Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies.

Commitments and Contingencies

Note 14 — Commitments and Contingencies

We are involved in litigation, investigations and claims arising out of the normal conduct of our business, including those relating to commercial transactions, environmental, employment, and health and safety matters.  We estimate and accrue our liabilities when a loss becomes probable and estimable. These judgments take into consideration a variety of factors, including the stage of the proceeding; potential settlement value; assessments by internal and external counsel; and assessments by environmental engineers and consultants of potential environmental liabilities and remediation costs.  Such estimates are not discounted to reflect the time value of money due to the uncertainty in estimating the timing of the expenditures, which may extend over several years.

While it is impossible to ascertain the ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to certain contingent liabilities and claims, we believe, based upon our examination of currently available information, our experience to date, and advice from legal counsel, that the individual and aggregate liabilities resulting from the ultimate resolution of these contingent matters, after taking into consideration our existing insurance coverage and amounts already provided for, will not have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Environmental Matters

We are subject to various U.S. and international federal, state and local environmental, and health and safety laws and regulations.  We are also subject to liabilities arising under the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “Superfund”), the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and similar state and international laws and regulations that impose responsibility for the control, remediation and abatement of air, water and soil pollutants and the manufacturing, storage, handling and disposal of hazardous substances and waste.

We have been named as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) with respect to several hazardous waste disposal sites that we do not own or possess, which are included on, or proposed to be included on, the Superfund National Priority List of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) or on equivalent lists of various state governments.  Because CERCLA allows for joint and several liability in certain circumstances, we could be responsible for all remediation costs at such sites, even if we are one of many PRPs.  We believe, based on the amount and nature of our waste, and the number of other financially viable PRPs, that our liability in connection with such matters will not be material.

Lodi, New Jersey Site

Pursuant to the New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act, Hexcel entered into an Administrative Consent Order for the environmental remediation of a manufacturing facility we own and formerly operated in Lodi, New Jersey.  We have been remediating this site in accordance with an approved plan.  In the first quarter of 2010, we implemented new technology to enhance the remediation system to accelerate completion of the remediation.  We had expected to substantially complete the remediation by the end of 2011, but severe regional flooding, most recently from hurricane Irene, extended the completion date to the first half of 2012 and increased the remediation costs.  Consequently, in 2011, we accrued an additional $2.5 million related to this extended remediation which increased the accrual to $2.8 million at December 30, 2011.

Lower Passaic River Study Area

In October 2003, we received, along with 66 other entities, a directive from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) that requires the entities to assess whether operations at various New Jersey sites, including our former manufacturing site in Lodi, New Jersey, caused damage to natural resources in the Lower Passaic River watershed.  In May 2005, the NJDEP dismissed us from the Directive.  In February 2004, 42 entities including Hexcel, received a general notice letter from the EPA which requested that the entities consider helping to finance an estimated $10 million towards an EPA study of environmental conditions in the Lower Passaic River watershed.  In May 2005, we signed into an agreement with the EPA to participate (bringing the total number of participating entities to 43) in financing such a study up to $10 million, in the aggregate.  Since May 2005, a number of additional PRPs have joined into the agreement with the EPA.  In October 2005, we along with the other EPA notice recipients were advised by the EPA that the notice recipients’ share of the costs of the EPA study was expected to significantly exceed the earlier EPA estimate.  While we and the other recipients were not obligated by our agreement to share in such excess, a Group of notice recipients (73 companies including Hexcel) negotiated an agreement with the EPA to assume responsibility for the study pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent.  We believe we have viable defenses to the EPA claims and expect that other as yet unnamed parties will also receive notices from the EPA.  In June 2007, the EPA issued a draft Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”) that considers interim remedial options for the lower eight miles of the river, in addition to a “no action” option.  The estimated costs for the six options ranged from $900 million to $2.3 billion.  The PRP Group provided comments to the EPA on the FFS; the EPA has not yet taken further action.  The Administrative Order on Consent regarding the study does not cover work contemplated by the FFS.  Furthermore, the Federal Trustee for natural resources have indicated their intent to perform a natural resources damage assessment on the river and invited the PRPs to participate in the development and performance of this assessment.  The PRP Group, including Hexcel, has not agreed to participate in the assessment at this time.  Finally, on February 4, 2009, Tierra Solutions (“Tierra”) and Maxus Energy Corporation (“Maxus”) filed a third party complaint in New Jersey Superior Court against us and over 300 other entities in an action brought against Tierra and Maxus (and other entities) by the State of New Jersey.  New Jersey’s suit against Tierra and Maxus relates to alleged discharges of contaminants by Tierra and Maxus to the Passaic River and seeks payment of all past and future costs the State has and will incur regarding cleanup and removal of contaminants, investigation of the Passaic River and related water bodies, assessment of natural resource injuries and other specified injuries.  The third party complaint seeks contribution from us for all or part of the damages that Tierra and Maxus may owe to the State.  We filed our answer to the complaint and served our initial disclosures, and have produced initial documents to Tierra and Maxus, pursuant to an order of the court.  We expect additional discovery and litigation activities to occur during 2012.  The court has issued a trial plan that contemplates a liability trial for third-party defendants (including Hexcel) in April 2013, with additional proceedings if necessary to allocate costs between third-party defendants in January 2014.  Our ultimate liability for investigatory costs, remedial costs and/or natural resource damages in connection with the Lower Passaic River cannot be determined at this time.

Kent, Washington Site

We were party to a cost-sharing agreement regarding the operation of certain environmental remediation systems necessary to satisfy a post-closure care permit issued to a previous owner of our Kent, Washington site by the EPA.  Under the terms of the cost-sharing agreement, we were obligated to reimburse the previous owner for a portion of the cost of the required remediation activities.  Management has determined that the cost-sharing agreement terminated in December 1998; however, the other party disputes this determination.  The Washington Department of Ecology (“Ecology”) has issued a unilateral Enforcement Order to us requiring us to (a) maintain the interim remedial system and to perform system separation, (b) to conduct a focused remedial investigation and (c) to conduct a focused feasibility study to develop recommended long term remedial measures.  We asserted defenses against performance of the order, particularly objecting to the remediation plan proposed by the previous owner, who still owns the adjacent contaminated site.  However, we are currently complying with the order, with one exception, without withdrawing our defenses.  As a result of a dispute resolution procedure, Hexcel and Ecology have reached an agreement to modify certain work requirements and to extend certain deadlines, and we are in full compliance with the order as modified.  The total accrued liability related to this matter was $1.4 million at December 31, 2011.

Omega Chemical Corporation Superfund Site, Whittier, CA

We are a potentially responsible party at a former chemical waste site in Whittier, CA. The PRPs at Omega have established a PRP Group, the “Omega PRP Group”, and are currently investigating and remediating soil and groundwater at the site pursuant to a Consent Decree with the EPA. Hexcel contributed approximately 1.07% of the waste tonnage sent to the site during its operations.  In addition to the Omega site specifically, the EPA is investigating the scope of regional groundwater contamination in the vicinity of the Omega site and recently issued a Record of Decision; the Omega PRP Group members have been noticed by the EPA as PRP’s who will be required to be involved in the remediation of the regional groundwater contamination in that vicinity as well.  As a member of the Omega PRP group, Hexcel will likely incur costs associated with the investigation and remediation of the Omega site, but our ultimate liability, if any, in connection with this matter cannot be determined at this time

Environmental remediation reserve activity for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, 2009 was as follows:

	For the year ended
(In millions)	December 31, 2011			December 31, 2010			December 31, 2009
Beginning remediation accrual balance	$	7.3		$	8.3		$	9.2
Current period expenses (a)	3.4			3.8			1.9
Cash expenditures	(5.7		)	(4.8		)	(2.8		)
Ending remediation accrual balance	$	5.0		$	7.3		$	8.3
Capital expenditures for environmental matters	$	4.1		$	1.7		$	4.8

(a) 2011 and 2010 include $2.7 million and $3.5 million, respectively, of expenses for accelerating the completion of the remediation at the Lodi, New Jersey site.

Our estimate of liability as a PRP and our remaining costs associated with our responsibility to remediate the Lodi, New Jersey; Kent, Washington; and other sites are accrued in the consolidated balance sheets. As of December 31, 2011 and 2010, our aggregate environmental related accruals were $5.0 million and $7.3 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2011 and 2010, $3.3 million and $4.2 million, respectively, were included in current other accrued liabilities, with the remainder included in other non-current liabilities.  As related to certain environmental matters, the accruals were estimated at the low end of a range of possible outcomes since no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount.  If we had accrued for these matters at the high end of the range of possible outcomes, our accrual would have been $6.8 million and $8.8 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

These accruals can change significantly from period to period due to such factors as additional information on the nature or extent of contamination, the methods of remediation required, changes in the apportionment of costs among responsible parties and other actions by governmental agencies or private parties, or the impact, if any, of being named in a new matter.

Product Warranty

Warranty expense for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, and accrued warranty cost, included in “other accrued liabilities” in the consolidated balance sheets were as follows:

(In millions)	Product Warranties
Balance as of December 31, 2008	$	3.8
Warranty expense	0.6
Deductions and other	(0.7		)
Balance as of December 31, 2009	$	3.7
Warranty expense	1.9
Deductions and other	(1.3		)
Balance as of December 31, 2010	$	4.3
Warranty expense	2.0
Deductions and other	(0.6		)
Balance as of December 31, 2011	$	5.7