v3.26.1
ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES AND EXPENDITURES
 3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Environmental Remediation Obligations [Abstract]  
ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES AND EXPENDITURES
NOTE 7 - ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES AND EXPENDITURES

The Company and its subsidiaries and their respective operations are subject to stringent federal, regional, state, provincial, tribal, local and international laws and regulations related to improving or maintaining environmental quality. The laws that require or address environmental remediation, including CERCLA and similar federal, regional, state, provincial, tribal, local and international laws, may apply retroactively and regardless of fault, the legality of the original activities or the current ownership or control of sites. The Company or certain of its subsidiaries participate in or actively monitor a range of remedial activities and government or private proceedings under these laws with respect to alleged past practices at Third-Party, Currently Operated, and Closed or Non-Operated Sites, in addition to NPL Sites. Remedial activities may include one or more of the following: investigation involving sampling, modeling, risk assessment or monitoring; clean-up measures including removal, treatment or disposal; or operation and maintenance of remedial systems. The environmental proceedings seek funding or performance of remediation and, in some cases, compensation for alleged property damage, natural resource damages, punitive damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief and government oversight costs.
As discussed in Note 1 - General, certain Occidental subsidiaries remain responsible for environmental remediation at legacy sites and the indemnification of legacy environmental liabilities and pre-closing liabilities of OxyChem, which were not classified as held for sale. Expenses related to OxyChem and the retained liabilities and indemnification obligations associated with the chemical business are reported as discontinued operations for all periods presented, reflecting the OxyChem Transaction.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION
As of March 31, 2026, the Company participated in or monitored remedial activities or proceedings at 151 sites. The following table presents the current and non-current environmental remediation liabilities of the Company separated by those related to ongoing operations and discontinued operations as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025.
millions as of March 31, 2026as of December 31, 2025
Ongoing OperationsDiscontinued
Operations		TotalOngoing OperationsDiscontinued OperationsTotal
Current Portion:
Accrued liabilities$55 $96 $151 $55 $96 $151 
Non-Current Portion:
Deferred credit and other liabilities137 1,567 1,704 141 1,578 1,719 
Total current and non-current$192 $1,663 $1,855 $196 $1,674 $1,870 

The estimates of environmental remediation liabilities in the table above vary over time depending on factors such as acquisitions or divestitures, identification of additional sites, remedy selection and implementation and changes in applicable laws or regulations, among other factors. Environmental remediation expenses primarily relate to existing conditions from alleged past practices.
Environmental remediation sites for ongoing operations and discontinued operations are grouped into NPL Sites and the following three categories of non-NPL Sites — Third-Party Sites, Currently Operated Sites and Closed or Non-operated Sites — as of March 31, 2026.
March 31, 2026
millions, except number of sitesNumber of SitesRemediation Balance
NPL Sites29 $1,372 
Third-Party Sites68 239 
Currently Operated Sites4 23 
Closed or Non-operated Sites50 221 
Total151 $1,855 

As of March 31, 2026, environmental remediation liabilities of Occidental subsidiaries exceeded $10 million each at 16 of the 151 sites described above, and 86 of the sites had liabilities less than $1 million each. Based on current estimates, the Company expects its subsidiaries to expend funds corresponding to approximately 30% of the year-end remediation balance over the next three to four years with the remainder over the subsequent 10 or more years.
The Company believes the range of reasonably possible additional losses of its subsidiaries beyond those amounts currently recorded for environmental remediation for the 151 environmental sites in the table above could be up to $1.9 billion. The status of the Company's involvement with the sites and related significant assumptions have not changed materially since December 31, 2025.

DIAMOND ALKALI SUPERFUND SITE
The EPA has organized the DASS into four OUs for evaluating, selecting and implementing remediation under CERCLA. Current activities in each OU are summarized below, many of which are performed by Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc.
OU1 – 80 and 120 Lister Avenue in Newark, New Jersey: An Occidental subsidiary currently performs maintenance and monitoring for the interim remedy of OU1 pursuant to a 1990 Consent Decree for which such subsidiary inherited legal responsibility. In January 2025, the EPA issued a ROD for the final remedy of OU1 that provides for optimized containment for which it estimated a cost of $16 million.
OU2 – The Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River: In March 2016, the EPA issued a ROD specifying remedial actions required for OU2. During the third quarter of 2016, the EPA and an Occidental subsidiary entered into an AOC to complete the design of the remedy selected in the ROD. In May 2024, the EPA approved the remedial design for OU2. In June 2024, the EPA notified the subsidiary that the work required by the AOC has been fully performed in accordance with its terms. The EPA has estimated the cost to remediate OU2 to be approximately $1.4 billion.
OU3 – Newark Bay Study Area, including Newark Bay and portions of the Hackensack River, Arthur Kill, and Kill van Kull: A remedial investigation and feasibility study of OU3 was launched pursuant to a 2004 AOC which was amended in 2010. An Occidental subsidiary is currently performing feasibility study activities in OU3.
OU4 – The 17-mile Lower Passaic River Study Area, comprising OU2 and the Upper 9 Miles of the Lower Passaic River: In September 2021, the EPA issued a ROD selecting an interim remedy for the portion of OU4 that excludes OU2 and is located upstream from the Lister Avenue Plant site for which an Occidental subsidiary inherited legal responsibility. In March 2023, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order in which it directed and ordered such subsidiary to design the EPA's selected interim remedy for OU4. The EPA has estimated the cost to remediate OU4 to be approximately $440 million.
Natural Resource Trustees – In addition to the activities described above, federal and state natural resource trustees are assessing natural resources in the Lower Passaic River and Greater Newark Bay to evaluate potential claims for natural resource damages.

Legal matters related to the DASS (Alden Leeds)
In December 2022, the EPA and the DOJ filed a proposed Consent Decree in the Alden Leeds litigation, seeking court approval to settle with 85 parties for a total of $150 million for cleanup costs associated with OU2 and OU4. In January 2024, the DOJ filed a proposed Amended Consent Decree that excluded three companies from the original settlement, among other changes, and subsequently filed a motion to approve the Amended Consent Decree. In December 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (District Court) approved the Amended Consent Decree. In its order approving the Amended Consent Decree, the District Court accepted the EPA's revised determination that the Company was responsible for approximately 85% of the cleanup costs for OU2 and OU4. The Company filed an appeal against the District Court's ruling on the grounds that the decision was flawed for several reasons, including the failure to consider the impact of recent Supreme Court decisions that restrict EPA authority and limit judicial deference to EPA actions. The Notice of Appeal was filed in February 2025, and all briefs have been filed as of January 2026.
As a result of the District Court's approval of the Amended Consent Decree, the non-current environmental remediation liability related to OU2 and OU4 was increased by $925 million in the fourth quarter of 2024. This charge was included in asset impairments and other charges in the Company's Consolidated Statements of Operations and represented the additional share of the total estimated remediation costs which may be incurred because of the assignment by the District
Court of 85% of the responsibility for OU2 and OU4. These costs have not been discounted as the timing and amount of the payments are not fixed or reliably determinable. It is expected that the cash outlay for remediation costs will be expended over ten to twenty years, or more.
The Alden Leeds settlement does not address the liability of entities that were excluded from the settlement, including for OU2, OU3, OU4 or natural resource damages, or the liability of any settling party with respect to OU3 or natural resource damages.
While the remedies for OU2 and OU4 are expected to take ten to twenty years to complete, the EPA may seek to require the Company to perform a substantial majority or all of the remediation work and provide additional financial assurance. It is uncertain when or to what extent the EPA may take action to compel further remediation in OU2 or OU4, or the amount of financial assurance that could be required.
In June 2018, the Company filed a complaint under CERCLA in the District Court against numerous potentially responsible parties seeking contribution and cost recovery of amounts incurred or to be incurred to comply with the AOC and the OU2 ROD, or to perform other remediation activities related to the DASS (2018 Contribution Action). Because costs are being incurred to implement the OU4 Unilateral Administrative Order, a cost recovery action under CERCLA was brought in March 2023 in the District Court against multiple parties (2023 Cost Recovery Action). Both the 2018 Contribution Action and the 2023 Cost Recovery Action were stayed pending the outcome of the Alden Leeds litigation. The Company does not know when the Court will lift the stay in those matters. If not reversed on appeal, the approved Amended Consent Decree could bar the Company from pursuing contribution against the settling parties for remediation costs incurred or that may be incurred in the future to design and implement the remedies in OU2 and OU4, including claims asserted in the 2018 Contribution Action.

Other information
For the DASS, a reserve has been accrued relating to the estimated allocable share of the costs to perform the maintenance and monitoring required in the OU1 Consent Decree, as well as the remedial investigation and feasibility study required in OU3 (Newark Bay). Subject to and without waiver of any rights, including appeal, a reserve has also been accrued for design and implementation of remedies selected in the OU2 ROD and AOC, and the OU4 ROD and OU4 Unilateral Administrative Order, based on the December 2024 Order of the District Court approving the Amended Consent Decree described above, which Order is currently being appealed.
The accrued environmental remediation reserve does not account for the possibility of additional remediation costs or natural resource damages for the DASS that are not considered reasonably estimable. The ultimate liability at the DASS may be greater or less than both the reserved amount and any reasonably possible additional losses, and will depend on final design plans, future actions by the EPA and natural resource trustees, as well as the resolution of the allocable share with other potentially responsible parties, among other factors.
The estimated costs currently recorded for remediation at the DASS and the range of reasonably possible additional losses beyond the amounts currently recognized are evaluated periodically. Due to the complexity and scope of the remediation efforts, the estimated costs may fluctuate over time as new information becomes available.