XML 77 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.1.9

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES American Centrifuge Project Funding The economics for commercial deployment of the American Centrifuge technology are severely challenged by the current supply/demand imbalance in the market for LEU and related downward pressure on market prices for SWU that are now at their lowest levels in more than a decade. Under current market conditions, Centrus does not believe that its previous plans for commercialization of the American Centrifuge project are economically viable. Although the economics of the American Centrifuge project are severely challenged under current nuclear fuel market conditions, market conditions are expected to improve and Centrus continues to take steps to maintain its options to commercially deploy the American Centrifuge technology as a long-term, direct source of domestic enrichment production to support the long-term viability of the Company’s LEU business. In light of the strategic value of the American Centrifuge technology, DOE instructed UT-Battelle, the management and operating contractor for ORNL, to assist in developing a path forward for achieving a reliable and economic domestic uranium enrichment capability that promotes private sector deployment and supports national security purposes. This task includes, among other goals: (1) taking actions intended to promote the continued operability of the advanced enrichment centrifuge machines and related property, equipment and technology currently utilized in the American Centrifuge project; and (2) assessing technical options for meeting DOE’s national security needs and preserving the option of commercial deployment. Pursuant to those instructions, ORNL chose to subcontract with the Company. On May 1, 2014, the Company signed the ACTDO Agreement with UT-Battelle for continued research, development and demonstration of the American Centrifuge technology in furtherance of DOE’s national security objectives. The ACTDO Agreement is a firm fixed-price contract that provides for continued cascade operations at the Company’s Piketon, Ohio facility, testing at the K-1600 test facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, core American Centrifuge research and technology activities and the furnishing of related reports to ORNL. In July 2014 and again in January 2015, ORNL exercised its options to extend the period of performance for the ACTDO Agreement for additional six-month periods to September 30, 2015. The two extensions have increased the total price to approximately $117 million for the period from May 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015. A bipartisan consensus in Congress and the Administration recognized the importance of maintaining the American Centrifuge technology for national and energy security purposes and funding for ACTDO Agreement activities was included in the government fiscal year 2015 omnibus appropriation signed by President Obama in December 2014. Further, the Administration’s budget request for government fiscal year 2016 includes $100 million for domestic uranium enrichment to maintain the current centrifuge program while the Administration finalizes its assessment of how best to meet U.S. national security and non-proliferation goals. Appropriations for government fiscal year 2016 will require further action from both Congress and the President. On May 1, 2015, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2028, to provide energy and water development appropriations for government fiscal year 2016. This legislation would provide $50 million in direct appropriations for the domestic uranium enrichment program and contained a provision that would provide up to $50 million in special reprogramming authority for the program. As of May 1, 2015, the Senate had not taken formal action on government fiscal year 2016 energy and water development appropriations. The ACTDO Agreement is incrementally funded and provides for payments on a monthly basis at a rate of approximately $6.7 million per month through September 30, 2014 and approximately $6.9 million per month thereafter. Milestones under the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement The Company and DOE are parties to an agreement dated June 17, 2002, as amended (the “2002 DOE-USEC Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company and DOE made long-term commitments directed at resolving issues related to the stability and security of the domestic uranium enrichment industry. Pursuant to the Plan of Reorganization and with the consent of DOE, Centrus assumed the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement subject to the parties reserving all rights under the agreement. The agreement provides that Centrus will develop, demonstrate and deploy advanced enrichment technology in accordance with milestones and provides for remedies in the event of a failure to meet a milestone under certain circumstances. The 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement provides DOE with specific remedies if Centrus fails to meet a milestone that would materially impact Centrus’ ability to begin commercial operations of the American Centrifuge Plant on schedule and such delay was within Centrus’ control or was due to Centrus’ fault or negligence. These remedies could include terminating the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement, revoking Centrus’ access to DOE’s U.S. centrifuge technology that Centrus requires for the success of the American Centrifuge project and requiring Centrus to transfer certain of its rights in the American Centrifuge technology and facilities to DOE, and to reimburse DOE for certain costs associated with the American Centrifuge project. Any of these remedies under the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement could have a material adverse impact on Centrus’ business. The 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement provides that if a delaying event beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of Centrus occurs which would affect Centrus’ ability to meet an American Centrifuge project milestone, DOE and Centrus will jointly meet to discuss in good faith possible adjustments to the milestones as appropriate to accommodate the delaying event. Centrus has notified DOE that it has not met the June 2014 milestone “Commitment to proceed with commercial operation” within the time period currently provided due to events beyond its control and without the fault or negligence of the Company. The assumption of the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement provided for under the Plan of Reorganization did not impact the ability of either party to assert all rights, remedies and defenses under the agreement and all such rights, remedies and defenses are specifically preserved and all time limits tolled expressly including all rights, remedies and defenses and time limits relating to any missed milestones. DOE and Centrus have agreed that all rights, remedies and defenses of the parties with respect to any missed milestones since March 5, 2014, including the June 2014 and November 2014 milestones, and all other matters under the June 2002 Agreement continue to be preserved, and that the time limits for each party to respond to any missed milestones continue to be tolled. Potential ERISA Section 4062(e) Liability The Company has been in discussion with the PBGC and its financial advisors regarding the status of the qualified pension plans, including with respect to potential liability under ERISA Section 4062(e). On September 30, 2011, Enrichment Corp. completed the de-lease to DOE of the Portsmouth GDP and transition of employees performing government services work to DOE’s decontamination and decommissioning contractor. Enrichment Corp. notified the PBGC of this occurrence at that time. Further, at the end of May 2013, Enrichment Corp. ceased enrichment at the Paducah GDP and on October 21, 2014, completed the de-lease and return of the facility to DOE. In connection with the de-lease and return of the Paducah GDP to DOE, most of the remaining employees at the Paducah GDP were terminated. After receiving the Company’s notification of the transition of employees at the Portsmouth GDP in 2011, the PBGC staff at that time informally advised Enrichment Corp. of its preliminary view that the Portsmouth GDP transition was a cessation of operations that triggered liability under ERISA Section 4062(e) and that its preliminary estimate was that the ERISA Section 4062(e) liability (computed by taking into account the plan’s underfunding on a “termination basis,” which amount differs from that computed for GAAP purposes) for the Portsmouth GDP transition was approximately $130 million. At that time, Enrichment Corp. informed the PBGC that it did not agree with the PBGC staff’s view that ERISA Section 4062(e) liability was triggered in 2011, and also disputed the amount of the preliminary PBGC calculation of the potential ERISA Section 4062(e) liability. At the end of May 2013, the PBGC staff also informally advised Enrichment Corp. that the Paducah de-lease would be a cessation of operations under section 4062(e) when more than 20% of the Enrichment Corp.’s employees who are participants in a PBGC-covered pension plan were separated. The 20% reduction to the active plan participant threshold was reached at Paducah in April 2014. Subsequently, on December 16, 2014, the President signed into law the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (the “CFCAA”), which made major changes to ERISA section 4062(e). The CFCAA changes the criteria for triggering liability under section 4062(e); provides certain exemptions from the applicability of section 4062(e) to certain events; permits companies to satisfy the liability by making payments into the pension over seven years, but ceases once the pension reaches a 90% funding level as calculated under the method provided in the CFCAA; subject to an exception not applicable here, prohibits the PBGC from taking any enforcement, administrative or other action under section 4062(e) that is inconsistent with the amendments made by the CFCAA based on events that occurred before the date of enactment (December 16, 2014); and permits companies to elect to satisfy any liability under section 4062(e) as provided in the CFCAA for an event that had occurred prior to date of enactment as if such cessation had occurred on such date of enactment. While the PBGC has not issued any guidance or rules regarding the implementation of the changes to section 4062(e), we believe that in the event the PBGC were to determine that a cessation of operations had occurred under section 4062(e) as a result of the Portsmouth GDP transition or the Paducah GDP transition (events that occurred before enactment of the CFCAA), the Company could elect to satisfy any section 4062(e) liability under the provisions of the CFCAA. As of January 1, 2014, (the first plan year for which payments would otherwise be required) the Enrichment Corp. pension plan was over 90% funded under the method used in the CFCAA. Consequently the Company believes that any such liability would be fully satisfied under the method provided in the CFCAA. The PBGC, however, has other authorities under ERISA that it may consider to address the Portsmouth and Paducah GDP transitions or otherwise in connection with the Company’s qualified defined benefit pension plans. These authorities include, but are not limited to, initiating involuntary termination of underfunded plans and seeking liens or additional funding. The Company would seek to defend against the assertion by the PBGC of any such authorities based on the facts and circumstances at the time. The involuntary termination by the PBGC of any of the qualified pension plans of Centrus or Enrichment Corp. would result in the termination of the limited, conditional guaranty by Enrichment Corp. of the PIK Toggle Notes (other than with respect to the unconditional interest claim). The Company has been engaged in discussions with the PBGC since the Portsmouth GDP transition. In 2014, prior to enactment of the CFCAA, the PBGC informed the Company that the PBGC had retained an outside financial advisor to advise the PBGC on the Company’s business and the need for and advisability of any actions that may be taken by the PBGC. The Company believes it is in the best interest of all stakeholders, including the PBGC, the covered plan participants and the Company, to continue funding of the qualified pension plans in the ordinary course and expects to do so, but there is no assurance that the PBGC will agree with that approach.

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration