Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Nov. 30, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

7. 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 ten years and require the Company to pay for utilities, insurance, taxes, and maintenance. Rent expense was $12.9 million in fiscal 2011, $11.3 million in fiscal 2010, and $11.6 million in fiscal 2009.

The Company also leases certain surplus facilities to third parties. The Company recorded lease income of $6.7 million in fiscal 2011, $6.8 million in fiscal 2010, and $6.4 million in fiscal 2009 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 November 30, 2011 were as follows:

Year Ending November 30,	Future Minimum Rental  Commitments		Future Minimum Rental Income
	(In millions)
2012	$	9.4	$	4.4
2013		6.9		4.2
2014		4.5		4.4
2015		2.6		4.5
2016		2.2		2.3
Thereafter		1.8		—
	$	27.4	$	19.8

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 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.

Summarized below are the outstanding matters the Company believes have more than a remote possibility of having a material adverse effect on its operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows.

Groundwater Cases

South El Monte Operable Unit (“SEMOU”) Related Cases

In October 2002, Aerojet and approximately 65 other individual and corporate defendants were served with four civil suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that sought recovery of costs allegedly incurred or to be incurred in response to the contamination present at the South El Monte Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley Superfund site. The plaintiffs’ claims against Aerojet were based upon allegations of discharges from a former site in the El Monte area. Aerojet investigations did not identify a credible connection between the contaminants identified by the plaintiff water entities in the SEMOU and those detected at Aerojet’s former facility located in El Monte, California, near the SEMOU (“East Flair Drive site”). The cases served on October 30, 2002 were denominated as follows:

San Gabriel Valley Water Company v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., Case No. CV-02-6346 ABC (RCx), U.S. District Court, Central District of CA.

San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., Case No. CV-02-4565 ABC (RCx), U.S. District Court, Central District of CA.

Southern California Water Company v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., Case No. CV-02-6340 ABC (RCx), U.S. District Court, Central District of CA.

The City of Monterey Park v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., Case No. CV-02-5909 ABC (RCx), U.S. District Court, Central District of CA.

The contamination in the SEMOU was also subject to a Unilateral Administrative Order (“UAO”) issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) naming Aerojet and approximately 40 other parties requiring them to conduct the remedial design and remedial action in the SEMOU.

These cases have been settled. Under the settlement, the water entities released Aerojet and the Company from liability for all groundwater contamination in the geographic confines of the SEMOU alleged to have originated from the East Flair Drive site. On August 19, 2011, the U.S. District Court approved and entered a partial consent decree between Aerojet, EPA, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) which also resolved Aerojet’s liability under the UAO. On August 25, 2011, the Court granted Aerojet’s motion for good faith settlement conditioned upon the payment by Aerojet of its second settlement payment on or before December 5, 2011. The Company previously reserved for the settlement and there was no impact in fiscal 2011 to the Consolidated Statement of Operations. The Court’s approval removes any contribution claims against Aerojet by other defendants. Aerojet paid the second settlement payment on December 5, 2011 and the Court’s Order took effect on December 8, 2011.

Sacramento County Water Agency (“SCWA”)

On July 1, 2009, the County of Sacramento (“County”) and SCWA filed a complaint against Aerojet and Boeing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, in Sacramento, County of Sacramento; Sacramento County Water Agency v. Aerojet-General Corporation and The Boeing Corporation [sic], Civ. No. 2:09-at-1041. In the complaint, the County and SCWA alleged that because groundwater contamination from various sources including Aerojet, McDonnell Douglas Corporation (now Boeing Corporation), and the former Mather Air Force Base, was continuing, the County and SCWA should be awarded unspecified monetary damages as well as declaratory and equitable relief. Aerojet, Boeing, the County and SCWA reached a final settlement effective October 31, 2011 and Aerojet’s payment obligations under the settlement were fully satisfied in fiscal 2011. The Company previously reserved for the settlement and there was no impact in fiscal 2011 to the Consolidated Statement of Operations. Expenditures associated with this matter are partially recoverable subject to the Global Settlement and Northrop Agreement allocations.

Sun Ridge LLC, et al. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al.

In December 2011, Aerojet received notice of a lawsuit styled Sun Ridge LLC, et al. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., Case No. 34-2011-00114675, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court. The complaint, which also names McDonnell Douglas Corporation (now Boeing Corporation), was filed by owners of properties adjacent to the Aerojet property in Rancho Cordova, California and alleges damages attributable to contamination of groundwater including diminution of property value and increased costs associated with ensuring water supplies in connection with the real estate development. Aerojet has not been served with the complaint and is reviewing the allegations contained therein. In the event the lawsuit is served on Aerojet, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. Since this matter is in the early stages, the Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate what the outcome of this complaint will be. Accordingly, no estimate of liability has been accrued for this matter at November 30, 2011.

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 Pennsylvania. There were 146 asbestos cases pending as of November 30, 2011.

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.

Subpoenas Duces Tecum

The Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Aerojet-General Corporation, entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Attorney in Sacramento, California, acting on behalf of the U.S. of America, in connection with a subpoena the Company received on January 6, 2010 relating to the allowability of certain costs under its U.S. Government-related prime and subcontracts. In connection with the settlement, the Company paid $3.3 million in fiscal 2011 and agreed not to seek reimbursement for the costs of the investigation and defense of this issue in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011 (See Note 13). The Company cooperated fully with the investigation.

On September 23, 2010, the Company received a subpoena duces tecum from the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, acting on behalf of the Office of the Inspector General of the DoD, requesting that the Company produce a variety of documents pertaining to the use of certain cost estimating factors under its contracts with the DoD. The investigation is still in the early stages and no financial demand has been made; accordingly, the Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate what the outcome of this civil investigation will be or the impact, if any, the investigation may have on the Company’s operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been accrued for at November 30, 2011. The Company has and continues to cooperate fully with the investigation and is responding to the subpoena.

Snappon SA Wrongful Discharge Claims

In November 2003, the Company announced the closing of a manufacturing facility in Chartres, France owned by Snappon SA, a subsidiary of the Company, previously involved in the automotive business. In accordance with French law, Snappon SA negotiated with the local works’ council regarding the implementation of a social plan for the employees. Following the implementation of the social plan, approximately 188 of the 249 former Snappon employees sued Snappon SA in the Chartres Labour Court alleging wrongful discharge. The claims were heard in two groups. On February 19, 2009, the Versailles Court of Appeal issued a decision in favor of Group 2 plaintiffs and based on this, the Court awarded €1.9 million plus interest. On April 7, 2009, the Versailles Court of Appeal issued a decision in favor of Group 1 plaintiffs and based on this, the Court awarded €1.0 million plus interest. During the second quarter of fiscal 2009, Snappon SA filed for declaration of suspensions of payments with the clerk’s office of the Paris Commercial Court, and the claims will likely be discharged through those proceedings. During fiscal 2009, the Company accrued a loss contingency of €2.9 million plus interest for this matter.

c.  Environmental Matters

The Company is involved in over forty environmental matters under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 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. 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 November 30, 2011, the aggregate range of these anticipated environmental costs was $190.6 million to $333.7 million and the accrued amount was $190.6 million. See Note 7(d) for a summary of the environmental reserve activity for fiscal 2011. Of these accrued liabilities, approximately 69% relates to the Sacramento, California site and approximately 20% to the Baldwin Park Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley, California site. Each of those two sites is 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, 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 (“GETs”) 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 (“TCE”), perchlorate, and n-nitrosodimethylamine (“NDMA”). 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’s Sacramento remediation activities are fully funded; and (c) removed approximately 2,600 acres of non-contaminated land from the U.S. EPA superfund designation.

Aerojet is involved in various stages of soil and groundwater investigation, remedy selection, design, and remedy construction associated with the operable units. In 2002, the U.S. EPA issued a UAO requiring Aerojet to implement the U.S. 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, EPA issued Aerojet 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 U.S. EPA issued two UAOs to Aerojet 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 submitted a final Remedial Investigation Report for the Boundary Operable Unit in 2010 and the final Feasibility Study for the Boundary Operable Unit in 2011. 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 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 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 and Boeing have defined responsibilities with respect to future costs and environmental projects relating to this property.

As of November 30, 2011, the estimated range of anticipated costs discussed above for the Sacramento, California site was $130.7 million to $217.9 million and the accrued amount was $130.7 million included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. Expenditures associated with this matter are partially recoverable subject to the Global Settlement and Northrop Agreement allocations. Recoverable estimates for this matter are included as a component of the Company’s estimated recoverable amounts from the U.S. Government and Northrop.

San Gabriel Valley Basin, California Site

Baldwin Park Operable Unit (“BPOU”)

As a result of its former Azusa, California operations, in 1994 Aerojet was named a PRP by the U.S. EPA in the area of the San Gabriel Valley Basin superfund site known as the BPOU. Between 1995 and 1997, the U.S. EPA issued Special Notice Letters to Aerojet and eighteen other companies requesting that they implement a groundwater remedy. On June 30, 2000, the U.S. EPA issued a UAO ordering the PRPs to implement a remedy consistent with the 1994 record of decision. Aerojet, 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 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. 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 and the other Cooperating Respondents entered into an interim allocation agreement that establishes the interim payment obligations of the Cooperating Respondents for the costs incurred pursuant to the Project Agreement. Under the interim allocation, Aerojet is responsible for approximately two-thirds of all project costs, including government oversight costs. All project costs are subject to reallocation among the Cooperating Respondents. Since entering into the agreement, two of the cooperating respondents, Huffy Corporation and Fairchild Corporation (“Fairchild”), have filed for bankruptcy. Aerojet and the other cooperating respondents have assumed Fairchild’s financial obligations. The interim allocation agreement expired, but until recently all Cooperating Respondents were paying in accordance with their interim allocations.

On June 24, 2010, Aerojet 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 and the other Cooperating Respondents. Aerojet agreed to dismiss the case without prejudice and settlement negotiations are ongoing.

As part of Aerojet’s sale of its Electronics and Information Systems (“EIS”) business to Northrop in October 2001, the U.S. 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. As part of that agreement, the Company agreed to provide a $25 million guarantee of Aerojet’s obligations under the Project Agreement.

As of November 30, 2011, the estimated range of anticipated costs through the term of the agreement for the BPOU site was $38.6 million to $76.0 million and the accrued amount was $38.6 million included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. Expenditures associated with this matter are partially recoverable subject to the Global Settlement and Northrop Agreement allocations. Recoverable estimates for this matter are included as a component of the Company’s estimated recoverable amounts from the U.S. Government and Northrop.

South El Monte Operable Unit

Aerojet previously owned and operated manufacturing facilities located on East Flair Drive in El Monte, California. On December 21, 2000, Aerojet received an order from the Los Angeles RWQCB requiring a work plan for investigation of this former site. On January 22, 2001, Aerojet filed an appeal of the order with the Los Angeles RWQCB asserting selective enforcement. The appeal had been held in abeyance pending negotiations with the Los Angeles RWQCB, but due to a two-year limitation on the abeyance period, the appeal was dismissed without prejudice. In September 2001, Aerojet submitted a limited work plan to the Los Angeles RWQCB.

On February 21, 2001, Aerojet received a General Notice Letter from the U.S. EPA naming Aerojet as a PRP with regard to the SEMOU of the San Gabriel Valley Basin, California Superfund site. On April 1, 2002, Aerojet received a Special Notice Letter from the U.S. EPA that requested Aerojet enter into negotiations with it regarding the performance of a remedial design and remedial action for the SEMOU. In light of this letter, Aerojet performed a limited site investigation of the East Flair Drive site. The data collected and summarized in the report showed that chemicals including TCE and PCE were present in the soil and groundwater at, and near, the El Monte location. Site investigations are ongoing.

On August 29, 2003, the U.S. EPA issued a UAO against Aerojet and approximately 40 other parties requiring them to conduct the remedial design and remedial action in the SEMOU. The cost to implement projects under the UAO prepared by the U.S. EPA and the water entities was estimated to be approximately $90 million. Aerojet participated in mediation with EPA, DTSC and the water entities to resolve the claims, and reached a settlement with EPA and DTSC and the water entities that had filed four separate lawsuits previously discussed under Legal Matters. On August 19, 2011, the U.S. District Court approved and entered a partial consent decree between Aerojet, EPA, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”), which incorporated settlements with the water entities and resolved Aerojet’s liability under the UAO.

On November 17, 2005, Aerojet notified the Los Angeles RWQCB and the U.S. EPA that Aerojet was involved in research and development at the East Flair Drive site that included the use of 1,4-dioxane. Aerojet’s investigation of that issue is continuing. Oversight of the East Flair Drive site was transferred from the RWQCB to the DTSC in 2007 and Aerojet has entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with DTSC. Site investigation activities are ongoing.

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. The restoration project performed by the group consisted of river dredging and land-filling river sediments with a total project cost in the range of approximately $47 to $49 million, one half of which was funded through the Great Lakes Legacy Act and the net project costs to the PRP group was estimated at $23.5 to $24.5 million. The dredging of the river that began in December 2009 has been completed. In February 2011, the parties reached an agreement on allocation. As of November 30, 2011, the estimated range of the Company’s share of anticipated costs for the NRD matter was $2.1 million to $3.9 million and the accrued amount was $2.1 million which is included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. None of the expenditures related to this matter are recoverable. Still unresolved at this time is the actual NRD Assessment itself. It is not possible to predict the outcome, timing, or the financial impact of these types of assessments, which are typically long processes lasting several years.

In 2008, Textileather, the current owner of the former Toledo, Ohio site, filed a lawsuit against the Company claiming, among other things, that the Company failed to indemnify and defend Textileather for certain contractual environmental obligations. A second suit related to past and future Resource Conservation Recovery Act (“RCRA”), closure costs was filed in late 2009. On May 5, 2010, the District Court granted the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment, thereby dismissing the claims in the initial action. Textileather has appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal. Briefs have been filed and oral argument is scheduled for March 2, 2012. There are no District Court ordered dates in the second Textileather suit, but the parties are conducting informal discovery. As of November 30, 2011, the estimated anticipated costs and accrued amount for the Textileather matter was $2.1 million which is included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. None of the expenditures related to this matter are recoverable.

d.  Environmental Reserves and Estimated Recoveries

Reserves

The Company reviews on a quarterly basis estimated future remediation costs that could be incurred over the contractual term or next fifteen years of the expected remediation. The Company 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. As the period for which estimated environmental remediation costs increases, the reliability of such estimates decrease. 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 such 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, the time required to design, construct, and implement the remedy.

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

	Aerojet  - Sacramento			Aerojet - BPOU			Other Aerojet Sites			Total Aerojet			Other			Total Environmental Reserve
	(In millions)
November 30, 2008	$	162.8		$	68.0		$	14.4		$	245.2		$	13.0		$	258.2
Additions		12.1			7.2			0.6			19.9			3.6			23.5
Expenditures		(22.4	)		(27.4	)		(4.2	)		(54.0	)		(5.0	)		(59.0	)
November 30, 2009		152.5			47.8			10.8			211.1			11.6			222.7
Additions		6.7			9.5			11.7			27.9			8.6			36.5
Expenditures		(19.4	)		(11.2	)		(2.4	)		(33.0	)		(8.5	)		(41.5	)
November 30, 2010		139.8			46.1			20.1			206.0			11.7			217.7
Additions		21.2			5.9			5.9			33.0			(0.1	)		32.9
Expenditures		(30.3	)		(13.4	)		(13.9	)		(57.6	)		(2.4	)		(60.0	)
November 30, 2011	$	130.7		$	38.6		$	12.1		$	181.4		$	9.2		$	190.6

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 will continue 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, Aerojet entered into an agreement with ARC pursuant to which Aerojet is responsible for up to $20.0 million of costs (“Pre-Close Environmental Costs”) associated with environmental issues that arose prior to Aerojet’s acquisition of the ARC propulsion business. 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’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 November 30, 2011		(12.0	)
Amount included as a component of reserves for environmental remediation costs in the consolidated balance sheet as of November 30, 2011		(2.8	)
Remaining Pre-Close Environmental Costs	$	5.2

Estimated Recoveries

On January 12, 1999, Aerojet 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 and the U.S. government resolved disagreements about an appropriate cost-sharing ratio with respect to the cleanup 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 entered into an agreement with Northrop (the “Northrop Agreement”) whereby Aerojet 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 covering environmental costs associated with Aerojet’s Sacramento site and its former Azusa site, prior to the third quarter of fiscal 2010, approximately 12% of such costs related to the Sacramento site and former Azusa site were charged to the consolidated statements of operations. Subsequent to the third quarter of fiscal 2010, because the Company reached the reimbursement ceiling under the Northrop Agreement, approximately 37% of such costs are expensed to the consolidated statements of operations.

Allowable environmental costs are charged to the Company’s contracts as the costs are incurred. Aerojet’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 to continue recovering these costs from the U.S. government depends on Aerojet’s sustained business volume under U.S. government contracts and programs and the relative size of Aerojet’s commercial business. Annually, the Company evaluates Aerojet’s forecasted business volume under U.S. government contracts and programs and the relative size of Aerojet’s commercial business as part of its long-term business review.

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 November 30, 2011		(87.7	)
Potential future cost reimbursements available		102.0
Receivable from Northrop in excess of the annual limitation included as a component of other noncurrent assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of November 30, 2011		(66.3	)
Amounts recoverable from Northrop in future periods included as a component of recoverable from the U.S. government and other third parties for environmental remediation costs in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of November 30, 2011		(35.7	)
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. Accordingly, subsequent to the third quarter of fiscal 2010, the Company will incur a higher percentage of expense related to additions to the Sacramento site and BPOU site environmental reserve until 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 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 is set forth below:

	Estimated Recoverable Amounts from Northrop		Estimated Recoverable Amounts from U.S. Government		Total Estimated Recoverable Amounts Under U.S.  Government Contracts		Charge to Consolidated Statement of Operations		Total Environmental Reserve Additions
	(In millions)
Fiscal 2011	$	—	$	24.3	$	24.3	$	8.6	$	32.9
Fiscal 2010		2.8		24.9		27.7		8.8		36.5
Fiscal 2009		4.8		14.6		19.4		4.1		23.5

e.  Arrangements with Off-Balance Sheet Risk

As of November 30, 2011, arrangements with off-balance sheet risk consisted of:

— $67.1 million in outstanding commercial letters of credit expiring within the next twelve months, the majority of which may be renewed, primarily to collateralize obligations for environmental remediation and insurance coverage.

— Up to $120.0 million aggregate in guarantees by GenCorp of Aerojet’s obligations to U.S. government agencies for environmental remediation activities (See Note 7(b) for additional information).

— Guarantees, jointly and severally, by the Company’s material domestic subsidiaries of its obligations under its Senior Credit Facility and its 9 ¹/2% Notes.

In addition to the items discussed above, the Company will from time to time enter into certain types of contracts that require us to indemnify parties against potential third-party and other claims. These contracts primarily relate to: (i) divestiture agreements, under which the Company may provide customary indemnification to purchasers of its businesses or assets including, for example, claims arising from the operation of the businesses prior to disposition, liability to investigate and remediate environmental contamination existing prior to disposition; (ii) certain real estate leases, under which the Company may be required to indemnify property owners for claims arising from the use of the applicable premises; and (iii) certain agreements with officers and directors, under which the Company may be required to indemnify such persons for liabilities arising out of their relationship with the Company. The terms of such obligations vary. Generally, a maximum obligation is not explicitly stated.

The Company also uses surety bonds to collateralize obligations for environmental remediation and insurance coverage. Additionally, the Company issues purchase orders and makes other commitments to suppliers for equipment, materials, and supplies in the normal course of business. These purchase commitments are generally for volumes consistent with anticipated requirements to fulfill purchase orders or contracts for product deliveries received, or expected to be received, from customers and would be subject to reimbursement if a cost-plus contract is terminated.