Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Contingencies
Contingencies	16. Contingencies Waterlink In conjunction with the February 2004 purchase of substantially all of Waterlink Inc.’s (Waterlink) operating assets and the stock of Waterlink’s UK subsidiary, environmental studies were performed on Waterlink’s Columbus, Ohio property by environmental consulting firms that 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 was probable and recorded the liability. As of both December 31, 2016 and 2015, the balance recorded was $0.3 million as a component of accrued pension and other liabilities, respectively. The Company has determined that additional site characterization work is needed to establish the next steps. No estimates regarding the timing or potential cost of these activities can be made until the additional site characterization work is finished. Planning for the additional characterization work has begun. Implementation timing will depend on acceptance by the Ohio Voluntary Action Program administrators. Liability estimates are based on an evaluation of, among other factors, currently available facts, existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations, and the experience of experts in groundwater remediation. It is possible that a further change in the estimate of this obligation will occur as remediation progresses. Carbon Imports General Anti-Dumping Background: In March 2006, the Company and another U.S. producer of activated carbon (collectively, the “Petitioners”) requested that the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce Department) investigate unfair pricing of certain thermally activated carbon imported from the People’s Republic of China (China). In 2007, the Commerce Department found that imports of the subject merchandise from China were being unfairly priced (or “dumped”). Following a finding by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that the domestic industry was injured by unfairly traded imports of activated carbon from China, the Commerce Department issued an anti-dumping order imposing tariffs on Chinese imports to offset the amount of the unfair pricing. The Commerce Department published the antidumping order in the Federal Register in April 2007, and all imports from China remain subject to it. 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 U.S. 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 a domestic producer, exporter from China (through its wholly-owned subsidiary Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (Calgon Carbon Tianjin)), and a U.S. importer of the activated carbon that is subject to the anti-dumping order. 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”). The Company’s role as an importer, which has in the past (and may in the future) required it to pay anti-dumping duties, 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 annual review of relevant shipments and calculation of the anti-dumping duties due. As a result of proceedings before the Commerce Department that concluded in September 2016, the Company is currently required to post a duty of $0.616 per pound when importing activated carbon from Calgon Carbon Tianjin into the U.S. The impact of the tariffs to the Company’s financial results was not material for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014. However, the Company’s ultimate assessment rate and future cash deposit rate on such imports could change in the future, as a result of on-going proceedings before the Commerce Department. In February 2013, the ITC determined that the anti-dumping order on certain thermally activated carbon from China should remain in effect for an additional five years. As a result, the Commerce Department has conducted annual reviews of sales made to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer, typically over the prior 12-month period. These annual reviews will continue through at least February 2018. In addition, the Commerce Department will continue to perform reviews from February 2018 to February 2019, dependent upon an affirmative outcome of the Second Sunset Review, which will be initiated in February 2018. These reviews 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 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) will collect for the period reviewed, by either collecting additional duties, plus interest above those deposited with Customs by the U.S. importer at the time of entry or refunding a portion of the duties, plus interest deposited at the time of importation to reflect a decline in the margin of dumping. 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 post at the time of importation. Periods of Review (POR) I, II, IV and V, related to the periods that ended on March 31, 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2012, respectively, are final and not subject to further review or appeal. A summary of the proceedings in the remaining PORs follows below. Period of Review III: In October, 2011, the Commerce Department published the final results of its third annual administrative review, which covers imports that entered the U.S. between April 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010 (POR III). The Company’s ongoing duty deposit rate was adjusted to zero, and the Company recorded a receivable of $1.1 million reflecting expected refunds for duty deposits made during POR III. The Commerce Department continued to assign cooperative respondents involved in POR III a deposit rate of $0.127 per pound. The Commerce Department’s final results of POR III were appealed. In January 2014, the Commerce Department filed its remand redetermination with the Court of International Trade (Court), continuing to calculate a zero duty for the Company during POR III. In addition, the Commerce Department revised its earlier determination and assigned a zero margin as a separate rate to several Chinese producers/exporters of steam activated carbon to the U.S. that were not subjected to an individual investigation. The Company contested this aspect of the Commerce Department’s redetermination. In November 2014, the Court affirmed the Commerce Department’s remand determination. Various parties appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Court of Appeals), which later affirmed the Court’s decision with respect to several Chinese parties, finding that they should be assigned a zero margin. The Court of Appeals remanded the action to the Court, and a decision from the Court is expected in the first quarter of 2017. Period of Review VI: In November 2014, the Commerce Department announced the final margins for its sixth administrative review (POR VI), which covers imports that entered the U.S. between April 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013. The Commerce Department calculated a margin of $0.018 per pound for both mandatory and separate rate respondents, including Calgon Carbon Tianjin, and $1.10 per pound for the China-wide rate. In December 2014, an appeal was commenced. The Commerce Department filed its redetermination with the Court in May 2016, and calculated revised margins. In November 2016, the Court sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department’s redetermination. The Commerce Department filed its second redetermination with the Court in January 2017, calculating margins for mandatory respondents ranging from $0.082 per pound to $0.127 per pound and $0.100 per pound for separate rate respondents, including Calgon Carbon Tianjin. The Court’s decision should conclude all litigation regarding POR VI. The impact of the tariffs during this period is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial results. Period of Review VII: The Commerce Department announced the final results for its seventh administrative review (POR VII) in October 2015, covering imports that entered the U.S. between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2014. The Commerce Department calculated anti-dumping margins for the mandatory respondents it examined ranging from $0.00 per pound to $0.476 per pound, and it calculated an anti-dumping margin of $0.476 per pound for the separate rate respondents, including Calgon Carbon Tianjin. The impact of the tariffs to the Company’s financial results is not material. In October 2015, appeals were commenced challenging the final results. A decision from the Court is possible in the first quarter of 2017. Period of Review VIII: In September 2016, the Commerce Department announce the final margins for its eighth administrative review (POR VIII), which covers imports that entered the U.S. between April 1, 2014 and March 31, 2015. The final anti-dumping margins for the mandatory respondents ranged from $0.009 per pound to $0.797 per pound, while the separate rate respondents, including Calgon Carbon Tianjin, were assigned $0.616 per pound. In October 2016, appeals were commenced challenging the final results. A decision from the Court is possible in late 2017 or early 2018. Period of Review IX: In April 2016, the Commerce Department published a notice allowing parties to request a ninth annual administrative review (POR IX) of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016. The Commerce Department has selected mandatory respondents for review and a decision is likely in the fourth quarter of 2017. Big Sandy Plant In 2007, the Company received from the EPA Region 4 a report of a hazardous waste facility inspection performed by the EPA and the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection (KYDEP) of the Company’s Big Sandy plant in Kentucky. 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 as well as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Company was required to conduct testing of the portion of stockpiled material dredged from onsite wastewater treatment lagoons that had not previously been tested in accordance with a pre-approved work plan and installed two ground water monitoring wells at the Company’s permitted solid waste landfill where some lagoon solids had previously been disposed. The landfill is considered a non-hazardous facility and regulated by the KYDEP. The testing of the stockpile material was completed and the results have been reviewed by the EPA. The Company received comments from the EPA including a request for a health and safety risk assessment similar to that which the Company performed on other materials from the lagoons. The Company has prepared this assessment and it has been submitted to the EPA. The stockpiled material was removed in 2015 and the Company will not be required to close or retrofit any of the wastewater treatment lagoons as RCRA hazardous waste management units and may continue to use them in their current manner. The Company is subject to daily stipulated penalties for any failure to sample the landfill wells in accordance with the EPA-approved protocols and schedules. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, there is no liability recorded related to this issue. Multi-Employer Pension Plan The Company participates in a multi-employer plan in Europe which almost entirely relates to former employees of operations it has divested. Benefits are distributed by the multi-employer plan. In 2012 the Company learned that the multi-employer plan had previously elected to reduce benefits to entitled parties, and the local Labor Court had concluded that an employer was required to compensate its pensioners for the shortfall if benefits had been reduced by the plan. As a result, the Company accrued a liability for the past shortfall to its former employees, and the Company has had several claims from pensioners seeking compensation for the shortfall. In 2014 the Company also learned that certain pensioners are claiming that the employers should also pay a cost of living adjustment on the amounts paid by the multi-employer plan. In February 2015, the Court published an opinion ruling that employers may be required to pay a cost of living adjustment. As a result, the Company recorded an additional accrual of $0.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. As of both December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company had a $0.9 million liability recorded as a component of payroll and benefits payable within its consolidated balance sheets for the past shortfall adjustments to its former employees. The Company cannot predict if future benefit payments to entitled parties to be made by the multi-employer plan will continue to be reduced. Other On February 21, 2017, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (the JFTC) informed the Company’s subsidiary, Calgon Carbon Japan (CCJ) that it is investigating CCJ along with several other manufacturers and distributors that participate in the activated carbon market in Japan over concerns of anti-competitive conduct. The JFTC is investigating whether manufacturers and sellers of activated carbon used in water purification plants, garbage incineration plants and other similar facilities in Japan have acted in concert with each other in violation of the Japan Anti-Monopoly Act. JFTC agents searched the offices of CCJ, reviewing and collecting contracts and other business records and interviewed certain CCJ employees. At this early stage of the investigation, it is difficult to predict the outcome of this matter or what remedies, if any, may be imposed by the JFTC. CCJ is cooperating with the JFTC as it conducts its investigation. 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 is currently unable to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible losses, if any, resulting from such lawsuits and claims.

16. Contingencies

Waterlink

In conjunction with the February 2004 purchase of substantially all of Waterlink Inc.’s (Waterlink) operating assets and the stock of Waterlink’s UK subsidiary, environmental studies were performed on Waterlink’s Columbus, Ohio property by environmental consulting firms that 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 was probable and recorded the liability. As of both December 31, 2016 and 2015, the balance recorded was $0.3 million as a component of accrued pension and other liabilities, respectively. The Company has determined that additional site characterization work is needed to establish the next steps. No estimates regarding the timing or potential cost of these activities can be made until the additional site characterization work is finished. Planning for the additional characterization work has begun. Implementation timing will depend on acceptance by the Ohio Voluntary Action Program administrators. Liability estimates are based on an evaluation of, among other factors, currently available facts, existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations, and the experience of experts in groundwater remediation. It is possible that a further change in the estimate of this obligation will occur as remediation progresses.

Carbon Imports

General Anti-Dumping Background: In March 2006, the Company and another U.S. producer of activated carbon (collectively, the “Petitioners”) requested that the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce Department) investigate unfair pricing of certain thermally activated carbon imported from the People’s Republic of China (China). In 2007, the Commerce Department found that imports of the subject merchandise from China were being unfairly priced (or “dumped”). Following a finding by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that the domestic industry was injured by unfairly traded imports of activated carbon from China, the Commerce Department issued an anti-dumping order imposing tariffs on Chinese imports to offset the amount of the unfair pricing. The Commerce Department published the antidumping order in the Federal Register in April 2007, and all imports from China remain subject to it. 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 U.S. 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 a domestic producer, exporter from China (through its wholly-owned subsidiary Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (Calgon Carbon Tianjin)), and a U.S. importer of the activated carbon that is subject to the anti-dumping order. 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”).

The Company’s role as an importer, which has in the past (and may in the future) required it to pay anti-dumping duties, 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 annual review of relevant shipments and calculation of the anti-dumping duties due. As a result of proceedings before the Commerce Department that concluded in September 2016, the Company is currently required to post a duty of $0.616 per pound when importing activated carbon from Calgon Carbon Tianjin into the U.S. The impact of the tariffs to the Company’s financial results was not material for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014. However, the Company’s ultimate assessment rate and future cash deposit rate on such imports could change in the future, as a result of on-going proceedings before the Commerce Department.

In February 2013, the ITC determined that the anti-dumping order on certain thermally activated carbon from China should remain in effect for an additional five years. As a result, the Commerce Department has conducted annual reviews of sales made to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer, typically over the prior 12-month period. These annual reviews will continue through at least February 2018. In addition, the Commerce Department will continue to perform reviews from February 2018 to February 2019, dependent upon an affirmative outcome of the Second Sunset Review, which will be initiated in February 2018. These reviews 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 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) will collect for the period reviewed, by either collecting additional duties, plus interest above those deposited with Customs by the U.S. importer at the time of entry or refunding a portion of the duties, plus interest deposited at the time of importation to reflect a decline in the margin of dumping. 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 post at the time of importation.

Periods of Review (POR) I, II, IV and V, related to the periods that ended on March 31, 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2012, respectively, are final and not subject to further review or appeal. A summary of the proceedings in the remaining PORs follows below.

Period of Review III: In October, 2011, the Commerce Department published the final results of its third annual administrative review, which covers imports that entered the U.S. between April 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010 (POR III). The Company’s ongoing duty deposit rate was adjusted to zero, and the Company recorded a receivable of $1.1 million reflecting expected refunds for duty deposits made during POR III. The Commerce Department continued to assign cooperative respondents involved in POR III a deposit rate of $0.127 per pound. The Commerce Department’s final results of POR III were appealed.

In January 2014, the Commerce Department filed its remand redetermination with the Court of International Trade (Court), continuing to calculate a zero duty for the Company during POR III. In addition, the Commerce Department revised its earlier determination and assigned a zero margin as a separate rate to several Chinese producers/exporters of steam activated carbon to the U.S. that were not subjected to an individual investigation. The Company contested this aspect of the Commerce Department’s redetermination. In November 2014, the Court affirmed the Commerce Department’s remand determination. Various parties appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Court of Appeals), which later affirmed the Court’s decision with respect to several Chinese parties, finding that they should be assigned a zero margin. The Court of Appeals remanded the action to the Court, and a decision from the Court is expected in the first quarter of 2017.

Period of Review VI: In November 2014, the Commerce Department announced the final margins for its sixth administrative review (POR VI), which covers imports that entered the U.S. between April 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013. The Commerce Department calculated a margin of $0.018 per pound for both mandatory and separate rate respondents, including Calgon Carbon Tianjin, and $1.10 per pound for the China-wide rate. In December 2014, an appeal was commenced. The Commerce Department filed its redetermination with the Court in May 2016, and calculated revised margins. In November 2016, the Court sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department’s redetermination. The Commerce Department filed its second redetermination with the Court in January 2017, calculating margins for mandatory respondents ranging from $0.082 per pound to $0.127 per pound and $0.100 per pound for separate rate respondents, including Calgon Carbon Tianjin. The Court’s decision should conclude all litigation regarding POR VI. The impact of the tariffs during this period is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial results.

Period of Review VII: The Commerce Department announced the final results for its seventh administrative review (POR VII) in October 2015, covering imports that entered the U.S. between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2014. The Commerce Department calculated anti-dumping margins for the mandatory respondents it examined ranging from $0.00 per pound to $0.476 per pound, and it calculated an anti-dumping margin of $0.476 per pound for the separate rate respondents, including Calgon Carbon Tianjin. The impact of the tariffs to the Company’s financial results is not material. In October 2015, appeals were commenced challenging the final results. A decision from the Court is possible in the first quarter of 2017.

Period of Review VIII: In September 2016, the Commerce Department announce the final margins for its eighth administrative review (POR VIII), which covers imports that entered the U.S. between April 1, 2014 and March 31, 2015. The final anti-dumping margins for the mandatory respondents ranged from $0.009 per pound to $0.797 per pound, while the separate rate respondents, including Calgon Carbon Tianjin, were assigned $0.616 per pound. In October 2016, appeals were commenced challenging the final results. A decision from the Court is possible in late 2017 or early 2018.

Period of Review IX: In April 2016, the Commerce Department published a notice allowing parties to request a ninth annual administrative review (POR IX) of the anti-dumping duty order covering the period April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016. The Commerce Department has selected mandatory respondents for review and a decision is likely in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Big Sandy Plant

In 2007, the Company received from the EPA Region 4 a report of a hazardous waste facility inspection performed by the EPA and the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection (KYDEP) of the Company’s Big Sandy plant in Kentucky. 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 as well as the Clean Water Act (CWA).

The Company was required to conduct testing of the portion of stockpiled material dredged from onsite wastewater treatment lagoons that had not previously been tested in accordance with a pre-approved work plan and installed two ground water monitoring wells at the Company’s permitted solid waste landfill where some lagoon solids had previously been disposed. The landfill is considered a non-hazardous facility and regulated by the KYDEP. The testing of the stockpile material was completed and the results have been reviewed by the EPA. The Company received comments from the EPA including a request for a health and safety risk assessment similar to that which the Company performed on other materials from the lagoons. The Company has prepared this assessment and it has been submitted to the EPA. The stockpiled material was removed in 2015 and the Company will not be required to close or retrofit any of the wastewater treatment lagoons as RCRA hazardous waste management units and may continue to use them in their current manner. The Company is subject to daily stipulated penalties for any failure to sample the landfill wells in accordance with the EPA-approved protocols and schedules. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, there is no liability recorded related to this issue.

Multi-Employer Pension Plan

The Company participates in a multi-employer plan in Europe which almost entirely relates to former employees of operations it has divested. Benefits are distributed by the multi-employer plan. In 2012 the Company learned that the multi-employer plan had previously elected to reduce benefits to entitled parties, and the local Labor Court had concluded that an employer was required to compensate its pensioners for the shortfall if benefits had been reduced by the plan. As a result, the Company accrued a liability for the past shortfall to its former employees, and the Company has had several claims from pensioners seeking compensation for the shortfall. In 2014 the Company also learned that certain pensioners are claiming that the employers should also pay a cost of living adjustment on the amounts paid by the multi-employer plan. In February 2015, the Court published an opinion ruling that employers may be required to pay a cost of living adjustment. As a result, the Company recorded an additional accrual of $0.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. As of both December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company had a $0.9 million liability recorded as a component of payroll and benefits payable within its consolidated balance sheets for the past shortfall adjustments to its former employees. The Company cannot predict if future benefit payments to entitled parties to be made by the multi-employer plan will continue to be reduced.

Other

On February 21, 2017, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (the JFTC) informed the Company’s subsidiary, Calgon Carbon Japan (CCJ) that it is investigating CCJ along with several other manufacturers and distributors that participate in the activated carbon market in Japan over concerns of anti-competitive conduct. The JFTC is investigating whether manufacturers and sellers of activated carbon used in water purification plants, garbage incineration plants and other similar facilities in Japan have acted in concert with each other in violation of the Japan Anti-Monopoly Act. JFTC agents searched the offices of CCJ, reviewing and collecting contracts and other business records and interviewed certain CCJ employees. At this early stage of the investigation, it is difficult to predict the outcome of this matter or what remedies, if any, may be imposed by the JFTC. CCJ is cooperating with the JFTC as it conducts its investigation.

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 is currently unable to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible losses, if any, resulting from such lawsuits and claims.