9. Legal Proceedings and Contingent Liabilities

We are subject to federal, state and local environmental laws, regulations and permits concerning, among other matters, air emissions and wastewater discharge. We intend to comply with these laws, regulations and permits. However, from time to time we receive claims from federal and state environmental regulatory agencies and entities asserting that we are or may be in violation of certain of these laws, regulations and permits, or from private parties alleging that our operations have injured them or their property. It is possible that we could be held liable for future charges which might be material but are not currently known or estimable. In addition, changes in federal or state laws, regulations or requirements or discovery of currently unknown conditions could require additional expenditures by us.

In March 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, or SCAQMD, informed one of our subsidiaries, Riverside Cement Company (Riverside), that it believed that operations at the Crestmore cement plant in Riverside, California caused the level of hexavalent chromium, or chrome 6, in the air in the vicinity of the plant to be elevated above ambient air levels. Chrome 6 has been identified by the State of California as a carcinogen. Riverside immediately began taking steps, in addition to its normal dust control procedures, to reduce dust from plant operations and eliminate the use of open clinker stockpiles. In February 2008, the SCAQMD placed an air monitoring station at the downwind property line closest to the open clinker stockpiles. In the SCAQMD’s first public report of the results of its monitoring, over the period of February 12 to April 9, 2008, the average level of chrome 6 was 2.43 nanograms per cubic meter, or ng/m³. Since that time, the average level has decreased. The average levels of chrome 6 reported by the SCAQMD at all of the air monitoring stations in areas around the plant, including the station at the property line, are below 1.0 ng/m³ over the entire period of time it has operated the stations. The SCAQMD compared the level of exposure at the air monitor on our property line with the following employee exposure standards established by regulatory agencies:


Occupational Safety and Health Administration			5,000 ng/m³
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health			1,000 ng/m³
California Environmental Protection Agency			200 ng/m³

In public meetings conducted by the SCAQMD, it stated that the risk of long term exposure immediately adjacent to the plant is similar to living close to a busy freeway or rail yard, and it estimated an increased risk of 250 to 500 cancers per one million people, assuming continuous exposure for 70 years. Riverside has not determined how this particular risk number was calculated by SCAQMD. However, the Riverside Press Enterprise reported in a May 30, 2008 story that “John Morgan, a public health and epidemiology professor at Loma Linda University, said he looked at cancer cases reported from 1996 to 2005 in the … census [tract] nearest the [plant] and found no excess cases. That includes lung cancer, which is associated with exposure to hexavalent chromium.”

In late April 2008, a lawsuit was filed in Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California styled Virginia Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al . The lawsuit against three of our subsidiaries purports to be a class action complaint for medical monitoring for a putative class defined as individuals who were allegedly exposed to chrome 6 emissions from our Crestmore cement plant. The complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to the exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals. The suit requests, among other things, establishment and funding of a medical testing and monitoring program for the class until their exposure to chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health, as well as punitive and exemplary damages.

Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court. The putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman case. As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined.

Since August 2008, additional lawsuits have been filed in the same court against Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of our subsidiaries containing allegations of personal injury and wrongful death by approximately 3,000 individual plaintiffs who were allegedly exposed to chrome 6 and other toxic or harmful substances in the air, water and soil caused by emissions from the Crestmore plant. The court has dismissed Texas Industries, Inc. from the suits, and our subsidiaries operating in Texas have been dismissed by agreement with the plaintiffs. Most of our subsidiaries operating in California remain as defendants. The court has dismissed from these suits plaintiffs that failed to provide required information, leaving approximately 2,000 plaintiffs.

Since January 2009, additional lawsuits have been filed against Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of our subsidiaries in the same court involving similar allegations, causes of action and requests for relief, but with respect to our Oro Grande, California cement plant instead of the Crestmore plant. The suits involve approximately 300 individual plaintiffs. Texas Industries, Inc. and our subsidiaries operating in Texas have been similarly dismissed from these suits. The court has dismissed from these suits plaintiffs that failed to provide required information, leaving approximately 250 plaintiffs. Prior to the filing of the lawsuits, the air quality management district in whose jurisdiction the plant lies conducted air sampling from locations around the plant. None of the samples contained chrome 6 levels above 1.0 ng/m³.

The plaintiffs allege causes of action that are similar from suit to suit. Following dismissal of certain causes of action by the court and amendments by the plaintiffs, the remaining causes of action typically include, among other things, negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, trespass, public and private nuisance, strict liability, willful misconduct, fraudulent concealment, unfair business practices, wrongful death and loss of consortium. The plaintiffs generally request, among other things, general and punitive damages, medical expenses, loss of earnings, property damages and medical monitoring costs. At the date of this report, none of the plaintiffs in these cases has alleged in their pleadings any specific amount or range of damages. Some of the suits include additional defendants, such as the owner of another cement plant located approximately four miles from the Crestmore plant or former owners of the Crestmore and Oro Grande plants. We will vigorously defend all of these suits but we cannot predict what liability, if any, could arise from them. We also cannot predict whether any other suits may be filed against us alleging damages due to injuries to persons or property caused by claimed exposure to chrome 6.

We are defendants in other lawsuits that arose in the ordinary course of business. In our judgment the ultimate liability, if any, from such legal proceedings will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.