Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Policies)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract]

Nature of Operations

NATURE OF OPERATIONS

Vulcan Materials Company (the “Company,” “Vulcan,” “we,” “our”), a New Jersey corporation, is the nation’s largest producer of construction aggregates, primarily crushed stone, sand and gravel; a major producer of asphalt mix and ready-mixed concrete and a leading producer of cement in Florida.

Due to the 2005 sale of our Chemicals business as described in Note 2, the operating results of the Chemicals business are presented as discontinued operations in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income.

Principles of Consolidation

PRINCIPLES OF CONSOLIDATION

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Vulcan Materials Company and all our majority or wholly-owned subsidiary companies. All intercompany transactions and accounts have been eliminated in consolidation.

Unsolicited Exchange Offer

UNSOLICITED EXCHANGE OFFER

In December 2011, Martin Marietta commenced an unsolicited exchange offer for all outstanding shares of our common stock at a fixed exchange ratio of 0.50 shares of Martin Marietta common stock for each Vulcan common share and indicated its intention to nominate a slate of directors to our Board. After careful consideration, including a thorough review of the offer with its financial and legal advisors, our Board unanimously determined that Martin Marietta’s offer is inadequate, substantially undervalues Vulcan, is not in the best interests of Vulcan and its shareholders and has substantial risk. In response to Martin Marietta’s action, we incurred $2,227,000 of legal, professional and other costs in 2011.

Cash Equivalents

CASH EQUIVALENTS

We classify as cash equivalents all highly liquid securities with a maturity of three months or less at the time of purchase. The carrying amount of these securities approximates fair value due to their short-term maturities.

Accounts and Notes Receivable

ACCOUNTS AND NOTES RECEIVABLE

Accounts and notes receivable from customers result from our extending credit to trade customers for the purchase of our products. The terms generally provide for payment within 30 days of being invoiced. On occasion, when necessary to conform to regional industry practices, we sell product under extended payment terms, which may result in either secured or unsecured short-term notes; or, on occasion, notes with durations of less than one year are taken in settlement of existing accounts receivable. Other accounts and notes receivable result from short-term transactions (less than one year) other than the sale of our products, such as interest receivable; insurance claims; freight claims; tax refund claims; bid deposits or rents receivable. Receivables are aged and appropriate allowances for doubtful accounts and bad debt expense are recorded. Bad debt expense for the years ended December 31 was as follows: 2011 — $1,644,000, 2010 — $3,100,000 and 2009 — $4,173,000. Write-offs of accounts receivables for the years ended December 31 were as follows: 2011 — $2,651,000, 2010 — $4,317,000 and 2009 — $4,162,000.

Financing Receivables

FINANCING RECEIVABLES

Financing receivables are included in accounts and notes receivable and/or investments and long-term receivables in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. Financing receivables are contractual rights to receive money on demand or on fixed or determinable dates. Trade receivables with normal credit terms are not considered financing receivables. Financing receivables were as follows: December 31, 2011 — $7,471,000 and December 31, 2010 — $8,043,000. None of our financing receivables are individually significant. We evaluate the collectibility of financing receivables on a periodic basis or whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate we may be exposed to credit losses. As of December 31, 2011 and 2010, no allowances were recorded for these receivables.

2010 — FINANCING RECEIVABLES DISCLOSURES As of and for the annual period ended December 31, 2010, we adopted ASU No. 2010-20, “Disclosures about the Credit Quality of Financing Receivables and the Allowance for Credit Losses.” This standard requires new disclosures regarding the allowance for credit losses and the credit quality of an entity’s financing receivables. The requirements are intended to improve transparency of the nature of an entity’s credit risk associated with its financing receivables and how that risk impacts the allowance for credit losses. See the caption Financing Receivables under this Note 1 for these disclosures. The adoption of this standard had no impact on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Inventories

INVENTORIES

Inventories and supplies are stated at the lower of cost or market. We use the last-in, first-out (LIFO) method of valuation for most of our inventories because it results in a better matching of costs with revenues. Such costs include fuel, parts and supplies, raw materials, direct labor and production overhead. An actual valuation of inventory under the LIFO method can be made only at the end of each year based on the inventory levels and costs at that time. Accordingly, interim LIFO calculations are based on our estimates of expected year-end inventory levels and costs and are subject to the final year-end LIFO inventory valuation. Substantially all operating supplies inventory is carried at average cost. For additional information regarding our inventories see Note 3.

Property, Plant & Equipment

PROPERTY, PLANT & EQUIPMENT

Property, plant & equipment are carried at cost less accumulated depreciation, depletion and amortization. The cost of properties held under capital leases, if any, is equal to the lower of the net present value of the minimum lease payments or the fair value of the leased property at the inception of the lease.

Capitalized software costs of $12,910,000 and $11,662,000 are reflected in net property, plant & equipment as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. We capitalized software costs for the years ended December 31 as follows: 2011 — $3,746,000, 2010 — $1,167,000 and 2009 — $12,825,000. During the same periods, $2,520,000, $2,895,000 and $2,563,000, respectively, of previously capitalized costs were depreciated. For additional information regarding our property, plant & equipment see Note 4.

Repair and Maintenance

REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE

Repair and maintenance costs generally are charged to operating expense as incurred. Renewals and betterments that add materially to the utility or useful lives of property, plant & equipment are capitalized and subsequently depreciated. Actual costs for planned major maintenance activities, related primarily to periodic overhauls on our oceangoing vessels, are capitalized and amortized to the next overhaul.

Depreciation, Depletion, Accretion and Amortization

DEPRECIATION, DEPLETION, ACCRETION AND AMORTIZATION

Depreciation is generally computed by the straight-line method at rates based on the estimated service lives of the various classes of assets, which include machinery and equipment (3 to 30 years), buildings (10 to 20 years) and land improvements (7 to 20 years). Capitalized software costs are included in machinery and equipment and are depreciated on a straight-line basis beginning when the software project is substantially complete. Depreciation for our Newberry, Florida cement production facilities is computed by the unit-of-production method based on estimated output.

Cost depletion on depletable quarry land is computed by the unit-of-production method based on estimated recoverable units.

Accretion reflects the period-to-period increase in the carrying amount of the liability for asset retirement obligations. It is computed using the same credit-adjusted, risk-free rate used to initially measure the liability at fair value.

Amortization of intangible assets subject to amortization is computed based on the estimated life of the intangible assets. A significant portion of our intangible assets is contractual rights in place associated with zoning, permitting and other rights to access and extract aggregates reserves. Contractual rights in place associated with aggregates reserves are amortized using the unit-of-production method based on estimated recoverable units. Other intangible assets are amortized principally by the straight-line method.

Leaseholds are amortized over varying periods not in excess of applicable lease terms or estimated useful lives.

Depreciation, depletion, accretion and amortization expense for the years ended December 31 is outlined below:

in thousands	2011		2010		2009
Depreciation, Depletion, Accretion and Amortization
Depreciation		$328,072		$349,460		$361,530
Depletion		11,195		10,337		10,143
Accretion		8,195		8,641		8,802
Amortization of leaseholds and   capitalized leases		225		195		180
Amortization of intangibles		14,032		13,460		13,957
Total		$361,719		$382,093		$394,612

Derivative Instruments

DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS

We periodically use derivative instruments to reduce our exposure to interest rate risk, currency exchange risk or price fluctuations on commodity energy sources consistent with our risk management policies. We do not use derivative financial instruments for speculative or trading purposes. Additional disclosures regarding our derivative instruments are presented in Note 5.

Fair Value Measurements

FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The fair value hierarchy prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value into three broad levels as described below:

Level 1: Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities

Level 2: Inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data

Level 3: Inputs that are unobservable and significant to the overall fair value measurement

Our assets at December 31 that are subject to fair value measurement on a recurring basis are summarized below:

	Level 1
in thousands	2011		2010
Fair Value Recurring
Rabbi Trust
Mutual funds		$13,536		$13,960
Equities		7,057		9,336
Total		$20,593		$23,296
	Level 2
in thousands	2011		2010
Fair Value Recurring
Rabbi Trust
Common/collective trust funds		$2,192		$2,431
Total		$2,192		$2,431

The Rabbi Trust investments provide funding for the executive nonqualified deferred compensation and excess benefit plans. The fair values of these investments are estimated using a market approach. The Level 1 investments include mutual funds and equity securities for which quoted prices in active markets are available. Investments in common/collective trust funds are stated at estimated fair value based on the underlying investments in those funds. The underlying investments are comprised of short-term, highly liquid assets in commercial paper, short-term bonds and treasury bills. Net trading gains (losses) of the Rabbi Trust investments were ($3,292,000) and $1,425,000 for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The portion of the net trading gains (losses) related to investments still held by the Rabbi Trust at December 31, 2011 and 2010 were ($3,370,000) and $1,455,000, respectively.

The carrying values of our cash equivalents, restricted cash, accounts and notes receivable, current maturities of long-term debt, short-term borrowings, trade payables and other accrued expenses approximate their fair values because of the short-term nature of these instruments. Additional disclosures for derivative instruments and interest-bearing debt are presented in Notes 5 and 6, respectively.

There were no assets or liabilities subject to fair value measurement on a nonrecurring basis in 2011. Assets that were subject to fair value measurement on a nonrecurring basis as of December 31, 2010 are summarized below:

	2010
in thousands	Level 3		Impairment Charges
Fair Value Nonrecurring
Property, plant & equipment		$1,536		$2,500
Assets held for sale		9,625		1,436
Totals		$11,161		$3,936

We recorded a $3,936,000 loss on impairment of long-lived assets in 2010. We utilized an income approach to measure the fair value of the long-lived assets and determined that the carrying value of the assets exceeded the fair value. The loss on impairment represents the difference between the carrying value and the fair value (less costs to sell the assets held for sale) of the impacted long-lived assets.

2011 — ENHANCED DISCLOSURES FOR FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS As of and for the interim period ended March 31, 2011, we adopted Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2010-06, “Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements” as it relates to separate disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances and settlements applicable to Level 3 measurements. Our adoption of this standard had no impact on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

AMENDMENTS FAIR VALUE MEASURMENT REQUIREMENTS In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04, “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs.” The amendments in the ASU achieve the objectives of developing common fair value measurement and disclosure requirements in U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) and improving their understandability. Some of the requirements clarify the FASB’s intent about the application of existing fair value measurement requirements while other amendments change a particular principle or requirement for measuring fair value or for disclosing information about fair value measurements. The amendments in this ASU are effective prospectively for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011, with no early adoption permitted. We will adopt this standard as of and for the interim period ending March 31, 2012. We do not expect the adoption of this standard to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

Goodwill and Goodwill Impairment

GOODWILL AND GOODWILL IMPAIRMENT

Goodwill represents the excess of the cost of net assets acquired in business combinations over the fair value of the identifiable tangible and intangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination. Goodwill impairment exists when the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. As of December 31, 2011, goodwill totaled $3,086,716,000, as compared to $3,097,016,000 at December 31, 2010. Total goodwill represents 38% of total assets at December 31, 2011, compared to 37% as of December 31, 2010.

Goodwill is tested for impairment annually, as of November 1, or more frequently whenever events or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying amount. Goodwill is tested for impairment at the reporting unit level using a two-step process.

The first step of the impairment test identifies potential impairment by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit to its carrying value, including goodwill. If the fair value of a reporting unit exceeds its carrying value, goodwill of the reporting unit is not considered impaired and the second step of the impairment test is not required. If the carrying value of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, the second step of the impairment test is performed to measure the amount of impairment loss, if any.

The second step of the impairment test compares the implied fair value of the reporting unit goodwill with the carrying amount of that goodwill. The implied fair value of goodwill is determined by hypothetically allocating the fair value of the reporting unit to its identifiable assets and liabilities in a manner consistent with a business combination, with any excess fair value representing implied goodwill. If the carrying value of the reporting unit goodwill exceeds the implied fair value of that goodwill, an impairment loss is recognized in an amount equal to that excess.

We have four operating segments organized around our principal product lines: aggregates, concrete, asphalt mix and cement. Within these four operating segments, we have identified 13 reporting units based primarily on geographic location. The carrying value of each reporting unit is determined by assigning assets and liabilities, including goodwill, to those reporting units as of the measurement date. We estimate the fair values of the reporting units by considering the indicated fair values derived from both an income approach, which involves discounting estimated future cash flows, and a market approach, which involves the application of revenue and EBITDA multiples of comparable companies. We consider market factors when determining the assumptions and estimates used in our valuation models. To substantiate the fair values derived from these valuations, we reconcile the reporting unit fair values to our market capitalization.

The results of the first step of the annual impairment tests performed as of November 1, 2011 indicated that the fair value of one of our reporting units with $1,815,094,000 of goodwill exceeded its carrying value by 8%. The fair values of all other reporting units with goodwill substantially exceeded their carrying values (see further discussion below). The results of the first step of the annual impairment tests performed as of November 1, 2010 and 2009 indicated that the fair values of the reporting units with goodwill substantially exceeded their carrying values. Accordingly, there were no charges for goodwill impairment in the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 or 2009.

The key assumptions used in the discounted cash flows (DCF) model of the aggregates reporting unit for which the fair value exceeded its carrying value by 8% were volume and price growth rates, variable costs to produce, capital requirements and the discount rate. Volumes, pricing and variable costs to produce are assumed to grow over a twenty year period at inflation-adjusted (real) average annual rates of 4.8%, 0.9% and 0.7%, respectively. Our volume, price and cost growth rate assumptions were derived from historical experience as well as macroeconomic forecasts for each of the counties that are served by our operations. Our internal assumptions for these key inputs were adjusted to reflect the assumptions we believe a market participant would make with public information available through normal and customary due diligence procedures. Our capital spending assumptions were adjusted for the level of volume based on historical experiences. We utilized a 9.50% discount rate to present value the estimated future cash flows.

The market approach was based on multiples of revenue and EBITDA to enterprise value for comparative public companies. The six data points (derived from the revenue and EBITDA multiples for the past three years, trailing twelve months and analysts’ estimates for next year) were averaged to arrive at the estimated fair value of the reporting unit.

Delays in a sustained recovery in our Gulf Coast markets may result in an impairment of this reporting unit’s goodwill.

Determining the fair value of our reporting units involves the use of significant estimates and assumptions and considerable management judgment. We base our fair value estimates on assumptions we believe to be reasonable at the time, but such assumptions are subject to inherent uncertainty. Actual results may differ materially from those estimates. Changes in key assumptions or management judgment with respect to a reporting unit or its prospects, which may result from a change in market conditions, market trends, interest rates or other factors outside of our control, or significant underperformance relative to historical or projected future operating results, could result in a significantly different estimate of the fair value of our reporting units, which could result in an impairment charge in the future.

For additional information regarding goodwill see Note 18.

AMENDMENTS ON GOODWILL IMPAIRMENT TESTING In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-08, “Testing Goodwill for Impairment” which amends the goodwill impairment testing guidance in ASC 350-20, “Goodwill.” Under the amended guidance, an entity has the option of performing a qualitative assessment when testing goodwill for impairment. The two-step impairment test would only be required if, on the basis of the qualitative factors, an entity determines that the fair value of the reporting unit is more likely than not (a likelihood of more than 50%) less than the carrying amount. Additionally, this ASU revises the examples of events and circumstances that an entity should consider when determining if an interim goodwill impairment test is required. The amendments in this ASU are effective for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011, with early adoption permitted. We will adopt this standard as of and for the interim period ending March 31, 2012. We do not expect the adoption of this standard to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets Excluding Goodwill

IMPAIRMENT OF LONG-LIVED ASSETS EXCLUDING GOODWILL

We evaluate the carrying value of long-lived assets, including intangible assets subject to amortization, when events and circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable. As of December 31, 2011, net property, plant & equipment represents 42% of total assets, while net other intangible assets represents 8% of total assets. The carrying value of long-lived assets is considered impaired when the estimated undiscounted cash flows from such assets are less than their carrying value. In that event, we recognize a loss equal to the amount by which the carrying value exceeds the fair value of the long-lived assets. Fair value is determined by primarily using a discounted cash flow methodology that requires considerable management judgment and long-term assumptions. Our estimate of net future cash flows is based on historical experience and assumptions of future trends, which may be different from actual results. We periodically review the appropriateness of the estimated useful lives of our long-lived assets.

We test long-lived assets for impairment at the lowest level for which identifiable cash flows are largely independent of the cash flows of other assets. As a result, our long-lived asset impairment test is at a significantly lower level than the level at which we test goodwill for impairment. In markets where we do not produce downstream products (e.g. ready-mixed concrete and asphalt mix), the lowest level of largely independent identifiable cash flows is at the individual aggregates operation or a group of aggregates operations collectively serving a local market. Conversely, in vertically integrated markets, the cash flows of our downstream and upstream businesses are not largely independently identifiable as the selling price of the upstream products (aggregates and cement) determines the profitability of the downstream business.

Long-lived asset impairments during 2011 were immaterial and related to property abandonments. During 2010 we recorded a $3,936,000 loss on impairment of long-lived assets. The loss on impairment was a result of the challenging construction environment which impacted certain non-strategic assets across multiple operating segments. We utilized an income approach to measure the fair value of the long-lived assets and determined that the carrying value of the assets exceeded the fair value. The loss on impairment represents the difference between the carrying value and the fair value of the impacted long-lived assets. There were no long-lived asset impairments during 2009.

For additional information regarding long-lived assets and intangible assets see Notes 4 and 18.

Company Owned Life Insurance

COMPANY OWNED LIFE INSURANCE

We have Company Owned Life Insurance (COLI) policies for which the cash surrender values, loans outstanding and the net values included in other noncurrent assets in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31 are as follows:

in thousands	2011		2010
Company Owned Life Insurance
Cash surrender value		$38,300		$35,421
Loans outstanding		38,289		35,410
Net value included in noncurrent assets		$11		$11

Revenue Recognition

REVENUE RECOGNITION

Revenue is recognized at the time the selling price is fixed, the product’s title is transferred to the buyer and collectibility of the sales proceeds is reasonably assured. Total revenues include sales of products to customers, net of any discounts and taxes, and third-party delivery revenues billed to customers.

Stripping Costs

STRIPPING COSTS

In the mining industry, the costs of removing overburden and waste materials to access mineral deposits are referred to as stripping costs.

Stripping costs incurred during the production phase are considered costs of extracted minerals under our inventory costing system, inventoried, and recognized in cost of sales in the same period as the revenue from the sale of the inventory. The production stage is deemed to begin when the activities, including removal of overburden and waste material that may contain incidental saleable material, required to access the saleable product are complete. Stripping costs considered as production costs and included in the costs of inventory produced were $40,049,000 in 2011, $40,842,000 in 2010 and $40,810,000 in 2009.

Conversely, stripping costs incurred during the development stage of a mine (pre-production stripping) are excluded from our inventory cost. Pre-production stripping costs are capitalized and reported within other noncurrent assets in our accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. Capitalized pre-production stripping costs are expensed over the productive life of the mine using the unit-of-production method. Pre-production stripping costs included in other noncurrent assets were $17,860,000 as of December 31, 2011 and $17,347,000 as of December 31, 2010.

Other Costs

OTHER COSTS

Costs are charged to earnings as incurred for the start-up of new plants and for normal recurring costs of mineral exploration and research and development. Research and development costs totaled $1,109,000 in 2011, $1,582,000 in 2010 and $1,541,000 in 2009, and are included in selling, administrative and general expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income.

Share-Based Compensation

SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION

We account for our share-based compensation awards using fair-value-based measurement methods. These result in the recognition of compensation expense for all share-based compensation awards, including stock options, based on their fair value as of the grant date. Compensation cost is recognized over the requisite service period.

We receive an income tax deduction for share-based compensation equal to the excess of the market value of our common stock on the date of exercise or issuance over the exercise price. Tax benefits resulting from tax deductions in excess of the compensation cost recognized (excess tax benefits) are classified as financing cash flows. The $121,000, $808,000 and $2,072,000 in excess tax benefits classified as financing cash inflows for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows relate to the exercise of stock options and issuance of shares under long-term incentive plans.

A summary of the estimated future compensation cost (unrecognized compensation expense) as of December 31, 2011 related to share-based awards granted to employees under our long-term incentive plans is presented below:

dollars in thousands	Unrecognized Compensation Expense		Expected Weighted-average Recognition (Years)
Share-based Compensation
SOSARs 1		$5,857		1.6
Performance shares		11,130		2.6
Total/weighted-average		$16,987		2.3

¹ Stock-Only Stock Appreciation Rights (SOSARs)

Pretax compensation expense related to our employee share-based compensation awards and related income tax benefits for the years ended December 31 are summarized below:

in thousands	2011		2010		2009
Employee Share-based Compensation Awards
Pretax compensation expense		$17,537		$19,746		$21,861
Income tax benefits		6,976		7,968		8,915

For additional information regarding share-based compensation, see Note 11 under the caption Share-based Compensation Plans.

Reclamation Costs

RECLAMATION COSTS

Reclamation costs resulting from normal use of long-lived assets are recognized over the period the asset is in use only if there is a legal obligation to incur these costs upon retirement of the assets. Additionally, reclamation costs resulting from normal use under a mineral lease are recognized over the lease term only if there is a legal obligation to incur these costs upon expiration of the lease. The obligation, which cannot be reduced by estimated offsetting cash flows, is recorded at fair value as a liability at the obligating event date and is accreted through charges to operating expenses. This fair value is also capitalized as part of the carrying amount of the underlying asset and depreciated over the estimated useful life of the asset. If the obligation is settled for other than the carrying amount of the liability, a gain or loss is recognized on settlement.

To determine the fair value of the obligation, we estimate the cost for a third party to perform the legally required reclamation tasks including a reasonable profit margin. This cost is then increased for both future estimated inflation and an estimated market risk premium related to the estimated years to settlement. Once calculated, this cost is discounted to fair value using present value techniques with a credit-adjusted, risk-free rate commensurate with the estimated years to settlement.

In estimating the settlement date, we evaluate the current facts and conditions to determine the most likely settlement date. If this evaluation identifies alternative estimated settlement dates, we use a weighted-average settlement date considering the probabilities of each alternative.

We review reclamation obligations at least annually for a revision to the cost or a change in the estimated settlement date. Additionally, reclamation obligations are reviewed in the period that a triggering event occurs that would result in either a revision to the cost or a change in the estimated settlement date. Examples of events that would trigger a change in the cost include a new reclamation law or amendment of an existing mineral lease. Examples of events that would trigger a change in the estimated settlement date include the acquisition of additional reserves or the closure of a facility.

The carrying value of these obligations was $153,979,000 as of December 31, 2011 and $162,730,000 as of December 31, 2010. For additional information regarding reclamation obligations (referred to in our financial statements as asset retirement obligations) see Note 17.

Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits

PENSION AND OTHER POSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS

Accounting for pension and postretirement benefits requires that we make significant assumptions regarding the valuation of benefit obligations and the performance of plan assets. The primary assumptions are as follows:

¡ DISCOUNT RATE — The discount rate is used in calculating the present value of benefits, which is based on projections of benefit payments to be made in the future

¡ EXPECTED RETURN ON PLAN ASSETS — We project the future return on plan assets based principally on prior performance and our expectations for future returns for the types of investments held by the plan as well as the expected long-term asset allocation of the plan. These projected returns reduce the recorded net benefit costs

¡ RATE OF COMPENSATION INCREASE — For salary-related plans only, we project employees’ annual pay increases, which are used to project employees’ pension benefits at retirement

¡ RATE OF INCREASE IN THE PER CAPITA COST OF COVERED HEALTHCARE BENEFITS — We project the expected increases in the cost of covered healthcare benefits

Accounting standards provide for the delayed recognition of differences between actual results and expected or estimated results. This delayed recognition of actual results allows for a smoothed recognition in earnings of changes in benefit obligations and plan performance over the working lives of the employees who benefit under the plans. The differences between actual results and expected or estimated results are recognized in full in other comprehensive income. Amounts recognized in other comprehensive income are reclassified to earnings in a systematic manner over the average remaining service period of active employees expected to receive benefits under the plan.

For additional information regarding pension and other postretirement benefits see Note 10.

Restructuring Charges

RESTRUCTURING CHARGES

Costs associated with restructuring our operations include severance and related charges to eliminate a specified number of employee positions, costs to relocate employees, contract cancellation costs and charges to vacate facilities and consolidate operations. Relocation and contract cancellation costs and charges to vacate facilities are recognized in the period the liability is incurred. Severance charges for employees who are required to render service beyond a minimum retention period, generally more than 60 days, are recognized ratably over the retention period; otherwise, the full severance charge is recognized on the date a detailed restructuring plan has been authorized by management and communicated to employees.

In December 2011, our Board of Directors approved a restructuring plan to consolidate our eight divisions into four regions as part of an ongoing effort to reduce overhead costs and increase operating efficiency. As a result of this consolidation, we recognized $8,906,000 of severance and related charges in 2011, none of which was paid as of December 31, 2011. Future charges related to this restructuring plan are expected to be immaterial.

In 2011, we substantially completed the implementation of our multi-year project to replace our legacy information technology systems with our new ERP and Shared Services platforms. These platforms are helping us streamline processes enterprise-wide and standardize administrative and support functions while providing enhanced flexibility to monitor and control costs. Leveraging this significant investment in technology allowed us to reduce overhead and administrative staff, resulting in $4,065,000 of severance and related charges in 2011, of which $2,970,000 was paid as of December 31, 2011. Future charges related to this restructuring plan are expected to be immaterial.

Environmental Compliance

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

Our environmental compliance costs include the cost of ongoing monitoring programs, the cost of remediation efforts and other similar costs. We expense or capitalize environmental costs consistent with our capitalization policy. We expense costs for an existing condition caused by past operations that do not contribute to future revenues. We accrue costs for environmental assessment and remediation efforts when we determine that a liability is probable and we can reasonably estimate the cost. At the early stages of a remediation effort, environmental remediation liabilities are not easily quantified due to the uncertainties of various factors. The range of an estimated remediation liability is defined and redefined as events in the remediation effort occur.

When we can estimate a range of probable loss, we accrue the most likely amount. In the event that no amount in the range of probable loss is considered most likely, the minimum loss in the range is accrued. As of December 31, 2011, the spread between the amount accrued and the maximum loss in the range for all sites for which a range can be reasonably estimated was $4,109,000. Accrual amounts may be based on technical cost estimations or the professional judgment of experienced environmental managers. Our Safety, Health and Environmental Affairs Management Committee routinely reviews cost estimates, including key assumptions, for accruing environmental compliance costs; however, a number of factors, including adverse agency rulings and encountering unanticipated conditions as remediation efforts progress, may cause actual results to differ materially from accrued costs.

For additional information regarding environmental compliance costs see Note 8.

Claims and Litigation Including Self-Insurance

CLAIMS AND LITIGATION INCLUDING SELF-INSURANCE

We are involved with claims and litigation, including items covered under our self-insurance program. We are self-insured for losses related to workers’ compensation up to $2,000,000 per occurrence and automotive and general/product liability up to $3,000,000 per occurrence. We have excess coverage on a per occurrence basis beyond these retention levels.

Under our self-insurance program, we aggregate certain claims and litigation costs that are reasonably predictable based on our historical loss experience and accrue losses, including future legal defense costs, based on actuarial studies. Certain claims and litigation costs, due to their unique nature, are not included in our actuarial studies. We use both internal and outside legal counsel to assess the probability of loss, and establish an accrual when the claims and litigation represent a probable loss and the cost can be reasonably estimated. For matters not included in our actuarial studies, legal defense costs are accrued when incurred. The following table outlines our liabilities at December 31 under our self-insurance program:

dollars in thousands	2011		2010
Self-insurance Program
Liabilities (undiscounted)		$46,178		$70,174
Discount rate		0.65%		1.01%
Amounts Recognized in Consolidated
Balance Sheets
Other accrued liabilities		$13,046		$36,699
Other noncurrent liabilities		32,089		31,990
Accrued liabilities (discounted)		$45,135		$68,689

The $23,653,000 decrease in other accrued liabilities is primarily attributable to the $20,000,000 payment in 2011 related to a lawsuit brought by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) as described in Note 12.

Estimated payments (undiscounted) under our self-insurance program for the five years subsequent to December 31, 2011 are as follows:

in thousands
Estimated Payments under Self-insurance Program
2012	$14,382
2013	8,371
2014	5,703
2015	3,856
2016	2,737

Significant judgment is used in determining the timing and amount of the accruals for probable losses, and the actual liability could differ materially from the accrued amounts.

Income Taxes

INCOME TAXES

We file various federal, state and foreign income tax returns, including some returns that are consolidated with subsidiaries. We account for the current and deferred tax effects of such returns using the asset and liability method. Our current and deferred tax assets and liabilities reflect our best assessment of the estimated future taxes we will pay. Significant judgments and estimates are required in determining the current and deferred assets and liabilities. Annually, we compare the liabilities calculated for our federal, state and foreign income tax returns to the estimated liabilities calculated as part of the year end income tax provision. Any adjustments are reflected in our current and deferred tax assets and liabilities.

We recognize deferred tax assets and liabilities based on the differences between the financial statement carrying amounts and the tax basis of assets and liabilities. Deferred tax assets represent items to be used as a tax deduction or credit in future tax returns for which we have already properly recorded the tax benefit in the income statement. At least quarterly, we assess all positive and negative evidence to determine the likelihood that the deferred tax asset balance will be recovered from future taxable income. We take into account such factors as:

§ cumulative losses in recent years

§ taxable income in prior carryback years, if carryback is permitted under tax law

§ future reversal of existing taxable temporary differences against deductible temporary differences

§ tax planning strategies

§ future taxable income exclusive of reversing temporary differences

§ the mix of taxable income in the jurisdictions in which we operate

If we were to determine that we would not be able to realize a portion of our deferred tax assets in the future, we would charge an adjustment to the deferred tax assets to earnings. Conversely, if we were to make a determination that realization is more likely than not for deferred tax assets with a valuation allowance, the related valuation allowance would be reduced and we would record a benefit to earnings.

U.S. income taxes are not provided on foreign earnings when such earnings are indefinitely reinvested offshore. We periodically evaluate our investment strategies for each foreign tax jurisdiction in which we operate to determine whether foreign earnings will be indefinitely reinvested offshore and, accordingly, whether U.S. income taxes should be provided when such earnings are recorded.

We recognize an income tax benefit associated with an uncertain tax position when, in our judgment, it is more likely than not that the position will be sustained upon examination by a taxing authority. For a tax position that meets the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold, we initially and subsequently measure the income tax benefit as the largest amount that we judge to have a greater than 50% likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement with a taxing authority. Our liability associated with unrecognized income tax benefits is adjusted periodically due to changing circumstances, such as the progress of tax audits, case law developments and new or emerging legislation. Such adjustments are recognized entirely in the period in which they are identified. Our income tax provision includes the net impact of changes in the liability for unrecognized income tax benefits and subsequent adjustments as we consider appropriate.

Before a particular matter for which we have recorded a liability related to an unrecognized income tax benefit is audited and finally resolved, a number of years may elapse. The number of years with open tax audits varies by jurisdiction. While it is often difficult to predict the final outcome or the timing of resolution of any particular tax matter, we believe our liability for unrecognized income tax benefits is adequate. Favorable resolution of an unrecognized income tax benefit could be recognized as a reduction in our income tax provision and effective tax rate in the period of resolution. Unfavorable settlement of an unrecognized income tax benefit could increase the income tax provision and effective tax rate and may require the use of cash in the period of resolution.

We consider an issue to be resolved at the earlier of settlement of an examination, the expiration of the statute of limitations, or when the issue is “effectively settled.” Our liability for unrecognized income tax benefits is generally presented as noncurrent. However, if we anticipate paying cash within one year to settle an uncertain tax position, the liability is presented as current. We classify interest and penalties recognized on the liability for unrecognized income tax benefits as income tax expense.

Our largest permanent item in computing both our effective tax rate and taxable income is the deduction allowed for statutory depletion. The impact of statutory depletion on the effective tax rate is presented in Note 9. The deduction for statutory depletion does not necessarily change proportionately to changes in pretax earnings.

Comprehensive Income

COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

We report comprehensive income in our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income and Consolidated Statements of Equity. Comprehensive income includes charges and credits to equity from nonowner sources. Comprehensive income comprises two subsets: net earnings and other comprehensive income (OCI). OCI includes fair value adjustments to cash flow hedges, actuarial gains or losses and prior service costs related to pension and postretirement benefit plans.

For additional information regarding comprehensive income see Note 14.

Earnings Per Share (EPS)

EARNINGS PER SHARE (EPS)

We report two earnings per share numbers, basic and diluted. These are computed by dividing net earnings by the weighted-average common shares outstanding (basic EPS) or weighted-average common shares outstanding assuming dilution (diluted EPS), as set forth below:

in thousands	2011		2010		2009
Weighted-average common shares outstanding		129,381		128,050		118,891
Dilutive effect of
Stock options/SOSARs		0		0		269
Other stock compensation plans		0		0		270
Weighted-average common shares outstanding,   assuming dilution		129,381		128,050		119,430

All dilutive common stock equivalents are reflected in our earnings per share calculations. Antidilutive common stock equivalents are not included in our earnings per share calculations. In periods of loss, shares that otherwise would have been included in our diluted weighted-average common shares outstanding computation are excluded. These excluded shares are as follows: the year ended December 31, 2011 — 304,000 and the year ended December 31, 2010 — 415,000.

The number of antidilutive common stock equivalents for which the exercise price exceeds the weighted-average market price for the years ended December 31 is as follows:

in thousands	2011		2010		2009
Antidilutive common stock equivalents		5,845		5,827		3,661

Other Comprehensive Income

2011 — PRESENTATION OF OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME As of the annual period ended December 31, 2011, we adopted ASU No. 2011-05, “Presentation of Comprehensive Income.” This standard eliminates the option to present components of other comprehensive income (OCI) as part of the statement of equity. The amendments in this standard require that all nonowner changes in equity be presented either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. In December 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued ASU No. 2011-12, “Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in ASU No. 2011-05.” ASU No. 2011-12 indefinitely defers the requirement in ASU No. 2011-05 to present reclassification adjustments out of accumulated other comprehensive income by component in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income. Our accompanying Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income conform to the presentation requirements of these standards.

Enhanced Disclosure Requirements On Multiemployer Benefit Plans

2011 — ENHANCED DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS ON MULTIEMPLOYER BENEFIT PLANS As of the annual period ended December 31, 2011, we adopted ASU No. 2011-09, “Disclosures About an Employer’s Participation in a Multiemployer Plan” which increased the quantitative and qualitative disclosures an employer is required to provide about its participation in significant multiemployer plans that offer pension and other postretirement benefits. The ASU’s objective is to enhance the transparency of disclosures about (1) the significant multiemployer plans in which an employer participates, (2) the level of the employer’s participation in those plans, (3) the financial health of the plans and (4) the nature of the employer’s commitments to the plans. As a result of our adoption of this update, we enhanced our annual disclosures regarding multiemployer plans as reflected in Note 10.

Offsetting Assets and Liabilities

NEW DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS ON OFFSETTING ASSETS AND LIABILITIES In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-11, “Disclosures About Offsetting Assets and Liabilities” which creates new disclosure requirements about the nature of an entity’s rights of setoff and related arrangements associated with its financial and derivative instruments. These new disclosures are designed to facilitate comparisons between financial statements prepared under U.S. GAAP and those prepared under IFRSs. This ASU is effective for annual and interim reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013, with retrospective application required. We will adopt this standard as of and for the interim period ending March 31, 2013. We do not expect the adoption of this standard to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

Use of Estimates in the Preparation of Financial Statements

USE OF ESTIMATES IN THE PREPARATION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The preparation of these financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and the related disclosures of contingent assets and contingent liabilities at the date of the financial statements. We evaluate these estimates and judgments on an ongoing basis and base our estimates on historical experience, current conditions and various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. The results of these estimates form the basis for our judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities as well as identifying and assessing the accounting treatment with respect to commitments and contingencies. Actual results may differ materially from these estimates.