NOTE 12: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

We have commitments in the form of unconditional purchase obligations as of December 31, 2013. These include commitments for the purchase of property, plant & equipment of $5,813,000 and commitments for noncapital purchases of $75,052,000. These commitments are due as follows:



	Unconditional
	Purchase
in thousands	Obligations
Property, Plant & Equipment
2014	$ 5,813
Thereafter	0
Total	$ 5,813
Noncapital
2014	$ 27,991
2015–2016	30,315
2017–2018	9,380
Thereafter	7,366
Total	$ 75,052

Expenditures under the noncapital purchase commitments totaled $83,699,000 in 2013, $83,599,000 in 2012 and $89,407,000 in 2011.

We have commitments in the form of minimum royalties under mineral leases as of December 31, 2013 in the amount of $185,868,000, due as follows:



	Mineral
in thousands	Leases
Mineral Royalties
2014	$ 17,142
2015–2016	26,425
2017–2018	18,551
Thereafter	123,750
Total	$ 185,868

Expenditures for mineral royalties under mineral leases totaled $53,768,000 in 2013, $46,007,000 in 2012 and $45,690,000 in 2011.

Certain of our aggregates reserves are burdened by volumetric production payments (nonoperating interest) as described in Note 1 under the caption Deferred Revenue. As the holder of the working interest, we have responsibility to bear the cost of mining and producing the reserves attributable to this nonoperating interest.

We provide, in the normal course of business, certain third party beneficiaries standby letters of credit to support our obligations to pay or perform according to the requirements of an underlying agreement. Such letters of credit typically have an initial term of one year, typically renew automatically, and can only be modified or cancelled with the approval of the beneficiary. All of our letters of credit are issued by banks that participate in our $500,000,000 line of credit, and reduce the borrowing capacity thereunder. We pay a fee for all letters of credit equal to the LIBOR margin (ranges from 1.50% to 2.00%) applicable to borrowings under the line of credit, plus 0.125%. Our standby letters of credit as of December 31, 2013 are summarized by purpose in the table below:



in thousands
Standby Letters of Credit
Risk management insurance				$ 32,839
Industrial revenue bond				14,230
Reclamation/restoration requirements				6,324
Total				$ 53,393

As described in Note 9, our liability for unrecognized tax benefits is $12,155,000 as of December 31, 2013.

In September 2001, we were named a defendant in a suit brought by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) alleging damage to a 0.9-mile section of Joliet Road that bisects our McCook quarry in McCook, Illinois, a Chicago suburb. In 2010, we settled this lawsuit for $40,000,000 and recognized the full charge pending arbitration with our insurers. In 2011, we were awarded a total of $49,657,000 in payment of the insurers’ share of the settlement amount, attorneys' fees and interest.

We are subject to occasional governmental proceedings and orders pertaining to occupational safety and health or to protection of the environment, such as proceedings or orders relating to noise abatement, air emissions or water discharges. As part of our continuing program of stewardship in safety, health and environmental matters, we have been able to resolve such proceedings and to comply with such orders without any material adverse effects on our business.

We have received notices from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or similar state or local agencies that we are considered a potentially responsible party (PRP) at a limited number of sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) or similar state and local environmental laws. Generally we share the cost of remediation at these sites with other PRPs or alleged PRPs in accordance with negotiated or prescribed allocations. There is inherent uncertainty in determining the potential cost of remediating a given site and in determining any individual party's share in that cost. As a result, estimates can change substantially as additional information becomes available regarding the nature or extent of site contamination, remediation methods, other PRPs and their probable level of involvement, and actions by or against governmental agencies or private parties.

We have reviewed the nature and extent of our involvement at each Superfund site, as well as potential obligations arising under other federal, state and local environmental laws. While ultimate resolution and financial liability is uncertain at a number of the sites, in our opinion based on information currently available, the ultimate resolution of claims and assessments related to these sites will not have a material effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows, although amounts recorded in a given period could be material to our results of operations or cash flows for that period. Amounts accrued for environmental matters are presented in Note 8.

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.

PERCHLOROETHYLENE CASES

We are a defendant in a case 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. We are vigorously defending this case:

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 MATTER

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. All defendants, with the exception of Occidental Chemical Corporation, have reached a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, which has been approved by the court. Since this matter has been settled, we will not report on it further.

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.

OTHER LITIGATION

TEXAS BRINE MATTER — During the operation of its former Chemicals Division, Vulcan was the lessee to a salt lease from 1976 – 2005 in an underground salt dome formation in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. The Texas Brine Company operated this salt mine for the account of Vulcan. Vulcan sold its Chemicals Division in 2005 and assigned the lease to the purchaser, and Vulcan has had no association with the leased premises or Texas Brine Company since that time. In August 2012, a sinkhole developed near the salt dome and numerous lawsuits were filed in state court in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. Other lawsuits, including class action litigation, were also filed in August 2012 in federal court in the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans. There are numerous defendants to the litigation in state and federal court. Vulcan was first brought into the litigation as a third-party defendant in August 2013 by the Texas Brine Company. Vulcan has since been added as a direct and third-party defendant by other parties, including a direct claim by the State of Louisiana. The damages alleged in the litigation range from individual plaintiffs’ claims for property damage, to the State of Louisiana’s claim for response costs, to claims for indemnity and contribution from Texas Brine. It is alleged that Vulcan was negligent as a lessee under the salt lease, that Vulcan breached the salt lease, and that Vulcan breached an operating agreement with Texas Brine.

Vulcan denies any liability in this matter and will vigorously defend the litigation. We cannot reasonably estimate any liability related to this matter.

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, or the verdict of a particular jury, 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 Note 1 under the caption Claims and Litigation Including Self-insurance.