18.
Other (Charges) Gains, Net The components of Other (charges) gains, net are as follows:
## Table 0 ##
2009 During the first quarter of 2009, the Company began efforts to align production capacity and staffing levels with the Company’s view of an economic environment of prolonged lower demand.
For the year ended December 31, 2009, Other charges included employee termination benefits of $40 million related to this endeavor.
As a result of the shutdown of the vinyl acetate monomer (“VAM”) production unit in Cangrejera, Mexico, the Company recognized employee termination benefits of $1 million and long-lived asset impairment losses of $1 million during the year ended December 31, 2009.
The VAM production unit in Cangrejera, Mexico is included in the Company’s Acetyl Intermediates segment.
As a result of the Project of Closure (Note 4), Other charges for the Company included exit costs of $89 million during the year ended December 31, 2009, which consisted of $60 million in employee termination benefits, $17 million of contract termination costs and $12 million of long-lived asset impairment losses related to capitalized costs associated with asset retirement obligations (Note 13).
The Pardies, France facility is included in the Acetyl Intermediates segment.
Due to continued declines in demand in automotive and electronic sectors, the Company announced plans to reduce capacity by ceasing polyester polymer production at its Ticona manufacturing plant in Shelby, North Carolina.
Other charges for the year ended December 31, 2009 included employee termination benefits of $2 million and long-lived asset impairment losses of $1 million related to this event.
The Shelby, North Carolina facility is included in the Advanced Engineered Materials segment.
Other charges for the year ended December 31, 2009 was partially offset by $6 million of insurance recoveries in satisfaction of claims the Company made related to the unplanned outage of the Company’s Clear Lake, Texas acetic acid facility during 2007, a $9 million decrease in legal reserves for plumbing claims due to the Company’s ongoing assessment of the likely outcome of the plumbing actions and the expiration of the statute of limitation.2008 Other (charges) gains, net for asset impairments includes long-lived asset impairment losses of $92 million related to the potential closure of the Company’s acetic acid and VAM production facility in Pardies, France, the VAM production unit in Cangrejera, Mexico (which the Company subsequently decided to shut down effective at the end of February 2009) and certain other facilities.
Of the $92 million recorded in December 2008, $76 million relates to the Acetyl Intermediates segment and $16 million relates to the Advanced Engineered Materials segment.
Consideration of this potential capacity reduction was necessitated by the significant change in the global economic environment and anticipated lower customer demand.
During 2009, the Company extended the contractual life of 4 million fully vested share options held by 6 employees.
As a result of that modification, the Company recognized additional compensation expense of $1 million for the year ended December 31, 2009.
Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”) Performance-based RSUs.
The Company grants performance-based RSUs to the Company’s executive officers and certain employees once per year.
The Company may also grant performance-based RSUs to certain new employees or to employees who assume positions of increasing responsibility at the time those events occur.
The number of performance-based RSUs that ultimately vest is dependent on one or both of the following as per the terms of the specific award agreement: The achievement of 1) internal profitability targets (performance condition) and 2) market performance targets measured by the comparison of the Company’s stock performance versus a defined peer group (market condition).
The performance-based RSUs generally cliff-vest during the Company’s quarter-end September 30 black-out period three years from the date of grant.
The ultimate number of shares of the Company’s Series A common stock issued will range from zero to stretch, with stretch defined individually under each award, net of personal income taxes withheld.
The market condition is factored into the estimated fair value per unit and compensation expense for each award will be based on the probability of achieving internal profitability targets, as applicable, and recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the respective grant, less estimated forfeitures.
For performance-based RSUs granted without a performance condition, compensation expense is based on the fair value per unit recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the grant, less estimated forfeitures.
In April 2007, the Company granted performance-based RSUs to certain employees that vest annually in equal tranches beginning October 1, 2008 through October 1, 2011 and include a market condition.
The performancebased RSUs awarded include a catch-up provision that provides for an additional year of vesting of previously unvested amounts, subject to certain maximums.
Compensation expense is based on the fair value per unit recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the grant, less estimated forfeitures.
A summary of changes in performance-based RSUs outstanding is as follows:
## Table 1 ##
The fair value of shares vested for performance-based RSUs during the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 was $2 million and $3 million, respectively.
There were no vestings that occurred during the year ended December 31, 2007.
Fair value for the Company’s performance-based RSUs was estimated at the grant date using a Monte Carlo simulation approach.
Monte Carlo simulation was utilized to randomly generate future stock returns for the Company and each company in the defined peer group for each grant based on company-specific dividend yields, volatilities and stock return correlations.
These returns were used to calculate future performance-based RSU vesting percentages and the simulated values of the vested performance-based RSUs were then discounted to present value using a risk-free rate, yielding the expected value of these performance-based RSUs.
10.
Goodwill
## Table 2 ##
(1) Fully impaired goodwill of $6 million was written off related to the sale of PVOH.
Recoverability of goodwill is measured using a discounted cash flow model incorporating discount rates commensurate with the risks involved for each reporting unit which is classified as a Level 3 measurement under FASB ASC Topic 820.
The key assumptions used in the discounted cash flow valuation model include discount rates, growth rates, cash flow projections and terminal value rates.
Discount rates, growth rates and cash flow projections are the most sensitive and susceptible to change as they require significant management judgment.
If the calculated fair value is less than the current carrying value, impairment of the reporting unit may exist.
When the recoverability test indicates potential impairment, the Company, or in certain circumstances, a third-party valuation consultant, will calculate an implied fair value of goodwill for the reporting unit.
The implied fair value of goodwill is determined in a manner similar to how goodwill is calculated in a business combination.
If the implied fair value of goodwill exceeds the carrying value of goodwill assigned to the reporting unit, there is no impairment.
If the carrying value of goodwill assigned to a reporting unit exceeds the implied fair value of the goodwill, an impairment charge is recorded to write down the carrying value.
An impairment loss cannot exceed the carrying value of goodwill assigned to a reporting unit but may indicate certain long-lived and amortizable intangible assets associated with the reporting unit may require additional impairment testing.
In connection with the Company’s annual goodwill impairment test performed during the three months ended September 30, 2009 using June 30 balances, the Company did not record an impairment loss related to goodwill as the estimated fair value for each of the Company’s reporting units exceeded the carrying value of the underlying assets by a substantial margin.
No events or changes in circumstances occurred during the three months ended December 31, 2009 that would indicate that the carrying amount of the assets may not be fully recoverable, as such, no additional impairment analysis was performed during that period.

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td><td>2007</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">(In $ millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Employee termination benefits</td><td>-105</td><td>-21</td><td>-32</td></tr><tr><td>Plant/office closures</td><td>-17</td><td>-7</td><td>-11</td></tr><tr><td>Deferred compensation triggered by Exit Event (Note 20)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-74</td></tr><tr><td>Plumbing actions</td><td>10</td><td>-</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Insurance recoveries associated with Clear Lake, Texas (Note 30)</td><td>6</td><td>38</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Resolution of commercial disputes with a vendor</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Asset impairments</td><td>-14</td><td>-115</td><td>-9</td></tr><tr><td>Ticona Kelsterbach plant relocation (Note 29)</td><td>-16</td><td>-12</td><td>-5</td></tr><tr><td>Sorbates antitrust actions (Note 24)</td><td>-</td><td>8</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-2</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>-136</td><td>-108</td><td>-58</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>Number of Units (In thousands)</td><td>Weighted   Average   Fair Value  (In $)</td></tr><tr><td>Nonvested at December 31, 2008</td><td>1,188</td><td>19.65</td></tr><tr><td>Granted</td><td>420</td><td>38.16</td></tr><tr><td>Vested</td><td>-79</td><td>21.30</td></tr><tr><td>Forfeited</td><td>-114</td><td>17.28</td></tr><tr><td>Nonvested at December 31, 2009</td><td>1,415</td><td>25.24</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td> Advanced   Engineered   Materials</td><td> Consumer   Specialties</td><td> Industrial   Specialties</td><td> Acetyl   Intermediates</td><td> Total</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5"> (In $ millions)</td></tr><tr><td>As of December 31, 2007</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Goodwill</td><td>277</td><td>264</td><td>53</td><td>278</td><td>872</td></tr><tr><td>Accumulated impairment losses</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-6</td><td>-</td><td>-6</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>277</td><td>264</td><td>47</td><td>278</td><td>866</td></tr><tr><td>Adjustments to preacquisition tax uncertainties</td><td>-9</td><td>2</td><td>-12</td><td>-30</td><td>-49</td></tr><tr><td>Exchange rate changes</td><td>-10</td><td>-14</td><td>-1</td><td>-13</td><td>-38</td></tr><tr><td>As of December 31, 2008</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Goodwill</td><td>258</td><td>252</td><td>40</td><td>235</td><td>785</td></tr><tr><td>Accumulated impairment losses</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-6</td><td>-</td><td>-6</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>258</td><td>252</td><td>34</td><td>235</td><td>779</td></tr><tr><td>Sale of PVOH<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Exchange rate changes</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>8</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>As of December 31, 2009</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Goodwill</td><td>263</td><td>257</td><td>35</td><td>243</td><td>798</td></tr><tr><td>Accumulated impairment losses</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>263</td><td>257</td><td>35</td><td>243</td><td>798</td></tr></table>

Question: what was the net change number of units in 2009 in thousands
Answer: 227