Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 9: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In October 2011, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) named JT Ryerson as one of more than 100 businesses that may be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) for the Portland Harbor Superfund Site (the “PHS Site”). On January 6, 2017, the EPA issued an initial Record of Decision (“ROD”) regarding the site. The ROD includes a combination of dredging, capping, and enhanced natural recovery that would take approximately thirteen years to construct plus additional time for monitored natural recovery, at an estimated present value cost of $1.05 billion. In a change from its prior stance, at a meeting on December 4, 2018, the EPA indicated that it expected PRPs to submit a plan during 2019 to start remediation of the river and harbor per the original ROD within the next two to three years. The EPA also indicated that it expected allocation of amounts among the parties to be determined in the same two to three-year time frame. The EPA invited certain PRPs to a May 2, 2019 meeting to discuss starting the remedial design process. The EPA did not include JT Ryerson in those meetings. On December 9, 2019, a PRP group met with Administrator Wheeler, the head of the EPA, to discuss updating the ROD as recent testing indicates that the levels of contamination have “drastically improved” and, thus, remediation should be much less drastic than that in the current ROD. Administrator Wheeler directed regional EPA staff to again review the ROD before moving forward with any enforcement action. On March 3, 2020, the regional EPA issued a letter to the PRP group, essentially rejecting the request but noting that new data would be used for fine-tuning the implementation of the remedy and to that extent could result in less active remediation. The EPA indicated in a January 2, 2020 “progress update” letter that it is negotiating with certain parties to perform remedial design work at five unspecified areas which comprise 52% of the overall acreage subject to remediation. In late March, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order for Remedial Design to Schnitzer Steel, ordering it to develop a remedial design plan for the river area which includes the area where our former facilities were. In the meantime, Schnitzer has filed a petition for relief from the remedy required by the ROD. The EPA has stated that it is willing to consider de minimis settlements, which JT Ryerson is trying to pursue; however, the EPA has not begun meeting with any of the smaller parties who have requested de minimis or de micromis status, stating that it does not have sufficient information to determine whether any parties meet such criteria and does not intend to begin those considerations until after the remedial design work is completed. It has met with selected parties that we believe to be larger targets. JT Ryerson has not been invited to meet with the EPA. As a result of the ongoing negotiations and filings over the ROD and the EPA’s decision not to meet with smaller parties, we cannot determine how allocations will be made and whether a de minimus settlement can be reached with the EPA. The EPA has not yet allocated responsibility for the contamination among the potentially responsible parties, including JT Ryerson. We do not currently have sufficient information available to us to determine whether the ROD will be executed as currently stated, whether and to what extent JT Ryerson may be held responsible for any of the identified contamination, and how much (if any) of the final plan’s costs might ultimately be allocated to JT Ryerson. Therefore, management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter or estimate a range of potential loss at this time. There are various other claims and pending actions against the Company. The amount of liability, if any, for those claims and actions at March 31, 2020 is not determinable but, in the opinion of management, such liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. We maintain liability insurance coverage to assist in protecting our assets from losses arising from or related to activities associated with business operations.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 9: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In October 2011, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) named JT Ryerson as one of more than 100 businesses that may be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) for the Portland Harbor Superfund Site (the “PHS Site”). On January 6, 2017, the EPA issued an initial Record of Decision (“ROD”) regarding the site. The ROD includes a combination of dredging, capping, and enhanced natural recovery that would take approximately thirteen years to construct plus additional time for monitored natural recovery, at an estimated present value cost of $1.05 billion. In a change from its prior stance, at a meeting on December 4, 2018, the EPA indicated that it expected PRPs to submit a plan during 2019 to start remediation of the river and harbor per the original ROD within the next two to three years. The EPA also indicated that it expected allocation of amounts among the parties to be

determined in the same two to three-year time frame. The EPA invited certain PRPs to a May 2, 2019 meeting to discuss starting the remedial design process. The EPA did not include JT Ryerson in those meetings.

On December 9, 2019, a PRP group met with Administrator Wheeler, the head of the EPA, to discuss updating the ROD as recent testing indicates that the levels of contamination have “drastically improved” and, thus, remediation should be much less drastic than that in the current ROD. Administrator Wheeler directed regional EPA staff to again review the ROD before moving forward with any enforcement action. On March 3, 2020, the regional EPA issued a letter to the PRP group, essentially rejecting the request but noting that new data would be used for fine-tuning the implementation of the remedy and to that extent could result in less active remediation.

The EPA indicated in a January 2, 2020 “progress update” letter that it is negotiating with certain parties to perform remedial design work at five unspecified areas which comprise 52% of the overall acreage subject to remediation. In late March, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order for Remedial Design to Schnitzer Steel, ordering it to develop a remedial design plan for the river area which includes the area where our former facilities were. In the meantime, Schnitzer has filed a petition for relief from the remedy required by the ROD.

The EPA has stated that it is willing to consider de minimis settlements, which JT Ryerson is trying to pursue; however, the EPA has not begun meeting with any of the smaller parties who have requested de minimis or de micromis status, stating that it does not have sufficient information to determine whether any parties meet such criteria and does not intend to begin those considerations until after the remedial design work is completed. It has met with selected parties that we believe to be larger targets. JT Ryerson has not been invited to meet with the EPA. As a result of the ongoing negotiations and filings over the ROD and the EPA’s decision not to meet with smaller parties, we cannot determine how allocations will be made and whether a de minimus settlement can be reached with the EPA.

The EPA has not yet allocated responsibility for the contamination among the potentially responsible parties, including JT Ryerson. We do not currently have sufficient information available to us to determine whether the ROD will be executed as currently stated, whether and to what extent JT Ryerson may be held responsible for any of the identified contamination, and how much (if any) of the final plan’s costs might ultimately be allocated to JT Ryerson. Therefore, management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter or estimate a range of potential loss at this time.

There are various other claims and pending actions against the Company. The amount of liability, if any, for those claims and actions at March 31, 2020 is not determinable but, in the opinion of management, such liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. We maintain liability insurance coverage to assist in protecting our assets from losses arising from or related to activities associated with business operations.