Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Contingencies

Contingencies

21.   Contingencies

Litigation

        From time to time, we are subject to ordinary, routine legal proceedings related to the usual conduct of our business, including proceedings regarding public utility and transportation rates, environmental matters, taxes and permits relating to the operations of our various plants and facilities. Based on the information available as of the date of this filing, we believe that the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

Environmental

Florida Environmental Matters

Clean Air Act Investigation

        On March 19, 2007, the Company received a letter from the EPA under Section 114 of the Federal Clean Air Act requesting information and copies of records relating to compliance with New Source Review, New Source Performance Standards, and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants at the Plant City facility. The Company provided the requested information to the EPA in late 2007. The EPA initiated this same process in relation to numerous other sulfuric acid plants and phosphoric acid plants throughout the nation, including other facilities in Florida.

        The Company received a Notice of Violation (NOV) from the EPA by letter dated June 16, 2010. The NOV alleges the Company violated the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Clean Air Act regulations relating to certain projects undertaken at the Plant City facility's sulfuric acid plants. This NOV further alleges that the actions that are the basis for the alleged PSD violations also resulted in violations of Title V air operating permit regulations. Finally, the NOV alleges that the Company failed to comply with certain compliance dates established by hazardous air pollutant regulations for phosphoric acid manufacturing plants and phosphate fertilizer production plants. The Company had an initial meeting with the EPA to discuss these alleged violations. This matter has been referred to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). The Company does not know at this time if it will settle this matter prior to initiation of formal legal action.

        We cannot estimate the potential penalties, fines or other expenditures, if any, that may result from the Clean Air Act NOV and, therefore, we cannot determine if the ultimate outcome of this matter will have a material impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

EPCRA/CERCLA Investigation

        Pursuant to a letter from the DOJ dated July 28, 2008 that was sent to representatives of the major U.S. phosphoric acid manufacturers, including CF Industries, the DOJ stated that it and the EPA believe that apparent violations of Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), which requires annual reports to be submitted with respect to the use of certain toxic chemicals, have occurred at all of the phosphoric acid facilities operated by these manufacturers. The letter also states that the DOJ and the EPA believe that most of these facilities have violated Section 304 of EPCRA and Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) by failing to provide required notifications relating to the release of hydrogen fluoride from these facilities. The letter did not specifically identify alleged violations at our Plant City, Florida complex or assert a claim for a specific amount of penalties. The EPA submitted an information request to the Company on February 11, 2009, as a follow-up to the July 2008 letter. The Company provided information in response to the agency's inquiry on May 14 and May 29, 2009.

        By letter dated July 6, 2010, the EPA issued a NOV to the Company alleging violations of EPCRA and CERCLA. The Company had an initial meeting with the EPA to discuss these alleged violations. The Company does not know at this time if it will settle this matter prior to initiation of formal legal action.

        We do not expect that penalties or fines, if any, that may arise out of the EPCRA/CERCLA matter will have a material impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Federal Numeric Nutrient Criteria Regulation

        On August 18, 2009, the EPA entered into a consent decree with certain environmental groups with respect to the promulgation of numeric criteria for nitrogen and phosphorous in surface waters in Florida. The consent decree was approved by a Federal district court judge on November 16, 2009. The EPA adopted final numeric nutrient criteria for Florida lakes and inland flowing waters on November 14, 2010. On February 18, 2012, the Court upheld parts of the numeric nutrient criteria regulation, but found that the EPA had not adequately justified the criteria for streams and therefore concluded that the adoption of such criteria was arbitrary and capricious. The Court ordered the EPA to issue proposed or final numeric nutrient criteria for streams by May 21, 2012 (subject to the EPA seeking an extension of such time period pursuant to the terms of the 2009 consent decree). Depending on the developments discussed herein, federal or state numeric water quality criteria for lakes and inland flowing waters could result in substantially more stringent nitrogen and phosphorous limits in wastewater discharge permits for our mining, manufacturing and distribution operations in Florida.

        The federal criteria for lakes and inland flowing waters (excluding the criteria found arbitrary and capricious by the Court) will become effective on July 6, 2012, subject to the development of numeric nutrient criteria by the State of Florida.

        In December 2011, the State of Florida proposed its own numeric nutrient criteria for surface waters. The nitrogen and phosphorous criteria in the proposed rule are substantially identical to the federal rule, but the state proposal includes biological verification as a component of the criteria and adopts existing nutrient Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) as applicable numeric criteria. The impact of these modifications could be to provide more flexibility with respect to nitrogen and phosphorous limits in wastewater discharge permits so long as such discharges do not impair the biological health of receiving water bodies. Environmental groups filed a challenge to the proposed state rule, and a hearing was held with the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings from February 27 through March 5, 2012. A ruling from the administrative law judge is anticipated in the second quarter of 2012. If the state numeric criteria are promulgated and approved subsequently by the EPA, the state criteria would result in EPA withdrawing the federal numeric criteria.

        The 2009 consent decree also requires the EPA to develop numeric nutrient criteria for Florida coastal and estuarine waters. The development of such criteria has been delayed. The EPA has announced its intention to issue proposed numeric nutrient criteria for these water bodies by May 21, 2012 and a final rule by January 7, 2013. It is unclear the extent to which the February 18, 2012 decision will impact this proposed rule. The numeric criteria proposed by the State of Florida, discussed above, include criteria for coastal and estuarine waters and if finally promulgated by the State and approved by the EPA, would also supplant federal standards for such water bodies.

        The numeric nutrient criteria regulation is not yet final. However, more stringent limits on wastewater discharge permits could increase our costs and limit our operations and, therefore, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Louisiana Environmental Matters

Clean Air Act—Section 185 Fee

        Our Donaldsonville Nitrogen Complex is located in a five-parish region near Baton Rouge, Louisiana that, as of 2005, was designated as being in "severe" nonattainment with respect to the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone (the 1-hour ozone standard) pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act). Section 185 of the Act requires states, in their state implementation plans, to levy a fee (Section 185 fee) on major stationary sources (such as the Donaldsonville facility) located in a severe nonattainment area that did not meet the 1-hour ozone standard by November 30, 2005. The fee was to be assessed for each calendar year (beginning in 2006) until the area achieved compliance with the ozone NAAQS.

        Prior to the imposition of Section 185 fees, the EPA adopted a new ozone standard (the 8-hour ozone standard) and rescinded the 1-hour ozone standard. The Baton Rouge area was designated as a "moderate" nonattainment area with respect to the 8-hour ozone standard. However, because Section 185 fees had never been assessed prior to the rescission of the 1-hour ozone standard (rescinded prior to the November 30, 2005 ozone attainment deadline), the EPA concluded in a 2004 rulemaking implementing the 8-hour ozone standard that the Act did not require states to assess Section 185 fees. As a result, Section 185 fees were not assessed against CF Industries and other companies located in the Baton Rouge area.

        In 2006, the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the EPA's position and held that Section 185 fees were controls that must be maintained and fees should have been assessed under the Act. In January 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept the case for review, making the appellate court's decision final.

        In July 2011, the EPA approved a revision to Louisiana's air pollution program that eliminated the requirement for Baton Rouge area companies to pay Section 185 fees, based on Baton Rouge's ultimate attainment of the 1-hour standard through permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. EPA's approval of the Louisiana air program revision became effective on August 8, 2011. However, a recent decision by the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a similar, but perhaps distinguishable, EPA guidance document regarding alternatives to Section 185 fees. At this time, the viability of EPA's approval of Louisiana's elimination of Section 185 fees is uncertain. Regardless of the approach ultimately adopted by the EPA, we expect that it is likely to be challenged by the environmental community, the states, and/or affected industries. Therefore, the costs associated with compliance with the Act cannot be determined at this time, and we cannot reasonably estimate the impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Clean Air Act Information Request

        On February 26, 2009, the Company received a letter from the EPA under Section 114 of the Act requesting information and copies of records relating to compliance with New Source Review and New Source Performance Standards at the Donaldsonville facility. The Company has completed the submittal of all requested information. There has been no further contact from the EPA regarding this matter.

Other

CERCLA/Remediation Matters

        From time to time, we receive notices from governmental agencies or third parties alleging that we are a potentially responsible party at certain cleanup sites under CERCLA or other environmental cleanup laws. In 2002 and in 2009, we were asked by the current owner of a former phosphate mine and processing facility that we are alleged to have operated in the late 1950s and early 1960s located in Georgetown Canyon, Idaho, to contribute to a remediation of this property. We declined to participate in the cleanup. It is our understanding that the current owner conducted a cleanup of the processing portion of the site pursuant to a Consent Judgment with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). The current owner could bring a lawsuit against us seeking contribution to the cleanup costs, although we do not have sufficient information to determine whether or when such a lawsuit will be brought. In 2011, the current owner and we received a notice from IDEQ that alleged that these parties were potentially responsible parties for the cleanup of the mine portion of the site. IDEQ requested from each party an indication of its willingness to enter into negotiations for an investigation of the mine portion of the site. The current owner indicated a willingness to negotiate. While reserving all rights and not admitting liability, we also indicated a willingness to negotiate. We are not able to estimate at this time our potential liability, if any, with respect to the remediation of this property. However, based on currently available information, we do not expect that any remedial or financial obligations we may be subject to involving this or other sites will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.