Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
May 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies The Company’s Portland, Oregon manufacturing facility is located adjacent to the Willamette River. The Company has entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in which the Company agreed to conduct an investigation of whether, and to what extent, past or present operations at the Portland property may have released hazardous substances into the environment. In December 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified portions of the Willamette River bed known as the Portland Harbor, including the portion fronting the Company’s manufacturing facility, as a federal “National Priority List” or “Superfund” site due to sediment contamination (the Portland Harbor Site). The Company and more than 140 other parties have received a “General Notice” of potential liability from the EPA relating to the Portland Harbor Site. The letter advised the Company that it may be liable for the costs of investigation and remediation (which liability may be joint and several with other potentially responsible parties) as well as for natural resource damages resulting from releases of hazardous substances to the site. At this time, ten private and public entities, including the Company (the Lower Willamette Group or LWG), have signed an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to perform a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) of the Portland Harbor Site under EPA oversight, and several additional entities have not signed such consent, but are nevertheless contributing money to the effort. The EPA-mandated RI/FS is being produced by the LWG and has cost over $110 million during a 15-year period. The Company has agreed to initially bear a percentage of the total costs incurred by the LWG in connection with the investigation. The Company’s aggregate expenditure has not been material during the 15-year period. Some or all of any such outlay may be recoverable from other responsible parties. Eighty-three parties, including the State of Oregon and the federal government, have entered into a non-judicial mediation process to try to allocate costs associated with the Portland Harbor site. Approximately 110 additional parties have signed tolling agreements related to such allocations. On April 23, 2009, the Company and the other AOC signatories filed suit against 69 other parties due to a possible limitations period for some such claims; Arkema Inc. et al v. A & C Foundry Products, Inc. et al, U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, Case #3:09-cv-453-PK. All but 12 of these parties elected to sign tolling agreements and be dismissed without prejudice, and the case has now been stayed by the court, pending the EPA’s Record of Decision, currently scheduled by the EPA for December 31, 2016. On June 8, 2016, the EPA issued its Feasibility Study (FS) and Proposed Plan for the Portland Harbor Site. The EPA is accepting comments from the public on its Proposed Plan through August 8, 2016. The EPA’s FS includes remediation alternatives that would take from 4 to 62 years of active remediation, with an undiscounted cost ranging from $642 million to $10.2 billion and a net present value assuming a 7% discount rate ranging between $451 million and $9.4 billion. The Proposed Plan identifies the alternative currently favored by the EPA, which it assigns an estimated undiscounted cost of between $1.1 and $1.2 billion and a net present value of between $746 and $811 million. The EPA expects its cost estimates to be accurate within a range of +50 to -30 percent. EPA estimates that the remedy in the Proposed Plan would take 7 years of active remediation followed by 30 years of monitoring. The EPA’s FS and its Proposed Plan identify 13 Sediment Decision Units. One of the units, RM9W, includes the nearshore area of the river sediments offshore of our Portland, Oregon manufacturing facility as well as upstream and downstream of the facility. It also includes a portion of our riverbank. Neither the FS nor the Proposed Plan breaks down total remediation costs by unit. Neither the EPA’s FS nor its Proposed Plan addresses responsibility for the costs of clean-up, allocates such costs among the potentially responsible parties, or defines precise boundaries for the cleanup. Responsibility for funding and implementing the EPA’s selected cleanup option will be determined after the issuance of the Record of Decision, currently scheduled by the EPA for December 31, 2016. Based on the investigation to date, the Company believes that it did not contribute in any material way to contamination in the river sediments or the damage of natural resources in the Portland Harbor Site and that the damage in the area of the Portland Harbor Site adjacent to its property precedes its ownership of the Portland, Oregon manufacturing facility. Because these environmental investigations are still underway, sufficient information is currently not available to determine the Company’s liability, if any, for the cost of any required remediation or restoration of the Portland Harbor Site or to estimate a range of potential loss. Based on the results of the pending investigations and future assessments of natural resource damages, the Company may be required to incur costs associated with additional phases of investigation or remedial action, and may be liable for damages to natural resources. In addition, the Company may be required to perform periodic maintenance dredging in order to continue to launch vessels from its launch ways in Portland, Oregon, on the Willamette River, and the river’s classification as a Superfund site could result in some limitations on future dredging and launch activities. Any of these matters could adversely affect the Company’s business and Consolidated Financial Statements, or the value of its Portland property. The Company has also signed an Order on Consent with the DEQ to finalize the investigation of potential onsite sources of contamination that may have a release pathway to the Willamette River. Interim precautionary measures are also required in the order and the Company is currently discussing with the DEQ potential remedial actions which may be required. Our aggregate expenditure has not been material, however the Company could incur significant expenses for remediation. Some or all of any such outlay may be recoverable from other responsible parties. From time to time, Greenbrier is involved as a defendant in litigation in the ordinary course of business, the outcome of which cannot be predicted with certainty. While the ultimate outcome of such legal proceedings cannot be determined at this time, management believes that the resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. In accordance with customary business practices in Europe, the Company has $3.2 million in third party warranty guarantee facilities. To date no amounts have been drawn under these guarantee facilities. As of May 31, 2016, the Mexican railcar manufacturing joint venture had $0.9 million of third party debt outstanding, for which the Company and its joint venture partner had each guaranteed approximately $0.4 million. As of May 31, 2016, the Company had outstanding letters of credit aggregating $81.3 million associated with performance guarantees, facility leases and workers compensation insurance. The Company made $5.3 million in cash contributions and $3.75 million in loans to GBW, an unconsolidated 50/50 joint venture, for the nine months ended May 31, 2016. The Company expects to loan additional amounts of approximately $1.25 million during 2016. The Company is likely to make additional capital contributions or loans to GBW in the future. As of May 31, 2016, the Company had a $35.2 million note receivable balance from GBW which is included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet in Accounts receivable, net.

Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies

The Company’s Portland, Oregon manufacturing facility is located adjacent to the Willamette River. The Company has entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in which the Company agreed to conduct an investigation of whether, and to what extent, past or present operations at the Portland property may have released hazardous substances into the environment.

In December 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified portions of the Willamette River bed known as the Portland Harbor, including the portion fronting the Company’s manufacturing facility, as a federal “National Priority List” or “Superfund” site due to sediment contamination (the Portland Harbor Site). The Company and more than 140 other parties have received a “General Notice” of potential liability from the EPA relating to the Portland Harbor Site. The letter advised the Company that it may be liable for the costs of investigation and remediation (which liability may be joint and several with other potentially responsible parties) as well as for natural resource damages resulting from releases of hazardous substances to the site. At this time, ten private and public entities, including the Company (the Lower Willamette Group or LWG), have signed an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to perform a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) of the Portland Harbor Site under EPA oversight, and several additional entities have not signed such consent, but are nevertheless contributing money to the effort. The EPA-mandated RI/FS is being produced by the LWG and has cost over $110 million during a 15-year period. The Company has agreed to initially bear a percentage of the total costs incurred by the LWG in connection with the investigation. The Company’s aggregate expenditure has not been material during the 15-year period. Some or all of any such outlay may be recoverable from other responsible parties.

Eighty-three parties, including the State of Oregon and the federal government, have entered into a non-judicial mediation process to try to allocate costs associated with the Portland Harbor site. Approximately 110 additional parties have signed tolling agreements related to such allocations. On April 23, 2009, the Company and the other AOC signatories filed suit against 69 other parties due to a possible limitations period for some such claims; Arkema Inc. et al v. A & C Foundry Products, Inc. et al, U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, Case #3:09-cv-453-PK. All but 12 of these parties elected to sign tolling agreements and be dismissed without prejudice, and the case has now been stayed by the court, pending the EPA’s Record of Decision, currently scheduled by the EPA for December 31, 2016.

On June 8, 2016, the EPA issued its Feasibility Study (FS) and Proposed Plan for the Portland Harbor Site. The EPA is accepting comments from the public on its Proposed Plan through August 8, 2016. The EPA’s FS includes remediation alternatives that would take from 4 to 62 years of active remediation, with an undiscounted cost ranging from $642 million to $10.2 billion and a net present value assuming a 7% discount rate ranging between $451 million and $9.4 billion. The Proposed Plan identifies the alternative currently favored by the EPA, which it assigns an estimated undiscounted cost of between $1.1 and $1.2 billion and a net present value of between $746 and $811 million. The EPA expects its cost estimates to be accurate within a range of +50 to -30 percent. EPA estimates that the remedy in the Proposed Plan would take 7 years of active remediation followed by 30 years of monitoring. The EPA’s FS and its Proposed Plan identify 13 Sediment Decision Units. One of the units, RM9W, includes the nearshore area of the river sediments offshore of our Portland, Oregon manufacturing facility as well as upstream and downstream of the facility. It also includes a portion of our riverbank. Neither the FS nor the Proposed Plan breaks down total remediation costs by unit.

Neither the EPA’s FS nor its Proposed Plan addresses responsibility for the costs of clean-up, allocates such costs among the potentially responsible parties, or defines precise boundaries for the cleanup. Responsibility for funding and implementing the EPA’s selected cleanup option will be determined after the issuance of the Record of Decision, currently scheduled by the EPA for December 31, 2016. Based on the investigation to date, the Company believes that it did not contribute in any material way to contamination in the river sediments or the damage of natural resources in the Portland Harbor Site and that the damage in the area of the Portland Harbor Site adjacent to its property precedes its ownership of the Portland, Oregon manufacturing facility. Because these environmental investigations are still underway, sufficient information is currently not available to determine the Company’s liability, if any, for the cost of any required remediation or restoration of the Portland Harbor Site or to estimate a range of potential loss. Based on the results of the pending investigations and future assessments of natural resource damages, the Company may be required to incur costs associated with additional phases of investigation or remedial action, and may be liable for damages to natural resources. In addition, the Company may be required to perform periodic maintenance dredging in order to continue to launch vessels from its launch ways in Portland, Oregon, on the Willamette River, and the river’s classification as a Superfund site could result in some limitations on future dredging and launch activities. Any of these matters could adversely affect the Company’s business and Consolidated Financial Statements, or the value of its Portland property.

The Company has also signed an Order on Consent with the DEQ to finalize the investigation of potential onsite sources of contamination that may have a release pathway to the Willamette River. Interim precautionary measures are also required in the order and the Company is currently discussing with the DEQ potential remedial actions which may be required. Our aggregate expenditure has not been material, however the Company could incur significant expenses for remediation. Some or all of any such outlay may be recoverable from other responsible parties.

From time to time, Greenbrier is involved as a defendant in litigation in the ordinary course of business, the outcome of which cannot be predicted with certainty. While the ultimate outcome of such legal proceedings cannot be determined at this time, management believes that the resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements.

In accordance with customary business practices in Europe, the Company has $3.2 million in third party warranty guarantee facilities. To date no amounts have been drawn under these guarantee facilities.

As of May 31, 2016, the Mexican railcar manufacturing joint venture had $0.9 million of third party debt outstanding, for which the Company and its joint venture partner had each guaranteed approximately $0.4 million.

As of May 31, 2016, the Company had outstanding letters of credit aggregating $81.3 million associated with performance guarantees, facility leases and workers compensation insurance.

The Company made $5.3 million in cash contributions and $3.75 million in loans to GBW, an unconsolidated 50/50 joint venture, for the nine months ended May 31, 2016. The Company expects to loan additional amounts of approximately $1.25 million during 2016. The Company is likely to make additional capital contributions or loans to GBW in the future. As of May 31, 2016, the Company had a $35.2 million note receivable balance from GBW which is included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet in Accounts receivable, net.