Or

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(503) 224-9900

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes   x     No   o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Yes   x     No   o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (check one)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes   o     No   x

The Registrant had 26,841,827 shares of Class A common stock, par value of $1.00 per share, and 200,000 shares of Class B common stock, par value of $1.00 per share, outstanding as of April 4, 2017 .

SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.

INDEX

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Statements and information included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q by Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. (the "Company") that are not purely historical are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and are made pursuant to the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Except as noted herein or as the context may otherwise require, all references to "we," "our," "us," and "SSI" refer to the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries.

Forward-looking statements in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q include statements regarding future events or our expectations, intentions, beliefs and strategies regarding the future, which may include statements regarding trends, cyclicality and changes in the markets we sell into; the Company's outlook or expected results, including pricing, margins, sales volumes and profitability; strategic direction or goals; targets; changes to manufacturing and production processes; the cost of and the status of any agreements or actions related to our compliance with environmental and other laws; expected tax rates, deductions and credits; the realization of deferred tax assets; planned capital expenditures; liquidity positions; ability to generate cash from continuing operations; the potential impact of adopting new accounting pronouncements; obligations under our retirement plans; benefits, savings or additional costs from business realignment, cost containment and productivity improvement programs; and the adequacy of accruals.

Forward-looking statements by their nature address matters that are, to different degrees, uncertain, and often contain words such as "outlook," "target," "aim," "believes," "expects," "anticipates," "intends," "assumes," "estimates," "evaluates," "may," "will," "should," "could," "opinions," "forecasts," "projects," "plans," "future," "forward," "potential," "probable," and similar expressions. However, the absence of these words or similar expressions does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking.

We may make other forward-looking statements from time to time, including in reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, press releases, presentations and on public conference calls. All forward-looking statements we make are based on information available to us at the time the statements are made, and we assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements, except as may be required by law. Our business is subject to the effects of changes in domestic and global economic conditions and a number of other risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those included in, or implied by, such forward-looking statements. Some of these risks and uncertainties are discussed in "Item 1A. Risk Factors" in Part I of our Annual Report on Form 10-K and Part II of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Examples of these risks include: potential environmental cleanup costs related to the Portland Harbor Superfund site; the cyclicality and impact of general economic conditions; instability in international markets; volatile supply and demand conditions affecting prices and volumes in the markets for both our products and raw materials we purchase; imbalances in supply and demand conditions in the global steel industry; the impact of goodwill impairment charges; the impact of long-lived asset and joint venture investment impairment charges; the realization of expected benefits or cost reductions associated with productivity improvement and restructuring initiatives; difficulties associated with acquisitions and integration of acquired businesses; customer fulfillment of their contractual obligations; changes in the relative value of the U.S. dollar; the impact of foreign currency fluctuations; potential limitations on our ability to access capital resources and existing credit facilities; restrictions on our business and financial covenants under our bank credit agreement; the impact of consolidation in the steel industry; inability to realize expected benefits from investments in technology; freight rates and the availability of transportation; the impact of equipment upgrades, equipment failures and facility damage on production; product liability claims; the impact of legal proceedings and legal compliance; the adverse impact of climate change; the impact of not realizing deferred tax assets; the impact of tax increases and changes in tax rules; the impact of a cybersecurity incident; costs associated with compliance with environmental regulations; inability to obtain or renew business licenses and permits; compliance with greenhouse gas emission regulations; reliance on employees subject to collective bargaining agreements; and the impact of the underfunded status of multiemployer plans in which we participate.

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Unaudited, in thousands, except per share amounts)

The accompanying Notes to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

are an integral part of these statements.

SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Unaudited, in thousands, except per share amounts)

 ____________________________

The accompanying Notes to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

are an integral part of these statements.

SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

(Unaudited, in thousands)

The accompanying Notes to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

are an integral part of these statements.

SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited, in thousands)

The accompanying Notes to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

are an integral part of these statements.

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. (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 year ended August 31, 2016 . The results for the three and six months ended February 28, 2017 and February 29, 2016 are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations for the entire fiscal year.

Discontinued Operations

The results of discontinued operations are presented separately, net of tax, from the results of ongoing operations for all periods presented. The expenses included in the results of discontinued operations are the direct operating expenses incurred by the disposed components that may be reasonably segregated from the costs of the ongoing operations of the Company. Asset impairments related to the disposed components are also included in the results of discontinued operations. See Note 10 - Discontinued Operations and the Asset Impairment Charges section of this Note for further detail.

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 $13 million and $3 million as of February 28, 2017 and August 31, 2016 , respectively.

Assets Held for Sale

An asset is classified as held for sale upon meeting certain criteria specified in the accounting standards. An asset classified as held for sale is measured at the lower of its carrying amount or fair value less cost to sell with no further adjustments for depreciation. During the second quarter of fiscal 2016, the Company recorded an impairment charge for the initial and subsequent write-down of certain equipment assets held for sale of $2 million , which is reported within other asset impairment charges in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The Company determined fair value using Level 3 inputs under the fair value hierarchy consisting of information provided by brokers and other external sources along with management's own assumptions. Assets held for sale were less than $1 million as of August 31, 2016 . The Company did not have any assets held for sale as of February 28, 2017 .

Long-Lived Assets

The Company tests long-lived tangible and intangible assets for impairment at the asset group level, which is determined based on the lowest level for which identifiable cash flows are largely independent of the cash flows of other groups of assets and liabilities. For the Company's metals recycling operations, an asset group is generally comprised of the regional shredding and export operation along with surrounding feeder yards. For regions with no shredding and export operations, each metals recycling yard is an asset group. For the Company's auto parts operations, generally each auto parts store is an asset group. The Company's steel manufacturing business is a single asset group. The Company tests its asset groups for impairment when certain triggering events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the asset group may be impaired. If the carrying value of the asset group is not recoverable because it exceeds the Company's estimate of future undiscounted cash flows from the use and eventual disposition of the asset group, an impairment loss is recognized by the amount the carrying value exceeds its fair value, if any. The impairment loss is allocated to the long-lived assets of the group on a pro rata basis using the relative carrying amounts of those assets, except that the loss allocated to an individual long-lived asset of the group shall not reduce the carrying amount of that asset below its fair value. Fair value is determined primarily using the cost and market approaches.

During the second quarter of fiscal 2016, the Company recorded an impairment charge on long-lived tangible and intangible assets associated with certain regional metals recycling operations and used auto parts store locations.

With respect to individual long-lived assets, changes in circumstances may merit a change in the estimated useful lives or salvage values of the assets, which are accounted for prospectively in the period of change. For such assets, the useful life is shortened based on the Company's current plans to dispose of or abandon the asset before the end of its original useful life and depreciation is accelerated beginning when that determination is made. During the first quarter of fiscal 2017, the Company recognized accelerated depreciation primarily due to shortening the useful lives of decommissioned machinery and equipment assets. During the second quarter of fiscal 2016, the Company recognized accelerated depreciation due to shortened useful lives in connection with site closures and idled equipment.

See the Asset Impairment Charges section of this Note for tabular presentation of long-lived asset impairment charges and accelerated depreciation. Long-lived asset impairment charges and accelerated depreciation are reported in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations within (1) other asset impairment charges; (2) restructuring charges and other exit-related activities, if related to a site closure not qualifying for discontinued operations reporting; or (3) loss from discontinued operations, if related to a component of the Company qualifying for discontinued operations reporting.

Investments in Joint Ventures

A loss in value of an investment in a joint venture is recognized when the decline is other than a temporary. Management considers all available evidence to evaluate the realizable value of its investments including the length of time and the extent to which the fair value has been less than cost, the financial condition and near-term prospects of the joint venture business, and the Company's intent and ability to retain the investment for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in fair value. Once management determines that an other-than-temporary impairment exists, the investment is written down to its fair value, which establishes a new cost basis. The Company determines fair value using Level 3 inputs under the fair value hierarchy using an income approach based on a discounted cash flow analysis. During the second quarter of fiscal 2016, the Company recorded an impairment charge of  $2 million  related to an investment in a joint venture, which is reported within other asset impairment charges in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

During the second quarter of fiscal 2017, one of the Company's other joint venture interests sold real estate resulting in recognition of a $6 million gain by the joint venture, $3 million of which is attributable to the Company's investment. The Company's share of the gain is reported within (income) loss from joint ventures in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three and six months ended February 28, 2017 . Based on the Company's equity in the earnings of the joint venture for the six months ended February 28, 2017 , the joint venture qualifies as a significant unconsolidated subsidiary within the criteria of SEC Regulation S-X, thereby requiring separate summarized income statement information for the joint venture. The joint venture's principal business activity is real estate holdings and the foregoing real estate sale was its only significant transaction during the periods presented. For the three and six months ended February 28, 2017 and February 29, 2016, the joint venture had substantially no revenues or gross profit. For the three and six months ended February 28, 2017, the joint venture had net income of $6 million , $3 million of which is attributable to the Company's investment. For the three and six months ended February 29, 2016, the joint venture had substantially no net income.

Cost Method Investment

During the second quarter of fiscal 2017, the Company invested  $6 million in a privately-held waste and recycling entity. The Company's influence over the operating and financial policies of the entity is not significant and, thus, the investment is accounted for under the cost method. Under the cost method, the investment is carried at cost and adjusted only for other-than-temporary impairments, certain distributions and additional investments. The investment is presented as part of the Auto and Metals Recycling ("AMR") reportable segment and reported within other assets in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company does not hold any other cost-method investments. As of February 28, 2017 , the Company had not identified any events or changes in circumstances that may have a significant adverse effect on the fair value of the investment or indicators of other-than-temporary impairment.

Asset Impairment Charges

The following asset impairment charges, excluding goodwill impairment charges discussed below in this Note, were recorded in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (in thousands):

_____________________________

Goodwill

Goodwill represents the excess of the purchase price over the net amount of identifiable assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination measured at fair value. 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. Impairment of goodwill is tested at the reporting unit level. A reporting unit is an operating segment or one level below an operating segment (referred to as a component). A component of an operating segment is required to be identified as a reporting unit if the component is a business for which discrete financial information is available and segment management regularly reviews its operating results.

When testing goodwill for impairment, the Company has the option to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events or circumstances leads to a determination that it is more likely than not that the estimated fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If the Company elects to perform a qualitative assessment and determines that an impairment is more likely than not, the Company is then required to perform the two-step quantitative impairment test, otherwise no further analysis is required. The Company also may elect not to perform the qualitative assessment and, instead, proceed directly to the two-step quantitative impairment test.

In the first step of the two-step quantitative impairment test, the fair value of a reporting unit is compared to its carrying value. If the carrying value of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, the second step of the impairment test is performed for purposes of measuring the impairment. In the second step, the fair value of the reporting unit is allocated to all of the assets and liabilities of the reporting unit to determine an implied goodwill value. If the carrying amount of the reporting unit's goodwill exceeds the implied fair value of goodwill, an impairment loss will be recognized in an amount equal to that excess.

The Company estimates the fair value of its reporting units using an income approach based on the present value of expected future cash flows, including terminal value, utilizing a market-based weighted average cost of capital ("WACC") determined separately for each reporting unit. The determination of fair value involves the use of significant estimates and assumptions, including revenue growth rates driven by future commodity prices and volume expectations, operating margins, capital expenditures, working capital requirements, tax rates, terminal growth rates, discount rates, benefits associated with a taxable transaction and synergistic benefits available to market participants. In addition, to corroborate the reporting units' valuation, the Company uses a market approach based on earnings multiple data and a reconciliation of the Company's estimate of the aggregate fair value of the reporting units to the Company's market capitalization, including consideration of a control premium. 

During the second quarter of fiscal 2016, management identified the combination of sustained weak market conditions at such time, including the adverse effects of lower commodity selling prices and the constraining impact of the lower price environment on the supply of raw materials which negatively impacted volumes, the Company's financial performance and a decline in the Company's market capitalization at such time as a triggering event requiring an interim impairment test of goodwill allocated to its reporting units. In connection with the interim impairment test performed in the second quarter of fiscal 2016, the Company used a measurement date of February 1, 2016. For a reporting unit within AMR with $9 million of goodwill as of February 1, 2016, the first step of the impairment test showed that the fair value of the reporting unit was less than its carrying amount, indicating a potential impairment. Based on the second step of the impairment test, the Company concluded that no implied fair value of goodwill remained for the reporting unit, resulting in an impairment of the entire carrying amount of the reporting unit's goodwill totaling $9 million . For the reporting unit within AMR carrying the remainder, or $166 million , of the Company's goodwill as of February 1, 2016, the estimated fair value of the reporting unit exceeded its carrying value by approximately 27% and, thus, the Company did not record a goodwill impairment charge.

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 from suppliers. 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 February 28, 2017 . 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, credit 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 $43 million and $40 million of open letters of credit as of February 28, 2017 and August 31, 2016 , respectively.

Financial Instruments

The Company's financial instruments include cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts payable and debt. The Company uses the market approach to value its financial assets and liabilities, determined using available market information. The net carrying amounts of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable and accounts payable approximate fair value due to the short-term nature of these instruments. For long-term debt, which is primarily at variable interest rates, fair value is estimated using observable inputs (Level 2) and approximates its carrying value.

Fair Value Measurements

Fair value is measured using inputs from the three levels of the fair value hierarchy. Classification within the hierarchy is determined based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The three levels are described as follows:

When developing the fair value measurements, the Company uses quoted market prices whenever available or seeks to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when quoted market prices are not available.

Restructuring Charges

Restructuring charges consist of severance, contract termination and other restructuring-related costs. A liability for severance costs is typically recognized when the plan of termination has been communicated to the affected employees and is measured at its fair value at the communication date. Contract termination costs consist primarily of costs that will continue to be incurred under operating leases for their remaining terms without economic benefit to the Company. A liability for contract termination costs is recognized at the date the Company ceases using the rights conveyed by the lease contract and is measured at its fair value, which is determined based on the remaining contractual lease rentals reduced by estimated sublease rentals. A liability for other restructuring-related costs is measured at its fair value in the period in which the liability is incurred. Restructuring charges that directly involve a discontinued operation are included in the results of discontinued operations in all periods presented. See Note 7 - Restructuring Charges and Other Exit-Related Activities for further detail.

Note 2 - Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, an accounting standard update was issued that clarifies the principles for recognizing revenue from contracts with customers. The update will supersede the existing standard for recognizing revenue. Additional updates have been issued since May 2014 amending aspects of the initial update and providing implementation guidance. The guidance is applicable to all contracts with customers regardless of industry-specific or transaction-specific fact patterns. Further, the guidance requires improved disclosures to help users of financial statements better understand the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue that is recognized. The standard is effective for the Company beginning in fiscal 2019, including interim periods within that fiscal year. Upon becoming effective, the Company will apply the amendments in the standard either retrospectively to each prior reporting period presented, or retrospectively with the cumulative effect of initially applying the guidance recognized at the date of initial application. The Company is evaluating the impact of adopting this standard on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

In February 2016, an accounting standard was issued that will supersede the existing lease standard and requiring a lessee to recognize a lease liability and a lease asset on its balance sheet for all leases, including those classified as operating leases under the existing lease standard. The update also expands the required quantitative and qualitative disclosures surrounding leases. This standard is effective for the Company beginning in fiscal 2020, including interim periods within that fiscal year. This standard will be applied using a modified retrospective transition approach for leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements. The Company is evaluating the impact of adopting this standard on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

In March 2016, an accounting standard update was issued that amends several aspects of the accounting for share-based payments, including accounting for income taxes, forfeitures and statutory tax withholding requirements, and classification within the statement of cash flows. The standard is effective for the Company beginning in fiscal 2018, including interim periods within that fiscal year. Early adoption is permitted in any interim or annual period; however, if the Company elects early adoption, it must adopt all of the amendments in the same period. The Company does not expect adoption to have an immediate material impact on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

In August 2016, an accounting standard update was issued that addresses how certain cash receipts and cash payments are presented and classified in the statement of cash flows. Among the cash flow matters addressed in the update are payments for costs related to debt prepayments or extinguishments, payments related to settlement of certain types of debt instruments, payments of contingent consideration made after a business combination, proceeds from insurance claims and corporate-owned life insurance policies, and distributions received from equity method investees, among others. The standard is effective for the Company beginning in fiscal 2019, including interim periods within that fiscal year. Early adoption is permitted, including adoption in an interim period. If an entity early adopts the amendments in an interim period, any adjustments should be reflected as of the beginning of the fiscal year that includes that interim period, and all of the amendments must be adopted together in the same period. The amendments will be applied using a retrospective transition method to each period presented, unless impracticable for specific cash flow matters, in which case the amendments would be applied prospectively as of the earliest date practicable. The Company is evaluating the impact of adopting this standard on its consolidated statement of cash flows.

In October 2016, an accounting standard update was issued that amends the existing guidance on the accounting for the income tax effects of intra-entity transfers of assets other than inventory. Current accounting standards prohibit the recognition of current and deferred income taxes for an intra-entity asset transfer until the asset has been sold to an outside party. The amendments in the update require that entities recognize the income tax effects of an intra-entity transfer of an asset other than inventory when the transfer occurs. The amendments do not change accounting standards for the pre-tax effects of an intra-entity asset transfer under accounting standards applicable to consolidation, or for an intra-entity transfer of inventory. The standard is effective for the Company beginning in fiscal 2019, including interim periods within that fiscal year. Early adoption is permitted in the first interim period of a fiscal year. The amendments will be applied on a modified retrospective basis through a cumulative-effect adjustment directly to retained earnings as of the beginning of the period of adoption. The Company is evaluating the impact of adopting this standard on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

In January 2017, an accounting standard update was issued clarifying the definition of a "business" and adding guidance to assist entities with evaluating whether transactions should be accounted for as acquisitions (or disposals) of businesses. The amendments in the update provide a screen to determine when an integrated set of assets and activities (a "set") is not a business. The screen requires that when substantially all of the fair value of the gross assets acquired (or disposed of) is concentrated in a single identifiable asset or a group of similar identifiable assets, the set is not a business. This screen reduces the number of transactions that need to be further evaluated. If the screen is not met, the amendments in the update (1) require that to be considered a business, a set must include, at a minimum, an input and a substantive process that together significantly contribute to the ability to create output and (2) remove the evaluation of whether a market participant could replace missing elements in the set. The standard is effective for the Company beginning in fiscal 2019, including interim periods within that fiscal year, and is to be applied prospectively. Early application is permitted for transactions that have not, yet, been reported in the Company's financial statements. The Company does not expect adoption to have an immediate material impact on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

In January 2017, an accounting standard update was issued that eliminates the second step ("Step 2") of the two-step goodwill impairment test. Under existing guidance, if the carrying amount of the reporting unit exceeds its fair value, as measured under the first step of the two-step goodwill impairment test, the entity performs Step 2. Under Step 2, an impairment charge equal to the amount by which the carrying amount of goodwill for the reporting unit exceeds the implied fair value of that goodwill is recorded, limited to the amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting unit. Under the revised guidance, an entity will apply a one-step quantitative test and record the amount of goodwill impairment as the excess of a reporting unit's carrying amount over its fair value, not to exceed the total amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting unit. The new guidance does not amend the optional qualitative assessment of goodwill impairment. The Company will early-adopt the new requirement as of the beginning of the third quarter of fiscal 2017 and will apply the amendments to future goodwill impairment tests. The Company does not expect adoption to have an immediate material impact on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

In March 2017, an accounting standard update was issued that modifies the presentation requirements for net periodic pension cost and net periodic postretirement benefit cost within an entity's income statement. The amendments in the update require that an employer report the service cost component in the same line item or items as other compensation costs arising from services rendered by the pertinent employees during the period. The amendments also require the other components of net periodic pension cost and net periodic postretirement benefit cost to be presented in the income statement separately from the service cost component and outside a subtotal of income from operations. Additionally, only the service cost component is eligible for capitalization, when applicable. The standard is effective for the Company beginning in fiscal 2019, including interim periods within that fiscal year. Early adoption is permitted beginning with the first quarter of fiscal 2018. Aspects of the update affecting income statement presentation must be applied retrospectively, while aspects affecting the capitalization of the service cost component in assets must be applied prospectively on and after the effective date. The Company is evaluating the impact of adopting this standard on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Note 3 - Inventories

Inventories consisted of the following (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 or second quarter of fiscal 2017 requiring an interim goodwill impairment test.

The gross change in the carrying amount of goodwill for the six months ended February 28, 2017 was as follows (in thousands):

Accumulated goodwill impairment charges were $471 million as of February 28, 2017 and August 31, 2016 .

Note 5 - Debt

As of August 31, 2016, the Company had $8 million of tax-exempt economic development revenue bonds outstanding with the State of Oregon and scheduled to mature in January 2021. In August 2016, the Company exercised its option to redeem the bonds prior to maturity. The Company repaid the bonds in full in September 2016. The obligation is reported as a current liability within short-term borrowings as of August 31, 2016 on the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet, and the $8 million repayment is reported as a cash outflow from financing activities for the six months ended February 28, 2017 on the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows.

Note 6 - Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental Liabilities

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 six months ended February 28, 2017 were as follows (in thousands):

AMR

As of February 28, 2017 and August 31, 2016 , AMR had environmental liabilities of $47 million and $46 million , respectively, for the potential remediation of locations where it has conducted business and has environmental liabilities from historical or recent activities.

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 any cleanup of 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 Company has also joined with approximately 100 other PRPs, including the LWG members, in a voluntary process to establish an allocation of costs at the Site, including 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 Natural Resource Damages Trustee Council ("Trustees") for Portland Harbor invited the Company and other PRPs to participate in funding and implementing the Natural Resource Injury Assessment for the Site. Following meetings among the Trustees and the PRPs, a funding and participation agreement was negotiated under which the participating PRPs agreed to fund the first phase of the natural resource damage assessment. The Company joined in that Phase I agreement and paid a portion of those costs. The Company did not participate in funding the second phase of the natural resource damage assessment.

A former Trustee, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, which withdrew from the council in 2009, filed a suit on January 30, 2017 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 Company does not have sufficient information to determine the likelihood of a loss or to estimate the amount of damages being sought or the amount of such damages that could be allocated to the Company.

On March 30, 2012, the LWG submitted to the EPA and made available on its website a draft feasibility study ("FS") for the Site based on approximately ten years of work and $100 million in costs classified by the LWG as investigation-related. The draft FS submitted by the LWG identified ten possible remedial alternatives which ranged in estimated cost from approximately $170 million to $250 million (net present value) for the least costly alternative to approximately $1.08 billion to $1.76 billion (net present value) for the most costly alternative and estimated a range of two to 28 years to implement the remedial work, depending on the selected alternative. However, the EPA largely rejected this draft FS, and took over the drafting process. The EPA provided their revised draft FS in August 2015 that identified five possible remedial alternatives which ranged in estimated cost from approximately $550 million to $1.19 billion (net present value) for the least costly alternative to approximately $1.71 billion to $3.67 billion (net present value) for the most costly alternative and estimated a range of four to 18 years to implement the remedial work.

In June 2016, the EPA issued its final FS and Proposed Plan for the cleanup of the in-river portion of the Site. In the Proposed Plan, the EPA identified its preferred alternative, which included a combination of dredging, capping, and enhanced natural recovery and which the EPA estimated would take approximately seven years to construct with additional time for monitored natural recovery to occur and cost an estimated $746 million (net present value). This is approximately half of the estimated $1.4 billion (net present value) cost of a very similar preferred alternative that EPA Region 10 presented to a peer review group in November 2015. The final FS identified eight possible remedial alternatives (some of which contain two disposal alternatives, for a total of 13 possible alternative remedial scenarios) which ranged in estimated cost from approximately $316 million to $677 million (net present value) for the least costly alternative to approximately $1.21 billion to $2.67 billion (net present value) for the most costly alternative that the EPA did not screen out and estimated a range of four to 19 years to implement the remedial work.

The EPA received input on its Proposed Plan from over 5,300 commenters during a 90-day public comment period that closed in September 2016. In their comments, the Company and certain other stakeholders identified a number of serious concerns regarding the EPA's risk and remedial alternatives assessments and the EPA's cost estimates, scheduling assumptions and conclusions regarding the feasibility, effectiveness and assignment of remediation technologies, including that the EPA's FS and Proposed Plan were based on data that are more than a decade old and may not accurately represent site or background conditions.

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 in the EPA's FS that expands the scope of the cleanup and has an estimated cost which is significantly more than their Proposed Plan. 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 EPA's estimated cost and time required for the selected remedy. Because of questions regarding cost-effectiveness and other concerns, such as technical feasibility, use of stale data and the need for new baseline data, it is uncertain whether the ROD will be implemented as issued. In addition, the ROD does not determine or allocate the responsibility for remediation costs.

In the ROD, the EPA acknowledged that the assumptions used to estimate costs for the selected remedy were developed based on the existing data and will be finalized during the remedial design, after design level data to refine the baseline conditions are obtained. Moreover, the ROD provides only Site-wide cost estimates and does not provide sufficient detail or ranges of certainty and finality to estimate costs for specific sediment management areas. Accordingly, the EPA has indicated and the Company anticipates that additional pre-remedial design investigative work, such as new baseline sampling and monitoring, will be conducted in order to provide a re-baseline and delineate particular remedial actions for specific areas within the Site. This re-baselining will need 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. The EPA is seeking a new coalition of PRPs to perform the re-baselining and remedial design activities. Remediation activities are not expected to commence for a number of years and responsibility for implementing and funding the EPA's selected remedy will be determined in a separate allocation process. While an allocation process is currently underway, the EPA's ROD has raised questions and uncertainty as to when and how that allocation process will proceed.

Because there has not been a determination of the specific remediation actions that will be required, the amount of natural resource damages or how the costs of the investigations and any remedy and natural resource damages will be allocated 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, remediation 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 Company previously recorded a liability for its estimated share of the costs of the investigation of $1 million .

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is separately providing oversight of voluntary investigations 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 AMR Sites

As of February 28, 2017 and August 31, 2016 , the Company had environmental liabilities related to various AMR sites other than Portland Harbor of $47 million and $45 million , respectively. The liabilities relate to the potential future remediation of soil contamination, groundwater contamination and storm water runoff issues and were not individually material at any site.

Steel Manufacturing Business ("SMB")

SMB'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 a firm that applies a treatment that allows the EAF dust to be delisted as hazardous waste.

SMB 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 950 thousand tons. The permit was first issued in 1998 and has since been renewed through February 1, 2018 .

SMB had no environmental liabilities as of February 28, 2017 and August 31, 2016 .

Other than the Portland Harbor Superfund site, which is discussed 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 consolidated financial statements of the Company as a whole. Historically, the amounts the Company has ultimately paid for such remediation activities have not been material in any given period.

Other Contingencies

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. Legal proceedings include those arising from accidents involving Company-owned vehicles, including Company tractor trailers. In some instances, such accidents and the related litigation involve accidents that have resulted in third party fatalities. It is reasonably possible that the Company may recognize additional losses in connection with such lawsuits at the time such losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Such losses may be material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. The Company believes that such losses, if incurred, will be substantially covered by existing insurance coverage. 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.

Note 7 - Restructuring Charges and Other Exit-Related Activities

The Company has implemented a number of restructuring initiatives designed to reduce operating expenses and improve profitability and to achieve further integration and synergistic cost efficiencies in its operating platform. The restructuring charges incurred by the Company during the periods presented primarily pertain to the plan announced in the second quarter of fiscal 2015 and expanded in subsequent periods (the "Q2'15 Plan").

At the end of the second quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company commenced additional restructuring and exit-related initiatives by undertaking strategic actions consisting of idling underutilized assets at AMR and initiating the closure of seven auto parts stores to align the Company's business to market conditions. The Company expanded these initiatives in April 2015 and also announced the integration of the former Metals Recycling Business and Auto Parts Business into the combined AMR platform in order to achieve operational synergies and reduce the Company's annual operating expenses, primarily selling, general and administrative expenses, through headcount reductions, reducing organizational layers, consolidating shared service functions and other non-headcount measures. Additional cost savings and productivity improvement initiatives, including reductions in personnel, savings from procurement activities, streamlining of administrative and supporting services functions, and adjustments to its operating capacity through facility closures, were identified and initiated in subsequent periods. Collectively, these initiatives are referred to as the Q2'15 Plan.

The Company incurred restructuring charges of less than $1 million during the three and six months ended February 28, 2017 , and $3 million and $5 million during the three and six months ended February 29, 2016 , respectively. The remaining charges relating to these initiatives are expected to be substantially incurred by the end of fiscal 2017. The significant majority of the restructuring charges require the Company to make cash payments.

In addition to the restructuring charges recorded related to these initiatives, the Company recognized a net gain from other exit-related activities of $1 million and less than $1 million during the three and six months ended February 28, 2017 , respectively, primarily related to a gain recorded in the second quarter of fiscal 2017 in connection with the disposition of business assets related to the elimination of a metals recycling feeder yard operation. The Company incurred charges associated with other exit-related activities of $3 million during the three and six months ended February 29, 2016 , consisting of asset impairments and accelerated depreciation of assets in connection with site closures.

Restructuring charges and other exit-related activities were comprised of the following (in thousands):

The following illustrates the reconciliation of the restructuring liability by major type of costs for the six months ended February 28, 2017 (in thousands):

___________________________

Restructuring charges and other exit-related activities by reportable segment and discontinued operations were as follows (in thousands):

___________________________

The Company does not allocate restructuring charges and other exit-related activities to the segments' operating results because management does not include this information in its measurement of the performance of the operating segments.

Note 8 - Changes in Equity

Changes in equity were comprised of the following (in thousands):

Note 9 - Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss

Changes in accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of tax, were comprised of the following (in thousands):