14. ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY MATTERS

ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY MATTERS

General

        We are subject to extensive federal, state, local and international laws, regulations, rules and ordinances relating to safety, pollution, protection of the environment, product management and distribution, and the generation, storage, handling, transportation, treatment, disposal and remediation of hazardous substances and waste materials. In the ordinary course of business, we are subject to frequent environmental inspections and monitoring and occasional investigations by governmental enforcement authorities. In addition, our production facilities require operating permits that are subject to renewal, modification and, in certain circumstances, revocation. Actual or alleged violations of safety laws, environmental laws or permit requirements could result in restrictions or prohibitions on plant operations or product distribution, substantial civil or criminal sanctions, as well as, under some environmental laws, the assessment of strict liability and/or joint and several liability. Moreover, changes in environmental regulations could inhibit or interrupt our operations, or require us to modify our facilities or operations. Accordingly, environmental or regulatory matters may cause us to incur significant unanticipated losses, costs or liabilities.

Environmental, Health and Safety Systems

        We are committed to achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable environmental, health and safety ("EHS") legal requirements, and we have developed policies and management systems that are intended to identify the multitude of EHS legal requirements applicable to our operations, enhance compliance with applicable legal requirements, ensure the safety of our employees, contractors, community neighbors and customers and minimize the production and emission of wastes and other pollutants. Although EHS legal requirements are constantly changing and are frequently difficult to comply with, these EHS management systems are designed to assist us in our compliance goals while also fostering efficiency and improvement and minimizing overall risk to us.

EHS Capital Expenditures

        We may incur future costs for capital improvements and general compliance under EHS laws, including costs to acquire, maintain and repair pollution control equipment. For the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, our capital expenditures for EHS matters totaled $39 million and $34 million, respectively. Because capital expenditures for these matters are subject to evolving regulatory requirements and depend, in part, on the timing, promulgation and enforcement of specific requirements, our capital expenditures for EHS matters have varied significantly from year to year and we cannot provide assurance that our recent expenditures are indicative of future amounts we may spend related to EHS and other applicable laws.

Remediation Liabilities

        We have incurred, and we may in the future incur, liability to investigate and clean up waste or contamination at our current or former facilities or facilities operated by third parties at which we may have disposed of waste or other materials. Similarly, we may incur costs for the cleanup of waste that was disposed of prior to the purchase of our businesses. Under some circumstances, the scope of our liability may extend to damages to natural resources.

        Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") and similar state laws, a current or former owner or operator of real property may be liable for remediation costs regardless of whether the release or disposal of hazardous substances was in compliance with law at the time it occurred, and a current owner or operator may be liable regardless of whether it owned or operated the facility at the time of the release. Outside the U.S., analogous contaminated property laws, such as those in effect in France and Australia, can hold past owners and/or operators liable for remediation at former facilities. Currently, there are approximately 10 former facilities or third party sites in the U.S. for which we have been notified of potential claims against us for cleanup liabilities, including, but not limited to, sites listed under CERCLA. Based on current information and past experiences at other CERCLA sites, we do not expect these third party claims to have a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited).

        One of these sites, the North Maybe Canyon Mine site, involves a former phosphorous mine near Soda Springs, Idaho, which is believed to have been operated by a predecessor company to us. In 2004, the U.S. Forest Service ("USFS") notified us that we are a CERCLA potentially responsible party ("PRP") for contaminated surface water issues. In February 2010, we and Wells Cargo (another PRP) agreed to conduct a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of a portion of the site and are currently engaged in that process. At this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate our potential losses in this matter.

        In addition, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") and similar state laws, we may be required to remediate contamination originating from our properties as a condition to our hazardous waste permit. Some of our manufacturing sites have an extended history of industrial chemical manufacturing and use, including on-site waste disposal. We are aware of soil, groundwater or surface contamination from past operations at some of our sites, and we may find contamination at other sites in the future. For example, our Port Neches, Texas, and Geismar, Louisiana, facilities are the subject of ongoing remediation requirements under RCRA authority. Similar laws exist in a number of locations in which we currently operate, or previously operated, manufacturing facilities, such as Australia, India, France, Hungary and Italy.

        By letter dated March 7, 2006, our former Base Chemicals and Polymers facility in West Footscray, Australia, was issued a clean-up notice by the Environmental Protection Authority Victoria ("EPA Victoria") due to concerns about soil and groundwater contamination emanating from the site. On August 23, 2010, EPA Victoria revoked the second clean-up notice and issued a revised notice that included a requirement for financial assurance for the remediation. We have reached agreement with the agency that a mortgage on the land will be held by the agency as financial surety during the period covered by the current clean-up notice, which ends on July 30, 2014. As of June 30, 2012, we had an accrued liability of $30 million related to estimated environmental remediation costs at this site. We can provide no assurance that the agency will not seek to institute additional requirements for the site or that additional costs will not be associated with the clean up.

Environmental Reserves

        We have accrued liabilities relating to anticipated environmental cleanup obligations, site reclamation and closure costs and known penalties. Liabilities are recorded when potential liabilities are either known or considered probable and can be reasonably estimated. Our liability estimates are calculated using present value techniques as appropriate and are based upon requirements placed upon us by regulators, available facts, existing technology and past experience. The environmental liabilities do not include amounts recorded as asset retirement obligations. We had accrued $34 million and $36 million for environmental liabilities as of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Of these amounts, $4 million and $7 million were classified as accrued liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheets (unaudited) as of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, and $30 million and $29 million were classified as other noncurrent liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheets (unaudited) as of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. In certain cases, our remediation liabilities may be payable over periods of up to 30 years.

REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS

        On June 1, 2007, the EU regulatory framework for chemicals called "REACH" took effect, designed to be phased in over 11 years. As a REACH-regulated company that manufactures in or imports more than one metric ton per year of a chemical substance into the European Economic Area, we were required to pre-register with the European Chemicals Agency ("ECHA"), such chemical substances and isolated intermediates to take advantage of the 11 year phase-in period. To meet our compliance obligations, a cross-business REACH team was established, through which we were able to fulfill all required pre-registrations and our first phase registrations by the November 30, 2010 deadline. While we continue our registration efforts to meet the next registration deadline of June 2013, our REACH implementation team is now strategically focused on the authorization phase of the REACH process, directing its efforts to address "Substances of Very High Concern" and evaluating potential business implications. Where warranted, evaluation of substitute chemicals will be an important element of our ongoing manufacturing sustainability efforts. As a chemical manufacturer with global operations, we are also actively monitoring and addressing analogous regulatory regimes being considered or implemented outside of the EU.

        Although the total long-term cost for REACH compliance is unknown at this time, we spent approximately $5 million, $9 million and $3 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, to meet the initial REACH requirements. We cannot provide assurance that these recent expenditures are indicative of future amounts that we may be required to spend for REACH compliance.

GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATION

        Although the existence of binding emissions limitations under international treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol is in doubt after 2012, we expect some or all of our operations to be subject to regulatory requirements to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases ("GHGs"). Even in the absence of a new global agreement to limit GHGs, we may be subject to additional regulation under the European Union Emissions Trading System as well as new national and regional GHG trading programs. For example, our operations in Australia and selected U.S. states may be subject to future GHG regulations under emissions trading systems in those jurisdictions.

        Because the United States has not adopted federal climate change legislation, domestic GHG efforts are likely to be guided by EPA regulations in the near future. While EPA's GHG programs are currently subject to judicial challenge, our domestic operations may become subject to EPA's regulatory requirements when implemented. In particular, expansions of our existing facilities or construction of new facilities may be subject to the Clean Air Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements under EPA's GHG "Tailoring Rule." In addition, certain aspects of our operations may be subject to GHG emissions monitoring and reporting requirements. If we are subject to EPA GHG regulations, we may face increased monitoring, reporting, and compliance costs.

        We are already managing and reporting GHG emissions, to varying degrees, as required by law for our sites in locations subject to Kyoto Protocol obligations and/or EU emissions trading scheme requirements. Although these sites are subject to existing GHG legislation, few have experienced or anticipate significant cost increases as a result of these programs, although it is possible that GHG emission restrictions may increase over time. Potential consequences of such restrictions include capital requirements to modify assets to meet GHG emission restrictions and/or increases in energy costs above the level of general inflation, as well as direct compliance costs. Currently, however, it is not possible to estimate the likely financial impact of potential future regulation on any of our sites.

        Finally, it should be noted that some scientists have concluded that increasing concentrations of GHG in the earth's atmosphere may produce climate changes that have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts, and floods and other climatic events. If any of those effects were to occur, they could have an adverse effect on our assets and operations.

INDIA INVESTIGATION

        During the third quarter of 2010, we completed an internal investigation of the operations of Petro Araldite Pvt. Ltd. ("PAPL"), our majority owned joint venture in India. PAPL manufactures base liquid resins, base solid resins and formulated products in India. The investigation initially focused on allegations of illegal disposal of hazardous waste and waste water discharge and related reporting irregularities. Based upon preliminary findings, the investigation was expanded to include a review of the production and off-book sales of certain products and waste products. The investigation included the legality under Indian law and U.S. law, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, of certain payments made by employees of the joint venture to government officials in India. Records at the facility covering nine months in 2009 and early 2010 show that less than $11,000 in payments were made to officials for that period; in addition, payments in unknown amounts may have been made by individuals from the facility in previous years.

        In May and July 2010, PAPL fully disclosed the environmental noncompliance issues to the local Indian environmental agency, the TNPCB. All environmental compliance and reporting issues have been addressed to the agency's satisfaction other than the use of freshwater for the dilution of wastewater effluent discharges and including the remediation of several off-site solid waste disposal areas. Both remaining issues are being addressed. At TNPCB's direction, we submitted a plan for the remediation of the off-site waste disposal areas, which the TNPCB approved. The impacted off-site soil was excavated and relocated to the site. We received a hazardous waste license from the TNPCB on June 15, 2012 and the removed waste was transported to an authorized disposal facility in June 2012.

        Also in May 2010, we voluntarily contacted the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") to advise them of our investigation and that we intend to cooperate fully with each of them. We met with the SEC and the DOJ in October 2010 to discuss this matter and we continue to cooperate with these agencies. Steps have been taken to halt all known illegal or improper activity, including the termination of employment of management employees as appropriate. In May 2012, the SEC and DOJ notified us that they would not recommend any enforcement action be taken against our Company in this matter.