Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

PPG is involved in a number of lawsuits and claims, both actual and potential, including some that it has asserted against others, in which substantial monetary damages are sought. These lawsuits and claims, the most significant of which are described below, relate to contract, patent, environmental, product liability, antitrust and other matters arising out of the conduct of PPG’s current and past business activities. To the extent that these lawsuits and claims involve personal injury and property damage, PPG believes it has adequate insurance; however, certain of PPG’s insurers are contesting coverage with respect to some of these claims, and other insurers, as they had prior to the asbestos settlement described below, may contest coverage with respect to some of the asbestos claims if the settlement is not implemented. PPG’s lawsuits and claims against others include claims against insurers and other third parties with respect to actual and contingent losses related to environmental, asbestos and other matters.

The results of any future litigation and the above lawsuits and claims are inherently unpredictable. However, management believes that, in the aggregate, the outcome of all lawsuits and claims involving PPG, including asbestos-related claims in the event the settlement described below does not become effective, will not have a material effect on PPG’s consolidated financial position or liquidity; however, such outcome may be material to the results of operations of any particular period in which costs, if any, are recognized.

Antitrust Matters

As previously disclosed, in 2010 PPG reached agreements to resolve flat glass antitrust matters in which PPG was a defendant, for approximately $6 million. The court approved the settlements and distribution of the funds occurred in the first quarter 2012.

In 2010, Transitions Optical, Inc. (“TOI”), a consolidated subsidiary of the Company, entered into a settlement agreement, without admitting liability, with the Federal Trade Commission, which had alleged that TOI violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Following the announcement of the settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, 30 private putative class cases were filed against TOI, alleging that it has monopolized and/or conspired to monopolize the market for photochromic lenses. All of the federal actions have been transferred and centralized in the Middle District of Florida (the “MDL Action”). Amended complaints in the MDL Action were filed in November and December 2010. In late 2011, the court ruled on TOI’s motion to dismiss and allowed the plaintiffs to file new or further amended complaints. Plaintiffs in the MDL Action include Insight Equity A.P. X, LP, d/b/a Vision-Ease Lens Worldwide, Inc., which has sued on its own behalf, and putative classes of “direct purchasers,” including laboratories and retailers (the “Lab/Retailer Plaintiffs”), and “indirect purchasers,” consisting of end-user consumers. Plaintiffs in the MDL Action generally allege that TOI’s exclusive dealing arrangements resulted in higher prices and seek lost profits and damages determined by the price premium attributable to wrongful exclusive deals. The damages sought are subject to trebling. The Lab/Retailer Plaintiffs also allege that TOI and certain affiliates of Essilor International SA conspired with respect to the wrongful exclusive dealing arrangements. Briefing with respect to class certification is expected to be completed in 2013. TOI believes it has meritorious defenses and continues to defend all of the above-described actions vigorously.

Asbestos Matters

For over 30 years, PPG has been a defendant in lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. Most of PPG’s potential exposure relates to allegations by plaintiffs that PPG should be liable for injuries involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products, known as Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (“PC”). PPG and Corning Incorporated are each 50% shareholders of PC. PPG has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all claims for any injuries caused by PC products. As of the April 16, 2000 order which stayed and enjoined asbestos claims against PPG (as discussed below), PPG was one of many defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving approximately 114,000 claims served on PPG. During the period of the stay, PPG generally has not been aware of the dispositions, if any, of these asbestos claims.

Background of PC Bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization

On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania located in Pittsburgh, Pa. Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2000, PPG recorded an after-tax charge of $35 million for the write-off of all of its investment in PC. As a consequence of the bankruptcy filing and various motions and orders in that proceeding, the asbestos litigation against PPG (as well as against PC) has been stayed and the filing of additional asbestos suits against them has been enjoined, until 30 days after the effective date of a confirmed plan of reorganization for PC substantially in accordance with the settlement arrangement among PPG and several other parties discussed below. The stay may be terminated if the Bankruptcy Court determines that such a plan will not be confirmed, or the settlement arrangement set forth below is not likely to be consummated.

On May 14, 2002, PPG announced that it had agreed with several other parties, including certain of its insurance carriers, the official committee representing asbestos claimants in the PC bankruptcy, and the legal representatives of future asbestos claimants appointed in the PC bankruptcy, on the terms of a settlement arrangement relating to certain asbestos claims against PPG and PC (the “2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement”).

On March 28, 2003, Corning Incorporated announced that it had separately reached its own arrangement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the settlement of certain asbestos claims against Corning Incorporated and PC (the “2003 Corning Settlement Arrangement”).

The terms of the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement and the 2003 Corning Settlement Arrangement were incorporated into a bankruptcy reorganization plan for PC along with a disclosure statement describing the plan, which PC filed with the Bankruptcy Court on April 30, 2003. Amendments to the plan and disclosure statement were subsequently filed. On November 26, 2003, after considering objections to the second amended disclosure statement and plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving such disclosure statement and directing that it be sent to creditors, including asbestos claimants, for voting. In March 2004, the second amended PC plan of reorganization (the “second amended PC plan of reorganization”) received the required votes to approve the plan with a channeling injunction for present and future asbestos claimants under §524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. After voting results for the second amended PC plan of reorganization were received, the Bankruptcy Court judge conducted a hearing regarding the fairness of the settlement, including whether the plan would be fair with respect to present and future claimants, whether such claimants would be treated in substantially the same manner, and whether the protection provided to PPG and its participating insurers would be fair in view of the assets they would convey to the asbestos settlement trust (the “Trust”) to be established as part of the second amended PC plan of reorganization. At that hearing, creditors and other parties in interest raised objections to the second amended PC plan of reorganization. Following that hearing, the Bankruptcy Court scheduled oral arguments for the contested items.

The Bankruptcy Court heard oral arguments on the contested items on November 17-18, 2004. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court agreed to consider certain post-hearing written submissions. In a further development, on February 2, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court established a briefing schedule to address whether certain aspects of a decision of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in an unrelated case had any applicability to the second amended PC plan of reorganization. Oral arguments on these matters were subsequently held in March 2005. During an omnibus hearing on February 28, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court judge stated that she was prepared to rule on the PC plan of reorganization in the near future, provided certain amendments were made to the plan. Those amendments were filed, as directed, on March 17, 2006. After further conferences and supplemental briefings, in December 2006, the court denied confirmation of the second amended PC plan of reorganization, on the basis that the plan was too broad in the treatment of allegedly independent asbestos claims not associated with PC.

Terms of 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement

PPG had no obligation to pay any amounts under the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement until 30 days after the second amended PC plan of reorganization was finally approved by an appropriate court order that was no longer subject to appellate review (the “Effective Date”). If the second amended PC plan of reorganization had been approved as proposed, PPG and certain of its insurers (along with PC) would have made payments on the Effective Date to the Trust, which would have provided the sole source of payment for all present and future asbestos bodily injury claims against PPG, its subsidiaries or PC alleged to be caused by the manufacture, distribution or sale of asbestos products by these companies. PPG would have conveyed the following assets to the Trust: (i) the stock it owns in PC and Pittsburgh Corning Europe, (ii) 1,388,889 shares of PPG’s common stock and (iii) aggregate cash payments to the Trust of approximately $998 million, payable according to a fixed payment schedule over 21 years, beginning on June 30, 2003, or, if later, the Effective Date. PPG would have had the right, in its sole discretion, to prepay these cash payments to the Trust at any time at a discount rate of 5.5% per annum as of the prepayment date. In addition to the conveyance of these assets, PPG would have paid $30 million in legal fees and expenses on behalf of the Trust to recover proceeds from certain historical insurance assets, including policies issued by certain insurance carriers that were not participating in the settlement, the rights to which would have been assigned to the Trust by PPG.

Under the proposed 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement, PPG’s participating historical insurance carriers would have made cash payments to the Trust of approximately $1.7 billion between the Effective Date and 2023. These payments could also have been prepaid to the Trust at any time at a discount rate of 5.5% per annum as of the prepayment date. In addition, as referenced above, PPG would have assigned to the Trust its rights, insofar as they related to the asbestos claims to have been resolved by the Trust, to the proceeds of policies issued by certain insurance carriers that were not participating in the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement and from the estates of insolvent insurers and state insurance guaranty funds.

Under the proposed 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement, PPG would have granted asbestos releases to all participating insurers, subject to a coverage-in-place agreement with certain insurers for the continuing coverage of premises claims (discussed below). PPG would have granted certain participating insurers full policy releases on primary policies and full product liability releases on excess coverage policies. PPG would have also granted certain other participating excess insurers credit against their product liability coverage limits.

If the second amended PC plan of reorganization incorporating the terms of the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement and the 2003 Corning Settlement Arrangement had been approved by the Bankruptcy Court, the Court would have entered a channeling injunction under §524(g) and other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, prohibiting present and future claimants from asserting bodily injury claims after the Effective Date against PPG or its subsidiaries or PC relating to the manufacture, distribution or sale of asbestos-containing products by PC or PPG or its subsidiaries. The injunction would have also prohibited codefendants in those cases from asserting claims against PPG for contribution, indemnification or other recovery. All such claims would have been filed with the Trust and only paid from the assets of the Trust.

Modified Third Amended PC Plan of Reorganization

To address the issues raised by the Bankruptcy Court in its December 2006 ruling, the interested parties engaged in extensive negotiations regarding the terms of a third amended PC plan of reorganization, including modifications to the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement. A modified third amended PC plan of reorganization (the “third amended PC plan of reorganization”), including a modified PPG settlement arrangement (the “2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement”), was filed with the Bankruptcy Court on January 29, 2009. The parties also filed a disclosure statement describing the third amended PC plan of reorganization with the court. The third amended PC plan of reorganization also includes a modified settlement arrangement of Corning Incorporated.

Several creditors and other interested parties filed objections to the disclosure statement. Those objections were overruled by the Bankruptcy Court by order dated July 6, 2009 approving the disclosure statement. The third amended PC plan of reorganization and disclosure statement were then sent to creditors, including asbestos claimants, for voting. The report of the voting agent, filed on February 18, 2010, revealed that all voting classes, including asbestos claimants, voted overwhelmingly in favor of the third amended PC plan of reorganization, which included the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement. In light of the favorable vote on the third amended PC plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court conducted a hearing regarding the fairness of the proposed plan, including whether (i) the plan would be fair with respect to present and future claimants, (ii) such claimants would be treated in substantially the same manner, and (iii) the protection provided to PPG and its participating insurers would be fair in view of the assets they would convey to the Trust to be established as part of the third amended PC plan of reorganization. The hearing was held in June of 2010. The remaining objecting parties (a number of objections were resolved through plan amendments and stipulations filed before the hearing) appeared at the hearing and presented their cases. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court established a briefing schedule for its consideration of confirmation of the plan and the objections to confirmation. That briefing was completed and final oral arguments held in October 2010. On June 16, 2011 the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision denying confirmation of the third amended PC plan of reorganization. Although denying confirmation, PPG believes that the decision viewed favorably many features of that plan.

Since the June 16, 2011 ruling, the third amended plan of reorganization has been the subject of negotiations among the parties in interest, amendments, proposed amendments and hearings. On April 20, 2012, PC filed plan materials with proposed amendments to the third amended PC plan of reorganization, which PPG believed would, upon adoption as a final amended plan, resolve all of the issues raised by the Bankruptcy Court in its June 16, 2011 ruling. On June 21, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court heard argument regarding whether the remaining insurer objectors had standing to continue to prosecute their objections to the plan materials. The Bankruptcy Court did not rule at that time on the question of the remaining insurer objectors’ standing, but took the matter under advisement. On July 17, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order setting forth the schedule for finalizing an amended plan and moving the PC bankruptcy reorganization proceedings forward. Specifically, the Bankruptcy Court ordered that an amended plan of reorganization be filed on or before August 20, 2012. Consistent with that order, PC filed an amended PC plan of reorganization on August 17, 2012, along with a certification advising the Bankruptcy Court that the August 17, 2012 amended PC plan of reorganization was identical to the plan materials filed on April 20, 2012. The July 17 order contemplated further proceedings in connection with potential objections to that plan and set a hearing for October 10, 2012 for arguments on any objections. Objections were filed by three entities on or before the deadline prescribed by the Bankruptcy Court. One set of objections was resolved by PC and another set merely restated for appellate purposes objections filed by a party that the Bankruptcy Court previously overruled. The Bankruptcy Court heard oral argument on the one remaining set of objections filed by the remaining insurer objectors on October 10, 2012. At the conclusion of that argument, the Bankruptcy Court set forth a schedule for negotiating and filing language that would resolve some, but not all, of the objections to confirmation advanced by the insurer objectors. On October 25, 2012, PC filed a notice regarding proposed confirmation order language that resolved those specific objections. The Bankruptcy Court has taken the remaining objections under advisement.

If the Bankruptcy Court ultimately finds the amended PC plan of reorganization to be acceptable, the Bankruptcy Court will enter a confirmation order if all requirements to confirm a plan of reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code have been satisfied. Such an order could be appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by any remaining insurer or other objectors to the amended and confirmed PC plan of reorganization. Assuming that the District Court approves a confirmation order, any remaining insurer or other objectors could appeal the order to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals and subsequently could seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement will not become effective until an amended PC plan of reorganization is finally approved by an appropriate court order that is no longer subject to appellate review, and PPG’s initial contributions will not be due until 30 business days thereafter (the “Funding Effective Date”).

Asbestos Claims Subject to Bankruptcy Court’s Channeling Injunction

If an amended PC plan of reorganization is approved by the Bankruptcy Court and becomes effective, a channeling injunction will be entered under §524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibiting present and future claimants from asserting asbestos claims against PC. With regard to PPG, the channeling injunction by its terms will prohibit present and future claimants from asserting claims against PPG that arise, in whole or in part, out of exposure to Unibestos, or any other asbestos or asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold and/or distributed by PC, or asbestos on or emanating from any PC premises. The injunction by its terms will also prohibit codefendants in these cases that are subject to the channeling injunction from asserting claims against PPG for contribution, indemnification or other recovery. Such injunction will also preclude the prosecution of claims against PPG arising from alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products to the extent that a claimant is alleging or seeking to impose liability, directly or indirectly, for the conduct of, claims against or demands on PC by reason of PPG’s: (i) ownership of a financial interest in PC; (ii) involvement in the management of PC, or service as an officer, director or employee of PC or a related party; (iii) provision of insurance to PC or a related party; or (iv) involvement in a financial transaction affecting the financial condition of PC or a related party. The foregoing PC related claims are referred to as “PC Relationship Claims” and constitute, in PPG management’s opinion, the vast majority of the pending asbestos personal injury claims against PPG. All claims channeled to the Trust will be paid only from the assets of the Trust.

Asbestos Claims Retained by PPG

The channeling injunction provided for under the third amended PC plan of reorganization, as amended, will not extend to any claim against PPG that arises out of exposure to any asbestos or asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold and/or distributed by PPG or its subsidiaries that is not a PC Relationship Claim, and in this respect differs from the channeling injunction contemplated by the second amended PC plan of reorganization filed in 2003. While management believes that the vast majority of the approximately 114,000 claims against PPG alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos relate to products manufactured, distributed or sold by PC, the potential liability for any non-PC Relationship Claims will be retained by PPG. Because a determination of whether an asbestos claim is a non-PC Relationship Claim would typically not be known until shortly before trial and because the filing and prosecution of asbestos claims (other than certain premises claims) against PPG has been enjoined since April 2000, the actual number of non-PC Relationship Claims that may be pending at the expiration of the stay or the number of additional claims that may be filed against PPG in the future cannot be determined at this time. PPG does not expect the Bankruptcy Court to lift the stay until after confirmation or rejection of the third amended PC plan of reorganization, as amended, although the bankruptcy court may entertain motions to lift the stay as to specific claims. PPG intends to defend against all such claims vigorously and their ultimate resolution in the court system is expected to occur over a period of years.

In addition, similar to what was contemplated by the second amended PC plan of reorganization, the channeling injunction will not extend to claims against PPG alleging personal injury caused by asbestos on premises owned, leased or occupied by PPG (so called “premises claims”), which generally have been subject to the stay imposed by the Bankruptcy Court. Historically, a small proportion of the claims against PPG and its subsidiaries have been premises claims, and based upon review and analysis, PPG believes that the number of premises claims currently comprises less than 2% of the total asbestos related claims against PPG. Beginning in late 2006, the Bankruptcy Court lifted the stay with respect to certain premises claims against PPG. As a result, PPG and its primary insurers have settled approximately 500 premises claims. PPG’s insurers agreed to provide insurance coverage for a major portion of the payments made in connection with the settled claims, and PPG accrued the portion of the settlement amounts not covered by insurance. PPG, in conjunction with its primary insurers as appropriate, evaluates the factual, medical, and other relevant information pertaining to additional claims as they are being considered for potential settlement. The number of such claims under consideration for potential settlement, currently approximately 380, varies from time to time. Premises claims remain subject to the stay, as outlined above, although certain claimants have requested the Court to lift the stay with respect to these claims and the stay has been lifted as to some claims. PPG believes that any financial exposure resulting from such premises claims, taking into account available insurance coverage, will not have a material adverse effect on PPG’s consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

PPG’s Funding Obligations

PPG has no obligation to pay any amounts under the third amended PC plan of reorganization, as amended, until the Funding Effective Date. If the third amended PC plan of reorganization, as amended, is approved, PPG and certain of its insurers will make the following contributions to the Trust. On the Funding Effective Date, PPG will relinquish any claim to its equity interest in PC, convey the stock it owns in Pittsburgh Corning Europe and transfer 1,388,889 shares of PPG’s common stock or cash equal to the fair value of such shares as defined in the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement. PPG will make aggregate cash payments to the Trust of approximately $825 million, payable according to a fixed payment schedule over a period ending in 2023. The first payment is due on the Funding Effective Date. PPG would have the right, in its sole discretion, to prepay these cash payments to the Trust at any time at a discount rate of 5.5% per annum as of the prepayment date. PPG’s historical insurance carriers participating in the third amended PC plan of reorganization will also make cash payments to the Trust of approximately $1.7 billion between the Funding Effective Date and 2027. These payments could also be prepaid to the Trust at any time at a discount rate of 5.5% per annum as of the prepayment date. PPG will grant asbestos releases and indemnifications to all participating insurers, subject to amended coverage-in-place arrangements with certain insurers for remaining coverage of premises claims. PPG will grant certain participating insurers full policy releases on primary policies and full product liability releases on excess coverage policies. PPG will also grant certain other participating excess insurers credit against their product liability coverage limits.

PPG’s obligation under the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement at December 31, 2008 was $162 million less than the amount that would have been due under the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement. This reduction is attributable to a number of negotiated provisions in the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement, including the provisions relating to the channeling injunction under which PPG retains liability for any non-PC Relationship Claims. PPG will retain such amount as a reserve for asbestos-related claims that will not be channeled to the Trust, as this amount represents PPG’s best estimate of its liability for these claims. PPG does not have sufficient current claim information or settlement history on which to base a better estimate of this liability, in light of the fact that the Bankruptcy Court’s stay has been in effect since 2000. As a result, PPG’s reserve at December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 for asbestos-related claims that will not be channeled to the Trust is $162 million. This amount is included within "Other liabilities" on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. In addition, under the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement, PPG will retain for its own account rights to recover proceeds from certain historical insurance assets, including policies issued by non-participating insurers. Rights to recover these proceeds would have been assigned to the Trust by PPG under the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement.

Following the effective date of the third amended PC plan of reorganization, as amended, and the lifting of the Bankruptcy Court stay, PPG will monitor the activity associated with asbestos claims which are not channeled to the Trust pursuant to the third amended PC plan of reorganization, and evaluate its estimated liability for such claims and related insurance assets then available to the Company as well as underlying assumptions on a periodic basis to determine whether any adjustment to its reserve for these claims is required.

Of the total obligation of $920 million and $834 million under the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, $683 million and $593 million are reported as a current liabilities and the present value of the payments due in the years 2014 to 2023 totaling $237 million and 2013 to 2023 totaling $241 million are reported as a non-current liability in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2012 and 2011. The future accretion of the non-current portion of the liability totals $109 million at December 31, 2012, and will be reported as expense in the consolidated statement of income over the period through 2023, as follows (in millions):

2013	$	14
2014	14
2015 – 2023	81
Total	$	109

The following table summarizes the impact on PPG’s financial statements for the three years ended December 31, 2012 resulting from the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement including the change in fair value of the stock to be transferred to the Trust and the related equity forward instrument (see Note 11, “Derivative Financial Instruments and Hedge Activities”) and the increase in the net present value of the future payments to be made to the Trust.

		Consolidated Balance Sheet
		Asbestos Settlement Liability						Equity Forward (Asset) Liability			Pretax Charge
(Millions)		Current			Long-term
Balance as of January 1, 2010		$	534		$	238		$	(18	)	$	13
Change in fair value:
	PPG stock	35			—			—			35
	Equity forward instrument	—			—			(37		)	(37		)
Accretion of asbestos liability		—			14			—			14
Reclassification		9			(9		)	—			—
Balance as of and Activity for the year ended December 31, 2010		$	578		$	243		$	(55	)	$	12
Change in fair value:
	PPG stock	(1		)	—			—			(1		)
	Equity forward instrument	—			—			(1		)	(1		)
Accretion of asbestos liability		—			14			—			14
Reclassification		16			(16		)	—			—
Balance as of and Activity for the year ended December 31, 2011		$	593		$	241		$	(56	)	$	12
Change in fair value:
	PPG stock	72			—			—			72
	Equity forward instrument	—			—			(74		)	(74		)
Accretion of asbestos liability		—			14			—			14
Reclassification		18			(18		)	—			—
Balance as of and Activity for the year ended December 31, 2012		$	683		$	237		$	(130	)	$	12

The fair value of the equity forward instrument is included as an "Other current asset" as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. Payments under the fixed payment schedule require annual payments that are due each June. The current portion of the asbestos settlement liability included in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2012, consists of all such payments required through June 2013, the fair value of PPG’s common stock and the value of PPG’s investment in Pittsburgh Corning Europe. The amount due June 30, 2014 of $5 million and the net present value of the remaining payments is included in the long-term asbestos settlement liability in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2012.

Enjoined Claims

If the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement is not implemented, for any reason, and the Bankruptcy Court stay expires, PPG intends to defend vigorously the pending and any future asbestos claims, including PC Relationship Claims, asserted against it and its subsidiaries. PPG continues to assert that it is not responsible for any injuries caused by PC products, which it believes account for the vast majority of the pending claims against PPG. Prior to 2000, PPG had never been found liable for any PC-related claims. In numerous cases, PPG was dismissed on motions prior to trial, and in others PPG was released as part of settlements by PC. PPG was found not responsible for PC-related claims at trial in two cases. In January 2000, one jury found PPG, for the first time, partly responsible for injuries to five plaintiffs alleged to be caused by PC products. The plaintiffs holding the judgment on that verdict moved to lift the injunction as applied to their claims. Before the hearing on that motion, PPG entered into a settlement with those claimants in the second quarter of 2010 to avoid the costs and risks associated with the possible lifting of the stay and appeal of the adverse 2000 verdict. The settlement resolved both the motion to lift the injunction and the judgment against PPG. The cost of this settlement was not significant to PPG’s results of operations for the second quarter of 2010 and was fully offset by prior insurance recoveries. Although PPG has successfully defended asbestos claims brought against it in the past, in view of the number of claims, and the significant verdicts that other companies have experienced in asbestos litigation, the result of any future litigation of such claims is inherently unpredictable.

Environmental Matters

It is PPG’s policy to accrue expenses for environmental contingencies when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Reserves for environmental contingencies are exclusive of claims against third parties and are generally not discounted. In management’s opinion, the Company operates in an environmentally sound manner and the outcome of the Company’s environmental contingencies will not have a material effect on PPG’s financial position or liquidity; however, any such outcome may be material to the results of operations of any particular period in which costs, if any, are recognized. Management anticipates that the resolution of the Company’s environmental contingencies will occur over an extended period of time.

As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, PPG had reserves for environmental contingencies totaling $332 million and $226 million, respectively, of which $101 million and $59 million, respectively, were classified as current liabilities. The reserve at December 31, 2012 included $221 million for environmental contingencies associated with PPG’s former chromium manufacturing plant in Jersey City, N.J. (“New Jersey Chrome”), $79 million for other environmental contingencies, including National Priority List sites and legacy glass and chemical manufacturing sites, $31 million for environmental contingencies associated with the Calcasieu River estuary located near the Lake Charles, La. chlor-alkali plant and two operating plant sites in PPG’s former commodity chemicals business, and $1 million for other environmental contingencies in the former commodity chemicals business. The reserve at December 31, 2011 included $129 million for environmental contingencies associated with the former chromium manufacturing plant in Jersey City, $63 million for other environmental contingencies, including National Priority List sites and legacy glass and chemical manufacturing sites, $34 million for environmental contingencies associated with the Calcasieu River Estuary and two operating plant sites in PPG’s former commodity chemicals business, and $1 million for other environmental contingencies in the former commodity chemicals business. Pretax charges against income for environmental remediation costs in 2012, 2011 and 2010 totaled $166 million, $9 million and $12 million, respectively, and are included in “Other charges” in the accompanying consolidated statement of income. "Income from discontinued operations, net of tax" in 2012, 2011 and 2010 included pretax charges for environmental environmental contingencies of $1 million, $7 million and $9 million, respectively. Cash outlays related to environmental remediation retained by PPG aggregated $62 million, $48 million, and $28 million in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Cash outlays related to environmental remediation in the former commodity chemicals business aggregated $4 million, $11 million, and $6 million in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The impact of foreign currency increased the liability by $2 million in 2012 and decreased the liability by $3 million in 2011. As a result of the allocation of the purchase price of acquisitions to assets acquired and liabilities assumed, the liability for environmental contingencies was increased by $3 million during 2012.

The Company continues to analyze, assess and remediate the environmental issues associated with New Jersey Chrome. In connection with the preparation of a final draft soil remedial action work plan and cost estimate that was originally required to be submitted to the NJDEP in May 2012, which has been delayed while PPG is working with NJDEP and the City of Jersey City to address issues related to PPG's proposed approach to obtaining use limitations for the properties that will be remediated, the Company compiled updated information about the sites that was used to develop a new estimate of the cost to remediate these sites which resulted in a charge against earnings of $145 million in the first quarter of 2012. A pretax charge of $165 million for the estimated costs of remediating these sites was recorded in the third quarter of 2006. These charges for estimated environmental remediation costs in 2006 and 2012 were significantly higher than PPG’s historical range. Excluding 2006 and 2012, pre-tax charges against income for environmental remediation have ranged between $10 million and $35 million per year for the past 16 years. Charges in 2013 are expected to again be within this historical range.

Management expects cash outlays for environmental remediation costs to be approximately $100 million annually through 2015 and to range from $10 million to $30 million annually in 2016 and 2017. It is possible that technological, regulatory and enforcement developments, the results of environmental studies and other factors could alter the Company’s expectations with respect to future charges against income and future cash outlays. Specifically, the level of expected future remediation costs and cash outlays is highly dependent upon activity related to New Jersey Chrome as discussed below.

Remediation: New Jersey Chrome

Since 1990, PPG has remediated 47 of 61 residential and nonresidential sites under the 1990 Administrative Consent Order (“ACO”) with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”). The most significant of the 14 remaining sites is the former chromium manufacturing location in Jersey City, New Jersey. The principal contaminant of concern is hexavalent chromium. The Company submitted a feasibility study work plan to the NJDEP in October 2006 that included a review of the available remediation technology alternatives for the former chromium manufacturing location. As a result of the extensive analysis undertaken in connection with the preparation and submission of that feasibility study work plan, the Company recorded a pretax charge of $165 million in the third quarter of 2006. This charge included estimated costs for remediation at the 14 remaining ACO sites, including the former manufacturing site, and for the resolution of litigation filed by NJDEP in May 2005 as discussed below. The principal estimated cost elements of the third quarter 2006 charge were based on competitively derived or readily available remediation industry cost data. The major cost components of this charge were (i) transportation and disposal of excavated soil and in place soil treatment and (ii) construction services (related to soil excavation, groundwater management and site security).

In May 2005, the NJDEP filed a complaint against PPG and two other former chromium producers seeking to hold the parties responsible for a further 53 sites where the source of chromium contamination is not known and to recover costs incurred by the agency in connection with its response activities at certain of those sites. During the third quarter of 2008, the parties reached an agreement in principle on all claims relating to these 53 sites (the “Orphan Sites Settlement”). Under the terms of this Orphan Sites Settlement, PPG accepted responsibility for remediation of 6 of the 53 sites, one half of the cost for remediating ten sites where chrome ore processing residue was used as fill in connection with the installation or repair of sewer lines owned by Jersey City, reimburse the NJDEP for a portion of past costs in the amount of $5 million and be responsible for the NJDEP’s oversight costs associated with the sites for which PPG is wholly or partially responsible. This settlement was finalized and issued for public comment in June 2011. After the close of the public comment period, NJDEP determined that no changes to the settlement were necessary and a motion was filed with the court to enter the settlement as a final order. In September 2011, the court entered the Orphan Sites Settlement as a final order. PPG paid its share of past costs in October 2011. This Orphan Sites Settlement did not affect PPG’s responsibilities for the 14 remaining unremediated sites covered by PPG’s ACO. The investigation and remediation of the soils and sources of contamination of the ten sewer sites will occur over an extended period of time to allow for investigation and determination of impacts associated with these sites, and coordination of remediation with the maintenance and repair of the sewers by Jersey City.

A settlement agreement among PPG, NJDEP and Jersey City (which had asserted claims against PPG for lost tax revenue) has been reached and memorialized in the form of a Judicial Consent Order (the “JCO”) that was entered by the court on June 26, 2009. PPG’s remedial obligations under the ACO with NJDEP have been incorporated into the JCO. Pursuant to the JCO, a new process has been established for the review of the technical reports PPG must submit for the investigation and remedy selection for the 14 ACO sites and the six sites for which PPG has accepted sole responsibility under the terms of the Orphan Sites Settlement (“20 PPG sites”). The JCO also provided for the appointment of a court-approved Site Administrator who is responsible for establishing a master schedule for the remediation of the 20 PPG sites. The JCO established a goal, based on currently applicable remedial provisions, to remediate soils and sources of contamination at the 20 PPG sites as expeditiously as possible for completion at the end of 2014 in accordance with the master schedule developed by the Site Administrator. On July 6, 2009, former United States Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Administrator, Michael McCabe, was appointed as Site Administrator under the JCO. The JCO also resolved the claims for reparations for lost tax revenues by Jersey City with the payment of $1.5 million over a five year time period. The JCO did not otherwise affect PPG’s responsibility for the remediation of the 14 ACO sites. PPG’s estimated costs under the JCO, including amounts related to site administration, are included in the December 31, 2012 reserve for New Jersey Chrome environmental remediation matters.

In the first quarter of 2012, an additional site was identified for which PPG has assumed responsibility for hexavalent chromium contamination. PPG learned that chromate waste from its former plant site was transported and used as construction fill at this location. PPG is working cooperatively with the property owner to support his cleanup of the site. A preliminary estimate of the cost to investigate and remediate hexavalent chromium contamination has been included in the accrued liability balance at December 31, 2012.

Since October 2006, activities contained in the feasibility study work plan have been undertaken and remedial alternatives were assessed which included, but were not limited to, soil excavation and offsite disposal in a licensed disposal facility, in situ chemical stabilization of soil and groundwater, and in situ solidification of soils. The feasibility study work plan for the former chromium manufacturing site previously submitted in 2006 was incorporated into a remedial action work plan. PPG submitted a preliminary draft soil remedial action work plan for the former chromium manufacturing and adjacent sites to NJDEP in June 2011. PPG received commentary from the NJDEP in connection with their review. The work plans for interim remedial measures at the chromium manufacturing site, which consisted of the removal and off-site disposal of approximately 70,000 tons of chromium impacted soil and concrete foundations, was approved by NJDEP and the associated work was completed in the third quarter 2011. The submission of a final draft soil remedial action work plan for the former chromium manufacturing and adjacent sites was initially required to be submitted to NJDEP in May 2012. However, this submission has been delayed while PPG is working with NJDEP and Jersey City to address issues related to PPG’s proposed approach to obtaining use limitations for the properties that will be remediated. Property owners must accept use limitations before NJDEP may approve a remedial action work plan. In the meantime, NJDEP has completed a review of the technical aspects of PPG's proposed soil remedial action work plan and has expressed their support of the remediation activities identified therein which PPG continues to perform while the issues related to use limitations for these properties are being addressed. PPG has submitted a final draft remedial action work plan for one other remaining site under the ACO which has been conditionally approved by the NJDEP. Remedial activities are expected to begin at this site in early 2013. In addition, during 2012 PPG completed remedial activities at three sites for which PPG has accepted sole responsibility under the terms of the Orphan Sites Settlement and has received "No Further Action" determination from the NJDEP for these sites. Soil investigation activities for all remaining sites covered by the ACO are also expected to be completed in 2013, and PPG believes the results of the work performed in connection with the preparation of the plan, as described above provides the Company with relevant information concerning remediation alternatives and estimated costs at these sites.

As work continued at all of the New Jersey Chrome sites and the final draft soil remedial action work plan for the former chromium manufacturing and adjacent sites was being developed, the estimated remediation costs were refined for all New Jersey Chrome sites and the updated information was used to compile a new estimate of the remediation costs, which resulted in a charge of $145 million in the first quarter of 2012. The liability for remediation of the New Jersey Chrome sites totals $221 million at December 31, 2012. The major cost components of this liability continue to be related to transportation and disposal of impacted soil as well as construction services. These components account for approximately 55% and 30% of the accrued amount, respectively, as of December 31, 2012. The accrued liability also includes estimated costs for water treatment, engineering and project management. The final draft soil remedial action work plan is based upon plans for PPG to obtain use limitations for the properties that will be remediated by various means including the purchase of certain sites. Based on our recently completed and on going investigations, approximately one million tons of soil may be potentially impacted for all New Jersey Chrome sites. The most significant assumptions underlying the current cost estimate are those related to the extent and concentration of chromium impacts in the soil, as these determine the quantity of soil that must be treated in place, the quantity that will have to be excavated and transported for offsite disposal, and the nature of disposal required. The charges taken for the estimated cost to remediate the New Jersey Chrome sites are exclusive of any third party indemnification, as the recovery of any such amounts is uncertain. Information will continue to be generated from the ongoing groundwater remedial investigation activities related to New Jersey Chrome and will be incorporated into a final draft remedial action work plan for groundwater expected to be submitted to NJDEP in the second quarter of 2014.

As described above, there are multiple future events yet to occur, including further remedy selection and design, remedy implementation and execution, the obtaining of required approvals from applicable governmental agencies or community organizations and the final draft remedial action work plan for groundwater to be submitted to NJDEP in 2014. Considerable uncertainty exists regarding the timing of these future events for the New Jersey Chrome sites. Final resolution of these events is expected to occur over the next two to three years. As these events occur and to the extent that the cost estimates of the environmental remediation remedies change, the existing reserve for this environmental remediation will be adjusted.

Remediation: Calcasieu River Estuary

In Lake Charles, La. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) completed an investigation of contamination levels in the Calcasieu River Estuary and issued a final remedial investigation report in September 2003, which incorporates the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments, indicating that elevated levels of risk exist in the estuary. PPG and other potentially responsible parties have completed a feasibility study under the authority of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”). PPG’s exposure with respect to the Calcasieu Estuary is focused on the lower few miles of Bayou d’Inde, a small tributary to the Calcasieu Estuary near PPG’s Lake Charles facility, and about 150 to 200 acres of adjacent marshes. The Company and three other potentially responsible parties submitted a draft remediation feasibility study report to the LDEQ in October 2006. The proposed remedial alternatives include sediment dredging, sediment capping, and biomonitoring of fish and shellfish. Principal contaminants of concern which may require remediation include various metals, dioxins and furans, and polychlorinated biphenyls. In response to agency comments on the draft study, the companies conducted additional investigations and submitted a revised feasibility report to the agencies in the third quarter of 2008. Government officials have indicated that a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ study has concluded that the proposed remedy will not adversely affect drainage in communities adjacent to Bayou d’Inde. In response to the revised feasibility study, LDEQ issued a draft decision document for the Bayou d’Inde area in February 2010. The decision document includes LDEQ’s selection of remedial alternatives for the Bayou d’Inde area and is in accordance with those recommended in the revised feasibility study. LDEQ held a public hearing on March 23, 2010 and subsequently issued its final decision document in March 2011. As in its draft document, LDEQ’s selection of remedial approaches is in accordance with those proposed in the feasibility study.

In June 2011, the agency proposed entering into a new Cooperative Agreement with the four companies to implement the remedy for Bayou d’Inde based on the final decision document, and transmitted a draft document for the companies’ consideration. At the same time, the companies initiated discussions among themselves on allocation of costs associated with remedy implementation. In October 2011, one of the three other potentially responsible parties that had participated in funding the feasibility study withdrew from further discussions with LDEQ regarding implementation of the remedy. The withdrawal of this party did not have an effect on the cost to PPG to complete this remedy implementation. On November 5, 2012, PPG and the two remaining parties submitted a revised Cooperative Agreement to LDEQ and are awaiting LDEQ's response. The estimated costs associated with PPG's responsibility with respect to this Cooperative Agreement are consistent with the amounts currently reserved by PPG for this project.

Multiple future events, such as remedy design and remedy implementation involving agency action or approvals related to the Calcasieu River Estuary will be required and considerable uncertainty exists regarding the timing of these future events. Final resolution of these events is expected to occur over an extended period of time. However, LDEQ approved the remedial design submittal in late 2012, and the remedy implementation could occur during 2013 to 2015, with some period of long-term monitoring for remedy effectiveness to follow.

Remediation: Reasonably Possible Matters

In addition to the amounts currently reserved for environmental remediation, the Company may be subject to loss contingencies related to environmental matters estimated to be as much as $100 million to $275 million. This range is less than the comparable amount reported at the end of 2011 as a result of the additional environmental remediation charge recorded in the first quarter 2012. Such unreserved losses are reasonably possible but are not currently considered to be probable of occurrence. This range of reasonably possible unreserved loss relates to environmental matters at a number of sites including each of the following; i) additional costs at New Jersey Chrome, which represents about one third of this potential range, ii) a number of other sites, including legacy glass and chemical manufacturing sites and iii) the Calcasieu River Estuary and two operating plant sites in the Company's former commodity chemicals business. The loss contingencies related to these sites include significant unresolved issues such as the nature and extent of contamination at these sites and the methods that may have to be employed to remediate them.

The status of the remediation activity at New Jersey Chrome and at the Calcasieu River Estuary and the factors that could result in the need for additional environmental remediation reserves at those sites are described above. Certain remedial actions are occurring at a legacy chemical site in Barberton, Ohio and the two operating plant sites in the former commodity chemicals business. The operating plant sites are in Lake Charles, Louisiana and Natrium, West Virginia. At Barberton, PPG has completed a Facility Investigation and Corrective Measure Study (“CMS”) under USEPA’s Resource Conservation and Recycling Act (“RCRA”) Corrective Action Program. PPG has been implementing the remediation alternatives recommended in the CMS using a performance-based approach with USEPA Region V oversight. However, USEPA Region V transferred its oversight authority to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“OEPA”) in 2010. The Barberton Corrective Action Permit was issued by OEPA on September 24, 2010. As part of this permit, PPG is responsible for filing engineering remedies for various issues at this site. Several of these remedies have not yet been filed with the OEPA. Similarly, the Company has completed a Facility Investigation and CMS for the Lake Charles facility under the oversight of the LDEQ. The LDEQ has accepted the proposed remedial alternatives. PPG received notice of LDEQ issuance of the final Hazardous Waste Post-Closure/HSWA Permit on June 28, 2010. The Permit was issued in final form on September 23, 2010. Planning for or implementation of these proposed alternatives is in progress. At Natrium, a facility investigation has been completed and initial interim remedial measures have been implemented to mitigate soil impacts. There is additional investigation of groundwater contamination ongoing, including Ohio River sediment and sediment pore-water sampling. If it is found that contamination from the plant site is contaminating the river, this may indicate the need for further onsite remedial actions to address specific areas of the facility. Installation of a groundwater treatment system has been completed. PPG has been addressing impacts from a legacy plate glass manufacturing site in Kokomo, Indiana under the Voluntary Remediation Program of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. PPG is currently performing additional investigation activities.

With respect to certain waste sites, the financial condition of any other potentially responsible parties also contributes to the uncertainty of estimating PPG’s final costs. Although contributors of waste to sites involving other potentially responsible parties may face governmental agency assertions of joint and several liability, in general, final allocations of costs are made based on the relative contributions of wastes to such sites. PPG is generally not a major contributor to such sites.

The impact of evolving programs, such as natural resource damage claims, industrial site reuse initiatives and state remediation programs, also adds to the present uncertainties with regard to the ultimate resolution of this unreserved exposure to future loss. The Company’s assessment of the potential impact of these environmental contingencies is subject to considerable uncertainty due to the complex, ongoing and evolving process of investigation and remediation, if necessary, of such environmental contingencies, and the potential for technological and regulatory developments.

Separation and Merger of the Commodity Chemicals Business

All known and currently reserved environmental liabilities associated with the commodity chemicals business were transferred with the separation of this business from PPG and subsequent merger of the subsidiary holding the PPG commodity chemicals business with a subsidiary of Georgia Gulf. The newly merged company, Axiall, will assume responsibility for these liabilities. As a result of this transaction, PPG will retain responsibility for potential environmental liabilities that may result from future Natural Resource Damage claims and any potential tort claims at the Calcasieu River Estuary associated with activities and historical operations of the Lake Charles, La. facility. PPG will additionally retain responsibility for all liabilities relating to, arising out of or resulting from sediment contamination in the Ohio River resulting from historical activities and operations at the Natrium, W.Va. facility.

Other Matters

PPG is a defendant in a matter in the California State Court in San Francisco in which the City of Modesto and its Redevelopment Authority claim that PPG and other defendants manufactured a defective product, the dry cleaning solvent perchloroethylene (“PCE”), and failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the environmental risks associated with the use of PCE. The plaintiffs claimed the defendants are responsible for remediation of soil and groundwater contamination at numerous dry cleaner sites in Modesto, California. In 2006, a Phase 1 trial was conducted as to four sites. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $3.1 million against PPG, The Dow Chemical Company, Vulcan, Oxy, and R.R. Street. The verdict was not apportioned.

Subsequent to the Phase 1 verdict, Vulcan and Oxy settled. In 2008, trial commenced on 18 Phase 2 Sites. Prior to submission of the case to the jury, the Court granted motions that limited PPG’s potential liability to one of the 18 sites. The damages sought at this one site totaled $27 million. A jury verdict in the amount of $18 million was returned against PPG and The Dow Chemical Company on May 18, 2009. The verdict was not apportioned. The jury was not able to reach a verdict on the statute of limitations issue on the site in question. However, on August 24, 2009, the trial court issued an opinion finding that the City’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The effect of the ruling was to nullify the jury’s Phase 2 damage award. In October 2009, the trial court held a non-jury trial of the Redevelopment Authority’s damage claims under the “Polanco Act”. On November 11, 2011, the court entered a final judgment consistent with all of the above results finding that prior settlements offset the $3.1 million verdict against PPG and others. Requests for costs and fees based on whether the City or defendants were “prevailing parties” have been resolved in PPG’s favor. On September 24, 2012, the Court ordered the City to pay PPG $0.3 million. Appeals are expected. On January 28, 2013, the responsibility for this pending legal matter was transferred as part of separation of its commodity chemicals business and the merger of the subsidiary holding the PPG commodity chemicals business with a subsidiary of Georgia Gulf. See Note 25, "Separation and Merger Transaction" for financial information relating to this transaction.