Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	16. Contingencies ADA-ES On March 20, 2007, the Company and ADA-ES entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") providing for cooperation between the companies to attempt to jointly market powdered activated carbon ("PAC") to the electric power industry for the removal of mercury from coal fired power plant flue gas. The MOU provided for commissions to be paid to ADA-ES in respect of product sales. The Company terminated the MOU effective as of August 24, 2007 for convenience. Neither party had entered into sales or supply agreements with prospective customers as of that date. On March 3, 2008, the Company entered into a supply agreement with a major U.S. power generator for the sale of PAC products with a minimum purchase obligation of approximately $55 million over a 5 year period. ADA-ES claimed that it is entitled to commissions over the course of the 5 year contract, which the Company denies. On September 29, 2008, the Company filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for a declaratory judgment from the Court that the Company has no obligation to pay ADA-ES commissions related to this contract or for any future sales made after August 24, 2007. The Company was countersued alleging breach of contract. A jury trial was concluded in July 2010 and the Company received an adverse jury verdict determining that it breached its contract with ADA-ES by failing to pay commissions on sales of PAC to the mercury removal market. The jury awarded $3.0 million for past damages and $9.0 million in a lump sum for future damages. On December 21, 2010, the Company reached a settlement agreement with ADA-ES and paid ADA-ES $7.2 million in return for the satisfaction of the verdict. The Company recognized litigation expense of $6.7 million and $250 thousand for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, related to this matter in the Activated Carbon and Service segment. For Your Ease Only ("FYEO") In 2002, the Company was sued by FYEO. The case arises out of the Company's patent covering anti-tarnish jewelry boxes, U.S. Patent No. 6,412,628 ("the '628 Patent"). FYEO and the Company are competitors in the sale of jewelry boxes through a common retailer. In 2002, the Company asserted to the retailer that FYEO's jewelry box infringed the '628 Patent. FYEO filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for a declaration that the patent was invalid and not infringed, and claiming that the Company had tortuously interfered with its relationship with the retailer. The Company defended the suit until December 2003, when the case was stayed pending a re-examination of the '628 Patent in the Patent and Trademark Office. That patent was re-examined and certain claims of that patent were rejected by order dated February 25, 2008. The Company appealed, but the re-examination was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Patent Trademark Office issued a re-examination certificate on August 25, 2009. The stay on litigation was lifted. In addition, in 2007, while litigation between FYEO and Calgon was stayed, FYEO obtained a default judgment against Mark Schneider and Product Concepts Company (which had a prior contractual relationship with the Company in connection with the jewelry box business). FYEO attempted to collect this default judgment against the Company. Thereafter, FYEO's claim on the collection of the default judgment went to trial in 2009 and was rejected, in a determination that the Company had no continuing obligation to Schneider or Product Concepts. FYEO appealed that ruling, to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company and FYEO entered into a binding term sheet to settle these cases on December 31, 2010 for $4.3 million. The Company recognized $3.3 million and $0.8 million of litigation expense for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. These litigation contingencies are recorded in the Consumer segment. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company paid FYEO in January 2011. The Company has also liquidated its existing inventory and exited the anti-tarnish jewelry organizer business as of December 31, 2011 in accordance with the agreement. Waterlink In conjunction with the February 2004 purchase of substantially all of Waterlink Inc.'s ("Waterlink") operating assets and the stock of Waterlink's U.K. subsidiary, environmental studies were performed on Waterlink's Columbus, Ohio property by environmental consulting firms which provided an identification and characterization of certain areas of contamination. In addition, these firms identified alternative methods of remediating the property and prepared cost evaluations of the various alternatives. The Company concluded from the information in the studies that a loss at this property is probable and recorded the liability. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the balance recorded as a component of current liabilities was $2.0 million and $3.9 million, respectively. Liability estimates are based on an evaluation of, among other factors, currently available facts, existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations, and the remediation experience of other companies. The Company incurred $0.7 million, $0.1 million, and zero of environmental remediation costs for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. A $1.3 million reduction of the liability was recorded in the Activated Carbon and Service segment for the year ended December 31, 2011 related to a change in the estimate of the obligation that occurred during the year, which was the result of a more definitive environmental assessment and a review of the current technology available to the Company to remediate the property. It is reasonably possible that a further change in the estimate of this obligation will occur as remediation progresses. Remediation activities commenced during the fourth quarter of 2011 and are currently expected to be completed in late 2012. Carbon Imports General Anti-Dumping Background: On March 8, 2006, the Company and another U.S. producer of activated carbon (collectively the "Petitioners") formally requested that the United States Department of Commerce investigate unfair pricing of certain thermally activated carbon imported from the People's Republic of China. On March 2, 2007, the Commerce Department published its final determination (subsequently amended) finding that imports of the subject merchandise from China were being unfairly priced, or dumped, and that anti-dumping duties should be imposed to offset the amount of the unfair pricing. The resultant tariff rates ranged from 61.95% ad valorem (i.e., of the entered value of the goods) to 228.11% ad valorem. An anti-dumping order imposing these tariffs was issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce and was published in the Federal Register on April 27, 2007. All imports from China remain subject to the order. Importers of subject activated carbon from China are required to make cash deposits of estimated anti-dumping duties at the time the goods are entered into the United States customs territory. Final assessment of duties and duty deposits are subject to revision based on annual retrospective reviews conducted by the Commerce Department. The Company is both a domestic producer, exporter from China and a large U.S. importer (through its wholly-owned subsidiary Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.) of the activated carbon that is subject to this proceeding. As such, the Company's involvement in the Commerce Department's proceedings is both as a domestic producer (a "petitioner") and as a foreign exporter (a "respondent"). As an importer of activated carbon from China, and in light of the successful anti-dumping tariff case, the Company was required to pay deposits of estimated anti-dumping duties at the rate of 84.45% ad valorem to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs") on entries made on or after October 11, 2006 through March 1, 2007. From March 2, 2007 through March 29, 2007 the anti-dumping duty deposit rate was 78.89%. From March 30, 2007 through April 8, 2007 the anti-dumping duty deposit rate was 69.54%. Because of limits on the government's legal authority to impose provisional duties prior to issuance of a final determination, entries made between April 9, 2007 and April 18, 2007 were not subject to anti-dumping duties. For the period from April 19, 2007 through November 9, 2009, estimated anti-dumping duties have been deposited at 69.54% ad valorem. The Company's role as an importer which requires it to pay tariffs results in a contingent liability related to the final amount of tariffs that are ultimately assessed on the imported product, following the Commerce Department's periodic review of relevant shipments and calculation of the anti-dumping duties due. The Company has made deposits of estimated tariffs in two ways. First, estimated tariffs on entries during the period from October 11, 2006 through April 8, 2007 were covered by a bond. The total amount of tariffs that can be paid on entries during this period was capped as a matter of law, though the Company was entitled to receive a refund with interest for any difference due to a reduction in the actual margin of dumping found in the first review (discussed below). Second, the Company has been required to post cash deposits of estimated tariffs owed on entries of subject merchandise since April 19, 2007. The final amount of tariffs owed on these entries may change, and can either increase or decrease depending on the final results of relevant administrative inquiries conducted by the Commerce Department. This process is further described below. The Company's estimated liability for tariffs during this period of $0.1 million and $0.2 million is reflected in accounts payable and accrued liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The amount of estimated anti-dumping tariffs payable on goods imported into the United States is subject to review and retroactive adjustment based on the actual amount of dumping that is found on entries made during a given annual period. As part of this process, the Commerce Department conducts periodic reviews of sales made to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer, typically over the prior 12 month period. These reviews will be possible for at least five years, and can result in changes to the anti-dumping tariff rate (either increasing or reducing the rate) applicable to any foreign exporter. Revision of tariff rates has two effects. First, it will alter the actual amount of tariffs that Customs will seek to collect for the period reviewed, by either collecting additional duties above those deposited with Customs by the importer at the time of entry or refunding a portion of the duties deposited at the time of importation to reflect a decline in the margin of dumping. If the actual amount of tariffs owed increases, the government will require payment of the difference plus interest. Conversely, if the tariff rate decreases, any difference will be refunded with interest. Second, the revised rate becomes the cash deposit rate applied to future entries, and can either increase or decrease the amount of duty deposits an importer will be required to pay. Period of Review I: On November 10, 2009, the Commerce Department announced the final results of its review of the tariff period beginning October 11, 2006 through March 31, 2008 (period of review ("POR") I). Based on the POR I results, the Company's ongoing duty deposit rate was adjusted from 69.54% to 14.51% (as further adjusted by .07% for certain ministerial errors and published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2009) for entries made subsequent to the announcement. The Department of Commerce determined an assessment rate (final duty to be collected) on the entries made in this period of 31.93% ad valorem, which is substantially lower than the original amounts secured by bonds and cash. Accordingly, the Company reduced its recorded liability for unpaid deposits in POR I and recorded a receivable of $1.6 million reflecting expected refunds for tariff deposits made during POR I as a result of the announced decrease in the POR I tariff assessment rate. The Company received $1.0 million of the aforementioned $1.6 million as of December 31, 2011. Period of Review II: On April 1, 2009, the Commerce Department published a formal notice allowing parties to request a second annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009 (POR II). Requests for review were due no later than April 30, 2009. The Company, in its capacity as a U.S. producer and separately as a Chinese exporter, elected not to participate in this administrative review. By not participating in the review, the Company's duty deposits made during POR II are final and not subject to further adjustment. On November 17, 2010, the Commerce Department announced the results of its review for POR II. Since the Company was not involved in this review its deposit rates did not change from the rate of 14.51%, which was established after a review of POR I. However, for the cooperative respondents involved in POR II their new deposit rate was calculated at 31.59% ad valorem, but will be collected on a $0.127 per pound basis. Period of Review III: On April 1, 2010, the Commerce Department published a formal notice allowing parties to request a third annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010 ("POR III"). On October 31, 2011, the Commerce Department published the results of its review of POR III. Based on the POR III results, the Company's ongoing duty deposit rate was adjusted to zero. The Company recorded a receivable of $1.1 million reflecting expected refunds for duty deposits made during POR III as a result of the announced decrease in the POR III assessment rate. However, for the cooperative respondents involved in POR III, their deposit rate will be collected on a $0.127 per pound basis. In early December 2011, several separate rate respondents appealed the Commerce Department's final results of POR III. The Company does not expect any of the appeals to be successful. However, in the event the court finds merit in the arguments raised in the appeals, the Company does not expect the revised rates to materially impact the anticipated $1.1 million of expected refunds for tariff deposits it made during POR III. The main impact that a successful appeal would have is related to the new deposit rates of the cooperative respondents. It is anticipated that the POR III appeal process would be finalized in the fourth quarter of 2012. Period of Review IV: On April 1, 2011, the Commerce Department published a formal notice allowing parties to request a fourth annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011 ("POR IV"). Requests for review were due no later than May 2, 2011. The Company, in its capacity as a U.S. producer and separately as a Chinese exporter, elected not to participate in this administrative review. By not participating in the review, the Company's tariff deposits made at a rate of 14.51% during POR IV are final and not subject to further adjustment. The Commerce Department has selected mandatory respondents for POR IV which include Jacobi Carbons AB, Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., and Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co. Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act Distributions: The Company's contingent liability relating to tariffs paid on imports is mitigated somewhat by two factors. First and foremost, the anti-dumping tariff order's disciplinary effect on the market encourages the elimination of dumping through fair pricing. Separately, pursuant to the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) of 2000 (repealed effective February 8, 2006), as an affected domestic producer, the Company is eligible to apply for a share of the distributions of certain tariffs collected on entries of subject merchandise from China from October 11, 2006 to September 30, 2007. As a result, the Company is eligible to receive a distribution of duties collected on imports of certain activated carbon that entered the United States during a portion of POR I. In July 2011, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the Company applied for such distributions. There were no additional amounts received by the Company during the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010. In November 2009 and December 2008, the Company received distributions of approximately $0.8 million and $0.2 million, respectively, which reflected 59.57% of the total amounts then available and distributed by Customs in connection with the anti-dumping order on certain activated carbon from China. CDSOA distributions related to POR I imports have been on hold while POR I final results for certain exporters have been under appeal. All POR I appeals have been resolved and Customs issued liquidation instructions in October 2011 for activated carbon entries affected by the appeal process involving POR I. Since the Company imported subject activated carbon during the time period in POR I when the CDSOA was in effect (October 11, 2006 to September 30, 2007), and because these duties were subject to litigation on December 8, 2010, we could expect to have 59.57% of the final anti-dumping tariffs collected on our entries returned back to the Company as CDSOA distributions. As a result, the Company recorded a receivable of $0.3 million against this anticipated CDSOA distribution related to our entries. At this time we cannot assess the amount of potential CDSOA distributions available to the Company as a result of the POR I appeal resolution related to other activated carbon importers. Big Sandy Plant By letter dated January 22, 2007, the Company received from the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), Region 4 a report of a hazardous waste facility inspection performed by the EPA and the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection ("KYDEP") as part of a Multi Media Compliance Evaluation of the Company's Big Sandy Plant in Catlettsburg, Kentucky that was conducted on September 20 and 21, 2005. Accompanying the report was a Notice of Violation ("NOV") alleging multiple violations of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") and corresponding EPA and KYDEP hazardous waste regulations. The alleged violations mainly concern the hazardous waste spent activated carbon regeneration facility. The Company met with the EPA on April 17, 2007 to discuss the inspection report and alleged violations, and submitted written responses in May and June 2007. In August 2007, the EPA notified the Company that it believed there were still significant violations of RCRA that were unresolved by the information provided in the Company's responses, without specifying the particular violations. During a meeting with the EPA on December 10, 2007, the EPA indicated that the agency would not pursue certain other alleged violations. The Company has taken action to address and remediate a number of the alleged violations. The Company now believes, and the EPA has indicated, that the number of unresolved issues as to alleged continuing violations cited in the January 22, 2007 NOV has been reduced substantially. The EPA can take formal enforcement action to require the Company to remediate any or all of the unresolved alleged continuing violations, which could require the Company to incur substantial additional costs. The EPA can also take formal enforcement action to impose substantial civil penalties with respect to violations cited in the NOV, including those which have been admitted or resolved. By letter dated January 5, 2010, the EPA determined that certain residues resulting from the treatment of the carbon reactivation furnace off-gas are RCRA listed hazardous wastes and the material dredged from the onsite wastewater treatment lagoons were RCRA listed hazardous wastes and that they need to be managed in accordance with RCRA regulations. The Company believes that the cost to treat and/or dispose of the material dredged from the lagoons as hazardous waste could be substantial. However, by letter dated January 22, 2010, the Company received a determination from the KYDEP Division of Waste Management that the materials were not RCRA listed hazardous wastes when recycled, as had been the Company's practice. The Company believes that pursuant to EPA regulations, KYDEP is the proper authority to make this determination. Thus, the Company believes that there is no basis for the position set forth in the EPA's January 5, 2010 letter and the Company will vigorously defend any complaint on the matter. By letter dated May 12, 2010 from the Department of Justice Environmental and Natural Resources Division (the "DOJ"), the Company was informed that the DOJ was prepared to take appropriate enforcement action against the Company for the NOV and other violations under the Clean Water Act ("CWA"). The Company met with the DOJ on July 9, 2010 and agreed to permit more comprehensive testing of the lagoons and to share data and analysis already obtained. On July 19, 2010, the EPA sent the Company a formal information request with respect to such data and analysis, which was answered by the Company. In September 2010, representatives of the EPA met with Company personnel for two days at the Big Sandy plant. The visit included an inspection by the EPA and discussion regarding the plan for additional testing of the lagoons and material dredged from the lagoons. The Company, EPA and DOJ have had ongoing meetings and discussions since the September 2010 inspection. The Company has completed testing of some of the material dredged from the lagoons and of materials in one of the lagoons. The results of this testing have been provided to the EPA. The Company believes the results are favorable. The Company has indicated that it is willing to work towards a comprehensive resolution of all the issues. The DOJ and EPA have informally indicated that such a comprehensive resolution may be possible but that the agencies will expect significant civil penalties with respect to the violations cited in the NOV as well as the alleged CWA violations. The Company believes that the size of any civil penalties, if any, should be reduced since all the alleged violations, except those with respect to the characterization of the certain residues resulting from the treatment of the carbon reactivation furnace off-gas and the material dredged from the onsite wastewater treatment lagoons, had been resolved. The Company believes that there should be no penalties associated with respect to the characterization of the residues resulting from the treatment of the carbon reactivation furnace off-gas and the material dredged from the onsite wastewater treatment lagoons as the Company believes that those materials are not RCRA listed hazardous waste as has been determined by the KYDEP. The Company is conducting negotiations with the DOJ and EPA to attempt to settle the issues. The Company cannot predict with any certainty the probable outcome of this matter. In the fourth quarter of 2010, the Company accrued $2.0 million as its estimate of potential loss related to civil penalties. If process modifications are required, the capital costs could be significant and may exceed $10.0 million. If the resolution includes remediation, additional significant expenses and/or capital expenditures may be required. If a settlement cannot be reached, the issues will most likely be litigated and the Company will vigorously defend its position. Frontier Chemical Processing Royal Avenue Site In June 2007, the Company received a Notice Letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") stating that the NYSDEC had determined that the Company is a Potentially Responsible Party ("PRP") at the Frontier Chemical Processing Royal Avenue Site in Niagara Falls, New York (the "Site"). The Notice Letter requested that the Company and other PRP's develop, implement and finance a remedial program for Operable Unit #1 at the Site. Operable Unit #1 consists of overburden soils and overburden and upper bedrock groundwater. The selected remedy was removal of above grade structures and contaminated soil source areas, installation of a cover system, and ground water control and treatment, estimated to cost between approximately $11 million and $14 million, which would be shared among the PRP's. The Company has not determined what portion of the costs associated with the remedial program it will be obligated to bear and the Company cannot predict with any certainty the outcome of this matter or range of potential loss. The Company has joined a PRP group (the "PRP Group") and has executed a Joint Defense Agreement with the group members. In August 2008, the Company and over 100 PRP's entered into a Consent Order with the NYSDEC for additional site investigation directed toward characterization of the Site to better define the scope of the remedial project. The Company contributed monies to the PRP Group to help fund the work required under the Consent Order. The additional site investigation required under the Consent Order was initiated in 2008 and completed in the spring of 2009. A final report of the site investigation was submitted to the NYSDEC in October 2009. By letter dated December 31, 2009, the NYSDEC disapproved the report. The bases for disapproval included concerns regarding proposed alternate soil cleanup objectives, questions regarding soil treatability studies and questions regarding ground water contamination. The PRP Group conducted additional studies and submitted a revised final report in September 2010. By letter dated October 10, 2010, the NYSDEC approved the report and terminated the Consent Order. The PRP Group was issued a Significant Industrial User Permit by the Niagara Falls Water Board ("NFWB") in November 2010. The permit allows the shallow ground water flow from the Site to continue to be naturally captured by the adjacent sewer tunnels with subsequent treatment of the ground water at the Niagara Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant. PRP Group representatives met several times with the NYSDEC regarding the revision of the soil cleanup objectives set forth in the Record of Decision to be consistent with recently revised regulations. The NYSDEC does not agree that the revised regulation applies to the Site but requested additional information to support the PRP Group's position. The PRP Group's consultant conducted additional cost-benefit analyses and further soil sampling. The results were provided to the NYSDEC but the NYSDEC remains unwilling to revise the soil standards. The PRP Group has now proposed thermal treatment of the contaminated soil, either in situ or ex situ, as a more cost effective approach to achieve the soil clean up standards. Estimated costs for thermal treatment of soils are $5.5 million to $8.5 million for ex situ, and $11 million for in situ thermal treatment. The NYSDEC has indicated that this may be an acceptable alternative to the selected remedy and suggested that the PRP Group perform a Focused Feasibility Study for thermal treatment, which will support an amendment to the Record of Decision to change the remedy. The PRP Group has tasked its consultants to prepare the Focused Feasibility Study. Upon amending the Record of Decision, the PRP Group is considering voluntary performance of the Remedial Design, without a Consent Order, for thermal treatment. Upon acceptance of the remedial Design, the PRP Group would then negotiate a Remedial Action Order to implement the remedy. In addition to the matters described above, the Company is involved in various other legal proceedings, lawsuits and claims, including employment, product warranty and environmental matters of a nature considered normal to its business. It is the Company's policy to accrue for amounts related to these legal matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the loss amount is reasonably estimable. Management believes that the ultimate liabilities, if any, resulting from such lawsuits and claims will not materially affect the consolidated financial position or liquidity of the Company, but an adverse outcome could be material to the results of operations in a particular period in which a liability is recognized.

16. Contingencies

ADA-ES

On March 20, 2007, the Company and ADA-ES entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") providing for cooperation between the companies to attempt to jointly market powdered activated carbon ("PAC") to the electric power industry for the removal of mercury from coal fired power plant flue gas. The MOU provided for commissions to be paid to ADA-ES in respect of product sales. The Company terminated the MOU effective as of August 24, 2007 for convenience. Neither party had entered into sales or supply agreements with prospective customers as of that date. On March 3, 2008, the Company entered into a supply agreement with a major U.S. power generator for the sale of PAC products with a minimum purchase obligation of approximately $55 million over a 5 year period. ADA-ES claimed that it is entitled to commissions over the course of the 5 year contract, which the Company denies. On September 29, 2008, the Company filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for a declaratory judgment from the Court that the Company has no obligation to pay ADA-ES commissions related to this contract or for any future sales made after August 24, 2007. The Company was countersued alleging breach of contract. A jury trial was concluded in July 2010 and the Company received an adverse jury verdict determining that it breached its contract with ADA-ES by failing to pay commissions on sales of PAC to the mercury removal market. The jury awarded $3.0 million for past damages and $9.0 million in a lump sum for future damages. On December 21, 2010, the Company reached a settlement agreement with ADA-ES and paid ADA-ES $7.2 million in return for the satisfaction of the verdict. The Company recognized litigation expense of $6.7 million and $250 thousand for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, related to this matter in the Activated Carbon and Service segment.

For Your Ease Only ("FYEO")

In 2002, the Company was sued by FYEO. The case arises out of the Company's patent covering anti-tarnish jewelry boxes, U.S. Patent No. 6,412,628 ("the '628 Patent"). FYEO and the Company are competitors in the sale of jewelry boxes through a common retailer. In 2002, the Company asserted to the retailer that FYEO's jewelry box infringed the '628 Patent. FYEO filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for a declaration that the patent was invalid and not infringed, and claiming that the Company had tortuously interfered with its relationship with the retailer. The Company defended the suit until December 2003, when the case was stayed pending a re-examination of the '628 Patent in the Patent and Trademark Office. That patent was re-examined and certain claims of that patent were rejected by order dated February 25, 2008. The Company appealed, but the re-examination was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Patent Trademark Office issued a re-examination certificate on August 25, 2009. The stay on litigation was lifted. In addition, in 2007, while litigation between FYEO and Calgon was stayed, FYEO obtained a default judgment against Mark Schneider and Product Concepts Company (which had a prior contractual relationship with the Company in connection with the jewelry box business). FYEO attempted to collect this default judgment against the Company. Thereafter, FYEO's claim on the collection of the default judgment went to trial in 2009 and was rejected, in a determination that the Company had no continuing obligation to Schneider or Product Concepts. FYEO appealed that ruling, to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company and FYEO entered into a binding term sheet to settle these cases on December 31, 2010 for $4.3 million. The Company recognized $3.3 million and $0.8 million of litigation expense for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. These litigation contingencies are recorded in the Consumer segment. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company paid FYEO in January 2011. The Company has also liquidated its existing inventory and exited the anti-tarnish jewelry organizer business as of December 31, 2011 in accordance with the agreement.

Waterlink

In conjunction with the February 2004 purchase of substantially all of Waterlink Inc.'s ("Waterlink") operating assets and the stock of Waterlink's U.K. subsidiary, environmental studies were performed on Waterlink's Columbus, Ohio property by environmental consulting firms which provided an identification and characterization of certain areas of contamination. In addition, these firms identified alternative methods of remediating the property and prepared cost evaluations of the various alternatives. The Company concluded from the information in the studies that a loss at this property is probable and recorded the liability. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the balance recorded as a component of current liabilities was $2.0 million and $3.9 million, respectively. Liability estimates are based on an evaluation of, among other factors, currently available facts, existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations, and the remediation experience of other companies. The Company incurred $0.7 million, $0.1 million, and zero of environmental remediation costs for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. A $1.3 million reduction of the liability was recorded in the Activated Carbon and Service segment for the year ended December 31, 2011 related to a change in the estimate of the obligation that occurred during the year, which was the result of a more definitive environmental assessment and a review of the current technology available to the Company to remediate the property. It is reasonably possible that a further change in the estimate of this obligation will occur as remediation progresses. Remediation activities commenced during the fourth quarter of 2011 and are currently expected to be completed in late 2012.

Carbon Imports

General Anti-Dumping Background: On March 8, 2006, the Company and another U.S. producer of activated carbon (collectively the "Petitioners") formally requested that the United States Department of Commerce investigate unfair pricing of certain thermally activated carbon imported from the People's Republic of China.

On March 2, 2007, the Commerce Department published its final determination (subsequently amended) finding that imports of the subject merchandise from China were being unfairly priced, or dumped, and that anti-dumping duties should be imposed to offset the amount of the unfair pricing. The resultant tariff rates ranged from 61.95% ad valorem (i.e., of the entered value of the goods) to 228.11% ad valorem. An anti-dumping order imposing these tariffs was issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce and was published in the Federal Register on April 27, 2007. All imports from China remain subject to the order. Importers of subject activated carbon from China are required to make cash deposits of estimated anti-dumping duties at the time the goods are entered into the United States customs territory. Final assessment of duties and duty deposits are subject to revision based on annual retrospective reviews conducted by the Commerce Department.

The Company is both a domestic producer, exporter from China and a large U.S. importer (through its wholly-owned subsidiary Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.) of the activated carbon that is subject to this proceeding. As such, the Company's involvement in the Commerce Department's proceedings is both as a domestic producer (a "petitioner") and as a foreign exporter (a "respondent").

As an importer of activated carbon from China, and in light of the successful anti-dumping tariff case, the Company was required to pay deposits of estimated anti-dumping duties at the rate of 84.45% ad valorem to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs") on entries made on or after October 11, 2006 through March 1, 2007. From March 2, 2007 through March 29, 2007 the anti-dumping duty deposit rate was 78.89%. From March 30, 2007 through April 8, 2007 the anti-dumping duty deposit rate was 69.54%. Because of limits on the government's legal authority to impose provisional duties prior to issuance of a final determination, entries made between April 9, 2007 and April 18, 2007 were not subject to anti-dumping duties. For the period from April 19, 2007 through November 9, 2009, estimated anti-dumping duties have been deposited at 69.54% ad valorem.

The Company's role as an importer which requires it to pay tariffs results in a contingent liability related to the final amount of tariffs that are ultimately assessed on the imported product, following the Commerce Department's periodic review of relevant shipments and calculation of the anti-dumping duties due. The Company has made deposits of estimated tariffs in two ways. First, estimated tariffs on entries during the period from October 11, 2006 through April 8, 2007 were covered by a bond. The total amount of tariffs that can be paid on entries during this period was capped as a matter of law, though the Company was entitled to receive a refund with interest for any difference due to a reduction in the actual margin of dumping found in the first review (discussed below). Second, the Company has been required to post cash deposits of estimated tariffs owed on entries of subject merchandise since April 19, 2007. The final amount of tariffs owed on these entries may change, and can either increase or decrease depending on the final results of relevant administrative inquiries conducted by the Commerce Department. This process is further described below. The Company's estimated liability for tariffs during this period of $0.1 million and $0.2 million is reflected in accounts payable and accrued liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

The amount of estimated anti-dumping tariffs payable on goods imported into the United States is subject to review and retroactive adjustment based on the actual amount of dumping that is found on entries made during a given annual period. As part of this process, the Commerce Department conducts periodic reviews of sales made to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer, typically over the prior 12 month period. These reviews will be possible for at least five years, and can result in changes to the anti-dumping tariff rate (either increasing or reducing the rate) applicable to any foreign exporter. Revision of tariff rates has two effects. First, it will alter the actual amount of tariffs that Customs will seek to collect for the period reviewed, by either collecting additional duties above those deposited with Customs by the importer at the time of entry or refunding a portion of the duties deposited at the time of importation to reflect a decline in the margin of dumping. If the actual amount of tariffs owed increases, the government will require payment of the difference plus interest. Conversely, if the tariff rate decreases, any difference will be refunded with interest. Second, the revised rate becomes the cash deposit rate applied to future entries, and can either increase or decrease the amount of duty deposits an importer will be required to pay.

Period of Review I: On November 10, 2009, the Commerce Department announced the final results of its review of the tariff period beginning October 11, 2006 through March 31, 2008 (period of review ("POR") I). Based on the POR I results, the Company's ongoing duty deposit rate was adjusted from 69.54% to 14.51% (as further adjusted by .07% for certain ministerial errors and published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2009) for entries made subsequent to the announcement. The Department of Commerce determined an assessment rate (final duty to be collected) on the entries made in this period of 31.93% ad valorem, which is substantially lower than the original amounts secured by bonds and cash. Accordingly, the Company reduced its recorded liability for unpaid deposits in POR I and recorded a receivable of $1.6 million reflecting expected refunds for tariff deposits made during POR I as a result of the announced decrease in the POR I tariff assessment rate. The Company received $1.0 million of the aforementioned $1.6 million as of December 31, 2011.

Period of Review II: On April 1, 2009, the Commerce Department published a formal notice allowing parties to request a second annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009 (POR II). Requests for review were due no later than April 30, 2009. The Company, in its capacity as a U.S. producer and separately as a Chinese exporter, elected not to participate in this administrative review. By not participating in the review, the Company's duty deposits made during POR II are final and not subject to further adjustment.

On November 17, 2010, the Commerce Department announced the results of its review for POR II. Since the Company was not involved in this review its deposit rates did not change from the rate of 14.51%, which was established after a review of POR I. However, for the cooperative respondents involved in POR II their new deposit rate was calculated at 31.59% ad valorem, but will be collected on a $0.127 per pound basis.

Period of Review III: On April 1, 2010, the Commerce Department published a formal notice allowing parties to request a third annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010 ("POR III"). On October 31, 2011, the Commerce Department published the results of its review of POR III. Based on the POR III results, the Company's ongoing duty deposit rate was adjusted to zero. The Company recorded a receivable of $1.1 million reflecting expected refunds for duty deposits made during POR III as a result of the announced decrease in the POR III assessment rate. However, for the cooperative respondents involved in POR III, their deposit rate will be collected on a $0.127 per pound basis. In early December 2011, several separate rate respondents appealed the Commerce Department's final results of POR III. The Company does not expect any of the appeals to be successful. However, in the event the court finds merit in the arguments raised in the appeals, the Company does not expect the revised rates to materially impact the anticipated $1.1 million of expected refunds for tariff deposits it made during POR III. The main impact that a successful appeal would have is related to the new deposit rates of the cooperative respondents. It is anticipated that the POR III appeal process would be finalized in the fourth quarter of 2012.

Period of Review IV: On April 1, 2011, the Commerce Department published a formal notice allowing parties to request a fourth annual administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011 ("POR IV"). Requests for review were due no later than May 2, 2011. The Company, in its capacity as a U.S. producer and separately as a Chinese exporter, elected not to participate in this administrative review. By not participating in the review, the Company's tariff deposits made at a rate of 14.51% during POR IV are final and not subject to further adjustment. The Commerce Department has selected mandatory respondents for POR IV which include Jacobi Carbons AB, Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., and Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co.

Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act Distributions: The Company's contingent liability relating to tariffs paid on imports is mitigated somewhat by two factors. First and foremost, the anti-dumping tariff order's disciplinary effect on the market encourages the elimination of dumping through fair pricing. Separately, pursuant to the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) of 2000 (repealed effective February 8, 2006), as an affected domestic producer, the Company is eligible to apply for a share of the distributions of certain tariffs collected on entries of subject merchandise from China from October 11, 2006 to September 30, 2007. As a result, the Company is eligible to receive a distribution of duties collected on imports of certain activated carbon that entered the United States during a portion of POR I. In July 2011, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the Company applied for such distributions. There were no additional amounts received by the Company during the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010. In November 2009 and December 2008, the Company received distributions of approximately $0.8 million and $0.2 million, respectively, which reflected 59.57% of the total amounts then available and distributed by Customs in connection with the anti-dumping order on certain activated carbon from China.

CDSOA distributions related to POR I imports have been on hold while POR I final results for certain exporters have been under appeal. All POR I appeals have been resolved and Customs issued liquidation instructions in October 2011 for activated carbon entries affected by the appeal process involving POR I. Since the Company imported subject activated carbon during the time period in POR I when the CDSOA was in effect (October 11, 2006 to September 30, 2007), and because these duties were subject to litigation on December 8, 2010, we could expect to have 59.57% of the final anti-dumping tariffs collected on our entries returned back to the Company as CDSOA distributions. As a result, the Company recorded a receivable of $0.3 million against this anticipated CDSOA distribution related to our entries. At this time we cannot assess the amount of potential CDSOA distributions available to the Company as a result of the POR I appeal resolution related to other activated carbon importers.

Big Sandy Plant

By letter dated January 22, 2007, the Company received from the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), Region 4 a report of a hazardous waste facility inspection performed by the EPA and the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection ("KYDEP") as part of a Multi Media Compliance Evaluation of the Company's Big Sandy Plant in Catlettsburg, Kentucky that was conducted on September 20 and 21, 2005. Accompanying the report was a Notice of Violation ("NOV") alleging multiple violations of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") and corresponding EPA and KYDEP hazardous waste regulations.

The alleged violations mainly concern the hazardous waste spent activated carbon regeneration facility. The Company met with the EPA on April 17, 2007 to discuss the inspection report and alleged violations, and submitted written responses in May and June 2007. In August 2007, the EPA notified the Company that it believed there were still significant violations of RCRA that were unresolved by the information provided in the Company's responses, without specifying the particular violations. During a meeting with the EPA on December 10, 2007, the EPA indicated that the agency would not pursue certain other alleged violations. The Company has taken action to address and remediate a number of the alleged violations. The Company now believes, and the EPA has indicated, that the number of unresolved issues as to alleged continuing violations cited in the January 22, 2007 NOV has been reduced substantially. The EPA can take formal enforcement action to require the Company to remediate any or all of the unresolved alleged continuing violations, which could require the Company to incur substantial additional costs. The EPA can also take formal enforcement action to impose substantial civil penalties with respect to violations cited in the NOV, including those which have been admitted or resolved.

By letter dated January 5, 2010, the EPA determined that certain residues resulting from the treatment of the carbon reactivation furnace off-gas are RCRA listed hazardous wastes and the material dredged from the onsite wastewater treatment lagoons were RCRA listed hazardous wastes and that they need to be managed in accordance with RCRA regulations. The Company believes that the cost to treat and/or dispose of the material dredged from the lagoons as hazardous waste could be substantial. However, by letter dated January 22, 2010, the Company received a determination from the KYDEP Division of Waste Management that the materials were not RCRA listed hazardous wastes when recycled, as had been the Company's practice. The Company believes that pursuant to EPA regulations, KYDEP is the proper authority to make this determination. Thus, the Company believes that there is no basis for the position set forth in the EPA's January 5, 2010 letter and the Company will vigorously defend any complaint on the matter. By letter dated May 12, 2010 from the Department of Justice Environmental and Natural Resources Division (the "DOJ"), the Company was informed that the DOJ was prepared to take appropriate enforcement action against the Company for the NOV and other violations under the Clean Water Act ("CWA"). The Company met with the DOJ on July 9, 2010 and agreed to permit more comprehensive testing of the lagoons and to share data and analysis already obtained. On July 19, 2010, the EPA sent the Company a formal information request with respect to such data and analysis, which was answered by the Company. In September 2010, representatives of the EPA met with Company personnel for two days at the Big Sandy plant. The visit included an inspection by the EPA and discussion regarding the plan for additional testing of the lagoons and material dredged from the lagoons.

The Company, EPA and DOJ have had ongoing meetings and discussions since the September 2010 inspection. The Company has completed testing of some of the material dredged from the lagoons and of materials in one of the lagoons. The results of this testing have been provided to the EPA. The Company believes the results are favorable. The Company has indicated that it is willing to work towards a comprehensive resolution of all the issues. The DOJ and EPA have informally indicated that such a comprehensive resolution may be possible but that the agencies will expect significant civil penalties with respect to the violations cited in the NOV as well as the alleged CWA violations. The Company believes that the size of any civil penalties, if any, should be reduced since all the alleged violations, except those with respect to the characterization of the certain residues resulting from the treatment of the carbon reactivation furnace off-gas and the material dredged from the onsite wastewater treatment lagoons, had been resolved. The Company believes that there should be no penalties associated with respect to the characterization of the residues resulting from the treatment of the carbon reactivation furnace off-gas and the material dredged from the onsite wastewater treatment lagoons as the Company believes that those materials are not RCRA listed hazardous waste as has been determined by the KYDEP. The Company is conducting negotiations with the DOJ and EPA to attempt to settle the issues. The Company cannot predict with any certainty the probable outcome of this matter. In the fourth quarter of 2010, the Company accrued $2.0 million as its estimate of potential loss related to civil penalties. If process modifications are required, the capital costs could be significant and may exceed $10.0 million. If the resolution includes remediation, additional significant expenses and/or capital expenditures may be required. If a settlement cannot be reached, the issues will most likely be litigated and the Company will vigorously defend its position.

Frontier Chemical Processing Royal Avenue Site

In June 2007, the Company received a Notice Letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") stating that the NYSDEC had determined that the Company is a Potentially Responsible Party ("PRP") at the Frontier Chemical Processing Royal Avenue Site in Niagara Falls, New York (the "Site"). The Notice Letter requested that the Company and other PRP's develop, implement and finance a remedial program for Operable Unit #1 at the Site. Operable Unit #1 consists of overburden soils and overburden and upper bedrock groundwater. The selected remedy was removal of above grade structures and contaminated soil source areas, installation of a cover system, and ground water control and treatment, estimated to cost between approximately $11 million and $14 million, which would be shared among the PRP's. The Company has not determined what portion of the costs associated with the remedial program it will be obligated to bear and the Company cannot predict with any certainty the outcome of this matter or range of potential loss. The Company has joined a PRP group (the "PRP Group") and has executed a Joint Defense Agreement with the group members. In August 2008, the Company and over 100 PRP's entered into a Consent Order with the NYSDEC for additional site investigation directed toward characterization of the Site to better define the scope of the remedial project. The Company contributed monies to the PRP Group to help fund the work required under the Consent Order. The additional site investigation required under the Consent Order was initiated in 2008 and completed in the spring of 2009. A final report of the site investigation was submitted to the NYSDEC in October 2009. By letter dated December 31, 2009, the NYSDEC disapproved the report. The bases for disapproval included concerns regarding proposed alternate soil cleanup objectives, questions regarding soil treatability studies and questions regarding ground water contamination. The PRP Group conducted additional studies and submitted a revised final report in September 2010. By letter dated October 10, 2010, the NYSDEC approved the report and terminated the Consent Order. The PRP Group was issued a Significant Industrial User Permit by the Niagara Falls Water Board ("NFWB") in November 2010. The permit allows the shallow ground water flow from the Site to continue to be naturally captured by the adjacent sewer tunnels with subsequent treatment of the ground water at the Niagara Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant.

PRP Group representatives met several times with the NYSDEC regarding the revision of the soil cleanup objectives set forth in the Record of Decision to be consistent with recently revised regulations. The NYSDEC does not agree that the revised regulation applies to the Site but requested additional information to support the PRP Group's position. The PRP Group's consultant conducted additional cost-benefit analyses and further soil sampling. The results were provided to the NYSDEC but the NYSDEC remains unwilling to revise the soil standards. The PRP Group has now proposed thermal treatment of the contaminated soil, either in situ or ex situ, as a more cost effective approach to achieve the soil clean up standards. Estimated costs for thermal treatment of soils are $5.5 million to $8.5 million for ex situ, and $11 million for in situ thermal treatment. The NYSDEC has indicated that this may be an acceptable alternative to the selected remedy and suggested that the PRP Group perform a Focused Feasibility Study for thermal treatment, which will support an amendment to the Record of Decision to change the remedy. The PRP Group has tasked its consultants to prepare the Focused Feasibility Study. Upon amending the Record of Decision, the PRP Group is considering voluntary performance of the Remedial Design, without a Consent Order, for thermal treatment. Upon acceptance of the remedial Design, the PRP Group would then negotiate a Remedial Action Order to implement the remedy.

In addition to the matters described above, the Company is involved in various other legal proceedings, lawsuits and claims, including employment, product warranty and environmental matters of a nature considered normal to its business. It is the Company's policy to accrue for amounts related to these legal matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the loss amount is reasonably estimable. Management believes that the ultimate liabilities, if any, resulting from such lawsuits and claims will not materially affect the consolidated financial position or liquidity of the Company, but an adverse outcome could be material to the results of operations in a particular period in which a liability is recognized.