Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

The Company leases a portion of its capital equipment and certain of its facilities under leases that expire at various dates through fiscal 2047. Rent expense was $26 million, $27 million and $28 million for fiscal 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

The table below sets forth the Company’s future minimum obligations under non-cancelable operating leases as of August 31, 2015 (in thousands):



Years ending August 31,	Operating Leases
2016	$	22,230
2017	20,961
2018	17,795
2019	14,421
2020	10,497
Thereafter	24,940
Total	$	110,844

Contingencies – Environmental

Changes in the Company’s environmental liabilities for the years ended August 31, 2015 and 2014 were as follows (in thousands):



Reportable Segment	Balance 8/31/2013		Liabilities Established (Released), Net			Payments and Other			Ending Balance 8/31/2014		Liabilities Established (Released), Net		Payments and Other			Ending Balance 8/31/2015		Short-Term		Long-Term
AMR	$	49,294	$	(648	)	$	(685	)	$	47,961	$	505	$	(1,973	)	$	46,493	$	875	$	45,619
Corporate	500		—			(112		)	388		—		(89		)	299		49		250
Total	$	49,794	$	(648	)	$	(797	)	$	48,349	$	505	$	(2,062	)	$	46,792	$	924	$	45,869

Auto and Metals Recycling

As of August 31, 2015, AMR had environmental liabilities of $46 million for the potential remediation of locations where it has conducted business or 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 Damage 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 the 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. However, the EPA largely rejected this draft FS, and took over the drafting process. The EPA provided their revised draft FS to the LWG and other key stakeholders in sections, with the final section being made available in August 2015. The revised draft FS identifies five possible remedial alternatives which range in estimated cost from approximately $550 million to $1.19 billion (net present value) for the least costly alternative to approximately $1.71 billion to $3.67 billion (net present value) for the most costly and estimates a range of four to 18 years to implement the remedial work, depending on the selected alternative. The Company and other stakeholders have identified a number of concerns regarding the EPA's cost estimates, scheduling assumptions and conclusions regarding the effectiveness of remediation technologies.

The revised draft FS does not determine who is responsible for remediation costs, define the precise cleanup boundaries or select remedies. While the revised 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”). The EPA is in the process of presenting its conceptual remedy to the LWG, EPA's partners, and the National Remedy Review Board (scheduled for November 2015) , and it has stated it expects to release a Proposed Cleanup Plan for public review and comment in the Spring of 2016. Currently available information indicates that the EPA does not expect to issue its final ROD selecting a remedy for the Site until at least 2017 or commence remediation activities until 2024. Responsibility for implementing and funding EPA’s selected remedy will be determined in a separate allocation process, which is currently underway.

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 and liquidity. Among the facts currently being developed 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, remediation and mitigation for natural resource damages claims 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 AMR Sites

As of August 31, 2015, the Company had environmental liabilities related to various AMR sites other than Portland Harbor of $45 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.

Steel Manufacturing Business

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 firm that applies a treatment that allows the EAF dust to be delisted as hazardous 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 upon an annual production capacity of 950 thousand tons. The permit was first issued in 1998 and has since been renewed through February 1, 2018.

SMB had no environmental liabilities as of August 31, 2015.

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 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, the Company is party to various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Management believes that adequate provisions have been made for these contingencies. The Company does not anticipate that the resolution of legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows.