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 three months ended November 30, 2015 were as follows (in thousands):



Reportable Segment	Balance as of August 31, 2015		Liabilities Established (Released), Net		Payments and Other			Balance as of November 30, 2015		Short-Term		Long-Term
Auto and Metals Recycling	$	46,494	$	369	$	(927	)	$	45,936	$	798	$	45,138
Corporate	299		—		(10		)	289		39		250
Total	$	46,793	$	369	$	(937	)	$	46,225	$	837	$	45,388

Auto and Metals Recycling (“AMR”)

As of November 30, 2015, AMR had environmental liabilities of $46 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 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 eighteen 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”). In November 2015, EPA Region 10 presented its preferred alternative remedy to the National Remedy Review Board ("NRRB"), a peer review group that has been established to review proposed Superfund cleanup decisions for consistency with the Superfund statute, regulations, and guidance. EPA Region 10’s preferred alternative presented to the NRRB is a modified version of one of the alternatives (Alternative E) in the revised draft FS, and EPA Region 10 estimates that its preferred alternative would take seven years to implement, with an estimated cost of $1.4 billion (net present value). The Company and other stakeholders believe that this preferred alternative raises the same concerns regarding EPA’s cost estimates, scheduling assumptions, and remedy feasibility and effectiveness as identified with the revised draft FS. The NRRB’s comments and EPA Region 10’s response are pending. EPA Region 10 has stated that it expects to release a Proposed Cleanup Plan for public review and comment in the Spring of 2016 and to issue its final ROD selecting a remedy for the Site in late 2016. As EPA Region 10’s preferred alternative is subject to NRRB review and comment and then to public review and comment, it is uncertain whether the preferred alternative presented by Region 10 in November 2015 will be the selected remedy or whether the EPA will be able to maintain its proposed schedule for issuing the ROD.

The next phase in the process following the ROD is the remedial design. The remedial design phase is an engineering phase during which additional technical information and data will be collected, identified and incorporated into technical drawings and specifications developed for the subsequent remedial action. The EPA will be seeking a new coalition of PRPs to perform the remedial design activities. Remediation activities are not expected to commence for a number of years and responsibility for implementing and funding the EPA’s selected remedy will be determined in a separate allocation process. While an allocation process is currently underway, the EPA's revised draft FS and its approach to the proposed alternative remedies have raised questions and uncertainty as to how that allocation process will proceed.

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 to or which it is reasonably possible that it will 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 November 30, 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”)

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 on 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 November 30, 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 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, 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.