Form 10-Q LSB INDUSTRIES INC For: Mar 31

5.  Commitments and Contingencies (continued)

In addition, claims for damages to persons or property, including natural resources, may result from the environmental, health and safety effects of our operations.

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. Our insurance may not cover all environmental risks and costs or may not provide sufficient coverage if an environmental claim is made against us. The Environmental and Health Laws and related enforcement policies 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.  Further, a number of our facilities are dependent on environmental permits to operate, the loss or modification of which could have a material adverse effect on their operations and our financial condition.

Historically, significant capital expenditures have been incurred by our subsidiaries in order to comply with the Environmental and Health Laws, and significant capital expenditures are expected to be incurred in the future. We will also be obligated to manage certain discharge water outlets and monitor groundwater contaminants at our facilities should we discontinue the operations of a facility.

As of March 31, 2022, our accrued liabilities for environmental matters totaled approximately $0.5 million relating primarily to the matters discussed below. Estimates of the most likely costs for our environmental matters are generally based on preliminary or completed assessment studies, preliminary results of studies, or our experience with other similar matters. It is reasonably possible that a change in the estimate of our liability could occur in the near term.

1. Discharge Water Matters

Each of our manufacturing facilities generates process wastewater, which may include cooling tower and boiler water quality control streams, contact storm water 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 and overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These permits limit the type and volume of effluents that can be discharged and control the method of such discharge.

In 2017, the Pryor Chemical Company (“PCC”) filed a Permit Renewal Application for its Non-Hazardous Injection Well Permit at the Pryor Facility. Although the Injection Well Permit expired in 2018, PCC continues to operate the injection well pending the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (“ODEQ”) action on the Permit Renewal Application. PCC and ODEQ are engaged in ongoing discussions related to the renewal of the injection well to address the wastewater stream.

Our El Dorado Facility is subject to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit issued by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”) in 2004. In 2010, the ADEQ issued a draft NPDES permit renewal for the El Dorado Facility, which contained more restrictive discharge limits than the previous 2004 permit. During 2017, ADEQ issued a final NPDES permit with new dissolved mineral limits; however, EDC filed an appeal, and a Permit Appeal Resolution (“PAR”) was signed in 2018. EDC is in compliance with the revised permit limits agreed upon in the PAR.

In 2006, the El Dorado Facility entered into a Consent Administrative Order (“CAO”) that recognizes the presence of nitrate contamination in the shallow groundwater. The CAO required EDC to perform semi-annual groundwater monitoring, continue operation of a groundwater recovery system, submit a human health and ecological risk assessment, and submit a remedial action plan.

The risk assessment was submitted in 2007. In 2015, the ADEQ stated that El Dorado Chemical was meeting the requirements of the CAO and should continue semi-annual monitoring. Subsequent to the PAR mentioned previously, a new CAO was signed in 2018, which required an Evaluation Report of the data and effectiveness of the groundwater remedy for nitrate contamination. During 2019, the Evaluation Report was submitted to the ADEQ and the ADEQ approved the report. No liability has been established at March 31, 2022, in connection with this ADEQ matter.

2. Other Environmental Matters

In 2002, certain of our subsidiaries sold substantially all of their operating assets relating to a Kansas chemical facility (the “Hallowell Facility”) but retained ownership of the real property where the facility is located. 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, develop a corrective action strategy based on the investigation, and implement such strategy. In addition, certain of our subsidiaries agreed to indemnify the buyer of such assets for these environmental matters.

5.  Commitments and Contingencies (continued)

As the successor to a prior owner of the Hallowell Facility, Chevron Environmental Management Company (“Chevron”) 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 Health and Environment (the “KDHE”), subject to reallocation.

During this process, our subsidiary and Chevron retained an environmental consultant that prepared and performed a corrective action study work plan as to the appropriate method to remediate the Hallowell Facility. During 2020, the KDHE selected a remedy of annual monitoring and the implementation of an Environmental Use Control (“EUC”). This remedy primarily relates to long-term surface and groundwater monitoring to track the natural decline in contamination and is subject to a 5-year re-evaluation with the KDHE.

The final remedy, including the EUC, the finalization of the cost estimates and any required financial assurances remains under discussion with the KDHE, but continues to be delayed due to the impact from the COVID-19 pandemic. Pending the results from our discussions regarding the final remedy, we continue to accrue our allocable portion of costs primarily for the additional testing, monitoring and risk assessments that could be reasonably estimated, which amount 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, our estimated accrual will be refined, as necessary.

B. Other Pending, Threatened or Settled Litigation

In 2013, an explosion and fire occurred at the West Fertilizer Co. (“West Fertilizer”) located in West, Texas, causing death, bodily injury and substantial property damage. West Fertilizer is not owned or controlled by us, but West Fertilizer was a customer of EDC, and purchased AN from EDC from time to time. LSB and EDC received letters from counsel purporting to represent subrogated insurance carriers, personal injury claimants and persons who suffered property damages informing LSB and EDC 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.  Initial lawsuits filed named West Fertilizer and another supplier of AN as defendants.

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 vs. CF Industries, Inc., et al., in the District Court of McLennan County, Texas. The plaintiffs allege, 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 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 placed its liability insurance carrier on notice, and the 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, which retention limit has been met relating to the West Fertilizer matter. In August 2015, the trial court dismissed plaintiff’s negligence claims against us, and EDC based on a duty to inspect but allowed the plaintiffs to proceed on claims for design defect and failure to warn.

Subsequently, we and EDC have entered into confidential settlement agreements (with approval of our insurance carriers) with several plaintiffs that had claimed wrongful death and bodily injury and insurance companies asserting subrogation claims for damages from the explosion. While these settlements resolve the claims of a number of the claimants in this matter, we continue to be party to litigation related to the explosion. We continue to defend these lawsuits vigorously and we are unable to estimate a possible range of loss at this time if there is an adverse outcome in this matter. As of March 31, 2022, no liability reserve has been established in connection with this matter.

In 2015, we and EDA received formal written notice from Global Industrial, Inc. (“Global”) of Global’s intention to assert mechanic liens for labor, service, or materials furnished under certain subcontract agreements for the improvement of the new ammonia plant (“Ammonia Plant”) at our El Dorado Facility. Global was a subcontractor of Leidos Constructors, LLC (“Leidos”), the general contractor for EDA for the construction for the Ammonia Plant. Leidos terminated the services of Global with respect to their work performed at our El Dorado Facility.

LSB and EDA are pursuing the recovery of any damage or loss caused by Global’s work performed through their contract with Leidos at our El Dorado Facility. In March 2016, EDC and LSB were served a summons in a case styled Global Industrial, Inc. d/b/a Global Turnaround vs. Leidos Constructors, LLC et al., in the Circuit court of Union County, Arkansas, wherein Global sought damages under breach of contract and other claims. At the time of the summons, our accounts payable included invoices totaling approximately $3.5 million related to the claims asserted by Global, but such invoices were not approved by Leidos for payment. We have requested indemnification from Leidos under the terms of our contracts, which they have denied. As a result, we are seeking reimbursement of legal expenses from Leidos under our contracts. We also seek damages from Leidos for their wrongdoing during the expansion, including breach of contract, fraud, professional negligence, and gross negligence.

5.  Commitments and Contingencies (continued)

During 2018, the court bifurcated the case into: (1) Global’s claims against Leidos and LSB, and (2) the cross-claims between Leidos and LSB. Part (1) of the case was tried in the court. In March 2020, the court rendered an interim judgment and issued its final judgment in April 2020. In summary, the judgment awarded Global (i) approximately $7.4 million (including the $3.5 million discussed above) for labor, service, and materials furnished relating to the Ammonia Plant, (ii) approximately $1.3 million for prejudgment interest, and (iii) a claim of lien on certain property and the foreclosure of the lien to satisfy these obligations. In addition, post-judgment interest will accrue at the annual rate of 4.25% until paid. This judgement was accrued for at the time of the ruling.

We have filed a notice of intent to appeal, and the court entered a stay of the judgment pending appeal.

LSB intends to vigorously prosecute its claims against Leidos and vigorously contest the cross-claims in Part (2) of the matter. Due to the impact from the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial date for Part (2) of the matter has been delayed and we are awaiting a new trial date.

No liability was established at March 31, 2022 or December 31, 2021, in connection with the cross-claims in Part (2) of the matter, except for certain invoices held in accounts payable.

We are also involved in various other claims and legal actions (including matters involving gain contingencies). 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.

7.  Income Taxes (continued)

Our estimated annual effective rate for 2022 includes the impact of permanent tax differences, limits on deductible compensation, valuation allowances and other permanent items.

We considered both positive and negative evidence in our determination of the need for valuation allowances for deferred tax assets. Information evaluated includes our financial position and results of operations for the current and preceding years, the availability of deferred tax liabilities and tax carrybacks, as well as an evaluation of currently available information about future years. Valuation allowances are reflective of our quarterly analysis of the four sources of taxable income, including the calculation of the reversal of existing tax assets and liabilities, the impact of financing activities and our quarterly results. Based on our analysis, we currently believe that it is more-likely-than-not our federal deferred tax assets will be able to be utilized. Thus, we estimate a $12.7 million reduction in the related valuation allowance associated with these federal deferred tax assets will be recognized throughout the year as part of the estimated annual effective tax rate applied to ordinary income. We have determined it is more-likely-than-not that a portion of our state deferred tax assets will not be able to be utilized. However, we estimate a $7.2 million reduction in the related valuation allowance associated with these state deferred tax assets will be recognized throughout the year as part of the estimated annual effective tax rate applied to ordinary income.

We will continue to evaluate both the positive and negative evidence on a quarterly basis in determining the need for a valuation allowance with respect to our deferred tax assets. Changes in positive and negative evidence, including differences between estimated and actual results, could result in changes in the valuation of our deferred tax assets that could have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. Changes in existing tax laws could also affect actual tax results and the realization of deferred tax assets over time.

The tax provision for the three months ended March 31, 2022 was $11.1 million (15.9% provision on pre-tax income). The tax provision for the three months ended March 31, 2021 was minimal. For both periods, the effective tax rate is less than the statutory tax rate primarily due to the impact of the valuation allowances.

LSB and certain of its subsidiaries file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction and various state jurisdictions. With few exceptions, the 2018-2021 years remain open for all purposes of examination by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and other major tax jurisdictions. Additionally, the 2013-2017 years remain subject to examination for determining the amount of net operating loss and other carryforwards.

8.  Net Sales (continued)

Other Information

Although most of our contracts have an original expected duration of one year or less, for our contracts with a duration greater than one year at contract inception, the average remaining expected duration was approximately 17 months at March 31, 2022.

Liabilities associated with contracts with customers (contract liabilities) primarily relate to deferred revenue and customer deposits associated with cash payments received in advance from customers for volume shortfall charges and product shipments. We had approximately $1.8 million and $1.6 million of contract liabilities as of March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively. For the three months ended March 31, 2022 and 2021, revenues of $1.4 million and $1.0 million, respectively, were recognized and included in the balance at the beginning of the respective period.

For most of our contracts with customers, the transaction price from the inception of a contract is constrained to a short period of time (generally one month) as these contracts contain terms with variable consideration related to both price and quantity. At March 31, 2022, we have remaining performance obligations with certain customer contracts, excluding contracts with original durations of less than one year and for service contracts for which we have elected the practical expedient for consideration recognized in revenue as invoiced. The remaining performance obligations totals approximately $74 million, of which approximately 37% of this amount relates to 2022 through 2024, approximately 30% relates to 2025 through 2026, with the remainder thereafter.