Note 8: Commitments and Contingencies

LETTERS OF CREDIT

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 margin (ranges from 1.50% to 2.25%) applicable to LIBOR based borrowings under the line of credit, plus 0.175%. Our standby letters of credit as of March 31, 2014 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	6,250
Total	$ 53,319

LITIGATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

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 more 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 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. We are 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 8residents 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.” This matter was settled in the first quarter of 2014 for an immaterial amount. We will not report on this case going forward.

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. Since no suit has been filed with respect to this issue, we will no longer report on this matter.

lower passaic river matter

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 Passaic River (River). 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. These remedial actions are expected to be completed sometime in 2014. 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.

Separately, on April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a proposed Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) that calls for a bank-to-bank dredging remedy for the lower 8 miles of the River. The EPA estimates that the cost of implementing this proposal is approximately $950 million to $1.73 billion. The period for public comment on the proposed FFS remains open and may be further extended. After the comments are received, the EPA will issue its final record of decision, probably sometime in 2015.

At this time, our ultimate liability related to this matter is not known because the RI/FS is ongoing and the FFS is not final. The AOC does not obligate us to fund or perform the remedial action contemplated by either the RI/FS or the FFS. Additionally, the Company has found no evidence that it contributed, through its discontinued Chemicals business, any of the primary contaminants of concern to the Passaic River. Therefore, neither the ultimate remedial approach and associated costs, nor the parties who will participate in funding the remediation and their respective allocations have yet been determined.

Based on the facts available at this time, we believe our liability related to any remedial actions is immaterial.

OTHER LITIGATION

TEXAS BRINE MATTER — During the operation of its former Chemicals Division, Vulcan was the lessee under 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. The plaintiffs in the Federal court class action and Texas Brine have recently announced a proposed settlement for $48.1 million. This proposed settlement is still subject to certain court procedures, including notice to the class, before it can be approved and finalized. We understand that Vulcan will be named as a released party in the settlement agreement, although Texas Brine and its insurers are not themselves releasing Vulcan from their claims for contribution and indemnity against Vulcan.

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 alleged physical damages to oil pipelines, to various alleged business interruption claims, and to claims for indemnity and contribution from Texas Brine. It is alleged that the sinkhole was caused, in whole or in part, by Vulcan’s negligent actions or failure to act. It is also alleged that Vulcan breached the salt lease, as well as 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 our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K.