12. ENVIRONMENTAL, CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS

Environmental and Related Matters

We are subject to substantial costs arising out of environmental laws and regulations, which include obligations to remove or limit the effects on the environment of the disposal or release of certain wastes or substances at various sites or to pay compensation to others for doing so.

Our most significant environmental liabilities relate to remediation and regulatory closure obligations at manufacturing sites now or formerly owned by us. We are also involved in legal proceedings directed at the cleanup of various other sites, including a number of federal or state Superfund sites. Because the laws pertaining to Superfund sites generally impose retroactive, strict, joint and several liability, a governmental plaintiff could seek to recover all remediation costs at any such site from any of the potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) for such site, including us, despite the involvement of other PRPs. In some cases, we are one of several hundred identified PRPs, while in others we are the only one or one of only a few. Generally, where there are a number of financially solvent PRPs, liability has been apportioned, or we believe, based on our experience with such matters, that liability will be apportioned based on the type and amount of waste disposed by each PRP at such disposal site and the number of financially solvent PRPs. In many cases, the nature of future environmental expenditures cannot be quantified with accuracy. In addition, from time to time in the ordinary course of our business, we are informed of, and receive inquiries with respect to, additional sites that may be environmentally impaired and for which we may be responsible.

As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the aggregate environmental related accruals were $63.1 and $68.1, respectively, of which $11.9 and $9.7 was included in accrued expenses, with the remainder of $51.2 and $58.4 included in other noncurrent liabilities, respectively. Environmental remediation spending for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, was $8.7, $3.9, and $3.9, respectively.

Our process is to review our environmental remediation accruals quarterly and based on new information, we may from time to time adjust our environmental related accruals. Overall, our adjustments resulted in a net increase of $4.3 in our environmental accruals for the year ended December 31, 2013, of which $2.2 primarily related to an inactive Canadian site to revise its projected remediation costs based on a change in policy by that country’s Ministry of the Environment and $2.1 related to several U.S. sites.

Our environmental related accruals can change substantially due to such factors as additional information on the nature or extent of contamination, methods of remediation required, changes in the apportionment of costs among responsible parties, and other actions by governmental agencies or private parties, or if we are named in a new matter and determine that an accrual needs to be provided, or if we determine that we are not liable and no longer require an accrual.

Asset Retirement Obligations

The fair value of a liability for an asset retirement obligation is recognized in the period in which the liability is incurred and becomes determinable with an offsetting increase in the carrying amount of the related long-lived asset. The recognition of an asset retirement obligation at fair value requires that management make numerous estimates, assumptions and judgments regarding such factors as the estimated probabilities, amounts and timing of settlements, the credit-adjusted risk-free rate to be used, inflation rates, market risk-premium, and changes in environmental, regulatory, and legal environments. In periods subsequent to initial measurement of the liability, we must recognize period-to-period changes in the liability resulting from the passage of time and revisions such as the timing or the amount of the original estimate of undiscounted cash flows. Over time, the liability is accreted to its future value, and the capitalized cost is depreciated over the useful life of the related asset. Upon settlement of the liability, we either settle the obligation for its recorded amount or incur a gain or loss.

A summary of the changes in the asset retirement obligation for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 is presented below:



Asset retirement obligation at December 31, 2011	$	20.7
Liabilities incurred	—
Liabilities settled	(1.5		)
Accretion expense	1.0
Revision in estimated cash flows	(4.4		)
Currency exchange	0.1
Asset retirement obligation at December 31, 2012	$	15.9
Liabilities incurred	2.5
Liabilities settled	(0.5		)
Accretion expense	1.0
Revision in estimated cash flows	(1.7		)
Currency exchange	0.1
Asset retirement obligation at December 31, 2013	$	17.3

Our long-lived assets subject to asset retirement obligations are primarily related to asbestos abatement and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) closures at certain manufacturing and research facilities. As of December 31, 2013, 24 of our sites have been identified with regulatory closure obligations. Assets subject to asset retirement obligations are primarily manufacturing and research facilities, related equipment, and storage tanks. We are also obligated to return certain land to its original condition upon vacating.

There are no sites with a regulatory closure obligation for which a liability has not been estimated and recorded.

At December 31, 2013, there were no assets legally restricted for purposes of settling asset retirement obligations. The asset retirement obligation liability has been recorded as other noncurrent liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

Other Contingencies

We are the subject of numerous lawsuits and claims incidental to the conduct of our or certain of our predecessors’ businesses, including lawsuits and claims relating to product liability and personal injury, including asbestos, environmental, contractual, employment and intellectual property matters.

As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the aggregate self-insured and insured contingent liability was $46.9 and $49.8, respectively, and the related insurance recovery receivable for the liability as well as claims for past payments was $20.0 and $20.7, respectively. The asbestos liability included in the above amounts at December 31, 2013 and 2012 was $37.9 and $39.3, respectively, and the insurance receivable related to the liability as well as past payments was $19.6 and $20.4, respectively. A net deferred tax benefit has been recognized for those claims for which full insurance recovery is not expected.

Asbestos

We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as one of hundreds of defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from asbestos. The claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that we own or formerly owned or from products that we formerly manufactured for specialized applications. Most of these cases involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred. Historically, most of the closed asbestos claims against us have been dismissed without any indemnity payment by us; however, we can make no assurances that this pattern will continue.

The following table presents information about asbestos claims activity:



Years ended December 31,	2013		2012
Number of claimants at beginning of period	8,000		8,000
Number of claimants associated with claims closed during period	(100	)	(100	)
Number of claimants associated with claims opened during period	200		100
Number of claimants at end of period	8,100		8,000

Numbers in the foregoing table are rounded to the nearest hundred and are based on information as received by us which may lag actual court filing dates by several months or more. Claims are recorded as closed when a claimant is dismissed or severed from a case. Claims are opened whenever a new claim is brought, including from a claimant previously dismissed or severed from another case.

Our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables are based on an actuarial study performed by a third party, which is updated every three years. During the third quarter of 2012, we completed an actuarial study of our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables, which will be updated again in the third quarter of 2015. The study is based on, among other things, the incidence and nature of historical claims data through June 30, 2012, the incidence of malignancy claims, the severity of indemnity payments for malignancy and non-malignancy claims, dismissal rates by claim type, estimated future claim frequency, settlement values and reserves, and expected average insurance recovery rates by claim type. The study assumes liabilities through 2049.

In 2012, as a result of our findings, we recorded a decrease of $2.1 to our self-insured and insured contingent liabilities for indemnity costs for pending and anticipated probable future claims and recorded a decrease of $1.0 related to receivables for probable insurance recoveries for these pending and future claims. The reserve decrease was attributable to lower projected claim filings offset by more severe malignancy rates and settlement value projections. The decrease in the receivable was a result of the lower gross liability and a shift in the types of future claims expected. Overall, we expect to recover approximately 48% of our future indemnity costs. We have completed Coverage-In-Place-Agreements with most of our larger insurance carriers.

The ultimate liability and related insurance recovery for all pending and anticipated future claims cannot be determined with certainty due to the difficulty of forecasting the numerous variables that can affect the amount of the liability and insurance recovery. These variables include but are not limited to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims; (ii) significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims; (iii) changes in the nature of claims received; (iv) changes in the laws applicable to these claims; and (v) financial viability of co-defendants and insurers.

Lead Pigment

Over the past 20 years, we have been named as defendants in more than fifty cases in the U.S. in which plaintiffs assert claims for personal injury, property damage, and other claims for relief relating to one or more kinds of lead pigment that were used as an ingredient decades ago in architectural paint. Eight lead ingestion personal injury cases remain outstanding. The different suits were brought by government entities and/or individual plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others. The suits variously sought compensatory and punitive damages and/or injunctive relief, including funds for the cost of monitoring, detecting and removing lead based paint from buildings and for medical monitoring; for personal injuries allegedly caused by ingestion of lead based paint; and plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. We settled one of these cases in 2005 for an immaterial amount in order to avoid litigation costs. In all of the others, we prevailed in court or were dismissed as a defendant.

We currently are one of several defendants in eight personal injury lead ingestion cases, consisting of 172 plaintiffs venued in federal and state courts in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. One of the eight cases consists of 164 claimants, each alleging personal injury as a result of the ingestion of white lead carbonate in paint. The remaining seven cases consist of less than 10 total plaintiffs. We believe that the eight personal injury suits against us are without merit.

In July 2005, in a case in which we were one of several defendants, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that Wisconsin’s risk contribution doctrine applies to bodily injury cases against manufacturers of white lead pigment. Under this doctrine, manufacturers of white lead pigment may be liable for injuries caused by white lead pigment based on their past market shares, unless they can prove they are not responsible for the white lead pigment which caused the injury in question. Seven of the eight personal injury cases, including the personal injury case consisting of 164 plaintiffs, were filed before January 2011, when the Wisconsin legislature passed legislation that will make it substantially more difficult to bring lead suits in the future, including a 25 year statute of repose. In June 2013, the Governor of Wisconsin signed into law the biennial budget which contained within it a provision that retroactively applies the 2011 law to all claims of lead poisoning whether filed or accrued. The defendants, including the Company, have moved to dismiss personal injury lead cases pending in Wisconsin state court pursuant to the new law.

Also, in 2010, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, held that the risk contribution theory imposed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court for lead pigment violates the due process clause set forth in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court’s decision was appealed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals also requested that the parties brief the constitutionality of the new retroactivity provision in the biennial budget. A decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals remains pending.

Finally, in July 2009, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in the case styled Ruben Godoy et al v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours et al., upheld a lower court’s decision dismissing the plaintiff’s strict liability and negligent defect causes of action for white lead carbonate. The decision in these cases, the new statutory law in Wisconsin, and our non-existent or diminutive market share, reinforces our belief that we have no liability in any of the eight Wisconsin cases, and accordingly, we have not recorded a loss contingency.

We have access to a substantial amount of primary and excess general liability insurance for public nuisance and believe these policies are available to cover a significant portion of both our defense costs and indemnity costs, if any, for lead pigment related public nuisance claims. We have agreements with two of our insurers to date which provide that they will pay for approximately fifty percent (50%) of our defense costs associated with lead pigment related public nuisance claims.

Other

Periodically, we enter into settlement discussions for lawsuits or claims for which we have meritorious defenses and for which an unfavorable outcome against us is not probable. In such instances, no loss contingency is recorded since a loss is not probable and it is our policy to expense defense costs as incurred. Typically, we consider these types of settlements in fairly limited circumstances usually related to the avoidance of future defense costs and/or the elimination of any risk of an unfavorable outcome. Such settlements, if any, are recorded when it is probable a liability has been incurred, typically upon entering into a settlement agreement.

While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of all pending environmental matters, lawsuits and claims, it is reasonably possible that there will be a necessity for future provisions for costs for environmental matters and for other contingent liabilities that we believe, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, but could be material to our consolidated results of operations or cash flows in any one accounting period. We cannot estimate any additional amount of loss or range of loss in excess of the recorded amounts. Moreover, many of these liabilities are paid over an extended period, and the timing of such payments cannot be predicted with any certainty.

From time to time, we are also included in legal proceedings as a plaintiff involving tax, contract, patent protection, environmental and other legal matters. Gain contingencies related to these matters, if any, are recorded when they are realized.

Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes

We recognize the tax benefit from an uncertain tax position only if it is more likely than not that the tax position will be sustained on examination by the taxing authorities, based on the technical merits of the position. The tax benefits recognized in the financial statements from such a position are measured based on the largest benefit that has a greater than fifty percent likelihood of being realized upon effective settlement. See Note 13 for additional information.

Commitments

Rental commitments

Rental expense under property and equipment leases was $8.3 in 2013, $10.9 in 2012, and $7.4 in 2011. Estimated future minimum rental expenses under property and equipment leases that have initial or remaining noncancelable lease terms in excess of one year as of December 31, 2013 are:



Year	Operating Leases		Capital Lease		Total Leases
2014	$	8.4	$	2.9	$	11.3
2015	7.1		3.0		10.1
2016	5.8		3.1		8.9
2017	4.9		3.3		8.2
2018	2.6		2.5		5.1
Thereafter	2.8		—		2.8
Total minimum lease payments	$	31.6	$	14.8	$	46.4

Capital lease

In conjunction with the recognition of the loss on sale of the Stamford facility in the fourth quarter of 2012 discussed in Note 3, we recorded the lease as a capital lease asset and obligation as of December 31, 2012, in the amount of $7.6, excluding executory costs.

Customer-related and purchase commitments

We frequently enter into long-term contracts with customers with terms that vary depending on specific industry practices. The business of Cytec Industries and its consolidated subsidiaries as a whole is not substantially dependent on any single contract or any series of related contracts. Set forth below are more specific terms about our significant sales contracts.

The Aerospace Materials segment is party to a number of long-term supply and pricing agreements that cover various time periods. Included are several contracts with terms of 5 years or more which obligate us to sell and, subject to certain exceptions, obligate the respective customers to purchase their requirements of various specialty materials for products related to certain aircraft programs. Such agreements are common practice in the aerospace and aircraft manufacturing industries.

We frequently enter into long-term agreements in order to lock in prices and availability of raw materials, equipment, supplies, and services required to operate our businesses. At December 31, 2013, obligations under such agreements totaled $28.7, of which $23.4 are expected to be paid in 2014.

Other commitments

We had $19.2 of outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds and bank guarantees at December 31, 2013 that are issued on our behalf in the ordinary course of business to support certain of our performance obligations and commitments. The instruments are typically renewed on an annual basis.

As part of the sale of Coating Resins (now called Allnex) to Advent International, Cytec transferred certain environmental liabilities at the Drogenbos and Schoonarde sites to Allnex. Cytec retained a guarantee agreement dated March 25, 2010 with the public waste agency of Flanders (OVAM) Belgium with respect to these liabilities. The latest estimate for the guaranteed liabilities is approximately $25.0. Allnex is obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to replace Cytec as guarantor, and to date Allnex has provided replacement credit support for $5.0 of the guarantee. Allnex is also obligated to indemnify and hold Cytec harmless from and against any losses incurred by Cytec under the guarantee. We have determined that the fair value of our liability under this guarantee is not significant based on the obligations of Allnex to indemnify Cytec and to ultimately replace Cytec as guarantor.