NOTE 12: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

We have commitments in the form of unconditional purchase obligations as of December 31, 2016. These include commitments for the purchase of property, plant & equipment of $132,046,000 and commitments for noncapital purchases of $55,037,000. These commitments are due as follows:



	Unconditional
	Purchase
in thousands	Obligations
Property, Plant & Equipment
2017	$ 131,846
Thereafter	200
Total	$ 132,046
Noncapital (primarily transportation and electricity contracts)
2017	$ 24,402
2018–2019	19,406
2020–2021	7,229
Thereafter	4,000
Total	$ 55,037

Commitments for the purchase of property, plant & equipment for 2017 include $85,293,000 for the construction of two new Panamax-class, self-unloading ships. Expenditures under noncapital purchase commitments totaled $60,591,000 in 2016, $76,178,000 in 2015 and $65,582,000 in 2014.

We have commitments in the form of minimum royalties under mineral leases as of December 31, 2016 in the amount of $216,241,000, due as follows:



	Mineral
in thousands	Leases
Minimum Royalties
2017	$ 22,153
2018–2019	36,196
2020–2021	23,513
Thereafter	134,379
Total	$ 216,241

Expenditures for royalties under mineral leases totaled $62,978,000 in 2016, $58,048,000 in 2015 and $49,685,000 in 2014. Refer to Note 7 for future minimum nonmineral operating lease payments.

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.

As summarized by purpose in Note 6, our standby letters of credit totaled $39,538,000 as of December 31, 2016.

As described in Note 9, our liability for unrecognized tax benefits is $10,828,000 as of December 31, 2016.

As described in Note 17, our asset retirement obligations totaled $223,872,000 as of December 31, 2016.

LITIGATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

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.

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 EPA to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (draft RI/FS) of the lower 17 miles of the Passaic River (River). However, before the draft RI/FS was issued in final form, the EPA issued a record of decision (ROD) in March 2016 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 $1.38 billion. In September 2016, the EPA entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent with Occidental Chemical Corporation (Occidental) in which Occidental agreed to undertake the remedial design for this bank-to-bank dredging remedy, and to reimburse the United States for certain response costs.

Efforts to remediate the River have been underway for many years and have involved hundreds of entities that have had operations on or near the River at some point during the past several decades. We formerly owned a chemicals operation near the mouth of the River, which was sold in 1974. The major risk drivers in the River have been identified as dioxins, PCBs, DDx and mercury. We did not manufacture any of these risk drivers and have no evidence that any of these were discharged into the River by Vulcan.

The AOC does not obligate us to fund or perform the remedial action contemplated by either the draft RI/FS or the ROD. Furthermore, the parties who will participate in funding the remediation and their respective allocations have not been determined. We do not agree that a bank-to-bank remedy is warranted, and we are not obligated to fund any of the remedial action at this time; nevertheless, we previously estimated the cost to be incurred by us as a potential participant in a bank-to-bank dredging remedy and recorded an immaterial loss for this matter in 2015.

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 our account. We sold our Chemicals Division in 2005 and assigned the lease to the purchaser and we have 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. We have 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, we have also been sued for contractual indemnity and comparative fault by both Texas Brine and 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 our negligent actions or failure to act. It is also alleged that we breached the salt lease, as well as an operating agreement and a drilling agreement with Texas Brine; that we are strictly liable for certain property damages in our capacity as a former assignee of the salt lease; and that we violated certain covenants and conditions in the agreement under which we sold our Chemicals Division in 2005. We have 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 no trials are currently set.

In December 2016, we settled with the plaintiffs in one of these cases involving property damages but there are cross-claims remaining against us in that case. In February 2017, we offered to settle with the plaintiffs in the cases involving physical damages to oil pipelines. The insurers who have coverage at these settlement amounts agreed that the cases were covered by our policy. An immaterial loss limited to our insurance deductible was recognized during the fourth quarter. Except for these cases, at this time we cannot reasonably estimate a range of liability pertaining to this matter.

HEWITT LANDFILL MATTER (SUPERFUND SITE) — In September 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 the former Hewitt Landfill in Los Angeles. The CAO follows a 2014 Investigative Order from the 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 the RWQCB and to create and implement a work plan for further investigation of the Hewitt Landfill. In April 2016, we submitted an interim remedial action plan (IRAP) to the RWQCB, proposing a pilot test of a pump and treat system; testing and implementation of a leachate recovery system; and storm water capture and conveyance improvements. We are currently implementing the IRAP, including the drilling and installation of monitoring wells and construction of a treatment plant for a pilot-scale groundwater extraction and re-injection treatment system. The estimated cost to implement the IRAP is fully accrued. Operation of the pilot-scale treatment system began in January 2017. However, until this pilot testing is complete, we are unable to estimate the cost of remedial action.

We are also engaged in an ongoing dialogue with the EPA, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and other stakeholders regarding the potential contribution of the Hewitt Landfill to groundwater contamination in the North Hollywood Operable Unit (NHOU) of the San Fernando Valley Superfund Site. 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 PRPs that may have contributed to groundwater contamination in the area.

In July 2016, the EPA sent a letter to us requesting that we enter into an AOC for remedial design work at the NHOU including, but not limited to, the design of two or more groundwater extraction wells to be located south of the Hewitt Landfill. In February 2017, the EPA sent a draft AOC to us. Vulcan and EPA representatives expect to engage in negotiations for a possible AOC during the first and second quarters of 2017.

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.