NOTE 8: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

LETTERS OF CREDIT

We provide certain third parties with irrevocable standby letters of credit in the normal course of business. We use commercial banks to issue such letters of credit to back our obligations to pay or perform when required to do so according to the requirements of an underlying agreement. The standby letters of credit listed below are cancelable only at the option of the beneficiaries who are authorized to draw drafts on the issuing bank up to the face amount of the standby letter of credit in accordance with its terms. Our standby letters of credit as of March 31, 2013 are summarized by purpose in the table below:


in thousands
Standby Letters of Credit
Risk management insurance			$34,840
Industrial revenue bond			14,230
Reclamation/restoration requirements			7,862
Total			$56,932

Since banks consider standby letters of credit as contingent extensions of credit, we are required to pay a fee until they expire or are canceled. Substantially all of our standby letters of credit have a one-year term and are automatically renewed unless cancelled with the approval of the beneficiary. All $56,932,000 of our outstanding standby letters of credit as of March 31, 2013, are backed by our $500,000,000 bank line of credit which expires March 12, 2018.

LITIGATION

We are a defendant in various lawsuits in the ordinary course of business. It is not possible to determine with precision the outcome, or the amount of liability, if any, under these lawsuits, especially where the cases involve possible jury trials with as yet undetermined jury panels.

In addition to these lawsuits in which we are involved in the ordinary course of business, certain other material legal proceedings are specifically described below. At this time, we cannot determine the likelihood or reasonably estimate a range of loss pertaining to these matters.

IRELAND LITIGATION — On May 25, 2012, a shareholder lawsuit was filed in state court in Jefferson County, Alabama, styled Glenn Ireland II, and William C. Ireland, Jr., derivatively on behalf of Vulcan Materials Company v. Donald M. James, et al., Case No. CV-2012-901655. The lawsuit was amended to add the Charles Byron Ireland Trust as a plaintiff. This lawsuit was brought as a derivative action against the current Board of Directors and two former directors. The lawsuit has been dismissed and we will not report on it further.

PERCHLOROETHYLENE CASES

We are a defendant in cases involving perchloroethylene (perc), which was a product manufactured by our former Chemicals business. Perc is a cleaning solvent used in dry cleaning and other industrial applications. Vulcan is vigorously defending these cases:

SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY — On July 29, 2010, we were served in an action styled Suffolk County Water Authority v. The Dow Chemical Company, et al., in the Supreme Court for Suffolk County, State of New York. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff “owns and/or operates drinking water systems and supplies drinking water to thousands of residents and businesses, in Suffolk County, New York.” The complaint alleges that perc and its breakdown products “have been and are contaminating and damaging Plaintiff’s drinking water supply wells.” The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court ruled that any detectable amount of perc in a well constitutes a legal injury. We are appealing this and other rulings of the trial court. Discovery is ongoing. At this time, plaintiffs have not established that our perc was used at any specific dry cleaner, or that we are liable for any alleged contamination.

R.R. STREET INDEMNITY — Street, a former distributor of perc manufactured by us, alleges that we owe Street, and its insurer (National Union), a defense and indemnity in several litigation matters in which Street was named as a defendant. National Union alleges that we are obligated to contribute to National Union’s share of defense fees, costs and any indemnity payments made on Street’s behalf. We have had discussions with Street about the nature and extent of indemnity obligations, if any, and to date there has been no resolution of these issues.

LOWER PASSAIC RIVER MATTERS

NJDEP LITIGATION — In 2009, Vulcan and over 300 other parties were named as third-party defendants in New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, et al. v. Occidental Chemical Corporation, et al., a case originally brought by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in the New Jersey Superior Court. Vulcan was brought into the suit due to alleged discharges to the lower Passaic River (River) from the former Chemicals Division - Newark Plant. Vulcan owned and operated this site as a chloralkali plant from 1961-1974. In 1974, we sold the plant, although we continued to operate the plant for one additional year. This suit by the NJDEP seeks recovery of past and future clean-up costs, as well as unspecified economic damages, punitive damages, penalties and a variety of other forms of relief. Vulcan and more than 200 other third party defendants have reached a tentative settlement agreement with the original plaintiffs. The settlement amount is immaterial and was accrued in 2012. Final approval of the settlement is pending.

LOWER PASSAIC RIVER STUDY AREA (SUPERFUND SITE) — Vulcan and approximately 70 other companies are parties to a May 2007 Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the lower 17 miles of the River. Separately, the EPA issued a draft Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) that evaluated early action remedial alternatives for a portion of the River. The EPA was given a range of estimated costs for these alternatives between $0.9 billion and $3.5 billion, although estimates of the cost and timing of future environmental remediation requirements are inherently imprecise and subject to revision. The EPA has not released the final FFS. As an interim step related to the 2007 AOC, Vulcan and 69 other companies voluntarily entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent on June 18, 2012 with the EPA for remediation actions focused at River Mile 10.9 of the River. Our estimated costs related to this focused remediation action, based on an interim allocation, are immaterial and have been accrued. On June 25, 2012, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order for Removal Response Activities to Occidental Chemical Corporation ordering Occidental to participate and cooperate in this remediation action at River Mile 10.9.

At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate our liability related to this matter because the RI/FS is ongoing; the ultimate remedial approach and associated cost has not been determined; and the parties that will participate in funding the remediation and their respective allocations are not yet known.

It is not possible to predict with certainty the ultimate outcome of these and other legal proceedings in which we are involved and a number of factors, including developments in ongoing discovery or adverse rulings, could cause actual losses to differ materially from accrued costs. No liability was recorded for claims and litigation for which a loss was determined to be only reasonably possible or for which a loss could not be reasonably estimated. Legal costs incurred in defense of lawsuits are expensed as incurred. In addition, losses on certain claims and litigation described above may be subject to limitations on a per occurrence basis by excess insurance, as described in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K.