Commitments and Contingencies

a. Lease Commitments and Income

The Company and its subsidiaries lease certain facilities, machinery and equipment, and office buildings under long-term, non-cancelable operating leases. The leases generally provide for renewal options ranging from one to five years and require the Company to pay for utilities, insurance, taxes, and maintenance. Rent expense was $21.2 million in fiscal 2016, $18.5 million in fiscal 2015, $23.7 million in fiscal 2014, and $1.8 million in the one month ended December 31, 2015.

The Company also leases certain surplus facilities to third parties. The Company recorded lease income of $6.5 million in fiscal 2016, $6.3 million in fiscal 2015, $6.2 million in fiscal 2014, and $0.5 million in the one month ended December 31, 2015 related to these arrangements, which have been included in net sales.

The future minimum rental commitments under non-cancelable operating leases with initial or remaining terms of one year or more and lease revenue in effect as of December 31, 2016 were as follows:



Year Ending December 31,	Future Minimum Rental Commitments		Future Minimum Rental Income
	(In millions)
2017	$	17.4	$	4.4
2018	15.2		4.0
2019	14.0		1.8
2020	12.6		—
2021	12.4		—
Thereafter	40.3		—
	$	111.9	$	10.2

b. 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 suits under the federal False Claims Act, known as “qui tam” actions, and 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 the cash payments are fixed and determinable, 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 64 asbestos cases pending as of December 31, 2016.

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 generally unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted claims. As of December 31, 2016, the estimated range of the Company's loss on a pending claim was $0.2 million to $0.6 million and the accrued amount was $0.2 million.

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. 34-2014-00173068. Inflective asserted 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 compensatory damages in excess of $3.0 million, punitive damages, interest and attorney’s costs. The complaint arose 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. On February 6, 2015, Aerojet Rocketdyne and Ms. Redd filed a demurrer to the complaint. 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. On October 16, 2015, the Court sustained Aerojet Rocketdyne’s demurrer and motion to strike with respect to the “finder’s fee” claims, dismissing those claims with prejudice, but overruled Ms. Redd’s demurrer. On October 26, 2015, Aerojet Rocketdyne and Ms. Redd answered the amended complaint and filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff and its principal for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and negligence. Inflective filed a demurrer to the intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and negligence causes of action, leaving the breach of contract cause of action unchallenged. After a hearing on the demurrer on February 18, 2016, the court granted the plaintiffs’ request to strike the claim for punitive damages on the negligence count, but denied the plaintiffs’ demurrer and allowed the Company’s claims for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence causes of action to remain along with the breach of contract claim. On August 10, 2016, Aerojet Rocketdyne filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the claims brought against Ms. Redd individually, arguing that as an agent for Aerojet Rocketdyne, Ms. Redd cannot be held personally liable for any alleged interference of economic advantage between Inflective and Aerojet Rocketdyne. On December 2, 2016, the Court granted Aerojet Rocketdyne’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the claims brought against Ms. Redd.

Separately, Satish Rachaiah, a former consultant on ProjectOne (working for Inflective), attempted to intervene in the action and assert claims against Aerojet Rocketdyne arising out of Aerojet Rocketdyne’s alleged interference with his employment with Inflective. Aerojet Rocketdyne opposed intervention, and the Court ultimately denied Mr. Rachaiah’s motion to intervene. On December 30, 2015, Rachaiah filed a separate lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento County, Satish Rachaiah v. Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc., Case No. 34-2015-00188516. The Company received the complaint on April 7, 2016 and an amended complaint was served on June 17, 2016. Rachaiah asserted the same claims in the complaint as attempted when he tried to intervene. On June 3, 2016, the court granted Rachaiah’s motion to consolidate the case with the Inflective litigation, finding that two cases involve common parties, witnesses, legal issues and facts. Aerojet Rocketdyne filed a demurrer to Rachaiah’s first amended complaint on July 22, 2016. On September 26, 2016, the Court granted the demurrer in part and overruled it in part, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations with leave to amend. On October 6, 2016, Rachaiah filed a second amended complaint, once again asserting claims for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations. Aerojet Rocketdyne filed its Answer to the second amended complaint on November 11, 2016.

Now that the issues to be tried have been set, discovery has commenced. No trial date for either case has been established. The Company has not recorded any liability for either of these matters as of December 31, 2016.

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 has filed its answer and discovery has commenced. The Company has alerted its insurance carriers of this action and on September 23, 2015, the Company tendered the defense of the case to Aerotek pursuant to Aerotek’s contract for services with Aerojet Rocketdyne. Aerotek has not yet provided its response. Trial is scheduled for January 2018. No liability for this matter has been recorded by the Company as of December 31, 2016.

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. In August 2016, the BOI advised that it had completed its investigation and the criminal aspect of the case was closed. A pre-hearing conference on the Company’s appeal of the citations was originally scheduled for January 9, 2017, but was postponed and will be rescheduled.

c. 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 some 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 December 31, 2016, the aggregate range of these anticipated environmental costs was $349.7 million to $525.0 million and the accrued amount was $349.7 million. See Note 7(d) for a summary of the environmental reserve activity. Of these accrued liabilities, approximately 99% 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 relates 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 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 was issued by the EPA on August 4, 2015. Aerojet Rocketdyne anticipates the EPA will issue a UAO or negotiate a consent decree for implementation of the remedy. A draft Remedial Investigation Report for the Island Operable Unit was submitted in January 2013 and the Final Remedial Investigation Report was issued on September 3, 2015. A portion of the Island Operable Unit, Area 40, which is related to the Hillsborough sale, is being handled separately and Aerojet Rocketdyne submitted a draft Feasibility Study to the agencies on June 23, 2016. The remaining operable units are under various stages of investigation. On September 22, 2016, the EPA completed its first five-year remedy review of the Sacramento superfund site. The five-year review required by statute and regulation applies to all remedial actions which result in hazardous substances above levels that allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The Company is working with EPA to address the findings of the five-year remedy review.

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 December 31, 2016, the estimated range of anticipated costs discussed above for the Sacramento, California site was $210.1 million to $326.0 million and the accrued amount was $210.1 million included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. Expenditures associated with this matter are partially recoverable. See Note 7(d) 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 “Water Entities”). The project agreement, which has a term of fifteen years, became effective May 9, 2002 and will terminate in May 2017. 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 and Aerojet Rocketdyne and the other Cooperating Respondents have participated in settlement discussions regarding the expiration of the project agreement in 2017 and the path forward. Discussions have occurred over the summer of 2015 and on September 10, 2015, the parties, including the EPA, met to discuss progress including a new project agreement to commence in 2017. At this meeting, Aerojet Rocketdyne and the other Cooperating Respondents proposed a new project agreement term limit of five years. That proposal was rejected by the EPA and the Water Entities which want a longer term. The parties continue to work cooperatively and have exchanged counter proposals. Negotiations are ongoing with mediation sessions conducted in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2016 and additional sessions planned for the first quarter of fiscal 2017. Pursuant to the project agreement, the Cooperating Respondents fund through an escrow account the capital, operation, 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, and Fairchild Corporation (“Fairchild”), have filed for bankruptcy and are no longer participating in the project agreement. The interim allocation accounted for their shares. On September 30, 2014, another of the Cooperating Respondents, Reichhold, Inc. ("Reichhold"), filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11. Reichhold has stopped paying and Aerojet Rocketdyne increased its contribution for its portion of Reichhold’s share of the financial assurance. Aerojet Rocketdyne and the remaining Cooperating Respondents are completing a final allocation agreement under which Aerojet Rocketdyne’s share of the costs will be approximately 74% provided that Aerojet Rocketdyne assumes the Reichhold share and all currently funding parties participate in the allocation beyond the expiration of the current agreement.

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 December 31, 2016, the estimated range of anticipated costs was $126.8 million to $178.3 million and the accrued amount was $126.8 million included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. The primary reason for the increase in the reserve in fiscal 2015 related to BPOU is to reflect the anticipated costs through the term of a new project agreement, and the amount accrued is based on an estimate of the anticipated length of a new project agreement. There can be no assurance that the term of the new project agreement will not be longer than proposed by the Company and/or broader in scope and, if so, the Company may be required to make an additional accrual to reflect the longer time period and/or broader scope. Expenditures associated with this matter are partially recoverable. See Note 7(d) below for further discussion on recoverability.

Wabash, Indiana Site

As part of the Company's automotive business that was divested in 2004, 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. The Company acquired a separate residence in August 2016 where indoor air screening levels were exceeded and a mitigation system was not economically feasible. The Company anticipates donating the property to the City of Wabash for use in connection with a city park. The Company conducted further investigations of the site in accordance with the IDEM request and approved work plan. The Company met with IDEM on May 24, 2016 to present the results of the further investigation and IDEM requested the Company to submit a remedial action plan. The remedial action plan was submitted in January 2017 with implementation anticipated late 2017. 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 December 31, 2016, the estimated range of the Company's share of anticipated costs for the Wabash, Indiana site was $0.2 million to $0.7 million and the accrued amount was $0.2 million. None of the expenditures related to this matter are recoverable from the U.S. government.

d. 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 currently estimated through the term of a new project agreement as proposed by Aerojet Rocketdyne, which the Water Entities and the EPA have rejected. There can be no assurance that the term of the new project agreement will not be longer than the term the Company estimated and/or broader in scope and, if so, the Company may be required to make an additional accrual to reflect the longer term and/or broader scope. As the period for which estimated environmental remediation costs lengthens, 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:



	Aerojet Rocketdyne- Sacramento			Aerojet Rocketdyne- BPOU			Other Aerojet Rocketdyne Sites			Total Aerojet Rocketdyne			Other (1)			Total Environmental Reserve
	(In millions)
November 30, 2013	$	128.0		$	26.9		$	8.2		$	163.1		$	8.2		$	171.3
Additions	24.0			4.5			3.3			31.8			1.9			33.7
Expenditures	(21.6		)	(9.7		)	(3.4		)	(34.7		)	(4.3		)	(39.0		)
November 30, 2014	130.4			21.7			8.1			160.2			5.8			166.0
Additions	44.3			129.7			2.0			176.0			0.6			176.6
Expenditures	(21.7		)	(11.3		)	(2.3		)	(35.3		)	(1.2		)	(36.5		)
November 30, 2015	153.0			140.1			7.8			300.9			5.2			306.1
Additions	0.5			—			—			0.5			—			0.5
Expenditures	(0.9		)	(3.4		)	—			(4.3		)	—			(4.3		)
December 31, 2015	152.6			136.7			7.8			297.1			5.2			302.3
Additions	80.0			3.5			3.9			87.4			—			87.4
Expenditures	(22.5		)	(13.4		)	(3.2		)	(39.1		)	(0.9		)	(40.0		)
December 31, 2016	$	210.1		$	126.8		$	8.5		$	345.4		$	4.3		$	349.7

_____

(1) Related to the Company's legacy business operations that are primarily non-recoverable environmental remediation expenses from the U.S. government.

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 (in millions):



Pre-Close Environmental Costs	$	20.0
Amount spent through December 31, 2016	(19.9		)
Remaining Pre-Close Environmental Costs	$	0.1

The Company expects that the cumulative clean-up costs will exceed $20 million in fiscal 2017 after which ARC will be responsible for such costs due to contamination existing at the time of the acquisition and still requiring remediation and monitoring. On May 6, 2016, ARC informed Aerojet Rocketdyne that it is disputing certain costs that Aerojet Rocketdyne is attributing to the $20 million Pre-Close Environmental Costs. Aerojet Rocketdyne is evaluating the claim.

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. 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 an annual and a cumulative limitation. The current annual billing limitation to Northrop is $6.0 million.

Most of the environmental costs are incurred by the Company's Aerospace and Defense segment, and certain of these future costs are allowable to be included in the Company’s contracts with the U.S. government and allocable to Northrop until the cumulative expenditure limitation is reached. Excluding the receivable from Northrop of $68.0 million discussed below, the Company currently estimates approximately 24% of its future Aerospace and Defense segment environmental costs will not likely be reimbursable.

Allowable environmental costs are charged to the Company’s contracts as the costs are incurred. 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 cumulative expenditure limitation of $189.7 million. A summary of the Northrop Agreement activity (in millions):



Total reimbursable costs under the Northrop Agreement	$	189.7
Amount reimbursed through December 31, 2016	(119.2		)
Potential future cost reimbursements available	70.5
Receivable from Northrop in excess of the annual limitation included in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016	(68.0		)
Potential future recoverable amounts available under the Northrop Agreement	$	2.5

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 and Global Settlement, 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 the consolidated statements of operations

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



	Year Ended						One month ended
	December 31,		November 30,		November 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015		2014		2015
	(In millions)
Estimated recoverable amounts under U.S. government contracts and Northrop	$	69.1	$	159.3	$	22.9	$	0.6
Expense (benefit) to consolidated statement of operations	18.3		17.3		10.8		(0.1		)
Total environmental reserve adjustments	$	87.4	$	176.6	$	33.7	$	0.5