Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Contingencies - Environmental 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, 2019 were as follows (in thousands): Balance as of August 31, 2018 Liabilities Established (Released), Net Payments and Other Balance as of May 31, 2019 Short-Term Long-Term $ 53,832 $ 292 $ (2,843 ) $ 51,281 $ 5,769 $ 45,512 Recycling Operations As of May 31, 2019 and August 31, 2018 , the Company’s recycling operations had environmental liabilities of $51 million and $54 million , 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 immediately below, such liabilities were not individually material at any site. 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 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 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 was 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 LWG has indicated that it had incurred over $115 million in investigation-related costs over an approximately 10 year period working on the RI/FS. Following submittal of draft RI and FS documents which the EPA largely rejected, the EPA took over the RI/FS process. The Company has joined with approximately 100 other PRPs, including the LWG members, in a voluntary process to establish an allocation of costs at the Site, including the costs incurred by the LWG in the RI/FS process. The LWG members have also commenced federal court litigation, which has been stayed, seeking to bring additional parties into the allocation process. In January 2008, the Portland Harbor Natural Resource Trustee Council (“Trustee Council”) invited the Company and other PRPs to participate in funding and implementing the Natural Resource Injury Assessment for the Site. Following meetings among the Trustee Council and the PRPs, funding and participation agreements were negotiated under which the participating PRPs, including the Company, agreed to fund the first phase of the three-phase natural resource damage assessment. Phase 1, which included the development of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Plan (“AP”) and implementation of several early studies, was substantially completed in 2010. In December 2017, the Company joined with other participating PRPs in agreeing to fund Phase 2 of the natural resource damage assessment, which includes the 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. It is uncertain whether the Company will enter into an early settlement for natural resource damages or what costs it may incur in any such early settlement. 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 have filed various motions to dismiss or stay this suit, which motions are pending. 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. Estimates of the cost of remedial action for the cleanup of the in-river portion of the Site have varied widely in various drafts of the FS and in the EPA’s final FS issued in June 2016 ranging from approximately $170 million to over $2.5 billion (net present value), depending on the remedial alternative and a number of other factors. In comments submitted to the EPA, the Company and certain other stakeholders identified a number of serious concerns regarding the EPA’s risk and remedial alternatives assessments, cost estimates, scheduling assumptions and conclusions regarding the feasibility and effectiveness of remediation technologies. In January 2017, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (“ROD”) that identified the selected remedy for the Site. The selected remedy is a modified version of one of the alternative remedies evaluated in the EPA’s FS that was expanded to include additional work at a greater cost. 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 a decade old, and the EPA’s estimates for the costs and time required to implement the selected remedy. Because of ongoing questions regarding cost effectiveness, technical feasibility, and the use of stale data, it is uncertain whether the ROD will be implemented as issued. 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 used in preparing the ROD was more than a decade old and would need to be updated with a new round of “baseline” sampling to be conducted prior to the remedial design phase. Accordingly, the ROD provided for additional pre-remedial design investigative work and baseline sampling to be conducted in order to provide a baseline of current conditions and delineate particular remedial actions for specific areas within the Site. This additional sampling needs to occur prior to proceeding with the next phase in the process which 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. 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. Following issuance of the ROD, EPA proposed that the PRPs, or a subgroup of PRPs, perform the additional investigative work identified in the ROD under a new consent order. In December 2017, the Company and three other PRPs entered into a new Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent with EPA to perform such pre-remedial design investigation and baseline sampling over a two year period. The Company estimated that its share of the costs of performing such work would be approximately $2 million , which it recorded to environmental liabilities and selling, general and administrative expense in the consolidated financial statements in the first quarter of fiscal 2018. The Company believes that such costs will be fully covered by existing insurance coverage and, thus, also recorded an insurance receivable for $2 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2018, resulting in no net impact to the Company’s consolidated results of operations in that period. As of May 31, 2019 and August 31, 2018 , the Company’s loss contingencies include $1 million and $2 million , respectively, for its estimated share of the costs of the investigation, including pre-remedial design investigative activities. The pre-remedial design investigation and baseline sampling work has been completed, and the report evaluating the data was submitted to EPA on June 17, 2019. The evaluation report concludes that Site conditions have improved substantially since the data forming the basis of the ROD was collected over a decade ago. The analysis contained in the report has significant implications for remedial design and remedial action at the Site. The report is subject to review and comment by EPA. EPA has stated that it wants PRPs to step forward (individually or in groups) to enter into consent agreements to perform remedial design covering the entire Site and has proposed dividing the Site into eight to ten subareas for remedial design. EPA has indicated that it may pursue enforcement or other actions against PRPs in areas where good-faith negotiations to perform remedial design are not underway by June 30, 2019. The Company is engaged in good-faith negotiations with EPA with respect to potentially performing remedial design; but it is unclear whether the Company will reach agreement with EPA, and the timing for completion of remedial design is uncertain. Except for certain early action projects in which the Company is not involved, remediation activities are not expected to commence for a number of years. In addition, as discussed above, responsibility for implementing and funding the remedy will be determined in a separate allocation process. The Company does not expect the next major stage of the allocation process to proceed until early 2020. Because there has not been a determination of the specific remediation actions that will be required, the amount of natural resource damages or the allocation of costs of the investigations and any remedy and natural resource damages 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 (including the pre-remedial design investigative activities), remedial design, remedial action 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 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is separately providing oversight of voluntary investigations and source control activities 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) have not yet been determined. Other Legacy Environmental Loss Contingencies The Company’s environmental loss contingencies as of May 31, 2019 and August 31, 2018 , other than Portland Harbor, include actual or possible investigation and cleanup costs from historical contamination at sites 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 cleanup 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 and cleanup 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. During the first quarter of fiscal 2018, the Company accrued $4 million in expense at its Corporate division 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 May 31, 2019 and August 31, 2018 , 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 currently estimates 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 a specific remedy implementation plan. 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, 2019 and August 31, 2018 include $7 million and $6 million , respectively, for the estimated costs related to remediation of soil and groundwater conditions, including penalties, in connection with a closed facility owned and previously operated by an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary. Investigation activities have been conducted under the oversight of the applicable state regulatory agency, and the Company has also been working with local officials with respect to the protection of public water supplies. It is reasonably possible that the Company may recognize additional liabilities, including penalties, 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 loss or range of possible losses associated with this matter pending completion of on-going studies and determination of remediation plans and pending further negotiations to settle the related enforcement matter. Steel Manufacturing Operations The Company’s steel manufacturing operations had no known environmental liabilities as of May 31, 2019 and August 31, 2018 . The steel mill’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 firms that apply treatments that allow for the ultimate disposal of the EAF dust. The Company’s steel mill 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 approximately 950 thousand tons. The Company’s permit was first issued in 1998 and has since been renewed through February 1, 2018. The permit renewal process occurs every five years , and the renewal process is underway; however, the existing permit is extended by administrative rule until the current renewal process is finalized. Summary - Environmental Contingencies 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 these issues and that the ultimate outcomes will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole. 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. Contingencies - Other Schnitzer Southeast, LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, “SSE”), an SSE employee, the Company and one of the Company’s insurance carriers had been named as defendants in five separate wrongful death lawsuits filed in the State of Georgia arising from an accident in 2016 in Alabama involving a tractor trailer driven by the SSE employee and owned by SSE. In the first quarter of fiscal 2019, the Company settled two of the five lawsuits for a total of $20 million , which amount has been paid and was substantially covered by insurance. In addition to amounts accrued for the two lawsuits settled and paid in the first quarter of fiscal 2019, the Company accrued $10 million reflecting its estimate of the probable loss related to the three unresolved lawsuits and recorded a $10 million insurance receivable in fiscal 2018, resulting in no net impact to the Company’s consolidated results of operations. It is reasonably possible that the Company may recognize additional losses in connection with these unresolved lawsuits at the time such additional losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Such additional losses may be material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements. To the extent that circumstances change and the Company determines that an additional loss is reasonably possible, can be reasonably estimated, and is material, the Company would then disclose an estimate of the additional possible loss or range of loss. The Company believes that such additional losses, if incurred, would be substantially covered by existing insurance coverage. 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 resolution of legal proceedings arising 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. |