Note 9: Commitments and Contingencies

Termination of Sales Commitment – Ammonium nitrate supply agreement – Pursuant to a long-term cost-plus supply agreement, EDC agreed to supply Orica International Pte Ltd with an annual minimum of 240,000 tons of industrial grade AN produced at our El Dorado Facility. The agreement included a provision for Orica to pay for product not taken. The agreement also included a required notice of termination of one year, with the termination date to be no sooner than April 9, 2015. On March 31, 2014, EDC sent to Orica the required one-year notice that EDC would not renew the agreement. As a result, the agreement expired on April 9, 2015.

Planned Capital Additions – A subsidiary of EDC is party to various agreements with Leidos Constructors, LLC and others to engineer, procure and construct an ammonia plant and certain support facilities. The estimated cost for this project ranges from $405 million to $420 million, of which $243 million has been incurred and capitalized at June 30, 2015.

EDC is party to an agreement with Weatherly Inc. for the licensing, engineering, and procurement of major manufacturing equipment for a new 65% strength nitric acid plant to be constructed at our El Dorado Facility. EDC is also party to various agreements with Leidos Constructors, LLC and others to engineer, procure and construct the Nitric Acid Plant, a nitric acid concentrator and certain support facilities at the El Dorado Facility. The estimated cost for this project ranges from $140 million to $142 million, of which $121 million has been incurred and capitalized at June 30, 2015.

Legal Matters – Following is a summary of certain legal matters involving the Company:

A.	Environmental Matters

Our facilities and operations are subject to numerous federal, state and local environmental laws and to other laws regarding health and safety matters. In particular, the manufacture, production and distribution of products by our Chemical Business are activities that entail environmental and public health risks and impose obligations under the Environmental Laws and the Health Laws, many of which provide for certain performance obligations, substantial fines and criminal sanctions for violations. There can be no assurance that we will not incur material costs or liabilities in complying with such laws or in paying fines or penalties for violation of such laws. The Environmental Laws and Health Laws and enforcement policies thereunder have in the past resulted, and could in the future result, in significant compliance expenses, cleanup costs (for our sites or third-party sites where our wastes were disposed of), penalties or other liabilities relating to the handling, manufacture, use, emission, discharge or disposal of hazardous or toxic materials at or from our facilities or the use or disposal of certain of its chemical products. Historically, significant expenditures have been incurred by subsidiaries within our Chemical Business in order to comply with the Environmental Laws and Health Laws and are reasonably expected to be incurred in the future. We will also be obligated to manage certain discharge water outlets and monitor groundwater contaminants at our Chemical Business facilities should we discontinue the operations of a facility. We do not operate the natural gas wells where we own a working interest and compliance with Environmental Laws and Health Laws is controlled by others, with our Chemical Business being responsible for its proportionate share of the costs involved. As of June 30, 2015, our accrued liabilities for environmental matters totaled $497,000 relating primarily to matters discussed below. It is reasonably possible that a change in the estimate of our liability could occur in the near term. Also see discussion in Note 7—Asset Retirement Obligations.

1.	Discharge Water Matters

Each of our chemical manufacturing facilities generates process wastewater, which may include cooling tower and boiler water quality control streams, contact storm water (rain water inside the facility area that picks up contaminants) and miscellaneous spills and leaks from process equipment. The process water discharge, storm-water runoff and miscellaneous spills and leaks are governed by various permits generally issued by the respective state environmental agencies as authorized by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, subject to oversight by the EPA. These permits limit the type and amount of effluents that can be discharged and controls the method of such discharge. The following are discharge water matters in relation to the respective permits.

The El Dorado Facility is subject to a state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System discharge water permit issued by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. The El Dorado Facility is currently operating under an NPDES discharge water permit, which became effective in 2004. In 2010, a preliminary draft of a discharge water permit renewal for the El Dorado Facility, which contains more restrictive limits, was issued by the ADEQ.

EDC believes that the El Dorado Facility has generally demonstrated its ability to comply with applicable ammonia and nitrate permit limits, but has, from time to time, had difficulty demonstrating consistent compliance with the more restrictive dissolved minerals permit levels, primarily the storm-water runoff. We do not believe this matter regarding meeting the permit requirements as to the dissolved minerals is a continuing issue for the process wastewater as the result of the El Dorado Facility disposing its wastewater (beginning in September 2013) via a pipeline constructed by the City of El Dorado, Arkansas. We believe that the issue with the storm-water runoff should be resolved if and when the ADEQ issues a new NPDES permit, which we have been advised that the ADEQ is currently processing.

During 2012, EDC paid a penalty of $100,000 to settle an Administrative Complaint issued by the EPA, and thereafter handled by the United States Department of Justice, relating to certain alleged violations of EDC’s 2004 NPDES permit for alleged violations through 2010. The DOJ advised that some action would be taken for alleged violations occurring after 2010. As of the date of this report, no action has been filed by the DOJ against EDC. As a result, the cost (or range of costs) cannot currently be reasonably estimated regarding this matter. Therefore, no liability has been established at June 30, 2015.

In addition, the El Dorado Facility is currently operating under a consent administrative order that recognizes the presence of nitrate contamination in the shallow groundwater. The 2006 CAO required EDC to continue semiannual groundwater monitoring, to continue operation of a groundwater recovery system and to submit a human health and ecological risk assessment to the ADEQ relating to the El Dorado Facility. The risk assessment was submitted in August 2007. The final remedy for shallow groundwater contamination, should any remediation be required, will be selected pursuant to a new consent administrative order and based upon the risk assessment. The cost of any additional remediation that may be required will be determined based on the results of the investigation and risk assessment, of which cost (or range of costs) cannot currently be reasonably estimated. Therefore, no liability has been established at June 30, 2015, in connection with this matter.

2.	Air Matters

One of our subsidiaries, PCC, within our Chemical Business, has been advised that the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality is conducting an investigation into whether the chemical production facility located in Pryor, Oklahoma was in compliance with certain rules and regulations of the ODEQ and whether PCC’s reports of certain air emissions relating primarily to 2011 were intentionally reported incorrectly to the ODEQ. PCC has cooperated with the ODEQ in connection with this investigation. As of June 30, 2015, we are not aware of any recommendations made or to be made by the ODEQ with respect to legal action to be taken or recommended as a result of this ongoing investigation.

3.	Other Environmental Matters

During May 2013, the EPA conducted a Risk Management inspection of our Cherokee Facility. During October 2014, our Cherokee Facility received a notice of violation from the EPA as a result of the inspection listing eleven alleged violations. Our Cherokee Facility has provided the EPA with written responses. During May 2015, our Cherokee Facility received a settlement letter from the EPA, which terms have been accepted by the Cherokee Facility and awaiting the final Consent Decree from the EPA. Under the proposed settlement agreement, we have agreed to pay a penalty in the form of providing $100,000 to purchase emergency response equipment for the local first responders plus a civil penalty to the EPA of approximately $26,000. As a result, we have accrued for the amount of this settlement, which is included in our accrued liabilities for environmental matters discussed above.

In 2002, two subsidiaries within our Chemical Business sold substantially all of their operating assets relating to a Kansas chemical facility but retained ownership of the real property. Even though we continued to own the real property, we did not assess our continuing involvement with our former Hallowell Facility to be significant and therefore accounted for the sale as discontinued operations. Our subsidiary retained the obligation to be responsible for, and perform the activities under, a previously executed consent order to investigate the surface and subsurface contamination at the real property and develop a corrective action strategy based on the investigation. In addition, certain of our subsidiaries agreed to indemnify the buyer of such assets for these environmental matters. Based on the assessment discussed above, we account for transactions associated with the Hallowell Facility as discontinued operations.

The successor (“Chevron”) of a prior owner of the Hallowell Facility has agreed in writing, within certain limitations, to pay and has been paying one-half of the costs of the investigation and interim measures relating to this matter as approved by the Kansas Department of Environmental Quality, subject to reallocation.

Our subsidiary and Chevron are pursuing with the state of Kansas, including the Kansas Department of Health and Environmental, a corrective action strategy relating to the Hallowell Facility. This strategy currently includes a long-term surface and groundwater monitoring to track the natural decline in contamination. During December 2014, the KDHE approved a corrective action study work plan, and the KDHE is to consider and recommend restoration or replacement pursuant to the work plan and/or whether to seek compensation. The KDHE will consider the recommendations in its evaluation. Currently, it is unknown what remediation and damages the KDHE would require, if any, but we believe that certain remediation activities will be required to begin during 2016. The ultimate required remediation, if any, is currently unknown. Our subsidiary and Chevron have retained an environmental consultant to perform the corrective action study work plan as to the appropriate method to remediate the Hallowell Facility, which study is not scheduled to be completed until the end of 2015. We have been advised by our consultant that until the study has been completed there are too many unknowns to have a meaningful and reliable estimate as to the cost of the remediation. We have accrued for our allocable portion of costs primarily for the additional testing, monitoring and risk assessments that could be reasonably estimated, which is included in our accrued liabilities for environmental matters discussed above. The estimated amount is not discounted to its present value. As more information becomes available relating to the study during 2015, our estimated accrual will be refined.

B.	Other Pending, Threatened or Settled Litigation

In 2013, an explosion and fire occurred at the West Fertilizer Co. located in West, Texas, causing death, bodily injury and substantial property damage. West Fertilizer is not owned or controlled by us, but West Fertilizer had been a customer of EDC, purchasing AN from EDC from time to time. LSB and EDC previously received letters from counsel purporting to represent subrogated insurance carriers, personal injury claimants and persons who suffered property damages informing them that their clients are conducting investigations into the cause of the explosion and fire to determine, among other things, whether AN manufactured by EDC and supplied to West Fertilizer was stored at West Fertilizer at the time of the explosion and, if so, whether such AN may have been one of the contributing factors of the explosion. Other manufacturers of AN also supplied AN to West Fertilizer. Initially, the lawsuits that had been filed named West Fertilizer and another supplier of AN as defendants. There have been certain responses to discovery in connection with the pending lawsuits that possibly some of the AN products at West Fertilizer at the time of the explosion may have been produced by EDC. In 2014, EDC and LSB were named as defendants, together with other AN manufacturers and brokers that arranged the transport and delivery of AN to West Fertilizer, in the case styled City of West, Texas v CF Industries, Inc., et al, in the District Court of McLennan County, Texas. Plaintiffs are alleging, among other things, that LSB and EDC were negligent in the production and marketing of fertilizer products sold to West Fertilizer resulting in death, personal injury and property damage. EDC has retained a firm specializing in cause and origin investigations with particular experience with fertilizer facilities, to assist EDC in its own investigation. LSB and EDC have placed its liability insurance carrier on notice, which carrier is handling the defense for LSB and EDC concerning this matter. Our product liability insurance policies have aggregate limits of general liability totaling $100 million, with a self-insured retention of $250,000. Our legal counsel in this matter has represented to us that while it is extremely early in this litigation, they believe our chances of ultimately confirming the merits of EDC’s legal position are probable. However, if there is an adverse outcome in this matter as to EDC, we are unable to estimate a possible range of loss at this time. As of June 30, 2015, no liability has been established in connection with this matter, but we have incurred professional fees up to our self-insured retention amount.

During May 2015, our subsidiary, EDC, was sued in the matter styled BAE Systems Ordinance Systems, Inc. (“BAE”), et al. vs. El Dorado Chemical Company, in the United States District Court, Western District of Arkansas, for an alleged breach of a supply agreement to provide BAE certain products. It is EDC’s position, among other things, that its inability to deliver to BAE was due to a force majeure event caused by a fire and explosion at EDC’s nitric acid plant, which force majeure clause in the supply agreement excuses EDC’s performance under the supply agreement. BAE pre-litigation demand indicated a claim in excess of $30 million. EDC will vigorously defend this matter. The cost (or range of costs), if any, EDC would incur relating to this matter cannot currently be reasonably estimated. Therefore, no liability has been established at June 30, 2015.

We are also involved in various other claims and legal actions including claims for damages resulting from water leaks related to our Climate Control products and other product liability occurrences. Most of the product liability claims are covered by our general liability insurance, which generally includes a deductible of $250,000 or $500,000 per claim, depending on the policy period. For any claims or legal actions that we have assessed the likelihood of our liability as probable, we have recognized our estimated liability up to the applicable deductible. At June 30, 2015, our accrued general liability insurance claims were $694,000 and are included in accrued and other liabilities. It is possible that the actual future development of claims could be different from our estimates but, after consultation with legal counsel, we believe that changes in our estimates will not have a material effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.