75 / Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. Form 10-K 2021 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 third-party contribution or damage claims with respect to the Site. From 2000 to 2017, the EPA oversaw a remedial investigation/feasibility study (“RI/FS”) at the Site. The Company was not among the parties that performed the RI/FS, but it contributed to the costs through an interim settlement with the performing parties. The performing parties have indicated that they incurred more than $155 million in that effort. In January 2017, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (“ROD”) that identified the selected remedy for the Site. 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 15 years old, and the EPA’s estimates for the costs and time required to implement the selected remedy. 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. 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 was more than a decade old at that time and would need to be updated with a new round of “baseline” sampling to be conducted prior to the remedial design phase. 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. Following issuance of the ROD, the EPA proposed that the PRPs, or a subgroup of PRPs, perform the additional investigative work in advance of remedial design. In December 2017, the Company and three other PRPs entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent with the EPA to perform such pre-remedial design investigation and baseline sampling over a two-year period. The report analyzing the results concluded that Site conditions have improved substantially since the data forming the basis of the ROD was collected. The EPA found with a few limited corrections that the data is of suitable quality and stated that such data will be used, in addition to existing and forthcoming design-level data, to inform implementation of the ROD. However, the EPA did not agree that the data or the analysis warranted a change to the remedy at this time and reaffirmed its commitment to proceed with remedial design. The Company and other PRPs disagree with the 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. The EPA encouraged PRPs to step forward (individually or in groups) to enter into consent agreements to perform remedial design in various project areas covering the entire Site. While certain PRPs executed consent agreements for remedial design work, because of the 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. In April 2020, the EPA issued a unilateral administrative order (“UAO”) to the Company and MMGL, LLC (“MMGL”), an unaffiliated company, for the remedial design work in a portion of the Site designated as the River Mile 3.5 East Project Area. As required by the UAO, the Company notified the EPA of its intent to comply 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, the EPA’s expected schedule for completion of the remedial design work is four years. The 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 pursuant to which the Company is being reimbursed for the costs it has incurred for remedial design. In the second quarter of fiscal 2021, the Company recorded an insurance receivable and a related insurance recovery to selling, general, and administrative expense for approximately $3 million. See “Other Assets” in Note 2 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies for further discussion of receivables from insurers. The Company also expects to pursue in the future allocation or contribution from other PRPs for a portion of such remedial design costs. In February 2021, the EPA announced that 100 percent of the Site’s areas requiring active cleanup are in the remedial design phase of the process. Except for certain early action projects in which the Company is not involved, remediation activities at the Site are not expected to commence for a number of years. Moreover, those activities are expected to be sequenced, and the order and timing of such sequencing has not been determined. In addition, as noted above, the ROD does not determine the allocation of costs among PRPs.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTIzOTM0