XML 43 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.1.9

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies. Investment Dynegy Inc. On March 28, 2012 an action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (the "Court"), entitled Silsby v. Icahn et. al. Defendants include Carl C. Icahn and two officers of Dynegy Inc. ("Dynegy") and certain of its directors. As initially filed, the action purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their shares between September 2011 and March 2012. The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws by defendants' allegedly making false and misleading statements in securities filings which statements artificially inflated the price of Dynegy stock. The individual defendants are alleged to have been controlling persons of Dynegy. Plaintiff is seeking damages in an unspecified amount. Subsequent to the filing of this action, Dynegy filed for bankruptcy, and a U.S. bankruptcy court has approved a Plan of Reorganization. Plaintiff is proceeding with the action and has filed an amended complaint that purports to be a class action on behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their securities between July 10, 2011 and March 9, 2012. We believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims and filed a motion to dismiss on July 19, 2013. On April 30, 2014, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and the case was dismissed with prejudice. On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal, which is currently pending. Automotive Environmental Matters Federal-Mogul is a defendant in lawsuits filed, or the recipient of administrative orders issued or demand letters received, in various jurisdictions pursuant to the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”) or other similar national, provincial or state environmental remedial laws. These laws provide that responsible parties may be liable to pay for remediating contamination resulting from hazardous substances that were discharged into the environment by them, by prior owners or occupants of property they currently own or operate, or by others to whom they sent such substances for treatment or other disposition at third party locations. Federal-Mogul has been notified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, other national environmental agencies, and various provincial and state agencies that it may be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) under such laws for the cost of remediating hazardous substances pursuant to CERCLA and other national and state or provincial environmental laws. PRP designation often results in the funding of site investigations and subsequent remedial activities. Many of the sites that are likely to be the costliest to remediate are often current or former commercial waste disposal facilities to which numerous companies sent wastes. Despite the potential joint and several liability which might be imposed on Federal-Mogul under CERCLA and some of the other laws pertaining to these sites, its share of the total waste sent to these sites has generally been small. Federal-Mogul believes its exposure for liability at these sites is limited. Federal-Mogul has also identified certain other present and former properties at which it may be responsible for cleaning up or addressing environmental contamination, in some cases as a result of contractual commitments and/or federal or state environmental laws. Federal-Mogul is actively seeking to resolve these actual and potential statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations. Although difficult to quantify based on the complexity of the issues, Federal-Mogul has accrued amounts corresponding to its best estimate of the costs associated with such regulatory and contractual obligations on the basis of available information from site investigations and best professional judgment of consultants. Total environmental liabilities, determined on an undiscounted basis, were $15 million and $14 million at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, and are included in accrued expenses and other liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets. Federal-Mogul believes that recorded environmental liabilities will be adequate to cover its estimated liability for its exposure in respect to such matters. In the event that such liabilities were to significantly exceed the amounts recorded by Federal-Mogul, our Automotive segment's results of operations could be materially affected. At December 31, 2014, Federal-Mogul estimates reasonably possible material additional losses, above and beyond its best estimate of required remediation costs as recorded, to approximate $40 million. Asset Retirement Obligations Federal-Mogul has identified sites with contractual obligations and several sites that are closed or expected to be closed and sold. In connection with these sites, Federal-Mogul has accrued $24 million and $26 million at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, for ARO's, primarily related to anticipated costs of removing hazardous building materials at its facilities, and has considered impairment issues that may result from capitalization of these ARO amounts. Federal-Mogul has conditional asset retirement obligations ("CARO"), primarily related to removal costs of hazardous materials in buildings, for which it believes reasonable cost estimates cannot be made at this time because it does not believe it has a reasonable basis to assign probabilities to a range of potential settlement dates for these retirement obligations. Accordingly, Federal-Mogul is currently unable to determine amounts to accrue for CARO at such sites. Other Matter On April 25, 2014, a group of plaintiffs brought an action against Federal-Mogul Products, Inc. (“F-M Products”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Federal-Mogul, alleging injuries and damages associated with the discharge of chlorinated hydrocarbons by the former owner of a facility located in Kentucky. Since 1998, when F-M Products acquired the facility, it has been cooperating with the applicable regulatory agencies on remediating the prior discharges pursuant to an order entered into by the facility’s former owner. Federal-Mogul is unable to estimate any reasonably possible range of loss for reasons including that the plaintiffs did not claim any amount of damages in their complaint. F-M Products intends to vigorously defend this litigation. Energy Unconditional Purchase Obligations The minimum required payments for CVR's unconditional purchase obligations are as follows:
| Unconditional Purchase Obligations(1)
| (in millions)
2015 | $ | 126 |
2016 | 109 |
2017 | 107 |
2018 | 106 |
2019 | 105 |
Thereafter | 718 |
| $ | 1,271 |
(1)This amount includes $800 million payable ratably over sixteen years pursuant to petroleum transportation service agreements between CRRM and each of TransCanada Keystone Limited Partnership and TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP (together, "TransCanada"). The purchase obligation reflects the exchange rate between the Canadian dollar and the U.S. dollar as of December 31, 2014, where applicable. Under the agreements, CRRM receives transportation of at least 25,000 barrels per day of crude oil with a delivery point at Cushing, Oklahoma for a term of 20 years on TransCanada's Keystone pipeline system. CRRM began receiving crude oil under the agreements in the first quarter of 2011. Unconditional Purchase Obligations CVR leases various equipment, including rail cars and real properties under long-term operating leases expiring at various dates. For the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 and the period May 5, 2012 through December 31, 2012, total lease expense was $9 million, $9 million and $6 million, respectively. The lease agreements have various remaining terms. Some agreements are renewable, at CVR's option, for additional periods. It is expected, in the ordinary course of business, that leases will be renewed or replaced as they expire. Additionally, in the normal course of business, CVR has long-term commitments to purchase oxygen, nitrogen, electricity, storage capacity and pipeline transportation services. Crude Oil Supply Agreement On August 31, 2012, CRRM and Vitol Inc. ("Vitol"), entered into an Amended and Restated Crude Oil Supply Agreement (the "Vitol Agreement"). Under the Vitol Agreement, Vitol supplies the petroleum business with crude oil and intermediation logistics, which helps to reduce CVR Refining's inventory position and mitigate crude oil pricing risk. The Vitol Agreement had an initial term commencing on August 31, 2012 and extending through December 31, 2014 (the "Initial Term"). Following the Initial Term, the Vitol Agreement will automatically renew for successive one-year terms (each such term, a "Renewal Term") unless either party provides the other with notice of nonrenewal at least 180 days prior to expiration of the Initial Term or any Renewal Term. The Vitol Agreement was extended for a one-year Renewal Term through December 31, 2015. Litigation From time to time, CVR is involved in various lawsuits arising in the normal course of business, including matters such as those described below under, "Environmental, Health and Safety Matters." Liabilities related to such litigation are recognized when the related costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. It is possible that CVR's management estimates of the outcomes will change within the next year due to uncertainties inherent in litigation and settlement negotiations. In the opinion of CVR management, the ultimate resolution of any other litigation matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the accompanying consolidated financial statements. There can be no assurance that CVR management's beliefs or opinions with respect to liability for potential litigation matters will prove to be accurate. On June 21, 2012, Goldman, Sachs & Co. ("GS") filed suit against CVR in state court in New York, alleging that CVR failed to pay GS fees allegedly due to GS by CVR pursuant to an engagement letter dated March 21, 2012, which according to the allegations set forth in the complaint, provided that GS was engaged by CVR to assist CVR and the CVR board of directors in connection with a tender offer for CVR's stock, made by Carl C. Icahn and certain of his affiliates. On September 8, 2014, the court (in its decision granting GS's motion for summary judgment against CVR) directed the court clerk to enter judgment against CVR in the amount of approximately $22.6 million. CVR filed its notice of appeal on October 3, 2014 and intends to vigorously pursue the appeal. On November 24, 2014, CVR paid the judgment to GS, subject to a right of refund if it is successful on appeal. On August 10, 2012, Deutsche Bank ("DB") filed suit against CVR in state court in New York, alleging that CVR failed to pay DB fees allegedly due to DB by CVR pursuant to an engagement letter dated March 23, 2012, which according to the allegations set forth in the complaint, provided that DB was engaged by CVR to assist CVR and the CVR board of directors in connection with a tender offer for CVR's stock made by Carl C. Icahn and certain of his affiliates. On September 8, 2014, the court (in its decision granting DB's motion for summary judgment against CVR) directed the court clerk to enter judgment against CVR in the amount of approximately $22.7 million. CVR filed its notice of appeal on October 3, 2014 and intends to vigorously pursue the appeal. On October 27, 2014, CVR paid the judgment to DB, subject to a right of refund if it is successful on appeal. CRNF received a ten year property tax abatement from Montgomery County, Kansas in connection with the construction of the nitrogen fertilizer plant that expired on December 31, 2007. In connection with the expiration of the abatement, the county reclassified and reassessed CRNF's nitrogen fertilizer plant for property tax purposes. The reclassification and reassessment resulted in an increase in CRNF's annual property tax expense by an average of $11 million per year for each of the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009, $12 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 and $11 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2012. CRNF protested the classification and resulting valuation for each of those years to the Kansas Court of Tax Appeals ("COTA"), followed by an appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals. However, CRNF fully accrued and paid the property taxes the county claims are owed for the years ended December 31, 2008 through 2012. The Kansas Court of Appeals, in a memorandum opinion dated August 9, 2013, reversed the COTA decision in part and remanded the case to COTA, instructing COTA to classify each asset on an asset by asset basis instead of making a broad determination that the entire plant was real property as COTA did originally. The County filed a motion for rehearing with the Kansas Court of Appeals and a petition for review with the Kansas Supreme Court, both of which have been denied. CRNF believes that when that asset by asset determination is done, the majority of the plant will be classified as personal property which would result in significantly lower property taxes for CRNF for 2008 and for those years after the conclusion of the property tax settlement noted below as compared to the taxes paid by CRNF prior to the settlement. On February 25, 2013, Montgomery County and CRNF agreed to a settlement for tax years 2009 through 2012, which has lowered and will lower CRNF's property taxes by about $11 million per year (as compared to the 2012 tax year) for tax years 2013 to 2016 based on current mill levy rates. In addition, the settlement provides that Montgomery County will support CRNF's application before COTA for a ten-year tax exemption for the UAN expansion. Finally, the settlement provides that CRNF will continue its appeal of the 2008 reclassification and reassessment discussed above. The SEC is currently conducting an investigation in connection with CVR's disclosures following the announcement of a tender offer for CVR's stock initiated in February 2012. CVR is cooperating with the SEC and has produced, at the SEC's request, documents pertaining to the tender offer and its disclosures. Flood, Crude Oil Discharge and Insurance Crude oil was discharged from the Coffeyville refinery on July 1, 2007, due to the short amount of time available to shutdown and secure the refinery in preparation for the flood that occurred on June 30, 2007. In connection with the discharge, CVR received in May 2008, notices of claims from 16 private claimants under the Oil Pollution Act ("OPA") in an aggregate amount of approximately $4 million (plus punitive damages). In August 2008, those claimants filed suit against CVR in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in Wichita (the "Angleton Case"). In October 2009 and June 2010, companion cases to the Angleton Case were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in Wichita, seeking a total of approximately $3 million (plus punitive damages) for three additional plaintiffs as a result of the July 1, 2007 crude oil discharge. CVR has settled all of the claims with the plaintiffs from the Angleton Case and has settled all of the claims from the companion cases with the last remaining claim against it being settled during the first quarter of 2014. The settlements did not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. On October 25, 2010, CVR received a letter from the United States Coast Guard on behalf of the EPA seeking approximately $2 million in oversight cost reimbursement. CVR responded by asserting defenses to the Coast Guard's claim for oversight costs. On September 23, 2011, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), acting on behalf of the EPA and the United States Coast Guard, filed suit against CRRM in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas seeking recovery from CRRM related to alleged non-compliance with the Clean Air Act's Risk Management Program ("RMP"), the Clean Water Act ("CWA") and the OPA. CRRM reached an agreement with the DOJ resolving its claims under CWA and OPA. The agreement was memorialized in a Consent Decree that was filed with and approved by the Court on February 12, 2013 and March 25, 2013, respectively (the "2013 Consent Decree"). On April 19, 2013, CRRM paid a civil penalty (including accrued interest) in the amount of $0.6 million related to the CWA claims and reimbursed the Coast Guard for oversight costs under OPA in the amount of $1.7 million. The 2013 Consent Decree also requires CRRM to make small capital upgrades to the Coffeyville refinery crude oil tank farm, develop flood procedures and provide employee training, the majority of which have already been completed. The parties also reached an agreement to settle DOJ’s claims related to alleged non-compliance with RMP. The agreement is memorialized in a separate consent decree that was filed with and approved by the Court on May 21, 2013 and July 2, 2013, respectively, and provided for a civil penalty of $0.3 million. On July 29, 2013, CRRM paid the civil penalty related to the RMP claims. In 2014, CRRM completed several audits required by the RMP consent decree, which were related to compliance with RMP requirements. CRRM sought insurance coverage for the crude oil release and for the ultimate costs for remediation and third-party property damage claims. On July 10, 2008, CVR filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (the "Court") against certain of CVR's environmental insurance carriers requesting insurance coverage indemnification for the June/July 2007 flood and crude oil discharge losses. Each insurer reserved its rights under various policy exclusions and limitations and cited potential coverage defenses. The Court issued summary judgment opinions that eliminated the majority of the insurance defendants' reservations and defenses. CRRM has received $25 million of insurance proceeds under its primary environmental liability insurance policy, which constitutes full payment of the primary pollution liability policy limit. In November 2014, CRRM concluded a jury trial against the remaining insurance carriers and received a verdict and judgment of $27 million, exclusive of potential prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees, which have been requested in post-trial motions. CVR Refining has a $4 million receivable related to this matter as of both December 31, 2014 and 2013. In accordance with accounting guidance related to gain contingencies, no additional amounts have been recognized related to the verdict and judgment in the consolidated financial statements. Environmental, Health and Safety Matters The petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses are subject to various stringent federal, state, and local Environmental, Health and Safety ("EHS") rules and regulations. Liabilities related to EHS matters are recognized when the related costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Estimates of these costs are based upon currently available facts, existing technology, site-specific costs and currently enacted laws and regulations. In reporting EHS liabilities, no offset is made for potential recoveries. CRRM, CRNF, Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC ("CRCT"), Wynnewood Refining Company, LLC ("WRC") and Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC ("CRT") own and/or operate manufacturing and ancillary operations at various locations directly related to petroleum refining and distribution and nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing. Therefore, CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, WRC and CRT have exposure to potential EHS liabilities related to past and present EHS conditions at these locations. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), and related state laws, certain persons may be liable for the release or threatened release of hazardous substances. These persons include the current owner or operator of property where a release or threatened release occurred, any persons who owned or operated the property when the release occurred, and any persons who disposed of, or arranged for the transportation or disposal of, hazardous substances at a contaminated property. Liability under CERCLA is strict, and under certain circumstances, joint and several, so that any responsible party may be held liable for the entire cost of investigating and remediating the release of hazardous substances. Similarly, the OPA generally subjects owners and operators of facilities to strict, joint and several liability for all containment and clean-up costs, natural resource damages, and potential governmental oversight costs arising from oil spills into the waters of the United States, which has been broadly interpreted to include most water bodies including intermittent streams. CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, WRC and CRT are subject to extensive and frequently changing federal, state and local, environmental and health and safety laws and regulations governing the emission and release of hazardous substances into the environment, the treatment and discharge of waste water, the storage, handling, use and transportation of petroleum and nitrogen products, and the characteristics and composition of gasoline and diesel fuels. The ultimate impact of complying with evolving laws and regulations is not always clearly known or determinable due in part to the fact that our operations may change over time and certain implementing regulations for laws, such as the federal Clean Air Act, have not yet been finalized, are under governmental or judicial review or are being revised. These laws and regulations could result in increased capital, operating and compliance costs for our Energy segment. CRRM and CRT have agreed to perform corrective actions at the Coffeyville, Kansas refinery and the now-closed Phillipsburg, Kansas terminal facility, pursuant to Administrative Orders on Consent issued under RCRA to address historical contamination by the prior owners (RCRA Docket No. VII-94-H-20 and Docket No. VII-95-H-11, respectively). As December 31, 2014 and 2013, environmental accruals of $1 million and $2 million, respectively, were reflected in the consolidated balance sheets for probable and estimated costs for remediation of environmental contamination under the RCRA Administrative Orders. Accruals were determined based on an estimate of payment costs through 2031, for which the scope of remediation was arranged with the EPA, and were discounted at the appropriate risk free rates at December 31, 2014 and 2013. The accruals include estimated closure and post-closure costs of $1 million for the two landfills at both December 31, 2014 and 2013. CVR's management periodically reviews and, as appropriate, revises its environmental accruals. Based on current information and regulatory requirements, CVR's management believes that the accruals established for environmental expenditures are adequate. In 2007, the EPA promulgated the Mobile Source Air Toxic II ("MSAT II") rule that requires the reduction of benzene in gasoline by 2011. The MSAT II projects for CRRM and WRC were completed within the compliance deadline of November 1, 2014. The projects were completed at a total cost, excluding capitalized interest, of approximately $48 million for CRRM and $88 million for WRC. The petroleum business is subject to the Renewable Fuel Standard ("RFS") which requires refiners to either blend "renewable fuels" in with their transportation fuels or purchase renewable fuel credits, known as RINs in lieu of blending. Due to mandates in the RFS requiring increasing volumes of renewable fuels to replace petroleum products in the U.S. motor fuel market, there may be a decrease in demand for petroleum products. The EPA is required to determine and publish the applicable annual renewable fuel percentage standards for each compliance year by November 30 for the forthcoming year. The percentage standards represent the ratio of renewable fuel volume to gasoline and diesel volume. Beginning in 2011, the Coffeyville refinery was required to blend renewable fuels into its gasoline and diesel fuel or purchase RINs in lieu of blending. In 2013, the Wynnewood refinery was subject to the RFS for the first time. However, because the cost of purchasing RINs had been extremely volatile and had significantly increased, the Wynnewood refinery petitioned the EPA as a "small refinery" for hardship relief from the RFS requirements in 2013 based on the "disproportionate economic hardship" of the rule on the Wynnewood refinery. The EPA denied the petition in a letter dated September 5, 2014. During 2013, the cost of purchasing RINs was extremely volatile as the EPA's proposed renewable fuel volume mandates approached the "blend wall." The blend wall refers to the point at which refiners are required to blend more ethanol into the transportation supply than can be supported by the demand for E10 gasoline (gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol by volume). In November 2013, the EPA published the annual renewable fuel percentage standards for 2014, which acknowledged the blend wall and were generally lower than the volumes for 2013 and lower than statutory mandates. The price of RINs decreased significantly after the 2014 proposed percentage standards were published; however, RIN prices remained volatile and have increased subsequently in 2014. In May 2014, the EPA lowered the 2013 cellulosic biofuel standard to 0.0005%, and, in June 2014, the EPA extended the compliance demonstration deadline for the 2013 RFS to September 30, 2014. In August 2014, the EPA further extended the compliance demonstration deadline for the 2013 RFS to 30 days following the publication of the final 2014 annual renewable fuel percentage standards. In November 2014, the EPA announced that it would not finalize the 2014 annual renewable fuel percentage standards before the end of 2014 thereby extending the compliance deadline for the 2013 RFS as well. The cost of RINs for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 and the period May 5, 2012 through December 31, 2012 was $127 million, $181 million and $14 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, the petroleum business' biofuel blending obligation was $52 million and $17 million, respectively, which is included in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. The future cost of RINs for the petroleum business going forward is difficult to estimate, particularly until such time that the 2014 renewable fuel percentage standards are finalized and the 2015 renewable fuel percentage standards are announced. Additionally, the cost of RINs is dependent upon a variety of factors, which include EPA regulations, the availability of RINs for purchase, the price at which RINs can be purchased, transportation fuel production levels, the mix of the petroleum business' petroleum products, as well as the fuel blending performed at the its refineries, all of which can vary significantly from quarter to quarter. In April 2014, the EPA promulgated the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards, which will require that gasoline contain no more than ten parts per million of sulfur on an annual average basis. Refineries must be in compliance with the more stringent emission standards by January 1, 2017; however, compliance with the rule is extended until January 1, 2020 for approved small volume refineries and small refiners. The Wynnewood refinery has submitted an application to EPA requesting "small volume refinery" status. It is not anticipated that the refineries will require additional controls or capital expenditures to meet the anticipated new standard. In March 2004, CRRM and CRT entered into a Consent Decree (the "2004 Consent Decree") with the EPA and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (the "KDHE") to resolve air compliance concerns raised by the EPA and KDHE related to Farmland Industries Inc.'s prior ownership and operation of the Coffeyville crude oil refinery and the now-closed Phillipsburg terminal facilities. Under the 2004 Consent Decree, CRRM agreed to install controls to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from its FCCU by January 1, 2011. In addition, pursuant to the 2004 Consent Decree, CRRM and CRT assumed clean-up obligations at the Coffeyville refinery and the now-closed Phillipsburg terminal facilities. In March 2012, CRRM entered into a "Second Consent Decree" with the EPA, which replaces the 2004 Consent Decree, as amended (other than certain financial assurance provisions associated with corrective action at the refinery and terminal under RCRA). The Second Consent Decree was entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on April 19, 2012. The Second Consent Decree gives CRRM more time to install the FCCU controls from the 2004 Consent Decree and expands the scope of the settlement so that it is now considered a "global settlement" under the EPA's "National Petroleum Refining Initiative." Under the National Petroleum Refining Initiative, the EPA alleged industry-wide non-compliance with four "marquee" issues under the Clean Air Act: New Source Review, Flaring, Leak Detection and Repair, and Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. The National Petroleum Refining Initiative has resulted in most U.S. refineries (representing more than 90% of the U.S. refining capacity) entering into consent decrees requiring the payment of civil penalties and the installation of air pollution control equipment and enhanced operating procedures. Under the Second Consent Decree, CVR was required to pay a civil penalty of less than $1 million and complete the installation of FCCU controls required under the 2004 Consent Decree, add controls to certain heaters and boilers and enhance certain work practices relating to wastewater and fugitive emissions. The remaining costs of complying with the Second Consent Decree are expected to be approximately $44 million. Additional incremental capital expenditures associated with the Second Consent Decree will not be material and will be limited primarily to the retrofit and replacement of heaters and boilers over several year time-frame. WRC entered into a Consent Order with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (the "ODEQ") in August 2011 (the "Wynnewood Consent Order"). The Wynnewood Consent Order addresses certain historic Clean Air Act compliance issues related to the operations of the prior owner. Under the Wynnewood Consent Order, WRC paid a civil penalty of $950,000 and agreed to install certain controls, enhance certain compliance programs, and undertake additional testing and auditing. A substantial portion of the costs of complying with the Wynnewood Consent Order were expended during the last turnaround. The remaining costs are expected to be approximately $3 million. In consideration for entering into the Wynnewood Consent Order, WRC received a release from liability from ODEQ for matters described in the ODEQ order. From time to time, ODEQ conducts inspections of the Wynnewood refinery and pursues enforcement related to any alleged non-compliance with the Clean Air Act seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief, which may necessitate the installation of controls. In January 2014, ODEQ issued a full compliance evaluation ("FCE") report covering the period from December 2010 through June 2013, which covered periods of the previous owner's ownership and operation and, in some cases, continued into CVR Refining's ownership of the Wynnewood refinery. In addition, on April 11, 2014, WRC received a partial compliance evaluation ("PCE") report from ODEQ alleging additional violations of the Clean Air Act. ODE conducted a follow-up inspection on June 30, 2014. WRC has responded to both the FCE and PCE. The costs of any enforcement that may arise as a result of the FCE or the PCE cannot be predicted at this time. However, based on its experience related to Clean Air Act enforcement and control requirements, CVR does not anticipate that the costs of any civil penalties, required additional controls or operational changes would be material. WRC has entered into a series of Clean Water Act consent orders with ODEQ. The latest consent order (the "CWA Consent Order"), which superseded other consent orders, became effective in September 2011. The CWA Consent Order addressed alleged non-compliance by WRC with its Oklahoma Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("OPDES") permit limits. The CWA Consent Order required WRC to take corrective action steps, including undertaking studies to determine whether the Wynnewood refinery's wastewater treatment plant capacity is sufficient. WRC completed its obligations under the CWA Consent Order, and ODEQ notified WRC that the CWA Consent Order is closed. In January 2014, the EPA also issued an inspection report to the Wynnewood refinery related to a RCRA compliance evaluation inspection conducted in March 2013. In February 2014, ODEQ notified WRC that it concurred with the EPA's inspection findings and would be pursuing enforcement. WRC and ODEQ currently are engaged in settlement discussions related to a civil penalty and injunctive relief. The costs of any related enforcement settlement cannot be predicted at this time. However, based on its experience related to RCRA enforcement, CVR does not anticipate that the costs of any civil penalties, required additional controls or operational changes would be material. Environmental expenditures are capitalized when such expenditures are expected to result in future economic benefits. For the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 and the period May 5, 2012 through December 31, 2012, capital expenditures were approximately $101 million, $111 million and $21 million, respectively, and were incurred to improve the environmental compliance and efficiency of the operations. CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, WRC and CRT each believe it is in substantial compliance with existing EHS rules and regulations. There can be no assurance that the EHS matters described above or other EHS matters which may develop in the future will not have a material adverse effect on CVR's business, financial condition, or results of operations. On September 28, 2012, the Wynnewood refinery experienced an explosion in a boiler unit during startup after a short outage as part of the turnaround process. Two employees were fatally injured. Damage at the refinery was limited to the boiler. Additionally, there has been no evidence of environmental impact. The refinery was in the final stages of shutdown for turnaround maintenance at the time of the incident. The petroleum business completed an internal investigation of the incident and cooperated with OSHA in its investigation. OSHA also conducted a general inspection of the facility during the boiler incident investigation. In March 2013, OSHA completed its investigation and communicated its citations to WRC. OSHA also placed WRC in its Severe Violators Enforcement Program ("SVEP"). WRC is vigorously contesting the citations and OSHA's placement of WRC in the SVEP. Any penalties associated with OSHA's citations are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements. On September 25, 2013, WRC agreed to pay a small civil penalty to settle rather than defend claims alleged by the EPA under the Clean Air Act's general duty clause related to the boiler incident. In addition to the above, the spouses of the two employees fatally injured have filed a civil lawsuit against WRC, CVR Refining and CVR Energy in Fort Bend County, Texas. The civil suit is in discovery and the companies will vigorously defend the suit. It is currently too early to assess a potential outcome in the matter. Metals Environmental Matters Certain of PSC Metals' facilities are environmentally impaired in part as a result of operating practices at the sites prior to their acquisition by PSC Metals and as a result of PSC Metals' operations. PSC Metals has established procedures to periodically evaluate these sites, giving consideration to the nature and extent of the contamination. PSC Metals has provided for the remediation of these sites based upon management's judgment and prior experience. PSC Metals has estimated the liability to remediate these sites to be $28 million and $29 million as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Management believes, based on past experience, that the vast majority of these environmental liabilities and costs will be assessed and paid over an extended period of time. PSC Metals believes that it will be able to fund such costs in the ordinary course of business. Estimates of PSC Metals' liability for remediation of a particular site and the method and ultimate cost of remediation require a number of assumptions that are inherently difficult to make, and the ultimate outcome may be materially different from current estimates. Moreover, because PSC Metals has disposed of waste materials at numerous third-party disposal facilities, it is possible that PSC Metals will be identified as a PRP at additional sites. The impact of such future events cannot be estimated at the current time. PSC Metals has been designated as a PRP under U.S. federal and state superfund laws with respect to certain sites with which PSC Metals may have had a direct or indirect involvement. It is alleged that PSC Metals and its subsidiaries or their predecessors transported waste to the sites, disposed of waste at the sites or operated the sites in question. In addition, PSC Metals recently learned that its Knoxville location was the subject of investigations by the State of Tennessee under the federal Superfund law. These investigations were performed by the State of Tennessee pursuant to a contract with the EPA. PSC Metals is exploring a potential settlement of the matter. Currently, PSC Metals cannot assess the impact of any cost or liability associated with these investigations. With respect to all other matters in which PSC Metals has been designated as a PRP under U.S. federal and state superfund laws, PSC Metals has reviewed the nature and extent of the allegations, the number, connection and financial ability of other named and unnamed PRPs and the nature and estimated cost of the likely remedy. Based on reviewing the nature and extent of the allegations, PSC Metals has estimated its liability to remediate these sites to be immaterial at each of December 31, 2014 and 2013. If it is determined that PSC Metals has liability to remediate those sites and that more expensive remediation approaches are required in the future, PSC Metals could incur additional obligations, which could be material. In November and December of 2011, PSC Metals received three notices of violation ("NOV") from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (“MDNR”) for hazardous waste and water violations related to its Festus, Missouri location. PSC Metals has entered into a settlement with MDNR that resolves these NOVs. Currently, PSC Metals believes that it has established adequate reserves for the cost of this settlement. In addition, PSC Metals believes that it has a claim for indemnification against the prior owner of the facility associated with the above-referenced notices of violation. MDNR and PSC Metals, as part of the resolution of MDNR's NOVs, have undertaken sampling for lead at residences near PSC Metals' Festus yard. Approximately 67 residences were sampled and tested, and of those, approximately 15 tested above residential standards for lead contamination. PSC Metals has entered into a settlement agreement with MDNR which resolves MNDR’s claims and requires limited soil remediation at the 15 residences. PSC Metals is in the process of completing the remediation required by the settlement agreement. Currently, PSC Metals believes that it has adequately reserved for the cost of remediation associated with its Festus yard and the residential areas near the yard. However, PSC Metals cannot assess its liability with certainty at this time. Additionally, PSC Metals believes that liability for off-site contamination was retained by the prior owner of the Festus yard and accordingly, it would have a claim for indemnification against the prior owner. In 2011, PSC Metals entered into a consent decree with the EPA regarding PSC Metals' scrap processing facility located in Cleveland, Ohio. The EPA alleged that PSC Metals violated the requirements of Section 608 of the Clean Air Act, 42 USC Section 761, which requires scrap processors to either recover refrigerants from appliances in accordance with the procedures described in the applicable federal regulations or verify through certifications that refrigerants have previously been evacuated. The consent decree includes injunctive relief that, among other things, will require PSC Metals to offer refrigerant extraction services at 11 of its scrap processing facilities through October 2015. PSC Metals estimates that the cost associated with the required injunctive relief will range from $0.8 million to $1.7 million, exclusive of a civil penalty of $199,000 assessed in connection with the consent decree which PSC Metals paid in 2011. On April 3, 2013, two citizen groups filed a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act (the “CWA”) for alleged storm water and process water discharges at PSC Metals' Nashville, TN facility that the citizen groups allege violate the CWA and PSC Metals' storm water discharge permit. The CWA requires that to maintain a citizen suit, the citizen plaintiffs must be able to show that the violations are on-going or are reasonably likely to reoccur. PSC Metals has entered into a settlement agreement with the citizen plaintiffs that resolves the citizen plaintiffs' claims. The settlement agreement requires, among other things, improvements to PSC Metals' Nashville facility in order to improve the quality of storm water discharges and more frequent storm water testing than what is currently required. Railcar On October 24, 2014, ARI filed a complaint in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Gyansys, Inc. ("Gyansys"). The complaint asserts a claim against Gyansys for breaching its contract with ARI to implement an enterprise resource planning system. ARI seeks to recover monetary damages in an amount still to be determined, but which ARI alleged exceeds $25 million. Gyansys filed a response to the suit denying its responsibility. It also counterclaimed against ARI for a breach of contract and wrongful termination, seeking damages in excess of $10 million and equitable relief. At this time, ARI does not have sufficient information to reasonably form an estimate of the potential outcome (gain or loss) of this litigation. However, ARI believes that Gyansys' counterclaims lack merit, and ARI has filed a motion to dismiss Gyansys' counterclaims in part. Gaming Tropicana AC Tax Appeal Settlement In January 2013, Tropicana settled outstanding real estate tax appeals involving our Tropicana AC property with the City of Atlantic City. The settlement involves the tax years 2008 through 2012 and also covers negotiated real estate assessments for 2013 and 2014. Under the terms of the settlement, Tropicana AC was to receive approximately $50 million refund in the form of credits against annual real estate tax bills beginning in 2013 and ending in 2017. The credits were to be front-loaded in 2013 and 2014 so that after the credits were applied, Tropicana AC paid approximately $2 million in taxes in 2013. Tropicana utilized $16 million of credits as a reduction to operating expenses in the year ended December 31, 2013. In addition, we expensed $4 million in professional fees related to this settlement in the year ended December 31, 2013. In January 2014, Tropicana received approximately $32 million in cash as payment to satisfy future credits. Indiana Gross Income Tax Appeals In September 2014, Tropicana settled gross income tax litigation pending with the state of Indiana related to its Predecessors, Aztar Missouri Gaming Corporation ("AMO") and Aztar Indiana Gaming Corporation and its successor, Aztar Indiana Gaming, LLC (collectively, "AIN") pursuant to which it paid the state of Indiana a settlement in the amount of $0.6 million and withdrew gross income tax refund claims related to AIN and AMO for the tax years 2004 through 2008 in exchange for a dismissal of tax assessments against AIN for the tax year 2008, and an exchange of mutual releases between the parties related to Indiana gross income tax assessments and refund claims for the tax years 2004 through 2008. As a result, Tropicana recorded adjustments to both its administrative tax claim receivable and accrual in the amount of $8 million. Home Fashion Environmental Matters WPH is subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations governing, among other things, the discharge, storage, handling and disposal of a variety of hazardous and nonhazardous substances and wastes used in or resulting from its operations and potential remediation obligations. WPH's operations are also governed by U.S. federal, state, local and foreign laws, rules and regulations relating to employee safety and health which, among other things, establish exposure limitation for cotton dust, formaldehyde, asbestos and noise, and which regulate chemical, physical and ergonomic hazards in the workplace. WPH estimated its environmental accruals to be $1 million at both December 31, 2014 and 2013. Other Matters Mr. Icahn, through certain affiliates, owns 100% of Icahn Enterprises GP and approximately 88.4% of Icahn Enterprises' outstanding depositary units as of December 31, 2014. Applicable pension and tax laws make each member of a “controlled group” of entities, generally defined as entities in which there is at least an 80% common ownership interest, jointly and severally liable for certain pension plan obligations of any member of the controlled group. These pension obligations include ongoing contributions to fund the plan, as well as liability for any unfunded liabilities that may exist at the time the plan is terminated. In addition, the failure to pay these pension obligations when due may result in the creation of liens in favor of the pension plan or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") against the assets of each member of the controlled group. As a result of the more than 80% ownership interest in us by Mr. Icahn’s affiliates, we and our subsidiaries are subject to the pension liabilities of entities in which Mr. Icahn has a direct or indirect ownership interest of at least 80%. As a result of our ownership of more than 80% in our subsidiaries, we and our subsidiaries are subject to the pension liabilities of all entities in which Mr. Icahn has a direct or indirect ownership interest of at least 80%. ACF and Federal-Mogul, are the sponsors of several pension plans. All the minimum funding requirements of the Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, for these plans have been met as of December 31, 2014 and 2013. If the plans were voluntarily terminated, they would be underfunded by approximately $474 million and $592 million as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. These results are based on the most recent information provided by the plans’ actuaries. These liabilities could increase or decrease, depending on a number of factors, including future changes in benefits, investment returns, and the assumptions used to calculate the liability. As members of the controlled group, we would be liable for any failure of ACF and Federal-Mogul to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon a termination of the pension plans of ACF and Federal-Mogul. In addition, other entities now or in the future within the controlled group in which we are included may have pension plan obligations that are, or may become, underfunded and we would be liable for any failure of such entities to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon termination of such plans. The current underfunded status of the pension plans of ACF and Federal-Mogul requires them to notify the PBGC of certain “reportable events,” such as if we cease to be a member of the ACF and Federal-Mogul controlled group, or if we make certain extraordinary dividends or stock redemptions. The obligation to report could cause us to seek to delay or reconsider the occurrence of such reportable events. Starfire Holding Corporation ("Starfire"), which is 99.4% owned by Mr. Icahn, has undertaken to indemnify us and our subsidiaries from losses resulting from any imposition of certain pension funding or termination liabilities that may be imposed on us and our subsidiaries or our assets as a result of being a member of the Icahn controlled group. The Starfire indemnity (which does not extend to pension liabilities of our subsidiaries that would be imposed on us as a result of our interest in these subsidiaries and not as a result of Mr. Icahn and his affiliates holding more than an 80% ownership interest in us, and as such would not extend to the unfunded pension termination liability for Federal-Mogul) provides, among other things, that so long as such contingent liabilities exist and could be imposed on us, Starfire will not make any distributions to its stockholders that would reduce its net worth to below $250 million. Nonetheless, Starfire may not be able to fund its indemnification obligations to us. Consolidated Leases Consolidated future minimum lease payments under operating leases with initial terms of one or more years consist of the following at December 31, 2014:
Year |  | Amount
|  | (in millions)
2015 |  | $ | 75 |
2016 |  | 69 |
2017 |  | 55 |
2018 |  | 41 |
2019 |  | 34 |
Thereafter |  | 129 |
|  | $ | 403 |

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration