Commitments and Contingencies

a. Legal Matters

The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to legal proceedings, including litigation in U.S. federal and state courts, which arise out of, and are incidental to, the ordinary course of the Company’s on-going and historical businesses. The Company is also subject from time to time to governmental investigations by federal and state agencies. The Company cannot predict the outcome of such proceedings with any degree of certainty. Loss contingency provisions are recorded for probable losses at management’s best estimate of a loss, or when a best estimate cannot be made, a minimum loss contingency amount is recorded. These estimates are often initially developed substantially earlier than when the ultimate loss is known, and are refined each quarterly reporting period as additional information becomes available. For legal settlements where there is no stated amount for interest, the Company will estimate an interest factor and discount the liability accordingly.

Asbestos Litigation

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and Illinois. There were 83 asbestos cases brought by individual plaintiffs pending as of May 31, 2015.

Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed against the Company, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been accrued.

In 2011, Aerojet Rocketdyne received a letter demand from AMEC, plc, (“AMEC”) the successor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the business assets of Barnard & Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet Rocketdyne subsidiary, for Aerojet Rocketdyne to assume the defense of sixteen asbestos cases, involving 271plaintiffs, pending in Louisiana, and reimbursement of over $1.7 million in past legal fees and expenses. AMEC is asserting that Aerojet Rocketdyne retained those liabilities when it sold the Barnard & Burk assets and agreed to indemnify the purchaser therefor. Under the relevant purchase agreement, the purchaser assumed only certain, specified liabilities relating to the operation of Barnard & Burk before the sale, with Barnard & Burk retaining all unassumed pre-closing liabilities, and Aerojet Rocketdyne agreed to indemnify the purchaser against unassumed liabilities that are asserted against it. Based on the information provided, Aerojet Rocketdyne declined to accept the liability and requested additional information from AMEC pertaining to the basis of the demand. On April 3, 2013, AMEC filed a complaint for breach of contract against Aerojet Rocketdyne in Sacramento County Superior Court, AMEC Construction Management, Inc. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, Case No. 342013001424718. AMEC contends it has incurred approximately $3.0 million in past legal fees and expenses. Aerojet Rocketdyne filed its answer to the complaint denying AMEC’s allegations as well as a cross-complaint against AMEC for breach of its obligations under the purchase agreement in addition to other claims for relief. Discovery is ongoing. The parties attended a mediation session on December 9, 2014 and negotiations are ongoing. Aerojet Rocketdyne filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which is scheduled for hearing on August 20, 2015. Trial date is scheduled to commence on October 19, 2015. As of May 31, 2015, the Company has accrued $0.2 million related to this matter. None of the expenditures related to this matter are recoverable from the U.S. government.

Inflective, Inc. (“Inflective”) Litigation

On December 18, 2014, Inflective filed a complaint against Aerojet Rocketdyne and Kathleen E. Redd, individually, in the Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento County, Inflective, Inc. v Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc., Kathleen E. Redd, et al, Case No. T4358. Inflective asserts in the complaint causes for breach of contract, breach of implied contract, false promise, inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, negligent interference with prospective economic relations, and intentional interference with prospective economic relations and is seeking damages in excess of $3.0 million, punitive damages, interest and attorney’s costs. The complaint arises out of the Company’s implementation of ProjectOne, a company-wide enterprise resource planning (“ERP”) system, for which Inflective had been a consultant to the Company. The Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends to contest this matter vigorously. On February 6, 2015, Aerojet Rocketdyne and Ms. Redd filed a demurrer to the complaint seeking to have the complaint dismissed for failure to allege facts sufficient to support the causes of action therein. On June 9, 2015, the Court sustained the demurrer in part and overruled the demurrer in part, with leave to amend. On June 18, 2015, Inflective filed an amended complaint in which it reiterated all the causes of action dismissed by the Court. On June 30, 2015, Aerojet Rocketdyne and Ms. Redd filed a demurrer and motion to strike seeking to have (a) all claims and references to a purported “finder’s fee” stricken from the case and (b) the causes of action against Ms. Redd for intentional and negligent interference with prospective business relations dismissed with prejudice. The hearing for the demurrer and motion is scheduled for September 30, 2015. The Company has not recorded any liability for this matter as of May 31, 2015.

Socorro

On May 12, 2015, a complaint for personal injuries, loss of consortium and punitive damages was filed by James Chavez, Andrew Baca, and their respective spouses, against Aerojet Rocketdyne and the Board of Regents of New Mexico Tech in the Seventh Judicial District, County of Socorro, New Mexico, James Chavez, et al., vs. Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc., et al., Case No. D725CV201500047. Messrs. Chavez and Baca were employees of Aerotek, a contractor to Aerojet Rocketdyne, who were injured when excess energetic materials being managed by the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center, a research division of New Mexico Tech, ignited in an unplanned manner. The complaint alleges causes of action based on negligence and negligence per se, strict liability, and willful, reckless and wanton conduct against Aerojet Rocketdyne, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The Company will defend this action vigorously. The Company has alerted its insurance carriers of this action. No liability for this matter has been recorded by the Company as of May 31, 2015.

Occupational Safety

On January 16, 2015, the Company received a notice that the State of California, Division of Occupational Safety & Health (“Cal\OSHA”), Bureau of Investigation (“BOI”) is conducting an investigation into an accident that occurred at the Rancho Cordova facility in November 2013. The accident involved the deflagration of solid rocket propellant following a remote cutting operation and resulted in injuries to two employees, one of whom ultimately died from his injuries. Cal\OSHA issued nine citations relating to the accident with penalties of approximately $0.1 million, all of which the Company has appealed. The BOI is the criminal investigatory arm of Cal\OSHA and is required by law to investigate any occupational fatality to determine if criminal charges will be recommended. The Company does not believe that circumstances in this matter warrant a criminal recommendation although there can be no assurance on how the BOI will conclude.

b. Environmental Matters

The Company is involved in over forty environmental matters under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, and other federal, state, local, and foreign laws relating to soil and groundwater contamination, hazardous waste management activities, and other environmental matters at some of its current and former facilities. The Company is also involved in a number of remedial activities at third party sites, not owned by the Company, where it is designated a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) by either the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and/or a state agency. In many of these matters, the Company is involved with other PRPs. In many instances, the Company’s liability and proportionate share of costs have not been determined largely due to uncertainties as to the nature and extent of site conditions and the Company’s involvement. While government agencies frequently claim PRPs are jointly and severally liable at such sites, in the Company’s experience, interim and final allocations of liability and costs are generally made based on relative contributions of waste or contamination. Anticipated costs associated with environmental remediation that are probable and estimable are accrued. In cases where a date to complete remedial activities at a particular site cannot be determined by reference to agreements or otherwise, the Company projects costs over an appropriate time period not exceeding fifteen years; in such cases, generally the Company does not have the ability to reasonably estimate environmental remediation costs that are beyond this period. Factors that could result in changes to the Company’s estimates include completion of current and future soil and groundwater investigations, new claims, future agency demands, discovery of more or less contamination than expected, discovery of new contaminants, modification of planned remedial actions, changes in estimated time required to remediate, new technologies, and changes in laws and regulations.

As of May 31, 2015, the aggregate range of these anticipated environmental costs was $161.5 million to $276.3 million and the accrued amount was $161.5 million. See Note 7(c) for a summary of the environmental reserve activity. Of these accrued liabilities, approximately 97% relates to the Company’s U.S. government contracting business and a portion of this liability is recoverable. The significant environmental sites are discussed below. The balance of the accrued liabilities, which are not recoverable from the U.S. government, relate to other sites for which the Company’s obligations are probable and estimable.

Sacramento, California Site

In 1989, a federal district court in California approved a Partial Consent Decree (“PCD”) requiring Aerojet Rocketdyne, among other things, to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) to determine the nature and extent of impacts due to the release of chemicals from the Sacramento, California site, monitor the American River and offsite public water supply wells, operate Groundwater Extraction and Treatment facilities that collect groundwater at the site perimeter, and pay certain government oversight costs. The primary chemicals of concern for both on-site and off-site groundwater are trichloroethylene, perchlorate, and n-nitrosodimethylamine. The PCD has been revised several times, most recently in 2002. The 2002 PCD revision (a) separated the Sacramento site into multiple operable units to allow quicker implementation of remedy for critical areas; (b) required the Company to guarantee up to $75 million (in addition to a prior $20 million guarantee) to assure that Aerojet Rocketdyne’s Sacramento remediation activities are fully funded; and (c) removed approximately 2,600 acres of non-contaminated land from the EPA superfund designation.

Aerojet Rocketdyne is involved in various stages of soil and groundwater investigation, remedy selection, design, and remedy construction associated with the operable units. In 2002, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (“UAO”) requiring Aerojet Rocketdyne to implement the EPA-approved remedial action in the Western Groundwater Operable Unit. An identical order was issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley (“Central Valley RWQCB”). On July 7, 2011, the EPA issued Aerojet Rocketdyne its Approval of Remedial Action Construction Completion Report for Western Groundwater Operable Unit and its Determination of Remedy as Operational and Functional. On September 20, 2011, the EPA issued two UAOs to Aerojet Rocketdyne to complete a remedial design and implement remedial action for the Perimeter Groundwater Operable Unit. One UAO addresses groundwater and the other addresses soils within the Perimeter Groundwater Operable Unit. Issuance of the UAOs is the next step in the superfund process for the Perimeter Groundwater Operable Unit. Aerojet Rocketdyne submitted a final Remedial Investigation Report for the Boundary Operable Unit in 2010 and a revised Feasibility Study for the Boundary Operable Unit in 2012. A Record of Decision is anticipated to be issued by the EPA by mid-2015. A draft Remedial Investigation Report for the Island Operable Unit was submitted in January 2013 and a Final Remedial Investigation Report is anticipated after issuance of the Boundary Operable Unit Record of Decision. The remaining operable units are under various stages of investigation.

The entire southern portion of the site known as Rio Del Oro was under state orders issued in the 1990s from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) to investigate and remediate environmental contamination in the soils and the Central Valley RWQCB to investigate and remediate groundwater environmental contamination. On March 14, 2008, the DTSC released all but approximately 400 acres of the Rio Del Oro property from DTSC’s environmental orders regarding soil contamination. Aerojet Rocketdyne expects the approximately 400 acres of Rio Del Oro property that remain subject to the DTSC orders to be released once the soil remediation has been completed. The Rio Del Oro property remains subject to the Central Valley RWQCB’s orders to investigate and remediate groundwater environmental contamination emanating offsite from such property. Pursuant to a settlement agreement entered into in 2009, Aerojet Rocketdyne and Boeing have defined responsibilities with respect to future costs and environmental projects relating to this property.

As of May 31, 2015, the estimated range of anticipated costs discussed above for the Sacramento, California site was $133.2 million to $215.8 million and the accrued amount was $133.2 million included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. Expenditures associated with this matter are partially recoverable. See Note 7(c) below for further discussion on recoverability.

Baldwin Park Operable Unit (“BPOU”)

As a result of its former Azusa, California operations, in 1994 Aerojet Rocketdyne was named a PRP by the EPA in the area of the San Gabriel Valley Basin superfund site known as the BPOU. Between 1995 and 1997, the EPA issued Special Notice Letters to Aerojet Rocketdyne and eighteen other companies requesting that they implement a groundwater remedy. On June 30, 2000, the EPA issued a UAO ordering the PRPs to implement a remedy consistent with the 1994 record of decision. Aerojet Rocketdyne, along with seven other PRPs (the "Cooperating Respondents”) signed a Project Agreement in late March 2002 with the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, and five water companies. The Project Agreement, which has a term of fifteen years, became effective May 9, 2002 and will terminate in May 2017. It is uncertain as to what remedial actions will be required beyond May 2017. However, the Project Agreement stipulates that the parties agree to negotiate in good faith in an effort to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of an extension of the term in the event that a Final Record of Decision anticipates, or any of the parties desire, the continued operation of all or a substantial portion of the project facilities. In November 2014, the EPA met with representatives from the Cooperating Respondents regarding the end of the Project Agreement and plans for discussions with the water entities. The EPA, the water entities that are parties to the Project Agreement and the Cooperating Respondents have begun settlement discussions regarding the expiration of the Project Agreement and the path forward. Pursuant to the Project Agreement, the Cooperating Respondents fund through an escrow account the capital, operational, maintenance, and administrative costs of certain treatment and water distribution facilities to be owned and operated by the water companies. There are also provisions in the Project Agreement for maintaining financial assurance.

Aerojet Rocketdyne and the other Cooperating Respondents entered into an interim allocation agreement, which was renewed effective March 28, 2014, that establishes the interim payment obligations, subject to final reallocation, of the Cooperating Respondents for the costs incurred pursuant to the Project Agreement. Under the interim allocation, Aerojet Rocketdyne is responsible for approximately 70% (increased from approximately 68%) of all project costs. Since entering into the Project Agreement, two of the Cooperating Respondents, Huffy Corporation (“Huffy”) and Fairchild Corporation (“Fairchild”), have filed for bankruptcy and are no longer participating in the Project Agreement. The interim allocation has been adjusted to account for their shares. On September 30, 2014, another of the Cooperating Respondents, Reichhold, Inc., filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11. Reichhold has not accepted or rejected the Project Agreement, but did not provide its share of additional funding required in December 2014 under the Project Agreement. The financial assurance Reichhold previously provided to the Trust under the Project Agreement is being accessed by the Trust to fund Reichhold’s share. If Reichhold stops paying, Aerojet Rocketdyne and the remaining Cooperating Respondents will be required to make up the Reichhold share once its security is deemed insufficient or has otherwise been exhausted. Prior to filing for bankruptcy, Fairchild filed suit against the other Cooperating Respondents (the “Fairchild Litigation”), but the litigation is dormant under a bankruptcy court stay, and has been the subject of the mediation and tentative settlement discussed below.

On June 24, 2010, Aerojet Rocketdyne filed a complaint against Chubb Custom Insurance Company in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Aerojet-General Corporation v. Chubb Custom Insurance Company Case No. BC440284, seeking declaratory relief and damages regarding Chubb’s failure to pay certain project modification costs and failure to issue an endorsement to add other water sources that may require treatment as required under insurance policies issued to Aerojet Rocketdyne and the other Cooperating Respondents. Aerojet Rocketdyne agreed to dismiss the case without prejudice and a settlement was reached with Chubb, but required Fairchild’s agreement. Attempts to obtain Fairchild’s agreement included a motion before the Fairchild Bankruptcy Court by the Cooperating Respondents (including Aerojet Rocketdyne) seeking approval of the settlement with Chubb. That motion was denied without prejudice, and the Court directed the parties to mediation in an effort to resolve the claims between the Cooperating Respondents and Fairchild over responsibility for the remediation costs previously paid by Fairchild and the Cooperating Respondents (involved in the Fairchild Litigation) and

approval by Fairchild of the Chubb settlement. Following a mediation and negotiations over language, settlement agreements were reached (1) as between The Fairchild Liquidating Trust, on the one hand, and the Cooperating Respondents (including Reichhold), on the other hand, resolving the Fairchild Litigation and (2) as between Chubb, on the one hand, and the insureds under the Chubb Policy (including Reichhold and the other Cooperating Respondents ) and the Fairchild Liquidating Trust, on the other hand. The settlements provide for (1) payment by Chubb of $2 million, of which Fairchild would receive $0.3 million and the remainder would be payable to Aerojet Rocketdyne and the other Cooperating Respondents on the basis of their interim allocations; (2) the replacement of bankruptcy claims filed by individual Cooperating Respondents with a single allowed General Unsecured Claim on behalf of all the Cooperating Respondents in the amount of $3.3 million; and (3) mutual dismissals with prejudice in the Fairchild Litigation. The settlements are effective. If Chubb does not fund the settlement by September 21, 2015 (and the settlement requires it to fund by July 23, 2015), Fairchild retains the right to terminate its settlement with the other Cooperating Respondents.

As part of Aerojet Rocketdyne’s sale of its Electronics and Information Systems (“EIS”) business to Northrop in October 2001, the EPA approved a Prospective Purchaser Agreement with Northrop to absolve it of pre-closing liability for contamination caused by the Azusa, California operations, which liability remains with Aerojet Rocketdyne. As part of that agreement, the Company agreed to provide a $25 million guarantee of Aerojet Rocketdyne’s obligations under the Project Agreement.

As of May 31, 2015, the estimated range of anticipated costs through the term of the Project Agreement for the BPOU site, which expires in 2017, was $15.5 million to $33.5 million and the accrued amount was $15.5 million included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. As of May 31, 2015, no reserve has been accrued for this matter for the period after expiration of the Project Agreement. The Company cannot yet estimate the future cost due to the uncertainty of project definition, participation and approval by numerous third parties and the regulatory agencies, and the length of a Project Agreement. When the Company is able to estimate such costs, which may result this fiscal year from the ongoing settlement discussions among the parties, a reserve for periods after the expiration of the Project Agreement will be established, which could potentially be for a period of up to 15 years. Expenditures associated with this matter are partially recoverable. See Note 7(c) below for further discussion on recoverability.

Toledo, Ohio Site

The Company previously manufactured products for the automotive industry at a Toledo, Ohio site, which was adjacent to the Ottawa River. This facility was divested in 1990 and the Company indemnified the buyer for claims and liabilities arising out of certain pre-divestiture environmental matters. In August 2007, the Company, along with numerous other companies, received from the United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service a notice of a Natural Resource Damage (“NRD”) Assessment Plan for the Ottawa River and Northern Maumee Bay. A group of PRPs, including the Company, was formed to respond to the NRD assessment and to pursue funding from the Great Lakes Legacy Act for primary restoration. In August 2013, the PRPs voted to accept the State and Federal Trustees’ proposal resolving the NRD Assessment and other claims. A Consent Decree must be negotiated and approved before the settlement becomes final. As of May 31, 2015, the estimated range of the Company’s share of anticipated costs for the NRD matter was zero to $0.2 million and the Company does not have a liability recorded. None of the expenditures related to this matter are recoverable from the U.S. government.

Wabash, Indiana Site

The Company owned and operated a former rubber processing plant in Wabash, Indiana from 1937 to 2004. Pursuant to a request from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (“IDEM”), the Company conducted an initial site investigation of the soil and groundwater at the site and a report was submitted to IDEM. By letter of June 11, 2014, IDEM directed the Company to conduct additional investigation of the site, including a vapor intrusion investigation in areas in and around the site where trichloroethene levels in groundwater were found to exceed screening levels for vapor intrusion. Vapor mitigation systems were installed in one residence and one business where indoor air screening levels were exceeded and efforts are ongoing to install mitigation systems at a third location. During investigation of potential vapor mitigation systems at the third location, a currently unoccupied residence, a previously unknown water well was discovered under the residence. Closure of the well and ongoing dewatering of the basement may be necessary in addition to installation of a vapor mitigation system. The Company is conducting further investigations of the site in accordance with the IDEM request and approved work plan. The Company sent demands to other former owners/operators of the site to participate in the site work, but no party has agreed to participate as of yet. As of May 31, 2015, the estimated range of the Company's share of anticipated costs for the Wabash, Indiana site was $0.7 million to $1.1 million and the accrued amount was $0.7 million. None of the expenditures related to this matter are recoverable from the U.S. government.

c. Environmental Reserves and Estimated Recoveries

Environmental Reserves

The Company reviews on a quarterly basis estimated future remediation costs and has an established practice of estimating environmental remediation costs over a fifteen year period, except for those environmental remediation costs with a specific contractual term. Environmental liabilities at the BPOU site are estimated through the term of the Project Agreement, which expires in May 2017. As the period for which estimated environmental remediation costs increases, the reliability of such estimates decreases. These estimates consider the investigative work and analysis of engineers, outside environmental consultants, and the advice of legal staff regarding the status and anticipated results of various administrative and legal proceedings. In most cases, only a range of reasonably possible costs can be estimated. In establishing the Company’s reserves, the most probable estimate is used when determinable; otherwise, the minimum amount is used when no single amount in the range is more probable. Accordingly, such estimates can change as the Company periodically evaluates and revises these estimates as new information becomes available. The Company cannot predict whether new information gained as projects progress will affect the estimated liability accrued. The timing of payment for estimated future environmental costs is influenced by a number of factors such as the regulatory approval process, and the time required to design, construct, and implement the remedy.

A summary of the Company’s environmental reserve activity is shown below:



	Aerojet Rocketdyne- Sacramento			Aerojet Rocketdyne- BPOU			Other Aerojet Rocketdyne Sites			Total Aerojet Rocketdyne			Other			Total Environmental Reserve
	(In millions)
November 30, 2014	$	130.4		$	21.7		$	8.1		$	160.2		$	5.8		$	166.0
Additions	11.8			(0.7		)	0.3			11.4			0.2			11.6
Expenditures	(9.0		)	(5.5		)	(1.1		)	(15.6		)	(0.5		)	(16.1		)
May 31, 2015	$	133.2		$	15.5		$	7.3		$	156.0		$	5.5		$	161.5

The effect of the final resolution of environmental matters and the Company’s obligations for environmental remediation and compliance cannot be accurately predicted due to the uncertainty concerning both the amount and timing of future expenditures and due to regulatory or technological changes. The Company continues its efforts to mitigate past and future costs through pursuit of claims for recoveries from insurance coverage and other PRPs and continued investigation of new and more cost effective remediation alternatives and associated technologies.

As part of the acquisition of the Atlantic Research Corporation (“ARC”) propulsion business in 2003, Aerojet Rocketdyne entered into an agreement with ARC pursuant to which Aerojet Rocketdyne is responsible for up to $20.0 million of costs (“Pre-Close Environmental Costs”) associated with environmental issues that arose prior to Aerojet Rocketdyne’s acquisition of the ARC propulsion business. ARC is responsible for any cleanup costs relating to the ARC acquired businesses in excess of $20.0 million. Pursuant to a separate agreement with the U.S. government which was entered into prior to the completion of the ARC acquisition, these costs are recovered through the establishment of prices for Aerojet Rocketdyne’s products and services sold to the U.S. government. A summary of the Pre-Close Environmental Costs is shown below (in millions):



Pre-Close Environmental Costs	$	20.0
Amount spent through May 31, 2015	(17.9		)
Amount included as a component of reserves for environmental remediation costs in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of May 31, 2015	(2.1		)
Remaining Pre-Close Environmental Costs	$	—

Estimated Recoveries

On January 12, 1999, Aerojet Rocketdyne and the U.S. government implemented the October 1997 Agreement in Principle (“Global Settlement”) resolving certain prior environmental and facility disagreements, with retroactive effect to December 1, 1998. Under the Global Settlement, Aerojet Rocketdyne and the U.S. government resolved disagreements about an appropriate cost-sharing ratio with respect to the clean-up costs of the environmental contamination at the Sacramento and the former Azusa sites. The Global Settlement cost-sharing ratio does not have a defined term over which costs will be recovered. Additionally, in conjunction with the sale of the EIS business in 2001, Aerojet Rocketdyne entered into an agreement with Northrop (the “Northrop Agreement”) whereby Aerojet Rocketdyne is reimbursed by Northrop for a portion of environmental expenditures eligible for recovery under the Global Settlement, subject to annual and cumulative limitations. The current annual billing limitation to Northrop is $6.0 million.

Pursuant to the Global Settlement, prior to the third quarter of fiscal 2010, approximately 12% of environmental costs related to Aerojet Rocketdyne’s Sacramento site and its former Azusa site were charged to the condensed consolidated statements of operations. Subsequent to the third quarter of fiscal 2010, because the Company’s estimated environmental costs reached the reimbursement ceiling under the Northrop Agreement, approximately 37% of such costs will not be reimbursable and are therefore directly charged to the condensed consolidated statements of operations.

Allowable environmental costs are charged to the Company’s contracts as the costs are incurred. Aerojet Rocketdyne’s mix of contracts can affect the actual reimbursement made by the U.S. government. Because these costs are recovered through forward-pricing arrangements, the ability of Aerojet Rocketdyne to continue recovering these costs from the U.S. government depends on Aerojet Rocketdyne’s sustained business volume under U.S. government contracts and programs.

Pursuant to the Northrop Agreement, environmental expenditures to be reimbursed are subject to annual limitations and the total reimbursements are limited to a ceiling of $189.7 million. A summary of the Northrop Agreement activity is shown below (in millions):



Total reimbursable costs under the Northrop Agreement	$	189.7
Amount reimbursed to the Company through May 31, 2015	(110.2		)
Potential future cost reimbursements available	79.5
Less: Long-term receivable from Northrop included in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of May 31, 2015	(69.7		)
Less: Short-term receivable from Northrop included in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of May 31, 2015	(6.0		)
Less: Amounts recoverable from Northrop included in recoverable from the U.S. government and other third parties for environmental remediation costs in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of May 31, 2015	(3.8		)
Potential future recoverable amounts available under the Northrop Agreement	$	—

The Company’s applicable cost estimates reached the cumulative limitation under the Northrop Agreement during the third quarter of fiscal 2010. The Company has expensed $33.4 million of environmental remediation provision adjustments above the cumulative limitation under the Northrop Agreement through May 31, 2015. Accordingly, subsequent to the third quarter of fiscal 2010, the Company has incurred a higher percentage of expense related to additions to the Sacramento site and BPOU site environmental reserve until, and if, an arrangement is reached with the U.S. government. While the Company is currently seeking an arrangement with the U.S. government to recover environmental expenditures in excess of the reimbursement ceiling identified in the Northrop Agreement, there can be no assurances that such a recovery will be obtained, or if not obtained, that such unreimbursed environmental expenditures will not have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows.

Environmental reserves and estimated recoveries impact to unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations

The expenses associated with adjustments to the environmental reserves are recorded as a component of other expense, net in the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations. Summarized financial information for the impact of environmental reserves and recoveries to the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations is set forth below:



	Three months ended May 31,				Six months ended May 31,
	2015		2014		2015		2014
	(In millions)
Estimated recoverable amounts under U.S. government contracts	$	4.5	$	2.6	$	7.9	$	7.7
Expense to unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations	2.1		0.5		3.7		2.6
Total environmental reserve adjustments	$	6.6	$	3.1	$	11.6	$	10.3