SCHN Schnitzer Steel Industries Inc

NOTES TO THE UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. and its majority-owned and wholly-owned subsidiaries (the “Company”) have been prepared pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) for interim financial information and the rules and regulations of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) for Form 10-Q, including Article 10 of Regulation S-X. The year-end condensed consolidated balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by U.S. GAAP. Certain information and note disclosures normally included in annual financial statements have been condensed or omitted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the SEC. In the opinion of management, all normal, recurring adjustments considered necessary for a fair statement have been included. Management suggests that these Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2019. The results for the three months ended November 30, 2019 and 2018 are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations for the entire fiscal year.

Segments

The Company’s internal organizational and reporting structure includes two operating and reportable segments: the Auto and Metals Recycling (“AMR”) business and the Cascade Steel and Scrap (“CSS”) business.

Accounting Changes

As of the beginning of the first quarter of fiscal 2020, the Company adopted an accounting standards update, initially issued in February 2016, that requires a lessee to recognize a lease liability and a lease right-of-use asset on its balance sheet for all leases greater than 12 months, including those classified as operating leases. The update supersedes the previous lease accounting standard. The Company adopted the new lease accounting standard using the modified retrospective transition method, whereby it applied the new requirements by recognizing a cumulative-effect adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings as of September 1, 2019. Such cumulative-effect adjustment for the Company was not material. Adoption using the modified retrospective transition method did not have an impact on any prior period earnings of the Company, and no comparative prior periods were adjusted for the new guidance. The Company elected a package of practical expedients permitted under the transition guidance within the new lease accounting standard, which among other things, permit carrying forward the historical lease classification. The Company also elected the practical expedient exempting short-term leases from balance sheet recognition, whereby payments for such leases are recognized in the income statement on a straight-line basis over the lease term. In addition, the Company elected the practical expedient to not separate lease and non-lease components, which the Company elected to apply to all classes of underlying assets. Adoption of the new standard resulted in recognition of $126 million and $128 million of operating lease right-of-use assets and liabilities, respectively, as of September 1, 2019, which are presented as separate line items on the balance sheet. Operating lease right-of-use assets are considered long-lived assets subject to existing long-lived asset impairment guidance. Adoption also resulted in the reclassification of the Company’s capital lease assets and obligations as finance lease right-of-use assets and liabilities as of September 1, 2019, with such reclassification having no impact on the carrying amounts or financial statement line items within which the leases are reported. See Note 3 - Leases for the disclosures required under the new standard.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

Cash and cash equivalents include short-term securities that are not restricted by third parties and have an original maturity date of 90 days or less. Included in accounts payable are book overdrafts representing outstanding checks in excess of funds on deposit of $14 million and $27 million as of November 30, 2019 and August 31, 2019, respectively.

Accounts Receivable, net

Accounts receivable represent amounts primarily due from customers on product and other sales. These accounts receivable, which are reduced by an allowance for doubtful accounts, are recorded at the invoiced amount and do not bear interest. The Company extends credit to customers under contracts containing customary and explicit payment terms, and payment is generally required within 30 to 60 days of shipment. Nonferrous export sales typically require a deposit prior to shipment. Historically, almost all of the Company’s ferrous export sales have been made with letters of credit. Domestic ferrous metal sales, nonferrous metal sales and finished steel sales are generally made on open account, and the majority of these sales are covered by credit insurance.

10

Table of Contents

SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.

NOTES TO THE UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The Company evaluates the collectibility of its accounts receivable based on a combination of factors, including whether sales were made pursuant to letters of credit or credit insurance is in place. In cases where management is aware of circumstances that may impair a customer’s ability to meet its financial obligations, management records a specific allowance against amounts due and reduces the receivable to the amount the Company believes will be collected. For all other customers, the Company maintains an allowance that considers the total receivables outstanding, historical collection rates and economic trends. Accounts are written off when all efforts to collect have been exhausted.

Also included in accounts receivable are short-term advances to scrap metal suppliers used as a mechanism to acquire unprocessed scrap metal. The advances are generally repaid with scrap metal, as opposed to cash. Repayments of advances with scrap metal are treated as noncash operating activities in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows and totaled $2 million and $4 million for the three months ended November 30, 2019 and 2018, respectively.

Prepaid Expenses

The Company’s prepaid expenses, reported within prepaid expenses and other current assets in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, totaled $22 million and $23 million as of November 30, 2019 and August 31, 2019, respectively, and consisted primarily of deposits on capital projects, prepaid services, prepaid property taxes and prepaid insurance.

Other Assets

The Company’s other assets, exclusive of prepaid expenses, consist primarily of receivables from insurers, spare parts, an equity investment, debt issuance costs, and notes and other contractual receivables. Other assets are reported within either prepaid expenses and other current assets or other assets in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets based on their expected use either during or beyond the current operating cycle of one year from the reporting date. Receivables from insurers totaled $7 million and $89 million as of November 30, 2019 and August 31, 2019, respectively, with the decrease in the first quarter of fiscal 2020 resulting primarily from full payment by the Company’s insurers of settlements for lawsuits arising from a 2016 motor vehicle collision. See “Contingencies – Other” in Note 5 – Commitments and Contingencies for further discussion of this matter.

The Company invested $6 million in the equity of a privately-held waste and recycling entity in fiscal 2017. The equity investment does not have a readily determinable fair value and, therefore, is carried at cost and adjusted for impairments and observable price changes. The investment is presented as part of the AMR reportable segment and reported within other assets in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The carrying value of the investment was $6 million as of November 30, 2019 and August 31, 2019. The Company has not recorded any impairments or upward or downward adjustments to the carrying value of the investment since acquisition.

Concentration of Credit Risk

Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to significant concentration of credit risk consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, and notes and other contractual receivables. The majority of cash and cash equivalents is maintained with major financial institutions. Balances with these and certain other institutions exceeded the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insured amount of $250,000 as of November 30, 2019. Concentration of credit risk with respect to accounts receivable is limited because a large number of geographically diverse customers make up the Company’s customer base. The Company controls credit risk through credit approvals, credit limits, insurance, letters of credit or other collateral, cash deposits and monitoring procedures. The Company is exposed to a residual credit risk with respect to open letters of credit by virtue of the possibility of the failure of a bank providing a letter of credit. The Company had $46 million and $49 million of open letters of credit as of November 30, 2019 and August 31, 2019, respectively.

11

Table of Contents

SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.

NOTES TO THE UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Note 3 - Leases

The Company enters into leases to obtain access to real property, machinery and equipment assets. Most of the Company’s lease obligations relate to real property leases for AMR operating sites, including the substantial majority of its auto parts stores, and for the Company’s administrative offices. The Company determines whether an arrangement contains a lease at inception by assessing whether it receives the right to direct the use of and obtain substantially all of the economic benefit from use of the underlying asset. Lease classification, measurement, and recognition are determined at lease commencement, which is the date the underlying asset is available for use by the Company. The accounting classification of a lease is based on whether the arrangement is effectively a financed purchase of the underlying asset (finance lease) or not (operating lease). Leases that, at lease commencement, have a non-cancellable lease term of 12 months or less and do not include an option to either purchase the underlying asset or renew the lease beyond 12 months that the Company is reasonably certain to exercise are classified as short-term leases and are not recognized on the balance sheet.

For leases other than short-term leases, the Company recognizes right-of-use assets and lease liabilities based primarily on the present value of future minimum lease payments over the lease term at lease commencement. Right-of-use assets represent the Company’s right to use the underlying asset during the lease term, while lease liabilities represent the Company’s obligation to make future lease payments. The lease term is the non-cancellable period of the lease, together with periods covered by renewal (or termination) options which the Company is reasonably certain to exercise (or not to exercise). Lease payments are discounted to present value using the Company’s incremental borrowing rate, unless the discount rate implicit in the lease is readily determinable. The Company’s incremental borrowing rate for each lease is the estimated rate of interest that the Company would have to pay to borrow the aggregate lease payments on a collateralized basis over the lease term. Estimation of the incremental borrowing rate requires judgment by management and reflects an assessment of the Company’s credit standing to derive an implied secured credit rating and corresponding yield curve. The Company used the incremental borrowing rate to recognize all operating lease right-of-use assets and liabilities as of the new lease accounting standard application date. Right-of-use assets and lease liabilities are subject to remeasurement after lease commencement when certain events or changes in circumstances arise, such as a change in the lease term due to reassessment of whether the Company is reasonably certain to exercise a renewal or termination option.

For operating leases, lease expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. For finance leases, the lease right-of-use asset is amortized on a straight-line basis and interest expense is recognized on the lease liability using the effective interest rate method. Many of the Company’s real property leases contain variable lease payments that depend on an index or a rate, which are included in the measurement of the right-of-use asset and lease liability using the index or rate at lease commencement, or with respect to the Company’s transition to the new lease accounting standard the index or rate at the application date. Subsequent changes in variable lease payments are recorded as variable lease expenses during the period in which they are incurred. The Company elected a practical expedient to not separate lease and related non-lease components for accounting purposes and, thus, costs related to such non-lease components are disclosed as lease expense. Payments for short-term leases are recognized in the income statement on a straight-line basis over the lease term.

The Company’s operating leases for real property underlying its auto parts stores, metals recycling facilities, and administrative offices generally have non-cancellable lease terms of 5 to 10 years and the significant majority, but not all, contain multiple renewal options for a further 5 to 20 years. Renewal options which the Company is reasonably certain to exercise are included in the measurement of lease term. The Company’s finance leases and other operating leases involve primarily transportation equipment assets, have non-cancellable lease terms of less than 10 years and usually do not include renewal options.

For the three months ended November 30, 2019, the Company’s total lease cost was $7 million, consisting primarily of operating lease expense of $6 million and short-term lease expense of $1 million. The other components of the Company’s total lease cost for the period, including finance lease amortization and interest expense, variable lease expense and sublease income, were not material both individually and in aggregate. The substantial majority of the Company’s total lease cost for the three months ended November 30, 2019 is presented within cost of goods sold in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

12

Table of Contents

The weighted average remaining lease terms and weighted average discount rates for the Company’s leases as of November 30, 2019 were as follows:

Maturities of lease liabilities by fiscal year as of November 30, 2019 were as follows (in thousands):

Supplemental cash flow information and non-cash activity related to leases are as follows (in thousands):

13

Table of Contents

SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.

NOTES TO THE UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

As a result of adopting the new lease accounting guidance on September 1, 2019 using the modified retrospective transition method, the Company is required to present future minimum lease commitments for capital leases and operating leases that were previously disclosed in the Company’s 2019 Annual Report on Form 10-K and accounted for under previous lease guidance.

Principal payments on capital lease obligations during the next five fiscal years and thereafter as of August 31, 2019 are as follows (in thousands):

The table below sets forth the Company’s future minimum obligations under non-cancelable operating leases as of August 31, 2019 (in thousands):

Note 4 - Goodwill

The Company evaluates goodwill for impairment annually on July 1 and upon the occurrence of certain triggering events or substantive changes in circumstances that indicate that the fair value of goodwill may be impaired. There were no triggering events identified during the first three months of fiscal 2020 requiring an interim goodwill impairment test. As of November 30, 2019 and August 31, 2019, all but $1 million of the Company’s goodwill was carried by a single reporting unit within AMR.

The gross change in the carrying amount of goodwill for the three months ended November 30, 2019 was as follows (in thousands):

Accumulated goodwill impairment charges were $471 million as of November 30, 2019 and August 31, 2019.

14

Table of Contents

SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.

NOTES TO THE UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Note 5 - 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, 2019 were as follows (in thousands):

Recycling Operations

As of November 30, 2019 and August 31, 2019, the Company’s recycling operations had environmental liabilities of $51 million and $52 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 $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. 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.

15

Table of Contents

SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.

NOTES TO THE UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

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, and in August 2019, the court issued an order denying the motions to dismiss and staying the action. A number of parties have filed to appeal the court’s denial of the motions to dismiss, which filing the Company joined in part. 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 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 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 fiscal 2018, resulting in no net impact to the Company’s consolidated results of operations. The Company’s loss contingencies as of November 30, 2019 and August 31, 2019 included $1 million 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. 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 support the conclusions presented in the report. The Company and other PRPs disagree with EPA’s position on use of the more recent data and are reviewing EPA’s comments and the Company’s options.

16

Table of Contents

SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.

NOTES TO THE UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

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. Certain PRPs have since executed consent agreements for remedial design work in a few portions of the Site. EPA recently indicated that it will not issue Special Notice Letters for full remedial design/remedial action work at this time, but stated that, in early 2020, it plans to complete pending negotiations with other PRPs for additional remedial design consent agreements and will utilize its enforcement tools, which include issuance of orders, to advance progress on remedial design. However, the Company does not currently expect EPA to take immediate enforcement actions pending ongoing discussions with EPA on the results of the pre-remedial design investigation work. The Company has 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 but could take three to four years.

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, which is on-going. The Company would expect the next major stage of the allocation process to proceed in parallel with the remedial design process.

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 November 30, 2019 and August 31, 2019, 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 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 November 30, 2019 and August 31, 2019, 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

17

Table of Contents

SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.

NOTES TO THE UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

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 November 30, 2019 and August 31, 2019 include $7 million and $8 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 additional loss or range of possible additional 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. As part of its activities relating to the protection of public water supplies, the Company has agreed to reimburse the municipality for certain studies and plans, and it is reasonably possible that it may incur additional liabilities and costs in the future, including for wellhead treatment, which may be material.

Steel Manufacturing Operations

The Company’s steel manufacturing operations had no known environmental liabilities as of November 30, 2019 and August 31, 2019.

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 its environmental loss 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

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 fiscal 2019, the Company settled three of the five lawsuits for a total of $35 million. In the first quarter of fiscal 2020, the Company settled the two remaining lawsuits for a total of $68 million. The aggregate settlement amount of $103 million was substantially covered by insurance, resulting in no net impact to the Company’s consolidated results of operations. As of August 31, 2019, the Company had accrued loss contingencies and offsetting insurance receivables related to the lawsuits totaling $83 million. The full amount accrued as of August 31, 2019 was paid by the Company’s insurers in the first quarter of fiscal 2020. There are no further contingencies in relation to this matter as of November 30, 2019.

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.

18

Table of Contents

Reclassifications from accumulated other comprehensive loss to earnings, both individually and in the aggregate, were not material to the impacted captions in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for all periods presented.

19

Table of Contents