Schnitzer Steel Industries (RDUS) Risk Factors

In December 2000, we were notified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") that we are one of the potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") that owns or operates 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 we will be liable for environmental costs or natural resource damage claims or third party contribution or damage claims with respect to the Site. While we participated in certain preliminary Site study efforts, we were 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, we and certain other parties agreed to an interim settlement with the LWG under which we 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. We have 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 us 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 us, 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, we 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. We are proceeding with the process established by the Trustee Council regarding early settlements under Phase 2. It is uncertain whether we will enter into an early settlement for natural resource damages or what costs we 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 us, 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. We intend to defend against the claims in this suit and do 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 us. 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, we 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. We have 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, we 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. We estimated that our share of the costs of performing such work would be approximately $2 million, which we recorded to environmental liabilities and selling, general and administrative expense in the consolidated financial statements in the first quarter of fiscal 2018. We believe 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 our consolidated results of operations in that period. As of May 31, 2019 and August 31, 2018, our loss contingencies include $1 million and $2 million, respectively, for our 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. We are engaged in good-faith negotiations with EPA with respect to potentially performing remedial design; but it is unclear whether we will reach agreement with EPA, and the timing for completion of remedial design is uncertain. Except for certain early action projects in which we are 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. We do 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, we believe it is not possible to reasonably estimate the amount or range of costs which we are likely to or which it is reasonably possible that we will incur in connection with the Site, although such costs could be material to our 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. We have insurance policies that we believe will provide reimbursement for costs we incur 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 we may incur. Significant cash outflows in the future related to the Site could reduce the amount of our borrowing capacity that could otherwise be used for investment in capital expenditures, dividends, share repurchases and acquisitions. Any material liabilities incurred in the future related to the Site could result in our failure to maintain compliance with certain covenants in our debt agreements. See "Contingencies – Environmental" in Note 5 – Commitments and Contingencies in the Notes to the Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements in Part I, Item 1 of this report.

Our operations in Canada expose us to translation and transaction risks associated with fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates as compared to the U.S. dollar, our reporting currency. As a result, we are subject to foreign currency exchange risks due to exchange rate movements in connection with the translation of the operating costs and the assets and liabilities of our foreign operations into our functional currency for inclusion in our Consolidated Financial Statements. We are also exposed to foreign currency exchange transaction risk. As part of our risk management program, we may use financial instruments, including foreign currency exchange forward contracts. While intended to reduce the effects of fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates, these instruments may not be effective in reducing all risks related to such fluctuations and may limit our potential gains or expose us to losses. Although we do not enter into these instruments for trading purposes or speculation, and we believe all such instruments are entered into as hedges of underlying physical transactions, these instruments are dependent on timely performance by our counterparties. Should our counterparties to such instruments or the sponsors of the exchanges through which these transactions are offered fail to honor their obligations due to financial distress or otherwise, we would be exposed to potential losses or the inability to recover anticipated gains from the transactions covered by these instruments.