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 nine months ended May 31, 2022 were as follows (in thousands):


Balance as of September 1, 2021		Liabilities Established (Released), Net		Payments and Other			Balance as of May 31, 2022		Short-Term		Long-Term
$	77,128	$	7,577	$	(18,155	)	$	66,550	$	11,600	$	54,950

The Company had environmental liabilities of $67 million and $77 million as of May 31, 2022 and August 31, 2021, respectively, for the potential remediation of locations where it has conducted business or has environmental liabilities from historical or recent activities. The liabilities relate to the investigation and potential future remediation of contaminated sediments and riverbanks, soil contamination, groundwater contamination, storm water runoff issues, and other natural resource damages. Except for Portland Harbor and certain liabilities discussed under “Other Legacy Environmental Loss Contingencies” below, such liabilities were not individually material at any site.

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 cleanup of any specific areas within the Site, the parties to be involved, the timing of any specific remedial action and the allocation of the costs for any cleanup among responsible parties have not yet been determined. The process of site investigation, remedy selection, identification of additional PRPs, and allocation of costs has been underway for a number of years, but significant uncertainties remain. It is unclear to what extent the Company will be liable for environmental costs or third-party contribution or damage claims with respect to the Site.

From 2000 to 2017, the EPA oversaw a remedial investigation/feasibility study (“RI/FS”) at the Site. The Company was not among the parties that performed the RI/FS, but it contributed to the costs through an interim settlement with the performing parties. The performing parties have indicated that they incurred more than $155 million in that effort.

In January 2017, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (“ROD”) that identified the selected remedy for the Site. The EPA has estimated the total cost of the selected remedy at $1.7 billion with a net present value cost of $1.05 billion (at a 7% discount rate) and an estimated construction period of 13 years following completion of the remedial designs. In the ROD, the EPA stated that the cost estimate is an order-of-magnitude engineering estimate that is expected to be within +50% to -30% of the actual project cost and that changes in the cost elements are likely to occur as a result of new information and data collected during the engineering design. The Company has identified a number of concerns regarding the remedy described in the ROD, which is based on data that is more than 15 years old, and the EPA’s estimates for the costs and time required to implement the selected remedy. Moreover, the ROD provided only Site-wide cost estimates and did not provide sufficient detail to estimate costs for specific sediment management areas within the Site. In addition, the ROD did not determine or allocate the responsibility for remediation costs among the PRPs.

In the ROD, the EPA acknowledged that much of the data was more than a decade old at that time and would need to be updated with a new round of “baseline” sampling to be conducted prior to the remedial design phase. The remedial design phase is an engineering phase during which additional technical information and data are collected, identified, and incorporated into technical drawings and specifications developed for the subsequent remedial action. Following issuance of the ROD, the EPA proposed that the PRPs, or a subgroup of PRPs, perform the additional investigative work in advance of remedial design.

In December 2017, the Company and three other PRPs entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent with the EPA to perform such pre-remedial design investigation and baseline sampling over a two-year period. The report analyzing the results concluded that Site conditions have improved substantially since the data forming the basis of the ROD was collected. The EPA found with a few limited corrections that the data is of suitable quality and stated that such data will be used, in addition to existing and forthcoming design-level data, to inform implementation of the ROD. However, the EPA did not agree that the data or the analysis warranted a change to the remedy at this time and reaffirmed its commitment to proceed with remedial design. The Company and other PRPs disagree with the EPA’s position on use of the more recent data and will continue to pursue limited, but critical, changes to the selected remedy for the Site during the remedial design phase.

The EPA encouraged PRPs to step forward (individually or in groups) to enter into consent agreements to perform remedial design in various project areas covering the entire Site. While certain PRPs executed consent agreements for remedial design work, because of the EPA’s refusal to date to modify the remedy to reflect the most current data on Site conditions and because of concerns with the terms of the consent agreement, the Company elected not to enter into a consent agreement. In April 2020, the EPA issued a unilateral administrative order (“UAO”) to the Company and MMGL, LLC (“MMGL”), an unaffiliated company, for the remedial design work in a portion of the Site designated as the River Mile 3.5 East Project Area. As required by the UAO, the Company notified the EPA of its intent to comply while reserving all of its sufficient cause defenses. Failure to comply with a UAO, without sufficient cause, could subject the Company to significant penalties or treble damages. Pursuant to the optimized remedial design timeline set forth in the UAO, the EPA’s expected schedule for completion of the remedial design work is four years. The EPA has estimated the cost of the work at approximately $4 million. The Company has agreed with the other respondent to the UAO, MMGL, that the Company will lead the performance and be responsible for a portion of the costs of the work for remedial design under the UAO and also entered into an agreement with another PRP pursuant to which such other PRP has agreed to fund a portion of the costs of such work. These agreements are not an allocation of liability or claims associated with the Site as between the respondents or with respect to any third party. The Company estimated that its share of the costs of performing such work under the UAO would be approximately $3 million, which it recorded to environmental liabilities and selling, general, and administrative expense in the consolidated financial statements in the third quarter of fiscal 2020. The Company has insurance policies pursuant to which the Company is being reimbursed for the costs it has incurred for remedial design. In the second quarter of fiscal 2021, the Company recorded an insurance receivable and a related insurance recovery to selling, general, and administrative expense for approximately $3 million. See “Other Assets” in Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies for further discussion of receivables from insurers. The Company also expects to pursue in the future allocation or contribution from other PRPs for a portion of such remedial design costs. In February 2021, the EPA announced that 100 percent of the Site’s areas requiring active cleanup are in the remedial design phase of the process.

Except for certain early action projects in which the Company is not involved, remediation activities at the Site are not expected to commence for a number of years. Moreover, those activities are expected to be sequenced, and the order and timing of such sequencing has not been determined. In addition, as noted above, the ROD does not determine the allocation of costs among PRPs.

The Company has joined with approximately 100 other PRPs, including the RI/FS performing parties, in a voluntary process to establish an allocation of costs at the Site, including the costs incurred in the RI/FS, ongoing remedial design costs, and future remedial action costs. The Company expects the next major stage of the allocation process to proceed in parallel with the remedial design process.

In addition to the remedial action process overseen by the EPA, the Portland Harbor Natural Resource Trustee Council (“Trustee Council”) is assessing natural resource damages at the Site. In 2008, the Trustee Council invited the Company and other PRPs to participate in funding and implementing the Natural Resource Injury Assessment for the Site. The Company and other participating PRPs ultimately agreed to fund the first two phases of the three-phase assessment, which included the development of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Plan (“AP”) and implementation of the AP to develop information sufficient to facilitate early settlements between the Trustee Council and Phase 2 participants and the identification of restoration projects to be funded by the settlements. In late May 2018, the Trustee Council published notice of its intent to proceed with Phase 3, which will involve the full implementation of the AP and the final injury and damage determination. The Company is proceeding with the process established by the Trustee Council regarding early settlements under Phase 2. The Company has established an environmental reserve of approximately $2.3 million for this alleged natural resource damages liability as it continues to work with the Trustee Council to finalize an early settlement. The Company has insurance policies that it believes will provide reimbursement for costs related to this matter. As of May 31, 2022 and August 31, 2021, the Company had an insurance receivable in the same amount as the environmental reserve. See “Other Assets” in Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies for further discussion of receivables from insurers.

On January 30, 2017, one of the Trustees, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, which withdrew from the council in 2009, filed a suit against approximately 30 parties, including the Company, seeking reimbursement of certain past and future response costs in connection with remedial action at the Site and recovery of assessment costs related to natural resources damages from releases at and from the Site to the Multnomah Channel and the Lower Columbia River. The parties filed various motions to dismiss or stay this suit, and in August 2019, the court issued an order denying the motions to dismiss and staying the action. The Company intends to defend against the claims in this suit and does not have sufficient information to determine the likelihood of a loss in this matter or to estimate the amount of damages being sought or the amount of such damages that could be allocated to the Company.

The Company’s environmental liabilities as of May 31, 2022 and August 31, 2021 included $4 million and $6 million, respectively, relating to the Portland Harbor matters described above.

Because the final remedial actions have not yet been designed and there has not been a determination of the allocation among the PRPs of costs of the investigations or remedial action costs, 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 being evaluated 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, remedial design, remedial action, and mitigation for or settlement of natural resource damages claims in connection with the Site. Most of these policies jointly insure the Company and MMGL, as the successor to a former subsidiary of the Company. The Company and MMGL have negotiated the settlement with certain insurers of claims against them related to the Site, continue to seek settlements with other insurers, and formed a Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”) which became operative in fiscal 2020 to hold such settlement amounts until funds are needed to pay or reimburse costs incurred by the Company and MMGL in connection with the Site. These insurance policies and the funds in the QSF may not cover all of the costs which the Company may incur. The QSF is an unconsolidated variable interest entity (“VIE”) with no primary beneficiary. Two parties unrelated to each other, one appointed by the Company and one appointed by MMGL, share equally the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly impact its economic performance. The Company’s appointee to co-manage the VIE is an executive officer of the Company. Neither MMGL nor its appointee to co-manage the VIE is a related party of the Company for the purpose of the primary beneficiary assessment or otherwise.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is separately providing oversight of investigations and source control activities by the Company at various sites adjacent to Portland Harbor that are focused on controlling any current “uplands” releases of contaminants into the Willamette River. The Company has accrued liabilities for source control and related work at two sites, reflecting estimated costs of primarily investigation and design, which costs have not been material in the aggregate to date. No liabilities have been established in connection with these investigations for any other sites because the extent of contamination, required source control work, and the Company’s responsibility for the contamination and source control work, in each case if any, have not yet been determined. In addition, pursuant to its insurance policies, the Company is being reimbursed for the costs it incurs for required source control evaluation and remediation work. As of each of May 31, 2022 and August 31, 2021, the Company had an insurance receivable in the same amount as the environmental reserve for such source control work.

The Company’s environmental loss contingencies as of May 31, 2022 and August 31, 2021, other than Portland Harbor, include actual or possible investigation and remediation costs from historical contamination at sites currently or formerly owned or formerly operated by the Company or at other sites where the Company may have responsibility for such costs due to past disposal or other activities (“legacy environmental loss contingencies”). These legacy environmental loss contingencies relate to the potential remediation of waterways and soil and groundwater contamination and may also involve natural resource damages, governmental fines and penalties, and claims by third parties for personal injury and property damage. The Company has been notified that it is or may be a potentially responsible party at certain of these sites, and investigation and remediation activities are ongoing or may be required in the future. The Company recognizes a liability for such matters when the loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. When investigation, allocation, and remediation activities are ongoing or where the Company has not yet been identified as having responsibility or the contamination has not yet been identified, it is reasonably possible that the Company may need to recognize additional liabilities in connection with such sites but the Company cannot currently reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss absent additional information or developments. Such additional liabilities, individually or in the aggregate, may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows.

In fiscal 2018, the Company accrued an initial $4 million for the estimated costs related to remediation of shredder residue disposed of in or around the 1970s at third-party sites located near each other. Investigation activities have been conducted under oversight of the applicable state regulatory agency. As of both May 31, 2022 and August 31, 2021, the Company had $4 million accrued for this matter. It is reasonably possible that the Company may recognize additional liabilities in connection with this matter at the time such losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company previously estimated a range of reasonably possible losses related to this matter in excess of current accruals at between zero and $28 million based on a range of remedial alternatives and subject to development and approval by regulators of specific remedy implementation plans. However, subsequent to the development of those remedial alternatives, the Company performed additional investigative activities under new state requirements that are likely to impact the required remedial actions and associated cost estimates, but the scope of such impacts and the amount or the range of the additional associated costs are not reasonably estimable at this time and are subject to further investigation, analysis, and discussion by the Company and regulators. The Company is investigating whether a portion or all of the current and future losses related to this matter, if incurred, are covered by existing insurance coverage or may be offset by contributions from other responsible parties.

In addition, the Company’s loss contingencies as of May 31, 2022 and August 31, 2021 included $8 million and $19 million, respectively, for the estimated costs related to environmental matters in connection with a closed facility owned and previously operated by an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary, including monitoring and remediation of soil and groundwater conditions and funding for wellhead treatment facilities. In the first nine months of fiscal 2022, the Company accrued $3 million for certain soil remediation activities based on additional information related to estimated costs to complete. Investigation and remediation activities have been conducted under the oversight of the applicable state regulatory agency and are on-going, and the Company’s subsidiary has also been working with state and local officials with respect to the protection of public and private water supplies. As part of its activities relating to the protection of public water supplies, the Company’s subsidiary agreed to reimburse the municipality for certain studies and plans and to provide funding for the construction and operation by the municipality of wellhead treatment facilities, which agreement resulted in payment by the Company to the municipality of $11 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2022. It is reasonably possible that the Company may recognize additional liabilities in connection with this matter at the time such additional losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. However, the Company cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible additional loss or range of possible additional losses associated with this matter pending the on-going implementation of the approved remediation plan for soil and groundwater conditions and completion and operation of the wellhead treatment facilities.

In addition, the Company’s loss contingencies as of both May 31, 2022 and August 31, 2021 included $8 million for the estimated costs related to remediation of a site a portion of which was previously leased to and operated by an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary. In connection with settlement of a lawsuit relating to allocation of the remediation costs, the Company’s subsidiary agreed to perform the remedial action related to metals contamination on the site estimated to cost approximately $7.9 million, and another potentially liable party agreed to perform the remedial action related to creosote contamination at the site. As part of the settlement, other potentially liable parties agreed to make payments totaling approximately $7.6 million to fund the remediation of the metals contamination at the site in exchange for a release and indemnity. This amount was fully funded into a client trust account for the Company’s subsidiary in December 2020. See “Other Assets” in Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies for further discussion of this client trust account. It is reasonably possible that the Company may recognize additional liabilities in connection with this matter at the time such additional losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. However, the Company cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible additional loss or range of possible additional losses associated with this matter pending completion, approval, and implementation of the remediation action plan.

With respect to environmental contingencies other than the Portland Harbor Superfund site and the Other Legacy Environmental Loss Contingencies, which are discussed separately above, management currently believes that adequate provision has been made for the potential impact of its environmental contingencies. Historically, the amounts the Company has ultimately paid for such remediation activities have not been material in any given period, but there can be no assurance that such amounts paid will not be material in the future.

In addition to legal proceedings relating to the contingencies described above, the Company is a party to various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. The Company recognizes a liability for such matters when the loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company does not anticipate that the liabilities arising from such legal proceedings in the normal course of business, after taking into consideration expected insurance recoveries, will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows.