change in the future, as a result of on-going proceedings before the Commerce Department. As part of its standard process, the Commerce Department conducts annual reviews of sales made to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer, typically over the prior 12-month period. These reviews will be conducted for at least five years subsequent to a determination by the ITC in February 2013, finding that the anti-dumping duty order should remain in effect. These reviews can result in changes to the anti-dumping tariff rate (either increasing or reducing the rate) applicable to any foreign exporter. Revision of tariff rates has two effects. First, it will alter the actual amount of tariffs that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) will collect for the period reviewed, by either collecting additional duties, plus interest above those deposited with Customs by the U.S. importer at the time of entry or refunding a portion of the duties, plus interest deposited at the time of importation to reflect a decline in the margin of dumping. Second, the revised rate becomes the cash deposit rate applied to future entries, and can either increase or decrease the amount of duty deposits an importer will be required to post at the time of importation. There have been nine periods of review since the anti-dumping order was published in 2007. Periods of Review (POR) I, II, IV and V, related to the periods that ended on March 31, 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2012, respectively, are final and not subject to further review or appeal. A summary of the proceedings in the remaining PORs follows below. Period of Review III: On October 31, 2011, the Commerce Department published the final results of its third annual administrative review, which covers imports that entered the U.S. between April 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010 (POR III). Based on the POR III results, the Company’s ongoing duty deposit rate was adjusted to zero. The Company recorded a receivable of $1.1 million reflecting expected refunds for duty deposits made during POR III as a result of the announced decrease in the POR III assessment rate. The Commerce Department continued to assign cooperative respondents involved in POR III a deposit rate of $0.127 per pound. In early December 2011, several separate rate respondents appealed the Commerce Department’s final results of POR III. Following the submission of briefs by the parties, the Court of International Trade (Court) remanded the case to the Commerce Department for further analysis. On January 9, 2014, the Commerce Department filed its remand redetermination with the Court, and continued to calculate a zero duty for the Company during POR III. In addition, the Commerce Department revised its earlier determination and assigned a zero margin as a separate rate to several Chinese producers/exporters of steam activated carbon to the U.S. that were not subjected to an individual investigation. The Company contested this aspect of the Commerce Department’s redetermination. On November 24, 2014, the Court affirmed the Commerce Department’s remand determination. Various parties involved in this review, including the Company, appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Court of Appeals). On May 2, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued a decision finding that shipments by all three of the Chinese separate rate respondents that initially challenged the Commerce Department’s final results in POR III should be assigned a zero dumping margin. The Court of Appeal’s decision will have no material impact on the Company’s financial results. Period of Review VI: On November 19, 2014, the Commerce Department announced the final margins for its sixth administrative review (POR VI), which covers imports that entered the U.S. between April 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013. The Commerce Department calculated a margin of $0.018 per pound for both mandatory and separate rate respondents, and $1.10 per pound for the China-wide rate. Calgon Carbon Tianjin was assigned a margin of $0.018 per pound as it was considered a separate rate respondent. In December 2014, an appeal was commenced challenging the final results. On January 20, 2016, the Court issued a preliminary decision agreeing with the Petitioners’ challenge to the Commerce Department’s final margins and directing the agency to reconsider its valuation of a key factor of production. On May 25, 2016, the Commerce Department issued its redetermination rejecting all of the respondents’ arguments challenging the draft redetermination, and calculated a duty rate of $0.23 per pound for both the mandatory and separate rate respondents. The respondents submitted comments to the Court challenging the Commerce Department’s final redetermination. A decision by the Court addressing the Commerce Department’s redetermination is possible in the fourth quarter of 2016. The impact of the tariffs during this period is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial results. Period of Review VII: On April 1, 2014, the Commerce Department published a notice allowing parties to request a seventh annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014 (POR VII). The Commerce Department announced the final results for POR VII on October 5, 2015. The Commerce Department calculated anti-dumping margins for the mandatory respondents it examined ranging from $0.00 per pound to $0.476 per pound, and it calculated an anti-dumping margin of $0.476 per pound for the separate rate respondents whose shipments of activated carbon to the U.S. were not individually reviewed. The Company, as a Chinese exporter and a U.S. importer, received the separate rate of $0.476 per pound. The impact of the revised tariffs to the Company’s financial results is not material. In October 2015, appeals by one of the mandatory respondents and several separate rate respondents were commenced challenging the final results of the seventh administrative review. A decision by the Court on the Chinese respondents’ challenges is possible in late 2016 or early 2017. Period of Review VIII: On April 1, 2015, the Commerce Department published a notice allowing parties to request an eighth annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015 (POR VIII). The Commerce Department announced the final results for POR VIII on September 1, 2016. The Commerce Department calculated anti-dumping margins for the mandatory respondents it examined ranging from $0.009 per pound to $0.797 per pound and it calculated an anti-dumping margin of $0.616 per pound for the separate rate respondents whose shipments of activated carbon to the U.S. were not individually reviewed. The Company, as a Chinese exporter and U.S. importer, received the separate rate of $0.616 per pound. The impact of the revised tariffs to the Company’s financial results is not material. Several respondents commenced appeals challenging the final results of the eighth administrative review. A decision by the Court on the Chinese respondents’ challenges is possible in mid to late 2017. Period of Review IX: On April 1, 2016, the Commerce Department published a notice allowing parties to request a ninth annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016 (POR IX). The Commerce Department has selected mandatory respondents for review, and is expected to issue its preliminary results of review in May 2017. Calgon Carbon Tianjin will not participate in POR IX as a cooperative respondent. Big Sandy Plant By letter dated January 22, 2007, the Company received from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 a report of a hazardous waste facility inspection performed by the EPA and the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection (KYDEP) as part of a Multi Media Compliance Evaluation of the Company’s Big Sandy Plant in Catlettsburg, Kentucky that was conducted on September 20 and 21, 2005. Accompanying the report was a Notice of Violation (NOV) alleging multiple violations of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and corresponding EPA and KYDEP hazardous waste regulations as well as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Company was required to conduct testing of the portion of stockpiled material dredged from onsite wastewater treatment lagoons that had not previously been tested in accordance with a pre-approved work plan and will install two ground water monitoring wells at the Company’s permitted solid waste landfill where some lagoon solids had previously been disposed. The landfill is to be considered a non-hazardous facility and regulated by the KYDEP. The testing of the stockpile material was completed and the results have been reviewed by the EPA. The Company received comments from the EPA including a request for a health and safety risk assessment similar to that which the Company performed on other materials from the lagoons. The Company has prepared this assessment and it has been submitted to the EPA. The stockpiled material was removed in 2015 and the Company will not be required to close or retrofit any of the wastewater treatment lagoons as RCRA hazardous waste management units and may continue to use them in their current manner. The Company will be subject to daily stipulated penalties for any failure to install and sample the landfill wells in accordance with the EPA-approved protocols and schedules. As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, there is no liability recorded related to this issue. Multi-employer Pension Plan The Company participates in a multi-employer plan in Europe which almost entirely relates to former employees of operations it has divested. Benefits are distributed by the multi-employer plan. In 2012, the Company learned that the multi-employer plan had previously elected to reduce benefits to entitled parties, and the local Labor Court had concluded that an employer was required to compensate its pensioners for the shortfall if benefits had been reduced by the plan. As a result, the Company accrued a liability for the past shortfall to its former employees, and the Company has had several claims from pensioners seeking compensation for the shortfall. In 2014, the Company also learned that certain pensioners are claiming that the employers should also pay a cost of living adjustment on the amounts paid by the multi-employer plan. In February 2015, the Court published an opinion ruling that employers may be required to pay a cost of living adjustment. As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, the Company has a $1.1 million and $0.9 million liability recorded as a component of payroll and benefits payable within its condensed consolidated balance sheets for the past shortfall adjustments to its former employees. The Company cannot predict if future benefit payments to entitled parties to be made by the multi-employer plan will continue to be reduced. Other In addition to the matters described above, the Company is involved in various other legal proceedings, lawsuits and claims, including employment, product warranty and environmental matters of a nature considered normal to its business. It is the Company’s policy to accrue for amounts related to these legal matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the loss amount is reasonably estimable. Management is currently unable to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible losses, if any, resulting from such lawsuits and claims. |