Commitments and Contingencies

The Company evaluates the adequacy of its environmental liabilities on a quarterly basis. Adjustments to the liabilities are made when additional information becomes available that affects the estimated costs to study or remediate any environmental issues or expenditures are made for which liabilities were established.

Changes in the Company’s environmental liabilities for the six months ended February 29, 2012 were as follows (in thousands):



	Balance as of August 31, 2011		Liabilities Established (Released), Net			Payments and other		Balance as of February 29, 2012		Short-Term		Long-Term
Metals Recycling Business	$	25,655	$	(300	)	$	74	$	25,429	$	2,506	$	22,923
Auto Parts Business	15,200		—			—		15,200		554		14,646
Total	$	40,855	$	(300	)	$	74	$	40,629	$	3,060	$	37,569

Metals Recycling Business (“MRB”)

As of February 29, 2012, MRB had environmental liabilities of $25 million for the potential remediation of locations where it has conducted business and has environmental liabilities from historical or recent activities.

Portland Harbor

In December 2000, the Company was notified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) that it is one of the potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) that own or operate or formerly owned or operated sites which are part of or adjacent to the Portland Harbor Superfund site (the “Site”). The precise nature and extent of any cleanup of the Site, the parties to be involved, the process to be followed for any cleanup and the allocation of the costs for any cleanup among responsible parties have not yet been determined, but the process of identifying additional PRPs and beginning allocation of costs is underway. It is unclear to what extent the Company will be liable for environmental costs or natural resource damage claims or third party contribution or damage claims with respect to the Site. While the Company participated in certain preliminary Site study efforts, it is not party to the consent order entered into by the EPA with certain other PRPs, referred to as the “Lower Willamette Group” (“LWG”), for a remedial investigation/feasibility study (“RI/FS”).

During fiscal 2007, the Company and certain other parties agreed to an interim settlement with the LWG under which the Company made a cash contribution to the LWG RI/FS. The Company has also joined with more than 80 other PRPs, including the LWG, in a voluntary process to establish an allocation of costs at the Site. These parties have selected an allocation team and have entered into an allocation process design agreement. The LWG has also commenced federal court litigation, which has been stayed, seeking to bring additional parties into the allocation process.

In January 2008, the Natural Resource Damages Trustee Council (“Trustees”) for Portland Harbor invited the Company and other PRPs to participate in funding and implementing the Natural Resource Injury Assessment for the Site. Following meetings among the Trustees and the PRPs, a funding and participation agreement was negotiated under which the participating PRPs agreed to fund the first phase of natural resource damage assessment. The Company joined in that Phase I agreement and paid a portion of those costs. The Company did not participate in funding the second phase of the natural resource damage assessment.

On March 30, 2012, the LWG submitted to the EPA and made available on its website a draft feasibility study (“draft FS”) for the Site based on approximately ten years of work and $100 million in costs classified by the LWG as investigation related. The Company obtained a copy of the draft FS on the same day. The draft FS identifies ten possible remedial alternatives which range in estimated cost from approximately $170 million to $250 million (net present value) for the least costly alternative to approximately $1.08 billion to $1.76 billion (net present value) for the most costly and estimates a range of two to 28 years to implement the remedial work, depending on the selected alternative. The draft FS does not determine who is responsible for remediation costs, define the precise cleanup boundaries or select remedies. The draft FS will be reviewed, and may be subject to revisions prior to its approval, by the EPA. While the draft FS is an important step in the EPA’s development of a proposed plan for addressing the Site, a final decision on the nature and extent of the required remediation will occur only after the EPA has prepared a proposed plan for public review and issued a record of decision (“ROD”). Currently available information indicates that the EPA does not expect to issue its final ROD selecting a remedy for the Site until at least 2013. Responsibility for implementing and funding EPA’s selected remedy will be determined in a separate allocation process.

Because there has not been a determination of the total cost of the investigations, the remediation that will be required, the amount of natural resource damages or how the costs of the ongoing investigations and any remedy and natural resource damages will be allocated among the PRPs, the Company believes it is not possible to reasonably estimate the amount or range of costs which it is likely or reasonably possible that the Company may incur in connection with the Site, although such costs could be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations, cash flows or liquidity. Among the facts currently not known or available are detailed information on the history of ownership of and the nature of the uses of and activities and operations performed on each property within the Site, which are factors that will play a substantial role in determining the allocation of investigation and remedy costs among the PRPs. The Company has insurance policies that it believes will provide reimbursement for costs it incurs for defense and remediation in connection with the Site, although there is no assurance that those policies will cover all of the costs which the Company may incur. The Company previously recorded a liability for its estimated share of the costs of the investigation of $1 million.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is separately providing oversight of voluntary investigations by the Company involving the Company’s sites adjacent to the Portland Harbor which are focused on controlling any current “uplands” releases of contaminants into the Willamette River. No liabilities have been established in connection with these investigations because the extent of contamination (if any) and the Company’s responsibility for the contamination (if any) has not yet been determined.

Other MRB Sites

As of February 29, 2012, the Company had environmental liabilities related to various MRB sites other than Portland Harbor of $24 million. The liabilities relate to the potential future remediation of soil contamination, groundwater contamination and storm water runoff issues and were not individually material at any site. No material environmental compliance enforcement proceedings are currently pending related to these sites.

Auto Parts Business (“APB”)

As of February 29, 2012, the Company had environmental liabilities related to various APB sites of $15 million. The liabilities relate to the potential future remediation of soil contamination, groundwater contamination and storm water runoff issues and were not individually material at any site. No material environmental compliance enforcement proceedings are currently pending related to these sites.

Steel Manufacturing Business (“SMB”)

SMB’s electric arc furnace generates dust (“EAF dust”) that is classified as hazardous waste by the EPA because of its zinc and lead content. As a result, the Company captures the EAF dust and ships it in specialized rail cars to a domestic firm that applies a treatment that allows the EAF dust to be delisted as hazardous waste so it can be disposed of as a non-hazardous solid waste.

SMB has an operating permit issued under Title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which governs certain air quality standards. The permit is based on an annual production capacity of 950 thousand tons. The permit was first issued in 1998 and was renewed through March 1, 2012. The Company timely filed a renewal application, which allows for existing permit conditions to remain in force until the permit is renewed or a new permit is issued.

SMB had no environmental liabilities as of February 29, 2012.

Other than the Portland Harbor Superfund site, which is discussed above, management currently believes that adequate provision has been made for the potential impact of these issues and that the ultimate outcomes will not have a material adverse effect on the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company as a whole. Historically, the amounts the Company has ultimately paid for such remediation activities have not been material in any given period.

In addition, we are party to various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of our business. We do not anticipate that the resolution of legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows.