v3.25.2
Environmental
 6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Environmental Remediation Obligations [Abstract]  
Environmental Environmental
The Company is subject to environmental laws and regulations worldwide that impose limitations on the discharge of pollutants into the air and water, establish standards for the treatment, storage and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes, and impose record keeping and notification requirements. Failure to timely comply with these laws and regulations may expose the Company to penalties. The Company believes that it is in substantial compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations and engages in an ongoing process of updating its controls to mitigate compliance risks. The Company is also subject to retained environmental obligations specified in various contractual agreements arising from the divestiture of certain businesses by the Company or one of its predecessor companies.
The components of environmental remediation liabilities, contained in Current and Noncurrent Other Liabilities, are as follows:
As of
June 30,
2025		As of
December 31,
2024
(In $ millions)
Demerger obligations (Note 14)
23 14 
Divestiture obligations (Note 14)
16 14 
Active sites24 23 
U.S. Superfund sites9 10 
Other environmental remediation liabilities2 2 
Total74 63 
Remediation
Due to its industrial history and through retained contractual and legal obligations, the Company has the obligation to remediate specific areas on its own sites as well as on divested, demerger, orphan or U.S. Superfund sites (defined below). In addition, as part of the demerger agreement between the Company and Hoechst AG ("Hoechst"), a specified portion of the responsibility for environmental liabilities from a number of Hoechst divestitures was transferred to the Company (Note 14). Certain of these sites, at which the Company maintains continuing involvement, were and continue to be designated as discontinued operations when closed. The Company provides for such obligations when the event of loss is probable and reasonably estimable. The Company believes that environmental remediation costs will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company, but may have a material adverse effect on the results of operations or cash flows in any given period.
U.S. Superfund Sites
In the U.S., the Company may be subject to substantial claims brought by U.S. federal or state regulatory agencies or private individuals pursuant to statutory authority or common law. In particular, the Company has a potential liability under the U.S. Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, and related state laws (collectively referred to as "Superfund") for investigation and cleanup costs at certain sites. At most of these sites, numerous companies, including the Company, or one of its predecessor companies, have been notified that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), state governing bodies or private individuals consider such companies to be potentially responsible parties ("PRP") under Superfund or related laws. The proceedings relating to these sites are in various stages. The cleanup process has not been completed at most sites, and the status of the insurance coverage for some of these proceedings is uncertain. Consequently, the Company cannot accurately determine its ultimate liability for investigation or cleanup costs at these sites.
As events progress at each site for which it has been named a PRP, the Company accrues any probable and reasonably estimable liabilities. In establishing these liabilities, the Company considers the contaminants of concern, the potential impact thereof, the relationship of the contaminants of concern to its current and historic operations, its shipment of waste to a site, its percentage of total waste shipped to the site, the types of wastes involved, the conclusions of any studies, the magnitude of any remedial actions that may be necessary and the number and viability of other PRPs. Often the Company joins with other PRPs to sign joint defense agreements that settle, among PRPs, each party's percentage allocation of costs at the site. Although the ultimate liability may differ from the estimate, the Company routinely reviews the liabilities and revises the estimate, as appropriate, based on the most current information available.
One such site is the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, which is comprised of a number of sub-sites, including the Lower Passaic River Study Area ("LPRSA"), which is the lower 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River ("Lower Passaic River Site"), and the
Newark Bay Study Area. The Company and 70 other companies are parties to a May 2007 Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") at the Lower Passaic River Site in order to identify the levels of contaminants and potential cleanup actions, including the potential migration of contaminants between the LPRSA and the Newark Bay Study Area.
In March 2016, the EPA issued its final Record of Decision concerning the remediation of the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River Site ("Lower 8.3 Miles"). Pursuant to the EPA's Record of Decision, the Lower 8.3 Miles must be dredged bank to bank and an engineered cap must be installed at an EPA estimated cost of approximately $1.4 billion. In September 2021, the EPA issued a Record of Decision selecting an interim remedial plan for the upper 9 miles of the Lower Passaic River ("Upper 9 Miles"). Pursuant to the EPA's Record of Decision, targeted dredging will be conducted in the Upper 9 Miles to address surface sediments with elevated contamination followed by the installation of an engineered cap at an EPA estimated cost of $441 million.
The Company owned and/or operated facilities in the vicinity of the Lower 8.3 Miles, but has found no evidence that it contributed any of the contaminants of concern to the Passaic River. In June 2018, Occidental Chemical Corporation ("OCC"), the successor to the Diamond Alkali Company, sued a subsidiary of the Company and 119 other parties alleging claims for joint and several damages, contribution and declaratory relief under Section 107 and 113 of Superfund for costs to clean up the LPRSA portion of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, Occidental Chemical Corporation v. 21st Century Fox America, Inc., et al, No. 2:18-CV-11273 (MCA) (LDW) (U.S. District Court New Jersey) (the "2018 OCC Lawsuit"), alleging that each of the defendants owned or operated a facility that contributed contamination to the LPRSA. With respect to the Company, the 2018 OCC lawsuit is limited to the former Celanese facility that Essex County, New Jersey has agreed to indemnify the Company for and does not change the Company's estimated liability for LPRSA cleanup costs.
Separately, the United States lodged a Consent Decree in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in December 2022 that resolves the Company's liability (and that of more than 80 other settling defendants) to the EPA for costs to clean up both the Lower 8.3 Miles and Upper 9 Miles of the Lower Passaic River Site in exchange for a collective payment of $150 million, United States v. Alden Leeds, Inc., No. 2:22-7326 (MCA) (LDW) (U.S. District Court New Jersey) ("Consent Decree Action"). The Consent Decree also provides the Company protection from contribution claims by others for costs incurred to clean up both the Lower 8.3 Miles and Upper 9 Miles of the Lower Passaic River Site. The Company's proposed payment toward the $150 million collective settlement payment is not material to the Company's results of operations, cash flows or financial position.
In March 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey entered an order staying and administratively terminating the 2018 OCC Lawsuit, pending resolution of the request for judicial approval of the Consent Decree in the Consent Decree Action. Also, in March 2023, OCC filed a new lawsuit against 40 parties, including a subsidiary of the Company, seeking to recover costs for remedial design work the EPA has ordered OCC to undertake for a portion of the LPRSA at an estimated cost of $71 million, Occidental Chemical Corporation v. Givaudan Fragrances Corporation, No. 2:23-cv-1699 (U.S. District Court New Jersey) (the "2023 OCC Lawsuit"). Like the earlier lawsuit, the 2023 OCC Lawsuit concerns the facility Essex County, New Jersey purchased and for which Essex County, New Jersey has agreed to defend and indemnify the Company. This new lawsuit does not change the Company's estimated liability for LPRSA cleanup costs.
Like the 2018 OCC Lawsuit, the 2023 OCC lawsuit also was stayed pending resolution of the request for judicial approval of the Consent Decree in the Consent Decree Action. On December 18, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the United States' motion to enter the Consent Decree in the Consent Decree Action. Nokia of America Corporation and OCC, which both opposed the entry of the Consent Decree, have filed notices of appeal.
The Company continues to vigorously defend these matters and continues to believe that its ultimate allocable share of the cleanup costs with respect to the Lower Passaic River Site, previously estimated at less than 1%, will not be material.
Other Environmental Matters
In April 2022, a methanol leak on a pipeline to the Company's Bishop, Texas facility was discovered. The release has been contained, the leak has been repaired and the pipeline has resumed operation. The Company promptly disclosed the incident to state and federal authorities, including the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the EPA, and remediation activities are now completed. While the Company has not received a notice of violation nor been assessed any fines or penalties to date, the Company recorded a reserve in Other current liabilities based on anticipated clean-up costs and possible penalties to state or federal authorities. The Company does not believe that resolution of this matter will have a material impact on its financial condition or results of operations.