| Commitments and Contingencies | Note 4 - 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 three months ended November 30, 2020 were as follows (in thousands):
Balance as of September 1, 2020
Liabilities Established (Released), Net
Payments and Other
Balance as of November 30, 2020
Short-Term
Long-Term
$
53,464
$
2,347
$
(1,086
)
$
54,725
$
7,620
$
47,105
As of November 30, 2020 and August 31, 2020, the Company had environmental liabilities of $55 million 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 $155 million in investigation-related costs over an approximately 18 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. 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. 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 was required 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 are 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 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. EPA has reviewed the report, finding with a few limited corrections that the data is of suitable quality and generally acceptable and stating that such data will be used, in addition to existing and forthcoming design-level data, to inform implementation of the ROD. However, EPA did not agree that the data or the analysis warrants a change to the remedy at this time and reaffirmed its commitment to proceed with remedial design. The Company and other PRPs disagree with 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. EPA encouraged PRPs to step forward (individually or in groups) to enter into consent agreements to perform remedial design covering the entire Site and proposed dividing the Site into eight to ten subareas for remedial design. Certain PRPs have since executed consent agreements for remedial design work covering a little more than half of the remedial action areas at the Site. Because of 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 for remedial design with respect to any of the subareas at the Site. On March 26, 2020, EPA issued a unilateral administrative order (UAO) to the Company and MMGL, LLC (“MMGL”), an unaffiliated company, for the remedial design work in the portion of one of the EPA identified subareas within the Site designated as the River Mile 3.5 East Project Area. Following a conference with the Company to discuss the UAO and written comments submitted by the Company, EPA made limited modifications to the UAO and issued an amendment to the UAO on April 27, 2020 with an effective date of May 4, 2020. As required by the UAO, the Company notified EPA of its intent to comply with the UAO on the effective date 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, EPA’s expected schedule for completion of the remedial design work is four years . 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 that it believes will provide reimbursement for costs it incurs for remedial design, but not for any penalties. The Company also expects to pursue in the future allocation or contribution from other PRPs for a portion of such remedial design costs. The Company’s environmental liabilities as of November 30, 2020 and August 31, 2020 included $6 million and $ 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. Moreover, remediation activities at the Site are expected to be sequenced, and the order and timing of such sequencing has not been determined. In addition, as discussed above, responsibility for implementing and funding the remedy will be determined in a separate allocation process, which is on-going. The Company expects the next major stage of the allocation process to proceed in parallel with the remedial design process. Because the final remedial actions have not yet been designed and there has not been a determination of the amount of natural resource damages or of the allocation among the PRPs of costs of the investigations, remedial action costs or natural resource damages, 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, 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 the fourth quarter of 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 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 November 30, 2020 and August 31, 2020, other than Portland Harbor, include actual or possible investigation and cleanup 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 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 fiscal 2018, the Company accrued $ 4 million d under oversight of the applicable state regulatory agency. As of November 30, 2020 and August 31, 2020, the Company had $4 million between zero and $28 million based However, subsequent to the development of those remedial alternatives, the Company performed additional investigative activities under new state requirements that have the potential to impact the required remedial actions and associated cost estimates pending further analysis and discussion by the Company and regulators. In addition, the Company’s loss contingencies as of November 30, 2020 and August 31, 2020 million related to environmental matters supplies. The decrease in the loss contingency accrual in the first quarter of fiscal 2021 primarily reflects payment during the quarter of penalties in the amount of $2.7 million pursuant to the previously agreed settlement. It is reasonably 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 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. Contingencies - Other In February 2019, the Company received a letter sent on behalf of the District Attorneys for six counties in California notifying the Company of a joint investigation into the alleged mishandling of hazardous materials and hazardous waste and into the Company’s disposal practices, as well as alleged water pollution violations, at various retail auto parts stores within California and requesting a meeting to discuss the alleged violations. The Company has implemented additional compliance measures, and based on these additional actions and the initial discussions with the District Attorneys’ offices, the Company expects to negotiate a settlement of this matter that will address the concerns raised in this joint investigation. There has been no discussion to date of potential monetary sanctions. T 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 resolution of such 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. |
