Table of Contents is now under construction and is expected to be completed in 2022. During the second quarter of 2019, Arconic recorded a charge of $25 due to changes required in the remedial design and post-construction monitoring. As the project proceeds, the liability may be updated due to factors such as changes in remedial requirements, site restoration costs, and ongoing operation and maintenance costs, among others. As previously reported, in July 2013, following a Spanish corporate income tax audit covering the 2006 through 2009 tax years, an assessment was received mainly disallowing certain interest deductions claimed by a Spanish consolidated tax group owned by the Company. In August 2013, the Company filed an appeal of this assessment in Spain’s Central Tax Administrative Court, which was denied in January 2015. Arconic filed another appeal in Spain’s National Court in March 2015 which was denied in July 2018. The National Court’s decision requires the assessment for the 2006 through 2009 tax years to be reissued to take into account the outcome of the 2003 to 2005 audit which was closed in 2017. The Company estimates the revised assessment to be $172 (€154), including interest. Tax.  Pursuant to the Tax Matters Agreement, dated as of October 31, 2016, entered into between the Company and Alcoa Corporation in connection with the Separation of Alcoa, the Company shares responsibility with Alcoa Corporation for, and Alcoa Corporation has agreed to partially indemnify the Company with respect to the following matter. In March 2019, the Supreme Court of Spain accepted the Company's petition to review the National Court’s decision, and the Company has filed a formal appeal of the assessment. The Supreme Court is reviewing the assessment on its merits and will render a final decision. In the event the Company receives an unfavorable ruling from the Supreme Court of Spain, a portion of the assessment may be offset with existing net operating losses and tax credits available to the Spanish consolidated tax group, which would be shared between the Company and Alcoa Corporation as provided for in the Tax Matters Agreement. In the third quarter of 2018, Arconic established an income tax reserve and an indemnification receivable representing Alcoa Corporation’s 49% share of the liability. As of the end of 2019, the balances of the reserve, including interest, and the receivable are $59 million (€53 million) and $29 million (€26 million), respectively. Additionally, while the tax years 2010 through 2013 are closed to audit, it is possible that the Company may receive assessments for tax years subsequent to 2013. Any potential assessment for an individual tax year is not expected to be material to the Company’s consolidated operations. Reynobond PE.  As previously reported, on June 13, 2017, the Grenfell Tower in London, U.K. caught fire resulting in fatalities, injuries and damage. A French subsidiary of Arconic, Arconic Architectural Products SAS (AAP SAS), supplied a product, Reynobond PE, to its customer, a cladding system fabricator, which used the product as one component of the overall cladding system on Grenfell Tower. The fabricator supplied its portion of the cladding system to the façade installer, who then completed and installed the system under the direction of the general contractor. Neither Arconic nor AAP SAS was involved in the design or installation of the system used at the Grenfell Tower, nor did it have a role in any other aspect of the building’s refurbishment or original design. Regulatory investigations into the overall Grenfell Tower matter are being conducted, including a criminal investigation by the London Metropolitan Police Service (the “Police”), a Public Inquiry by the British government and a consumer protection inquiry by a French public authority. The Public Inquiry was announced by the U.K. Prime Minister on June 15, 2017 and subsequently was authorized to examine the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the Grenfell Tower fire in order to make findings of fact and recommendations to the U.K. Government on matters such as the design, construction and modification of the building, the role of relevant public authorities and contractors, the implications of the fire for the adequacy and enforcement of relevant regulations, arrangements in place for handling emergencies and the handling of concerns from residents, among other things. Hearings for Phase 1 of the Public Inquiry began on May 21, 2018 and concluded on December 12, 2018. Phase 2 hearings of the Public Inquiry began in early 2020, following which a final report will be written and subsequently published. AAP SAS is participating as a Core Participant in the Public Inquiry and is also cooperating with the ongoing parallel investigation by the Police. The Company no longer sells the PE product for architectural use on buildings. Given the preliminary nature of these investigations and the uncertainty of potential future litigation, the Company cannot reasonably estimate at this time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the possible loss or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable outcome. Behrens et al. v. Arconic Inc. et al.  As previously reported, on June 6, 2019, 247 plaintiffs comprised of survivors and estates of decedents of the Grenfell Tower fire filed a complaint against “Arconic Inc., Alcoa Inc. and Arconic Architectural Products, LLC” (collectively, for purposes of the description of such proceeding, the “Arconic Defendants”), as well as Saint-Gobain Corporation, d/b/a Celotex and Whirlpool Corporation, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. The complaint alleges claims under Pennsylvania state law for products liability and wrongful death related to the fire. In particular, the plaintiffs allege that the Arconic Defendants knowingly supplied a dangerous product (Reynobond PE) for installation on the Grenfell Tower despite knowing that Reynobond PE was unfit for use above a certain height. The Arconic Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 19, 2019. On August 29, 2019, the Arconic Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the bases, among other things, that: (i) the case should be heard in the United Kingdom, not the United States; (ii) there is no jurisdiction over necessary parties; and (iii) Pennsylvania products 101