Note 8: Commitments and Contingencies

As summarized by purpose in Note 7, our standby letters of credit totaled $38,864,000 as of September 30, 2015.

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.

Lower Passaic River Study Area (Superfund Site) — The Lower Passaic River Study Area is part of the Diamond Shamrock Superfund Site in New Jersey. Vulcan and approximately 70 other companies are parties (collectively the “Cooperating Parties Group”) to a May 2007 Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (draft RI/FS) of the lower 17 miles of the Passaic River (River). 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 is closed and it is anticipated that the EPA will issue its final record of decision sometime in 2015. The Cooperating Parties Group draft RI/FS estimates the preferred remedial action presented therein to cost in the range of approximately $475 million to $725 million (including $93 million in operations and maintenance costs for a 30-year period).

The AOC does not obligate us to fund or perform the remedial action contemplated by either the draft RI/FS or the FFS. Vulcan formerly owned a chemicals operation near River Mile 0.1, which was sold in 1974. The Company has found no evidence that its former chemicals operation contributed any of the primary contaminants of concern to the River.

Neither the ultimate remedial approach, nor the parties who will participate in funding the remediation and their respective allocations, have been determined. However, we recorded an immaterial loss for this matter in the first quarter of 2015 based on the cost estimate of the preferred remedial action supported by the Cooperating Parties Group’s draft RI/FS.

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 (Texas Brine) 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 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 Texas Brine. 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 physical damages to oil pipelines, to business interruption claims. In addition to the plaintiffs’ claims, Vulcan has also been sued for contractual indemnity and comparative fault by both Texas Brine and Occidental Chemical Co. (Occidental). The total amount of damages claimed is in excess of $500 million. 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 and a drilling agreement with Texas Brine; and that Vulcan is strictly liable for certain property damages in its capacity as a former assignee of the salt lease; and that Vulcan violated certain covenants and conditions in the agreement under which it sold its Chemicals Division in 2005. Vulcan has made claims for contractual indemnity, comparative fault, and breach of contract against Texas Brine, as well as claims for contractual indemnity and comparative fault against Occidental. Discovery is ongoing and the first trial date in any of these cases has been set for April 2016. At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of liability pertaining to this matter.

HEWITT LANDFILL MATTER — On September 8, 2015, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued a Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) directing Vulcan to assess, monitor, cleanup and abate wastes that have been discharged to soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater at Vulcan’s former Hewitt Landfill in Los Angeles. The CAO follows a 2014 Investigative Order from RWQCB that sought data and a technical evaluation regarding the Hewitt Landfill, and a subsequent amendment to the Investigative Order requiring Vulcan to provide groundwater monitoring results to RWQCB and to create and implement a work plan for further investigation of the Hewitt Landfill. Vulcan is engaged in performing site investigation work required by the CAO.

Vulcan is also engaged in an ongoing dialogue with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and other stakeholders regarding the potential contribution of the Hewitt Landfill to groundwater contamination in the San Fernando Valley. We are gathering and analyzing data and developing technical information to determine the extent of possible contribution by the Hewitt Landfill to the groundwater contamination in the area. This work is also intended to assist in identification of other sources of contamination. At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of liability pertaining 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.