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 investigations or 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.

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 54 asbestos cases pending as of June 30, 2018.

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 June 30, 2018, the Company has accrued an immaterial amount related to pending claims.

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 alleged causes of action based on negligence and negligence per se, strict liability, and willful, reckless and wanton conduct against the defendants including Aerojet Rocketdyne, and sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Aerojet Rocketdyne filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The court denied both parties’ motions and the parties agreed to participate in mediation. A mediator’s proposal was accepted and a formal settlement agreement is being prepared. The Company recorded a liability as of June 30, 2018, for the confidential settlement, the terms of which are not material to the Company’s financial statements.

Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Investigation

The Company responded to a civil investigative demand issued by the DOJ in the three months ended March 31, 2017, requesting information relating to allegations under the False Claims Act that the Company may have previously made false representations to the U.S. government regarding the Company’s compliance with certain regulatory cybersecurity requirements. In the three months ended June 30, 2018, the DOJ completed its review and declined to intervene in a case filed against the Company and Aerojet Rocketdyne in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, originally filed under seal on September 13, 2017. The case is captioned United States ex. rel. Markus vs. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-CV-02245-WBS-AC. The complaint alleges causes of action based on false claims, retaliation, and wrongful termination of employment and seeks injunctive relief, civil penalties, and compensatory and punitive damages. The Company is evaluating the complaint and has not recorded any liability for this matter as of June 30, 2018.

b. Environmental Matters

The Company is involved in approximately 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 June 30, 2018, the aggregate range of these anticipated environmental costs was $333.7 million to $493.1 million and the accrued amount was $333.7 million. See Note 8(c) 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, 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 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 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, construction, operation and maintenance associated with the operable units, all of which are conducted under the direction and oversight of the EPA, including unilateral administrative orders, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) and Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (“RWQCB”). 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 the EPA to address the findings of the five-year remedy review. On June 20, 2018, the EPA issued the Company a Unilateral Administrative Order (“UAO”) for the Boundary Operable Unit. Issuance of the UAO is the next step in the Superfund process for the Boundary Operable Unit.

The entire southern portion of the site known as Rio Del Oro was under state orders issued in the 1990s from DTSC and the RWQCB to investigate and remediate soil and groundwater contamination. In 2008, the DTSC released all but approximately 400 acres of the Rio Del Oro property from DTSC’s environmental orders regarding soil contamination although the property remains subject to the RWQCB’s orders to investigate and remediate groundwater environmental contamination emanating offsite from the property.

As of June 30, 2018, the estimated range of anticipated costs discussed above for the Sacramento, California site was $205.4 million to $325.4 million and the accrued amount was $205.4 million included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. Expenditures associated with this matter are partially recoverable. See Note 8(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. In 2002, 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 2002 project agreement terminated in 2017 and the parties executed a new project agreement which became operational on May 9, 2017. The new agreement has a ten-year term and requires the Cooperating Respondents to fund through an escrow account the ongoing operation, maintenance, and administrative costs of certain treatment and water distribution facilities owned and operated by the water companies. There are also provisions in the project agreement for maintaining financial assurance.

Pursuant to an agreement with the remaining Cooperating Respondents, Aerojet Rocketdyne's current share of future BPOU costs will be approximately 74%.

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 its obligations under the project agreement.

As of June 30, 2018, the estimated range of anticipated costs was $110.4 million to $140.8 million and the accrued amount was $110.4 million included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. Expenditures associated with this matter are partially recoverable. See Note 8(c) below for further discussion on recoverability.

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 currently estimated through the term of the new project agreement, which expires in May 2027. 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 designing, constructing, and implementing 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)
December 31, 2017	$	206.5		$	116.4		$	13.7		$	336.6		$	4.8		$	341.4
Additions	8.9			0.8			0.4			10.1			0.5			10.6
Expenditures	(10.0		)	(6.8		)	(1.0		)	(17.8		)	(0.5		)	(18.3		)
June 30, 2018	$	205.4		$	110.4		$	13.1		$	328.9		$	4.8		$	333.7

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. The Company reached the $20.0 million cap on cleanup costs in the three months ended March 31, 2017, and expects that additional costs will be incurred 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 was disputing certain costs that Aerojet Rocketdyne attributed to the $20.0 million Pre-Close Environmental Costs (“ARC Claim”). The Company has met with ARC and responded to the ARC Claim on June 23, 2017. Certain costs related to the ARC Claim will be determined in conjunction with the Company’s evaluation and ultimate resolution of the ARC Claim.

Estimated Recoveries

On January 12, 1999, Aerojet Rocketdyne and the U.S. government reached a settlement agreement (“Global Settlement”) which established a cost-sharing ratio with respect to the clean-up costs of prior environmental contamination. 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 billing limitation of $6.0 million and a cumulative limitation of $189.7 million. The cumulative expenditure limitation of $189.7 million was reached in the three months ended June 30, 2017. 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 June 30, 2018	(128.2		)
Potential future cost reimbursements available	$	61.5

Environmental remediation costs are primarily incurred by the Company's Aerospace and Defense segment, and certain of these costs are recoverable from the Company's contracts with the U.S. government. The Company currently estimates approximately 24% of its future Aerospace and Defense segment environmental remediation costs will not likely be reimbursable and are expensed.

Allowable environmental remediation 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 from U.S. government contracts and programs.

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 unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations

The expenses associated with adjustments to the environmental reserves are recorded as a component of other expense (income), 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 June 30,				Six months ended June 30,
	2018		2017		2018		2017

Estimated recoverable amounts under U.S. government contracts	$	3.7	$	3.8	$	7.8	$	7.7
Expense to unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations	1.4		0.9		2.8		1.7
Total environmental reserve adjustments	$	5.1	$	4.7	$	10.6	$	9.4