Environmental and Legal Contingencies (Notes)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Environmental Contingencies

Domestic steel producers, including us, must follow stringent federal, state and local laws and regulations designed to protect human health and the environment. We have spent the following amounts over the past three years for environmental-related capital investments and environmental compliance:



	2019		2018		2017
Environmental-related capital investments	$	23.0	$	7.1	$	6.8
Environmental compliance costs	141.3		126.3		129.5

We and our predecessors have been involved in steel manufacturing and related operations since 1900. Although we believe our operating practices have been consistent with prevailing industry standards, hazardous materials may have been released at operating sites or third-party sites in the past, including operating sites that we no longer own. If we reasonably can, we have estimated potential remediation expenditures for those sites where future remediation efforts are probable based on identified conditions, regulatory requirements or contractual obligations arising from the sale of a business or facility. For sites involving government-required investigations, we typically make an estimate of potential remediation expenditures only after the investigation is complete and when we better understand the nature and scope of the remediation. In general, the material factors in these estimates include the costs associated with investigations, delineations, risk assessments, remedial work, governmental response and oversight, site monitoring, and preparation of reports to the appropriate environmental agencies. We have recorded the following liabilities for environmental matters on our consolidated balance sheets:



	2019		2018
Accrued liabilities	$	6.1	$	8.0
Other non-current liabilities	32.6		31.2

We cannot predict the ultimate costs for each site with certainty because of the evolving nature of the investigation and remediation process. Rather, to estimate the probable costs, we must make certain assumptions. The most significant of these assumptions is for the nature and scope of the work that will be necessary to investigate and remediate a particular site and the cost of that work. Other significant assumptions include the cleanup technology that will be used, whether and to what extent any other parties will participate in paying the investigation and remediation costs, reimbursement of past response and future oversight costs by governmental agencies, and the reaction of the governing environmental agencies to the proposed work plans. Costs for future investigation and remediation are not discounted to their present value. To the extent that we have been able to reasonably estimate future liabilities, we do not believe that there is a reasonable possibility that we will incur a loss or losses that exceed the amounts we accrued for the environmental matters discussed below that would, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, since we recognize amounts in the consolidated financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States that exclude potential losses that are not probable or that may not be currently estimable, the ultimate costs of these environmental proceedings may be higher than the liabilities we currently have recorded in our consolidated financial statements.

Except as we expressly note below, we do not currently anticipate any material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows as a result of compliance with current environmental regulations. Moreover, because all domestic steel producers operate under the same federal environmental regulations, we do not believe that we are more disadvantaged than our domestic competitors by our need to comply with these regulations. Some foreign competitors may benefit from less stringent environmental requirements in the countries where they produce, resulting in lower compliance costs for them and providing those foreign competitors with a cost advantage on their products.

According to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), which governs the treatment, handling and disposal of hazardous waste, the EPA and authorized state environmental agencies may conduct inspections of RCRA-regulated facilities to identify areas where there have been releases of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents into the environment and may order the facilities to take corrective action to remediate such releases. Environmental regulators may inspect our major steelmaking facilities. While we cannot predict the future actions of these regulators, it is possible that they may identify conditions in future inspections of these facilities which they believe require corrective action.

Under authority from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), the EPA and state environmental authorities have conducted site investigations at certain of our facilities and other third-party facilities, portions of which previously may have been used for disposal of materials that are currently regulated. The results of these investigations are still pending, and we could be directed to spend funds for remedial activities at the former disposal areas. Because of the uncertain status of these investigations, however, we cannot reliably predict whether or when such spending might be required or its magnitude.

As previously noted, on April 29, 2002, we entered a mutually agreed-upon administrative order on consent with the EPA pursuant to Section 122 of CERCLA to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) of the former Hamilton Plant site located in New Miami, Ohio. The plant ceased operations in 1990 and all of its former structures have been demolished. We submitted the investigation portion of the RI/FS and completed supplemental studies. We currently have accrued $0.7 for the remaining cost of the RI/FS. Until the RI/FS is complete, we cannot reliably estimate the additional costs, if any, we may incur for potentially required remediation of the site or when we may incur them.

As previously reported, on September 30, 1998, our predecessor, Armco Inc., received an order from the EPA under Section 3013 of RCRA requiring it to develop a plan for investigation of eight areas of our Mansfield Works that allegedly could be sources of contamination. A site investigation began in November 2000 and is continuing. We cannot reliably estimate how long it will take to complete this site investigation. We currently have accrued $0.5 for the projected cost of the remaining investigation and corrective measures study. Until the site investigation and study are complete, we cannot reliably estimate the additional costs, if any, we may incur for potentially required remediation of the site or when we may incur them.

As previously noted, on September 26, 2012, the EPA issued an order under Section 3013 of RCRA requiring us to develop a plan for investigation of four areas at our former Ashland Works coke plant. The Ashland Works coke plant ceased operations in 2011 and all of its former structures have been demolished and removed. In 1981, we acquired the plant from Honeywell International Corporation (as successor to Allied Corporation), who had managed the coking operations there for approximately 60 years. In connection with the sale of the coke plant, Honeywell agreed to indemnify us from certain claims and obligations that could arise from the investigation and we intend to pursue such indemnification from Honeywell, if necessary. We cannot reliably estimate how long it will take to complete the site investigation. On March 10, 2016, the EPA invited us to participate in settlement discussions regarding an enforcement action. Settlement discussions between the parties are ongoing, though whether the parties will reach agreement and any such agreement’s terms are uncertain. We currently have accrued $1.4 for the projected cost of the investigation and known remediation. Until the site investigation is complete, we cannot reliably estimate the costs, if any, we may incur for potential additional required remediation of the site or when we may incur them.

As previously reported, on July 15, 2009, we and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) entered a Consent Order and Agreement (the “Consent Order”) to resolve an alleged unpermitted discharge of wastewater from the closed Hillside Landfill at our former Ambridge Works. Under the terms of the Consent Order, we paid a penalty and also agreed to implement various corrective actions, including an investigation of the area where landfill activities occurred, submission of a plan to collect and treat surface waters and seep discharges, and upon approval from PADEP, implementation of that plan. We have accrued $4.8 for the remedial work required under the approved plan and Consent Order. A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit was issued in 2019 that includes a compliance schedule. We currently estimate that the remaining work will be completed in accordance with the schedule in 2022.

As previously reported, on June 29, 2000, the United States filed a complaint on behalf of the EPA against us in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. C-1-00530, alleging violations of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and RCRA at our Middletown Works. Subsequently, the State of Ohio, the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council intervened. On May 15, 2006, the court entered a Consent Decree in Partial Resolution of Pending Claims (the “Consent Decree”). Under the Consent Decree, we agreed to undertake a comprehensive RCRA facility investigation at Middletown Works and, as appropriate, complete a corrective measures study. The Consent Decree also required us to implement certain RCRA corrective action interim measures. We have completed the remedial activity at Dicks Creek, but continue to work on the RCRA facility investigation and certain interim measures. We have accrued $13.1 for the cost of known remediation and other work required under the Consent Decree.

As previously reported, on May 12, 2014, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (“EGLE”) (previously the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality) issued to our Dearborn Works an Air Permit to Install No. 182-05C (the “PTI”) to increase the emission limits for the blast furnace and other emission sources. The PTI was issued as a correction to a prior permit to install that did not include certain information during the prior permitting process. On July 10, 2014, the South Dearborn Environmental Improvement Association (“SDEIA”), Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice, Original United Citizens of Southwest Detroit and the Sierra Club filed a Claim of Appeal of the PTI in the State of Michigan, Wayne County Circuit, Case No. 14-008887-AA. The appellants and EGLE required the intervention of Severstal Dearborn, LLC (“Dearborn”) (now owned by us) in this action as an additional appellee. The appellants allege multiple deficiencies with the PTI and the permitting process. On July 2, 2019, the Circuit Court dismissed the PTI appeal and ruled that EGLE appropriately issued the permit modification. The appellants have appealed that decision. Until the appeal is resolved, we cannot determine what the ultimate permit limits will be. Until the permit limits are determined and final, we cannot reliably estimate the costs we may incur, if any, or when we may incur them.

As previously reported, on August 21, 2014, the SDEIA filed a Complaint under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act in the State of Michigan, Wayne County Circuit Case No. 14-010875-CE. The plaintiffs allege that the air emissions from our Dearborn Works are impacting the air, water and other natural resources, as well as the public trust in such resources. The plaintiffs are requesting, among other requested relief, that the court assess and determine the sufficiency of the PTI’s limitations. On October 15, 2014, the court ordered a stay of the proceedings until a final order is issued in Wayne County Circuit Court Case No. 14-008887-AA (discussed above). When the proceedings resume, we will vigorously contest these claims. Until the claims in this Complaint are resolved, we cannot reliably estimate the costs we may incur, if any, or when we may incur them.

As previously reported, on April 27, 2000, EGLE issued RCRA Corrective Action Order No. 111-04-00-07E to Rouge Steel Company and Ford Motor Company for the property that includes our Dearborn Works. The Corrective Action Order has been amended five

times. We are a party to the Corrective Action Order as the successor-in-interest to Dearborn, which was the successor-in-interest to Rouge Steel Company. The Corrective Action Order requires the site-wide investigation, and where appropriate, remediation of the facility. The site investigation and remediation are ongoing. We cannot reliably estimate how long it will take to complete this site investigation and remediation. To date, Ford Motor Company has incurred most of the costs of the investigation and remediation due to its prior ownership of the steelmaking operations at Dearborn Works. Until the site investigation is complete, we cannot reliably estimate the additional costs we may incur, if any, for any potentially required remediation of the site or when we may incur them.

As previously reported, we received an order in October 2002 from the EPA under Section 3013 of RCRA requiring us to investigate several areas of Zanesville Works that allegedly could be sources of contamination. A site investigation began in 2003 and was approved by EPA in November 2012. On October 28, 2016, the EPA requested that we conduct a corrective measures study and implement these measures as necessary. We subsequently agreed to proceed with a voluntary corrective measures study and have accrued $0.8 for the study. Until the study is complete, we cannot reliably estimate the costs, if any, we may incur for potential required remediation of the site or when we may incur them.

On November 18, 2019 and November 26, 2019, EGLE issued Notices of Violations (“NOVs”) with respect to the basic oxygen furnace at Dearborn Works alleging violations of manganese and lead limits. We are investigating these claims and will work with EGLE to attempt to resolve them. We will vigorously contest any claims that cannot be resolved through a settlement. Until a settlement is reached with EGLE or the claims of the NOVs are otherwise resolved, we cannot reliably estimate the costs, if any, associated with any potentially required work.

In addition to the foregoing matters, we are or may be involved in proceedings with various regulatory authorities that may require us to pay fines, comply with more rigorous standards or other requirements or incur capital and operating expenses for environmental compliance. We believe that the ultimate disposition of the proceedings will not have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Legal Contingencies

As previously reported, since 1990 we have been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. The great majority of these lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises of one of our current or former facilities. The majority of asbestos cases pending in which we are a defendant do not include a specific dollar claim for damages. In the cases that do include specific dollar claims for damages, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim for compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal amount for punitive damages, but does not attempt to allocate the total monetary claim among the various defendants.

The number of asbestos cases pending at December 31, 2019, is presented below:



		Asbestos Cases Pending at
		December 31, 2019
Cases with specific dollar claims for damages:
Claims up to $0.2		183
Claims above $0.2 to $5.0		4
Claims above $5.0 to $20.0		3
Total claims with specific dollar claims for damages (a)		190
Cases without a specific dollar claim for damages		177
Total asbestos cases pending		367


(a)	Involve a total of 2,265 plaintiffs and 21,406 defendants

In each case, the amount described is per plaintiff against all of the defendants, collectively. Thus, it usually is not possible at the outset of a case to determine the specific dollar amount of a claim against us. In fact, it usually is not even possible at the outset to determine which of the plaintiffs actually will pursue a claim against us. Typically, that can only be determined through written interrogatories or other discovery after a case has been filed. Therefore, in a case involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, we initially only account for the lawsuit as one claim. After we have determined through discovery whether a particular plaintiff will pursue a claim, we make an appropriate adjustment to statistically account for that specific claim. It has been our experience that only a small percentage of asbestos plaintiffs ultimately identify us as a target defendant from whom they actually seek damages and most of these claims ultimately are either dismissed or settled for a small fraction of the damages initially claimed. We maintain appropriate reserves within a range of possible outcomes for asbestos claims. Asbestos-related claims information in 2019, 2018 and 2017, is presented below:



	2019		2018		2017
New Claims Filed	64		68		58
Pending Claims Disposed Of	40		61		61
Total Amount Paid in Settlements	$	3.5	$	1.4	$	1.2

Since the onset of asbestos claims against us in 1990, six asbestos claims against us proceeded to trial in five separate cases. Five out of six claims concluded with a verdict in our favor. On June 14, 2019, judgment was entered on a jury verdict in an asbestos case in state court in Oklahoma against a party that was indemnified by us and another unrelated defendant. The judgment amount was $8.1 against both defendants jointly and severally. We are appealing that judgment and intend to contest the matter vigorously, which may include asserting contribution claims against the other defendant. We continue to vigorously defend all asbestos claims. Based upon present knowledge, and the factors above, we believe it is unlikely that the resolution in the aggregate of the asbestos claims against us will have a materially adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. However, predictions about the outcome of pending litigation, particularly claims alleging asbestos exposure, are subject to substantial uncertainties. These uncertainties include (1) the significantly variable rate at which new claims may be filed, (2) the effect of bankruptcies of other companies currently or historically defending asbestos claims, (3) the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, (4) the type and severity of the disease each claimant is alleged to suffer, and (5) the potential for enactment of legislation affecting asbestos litigation.

Six actions, including one putative class action lawsuit, have been filed in federal court in Delaware, Michigan and New York by purported AK Steel stockholders in connection with the Merger: Stein v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00054 (D. Del., filed January 14, 2020) (the “Stein Action”); Spuhler v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00444 (S.D.N.Y., filed January 16, 2020) (the “Spuhler Action”); Franchi v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00078 (D. Del., filed January 17, 2020) (the “Franchi Action”); Raul v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00611 (S.D.N.Y., filed January 23, 2020) (the “Raul Action”); Ruiz v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00620 (E.D.N.Y., filed February 4, 2020) (the “Ruiz Action”); and Rubin v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., No. 2:20-cv-10379-BAF-DRG (E.D. Mich., filed February 12, 2020) (the “Rubin Action”). The Stein Action, Spuhler Action, Franchi Action, Raul Action, Ruiz Action and Rubin Action are collectively referred to as the “AK Steel Stockholder Federal Actions.” A seventh action, Pate v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., Case No. CV 2020 01 0196 (Ohio Common Pleas, Butler County, filed January 28, 2020) (the “Pate Action”), has been filed by a purported AK Steel stockholder as a putative class action in state court in Ohio. The Pate Action and the AK Steel Stockholder Federal Actions are collectively referred to as the “AK Steel Stockholder Actions.” Each of the AK Steel Stockholder Actions names AK Steel and its directors as defendants, and the Franchi Action and Pate Action name Cliffs and Merger Sub as additional defendants. An eighth action, Nessim v. Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00850 (S.D.N.Y., filed January 31, 2020) (the “Nessim Action”), has been filed in federal court in New York against Cliffs and its directors by a purported shareholder of Cliffs. The Nessim Action and the AK Steel Stockholder Federal Actions are collectively referred to as the “Federal Stockholder Actions,” and all eight actions are collectively referred to as the “Stockholder Actions.” Each of the Federal Stockholder Actions alleges, among other things, that the registration statement on Form S-4 filed by Cliffs in connection with the Merger is false and misleading and/or omits material information concerning the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act. The Pate Action alleges breach of fiduciary duty claims against the AK Steel directors and aiding and abetting claims against AK Steel, Cliffs and Merger Sub in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, including that the registration statement on Form S-4 filed by Cliffs in connection with the Merger is false and misleading and/or omits material information concerning the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. The plaintiffs in the Stockholder Actions, among other things, seek to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. We believe that the allegations in each of these complaints lack merit and plan to contest the matters vigorously.

Other Contingencies

In addition to the matters discussed above, there are various pending and potential claims against us and our subsidiaries involving product liability, commercial, employee benefits and other matters arising in the ordinary course of business. Because of the considerable uncertainties which exist for any claim, it is difficult to reliably or accurately estimate what the amount of a loss would be if a claimant prevails. If material assumptions or factual understandings we rely on to evaluate exposure for these contingencies prove to be inaccurate or otherwise change, we may be required to record a liability for an adverse outcome. If, however, we have reasonably evaluated potential future liabilities for all of these contingencies, including those described more specifically above, it is our opinion, unless we otherwise noted, that the ultimate liability from these contingencies, individually and in the aggregate, should not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.