ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES AND EXPENDITURES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Environmental Remediation Obligations [Abstract]

ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES AND EXPENDITURES

NOTE 12 - ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES AND EXPENDITURES

Occidental and its subsidiaries and their respective operations are subject to stringent federal, state, 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, state, 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. Occidental 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. 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.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION

As of December 31, 2022, certain Occidental subsidiaries participated in or monitored remedial activities or proceedings at 162 sites. The following table presents the current and non-current environmental remediation liabilities of such subsidiaries on a consolidated basis as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, the current portion of which is included in accrued liabilities ($141 million in 2022 and $155 million in 2021) and the remainder in deferred credits and other liabilities - environmental remediation liabilities ($0.9 billion in 2022 and $0.9 billion in 2021).

These environmental remediation sites 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.

	2022			2021
millions, except number of sites	Number of Sites	Remediation Balance		Number of Sites	Remediation Balance
NPL sites	30	$	445	30	$	427
Third-Party Sites	68	238		69	273
Currently Operated Sites	13	106		15	122
Closed or Non-operated Sites	51	257		51	277
Total	162	$	1,046	165	$	1,099

As of December 31, 2022, environmental remediation liabilities of Occidental subsidiaries exceeded $10 million each at 17 of the 162 sites described above, and 94 of the sites had liabilities from $0 to $1 million each.

The Diamond Alkali Superfund Site (DASS) in Newark, New Jersey accounted for a significant portion of the liabilities associated with the category of NPL sites.

Five of the 68 Third-Party Sites — a chrome site in New Jersey, a former copper mining and smelting operation in Tennessee, a former oil field and a landfill in California and an active refinery in Louisiana where Occidental reimburses the current owner for certain remediation activities — accounted for nearly two-thirds of the liabilities associated with this category.

Three Currently Operated Sites — oil and gas operations in Colorado and chemical plants in Kansas and Louisiana — accounted for approximately two-thirds of the liabilities associated with this category.

Eight Closed or Non-operated Sites — a landfill in Western New York, a former refinery in Oklahoma, former chemical plants in California, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Washington, and a closed coal mine in Pennsylvania — accounted for more than two-thirds of the liabilities associated with this category.

The consolidated estimate of environmental remediation liabilities in the table above varies 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. Occidental’s subsidiaries recorded environmental remediation expenses of $65 million, $28 million and $36 million for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020, respectively, on a consolidated basis. Environmental remediation expenses primarily relate to changes to existing conditions from past operations. Based on current estimates, Occidental expects its subsidiaries to expend funds corresponding to approximately 40% of the year-end remediation balance over the next three to four years with the remainder over the subsequent 10 or more years.

Occidental believes its range of reasonably possible additional losses of its subsidiaries beyond those amounts currently recorded for environmental remediation for the 162 environmental sites in the table above could be up to $2.7 billion.

MAXUS ENVIRONMENTAL SITES

A significant portion of aggregate estimates of environmental remediation liabilities and reasonably possible additional losses described above relates to the former Diamond Alkali Chemicals Company (DSCC). When OxyChem acquired DSCC in 1986, Maxus agreed to indemnify OxyChem for a number of environmental sites, including the DASS. In June 2016, Maxus and several affiliated companies filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Prior to filing for bankruptcy, Maxus defended and indemnified OxyChem in connection with remediation costs and other liabilities associated with the sites subject to the indemnity. Any additional recovery of indemnified costs would come from the proceeds of litigation brought by the Maxus Liquidating Trust. For additional information on the Maxus Liquidating Trust, see Note 13 - Lawsuits, Claims, Commitments and Contingencies.

DIAMOND ALKALI SUPERFUND SITE

The EPA has organized the DASS into four Operable Units (OUs) for evaluating, selecting and implementing remediation under CERCLA. OxyChem’s current activities in each OU are summarized below, many of which are performed on OxyChem’s behalf by Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc.

OU1 – The Former Diamond Alkali Plant at 80-120 Lister Avenue in Newark: Maxus and its affiliates implemented an interim remedy of OU1 pursuant to a 1990 Consent Decree, for which OxyChem currently performs maintenance and monitoring. The EPA is conducting a periodic evaluation of the interim remedy for OU1.

OU2 – The Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River: In March 2016, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) specifying remedial actions required for OU2. During the third quarter of 2016, and following Maxus’s bankruptcy filing, OxyChem and the EPA entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to complete the design of the remedy selected in the ROD. At that time, the EPA sent notice letters to approximately 100 parties notifying them that they were potentially responsible to pay the costs to implement the remedy in OU2 and announced that it would pursue similar agreements with other potentially responsible parties. In June 2018, OxyChem filed a complaint under CERCLA in Federal District Court in the State of New Jersey 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. That action remains pending and the District Court has not adjudicated OxyChem’s relative share of responsibility for those costs. 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: Maxus and its affiliates initiated a remedial investigation and feasibility study of OU3 pursuant to a 2004 AOC which was amended in 2010. OxyChem 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 OxyChem inherited legal responsibility. The EPA had estimated the cost to remediate OU4 to be approximately $440 million. At this time, OxyChem's role or responsibilities under the OU4 ROD, and those of other potentially responsible parties, have not been adjudicated. To provide continued, efficient remediation progress, in January 2022, OxyChem offered to design and implement the interim remedy for OU4 subject to certain conditions, including a condition that the EPA would not seek to bar OxyChem’s right to seek contribution or cost recovery from any other parties that are potentially responsible to pay for the OU4 interim remedy. In March 2022, the EPA sent a notice letter to OxyChem and other parties requesting good faith offers to implement the selected remedies at OU2 and OU4. OxyChem submitted a good faith offer in June 2022, reaffirming the offer to design the remedy for OU4 and offering to enter into additional sequential agreements to remediate OU2 and OU4, subject to similar conditions, including that the EPA not seek to bar OxyChem from pursuing contribution or cost recovery from other responsible parties. The EPA did not accept OxyChem's June 2022 offer and, as such, OxyChem believes that the EPA may issue a Unilateral Administrative Order or commence CERCLA litigation against it, and potentially other parties, to require further design and/or implementation activities of the EPA’s selected remedies at the DASS.

Ongoing Assessment by Natural Resource Trustees: In addition to the activities of the EPA and OxyChem in the OUs described above, federal and state natural resources trustees are conducting an assessment of natural resources in the Lower Passaic River and Greater Newark Bay to evaluate potential claims for natural resource damages.

ALDEN LEEDS LITIGATION

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 and release them from liability for remediation costs in DASS OU2 and OU4, which OxyChem believes is based on a disproportionate allocation of responsibility to OxyChem despite overwhelming evidence regarding the responsibility of others, and, among other infirmities, is contrary to site-specific sampling and other relevant evidence concerning the liability of the settling parties. The EPA and DOJ also seek entry of an order that would bar OxyChem from pursuing contribution against those parties for remediation costs OxyChem had incurred or may incur in the future to design and implement the remedies in OU2 and OU4.

OxyChem intends to challenge the proposed settlement vigorously in the Alden Leeds litigation and to seek contribution and cost recovery from other potentially responsible parties for remediation costs it had incurred or may incur at the DASS. If OxyChem is denied leave to intervene in the Alden Leeds litigation, its anticipated settlement objections are overruled by the Court or in any subsequent appeals, or the proposed settlement is approved by the Court and not overturned on appeal, then, notwithstanding OxyChem’s vigorous, good faith effort to contest the settlement proposed in the Alden Leeds litigation, the EPA could attempt to compel OxyChem to bear substantially all of the estimated cost to design and implement the OU2 and OU4 remedies, which would have a material adverse impact on OxyChem and Occidental’s consolidated results of operations in the period recorded. While the remedies for OU2 and OU4 are expected to take over ten years to complete, the EPA may seek to require OxyChem to provide financial assurance to secure its performance. The amount of financial assurance is not subject to estimation at this time, as it is uncertain when or to what extent the EPA may take action to compel OxyChem to perform further remediation in OU2 or OU4 or the amount of assurance OxyChem would be required to post if the EPA takes such actions before the proposed settlement at issue in Alden Leeds is resolved. For further information on the Alden Leeds litigation, see Note 13 - Lawsuits, Claims, Commitments and Contingencies.

OTHER INFORMATION

For the DASS, OxyChem has accrued a reserve relating to its estimated allocable share of the costs to perform the maintenance and monitoring required in the OU1 Consent Decree, the design and implementation of remedies selected in the OU2 ROD and AOC and the OU4 ROD, and the remedial investigation and feasibility study required in the OU3.

OxyChem’s accrued environmental remediation reserve does not reflect the potential for additional remediation costs or natural resource damages for the DASS that OxyChem believes are not reasonably estimable. OxyChem’s ultimate liability at the DASS may be higher or lower than the reserved amount and the reasonably possible additional losses, and is subject to final design plans, further action by the EPA and natural resource trustees, and the resolution of OxyChem's allocable share with other potentially responsible parties, among other factors.

OxyChem continues to evaluate the estimated costs currently recorded for remediation at the DASS and other Maxus-indemnified sites, as well as the range of reasonably possible additional losses beyond those amounts currently recorded. Given the complexity and extent of the remediation efforts, estimates of the remediation costs may increase or decrease over time as new information becomes available.