Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies.

Commitments and Contingencies

Note 12 — 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, our existing insurance coverage, the amounts already provided for 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.  The primary remediation activities have been completed and we now believe that the remediation has generally removed most of the contamination, however, there are still select contaminated areas that we will have to continue remediating using alternative methods.  As a result, to complete the remediation, we have accrued additional charges of $4.4 million this quarter. The accrual is $5.3 million at June 30, 2012.

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.  The NJDEP later 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 voluntarily 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.  In June 2012, without admitting liability, we along with 69 other PRPs entered into a further agreement with EPA to remove and cap contaminated sediments near River Mile 10.9 of the Lower Passaic River at an approximate cost of $20 million. We accrued $0.5 million in the second quarter of 2012 for our expected allocation of these costs.  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.

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’s trial plan and subsequent orders contemplate multiple trial tracks involving third-party defendants (including Hexcel) culminating with trials commencing as early as April 2013, and continuing through at least January 2014.  The scope of Hexcel’s involvement in the various trial tracks is uncertain at this time.  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.  Recently, the previous owner, who also continues to own an adjacent site, has installed certain remediation and isolation technologies and is operating those in accordance with an order agreed with the State of Washington.  This isolation is expected to prevent further migration of contaminants to our site and enable us to perform a cleanup of our site.  We and Ecology have reached an agreed order to perform certain cleanup activities on our site by certain deadlines, and we are in full compliance with the order as modified.  The total accrued liability related to this matter was $1.3 million at June 30, 2012.

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.  The Omega PRP Group has attributed approximately 1.07% of the waste tonnage sent to the site to Hexcel.  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 incur costs associated with the investigation and remediation of the Omega site and the regional groundwater remedy, but our ultimate liability, if any, in connection with this matter cannot be determined at this time.

Summary of Environmental Reserves

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 June 30, 2012, our aggregate environmental related accruals were $7.7 million, of which $6.7 million was included in accrued liabilities with the remainder included in non-current liabilities.  As related to certain environmental matters, except for the Lodi site, the accrual was 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 $1.5 million higher. 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.

Environmental remediation spending charged to our reserve balance for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 was $0.8 million and $2.1 million, respectively, and $2.4 million and $3.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011.  In addition, our operating costs relating to environmental compliance charged to expense were $3.7 million and $2.5 million for the quarters ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively and $6.5 million and $4.8 million for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively.Capital expenditures for environmental matters were $0.4 million and $0.1 million for the quarters ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively and $0.8 million and $0.3 million for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Product Warranty

We provide for an estimated amount of product warranty expense at the time revenue is recognized.  This estimated amount is provided by product and based on historical warranty experience.  In addition, we periodically review our warranty accrual and record any adjustments as deemed appropriate.  Warranty expense for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, and accrued warranty cost, included in “accrued liabilities” in the condensed consolidated balance sheets at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, was as follows:

(In millions)	Product Warranties
Balance as of December 31, 2011	$	5.7
Warranty expense	1.3
Deductions and other	(1.0		)
Balance as of March 31, 2012	6.0
Warranty expense	2.7
Deductions and other	(2.5		)
Balance as of June 30, 2012	$	6.2