Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments under SWU Purchase Agreements TENEX A major supplier of SWU to the Company is the Russian government entity Joint Stock Company “TENEX” (“TENEX”). Under a 2011 agreement with TENEX, as amended, (the “Russian Supply Agreement”), the Company purchases SWU contained in LEU received from TENEX, and the Company delivers natural uranium to TENEX for the LEU’s uranium component. The LEU that the Company obtains from TENEX under the agreement is subject to quotas and other restrictions applicable to commercial Russian LEU. The Russian Supply Agreement was originally signed with commitments through 2022 but was modified in 2015 to give the Company the right to reschedule certain quantities of SWU of the original commitments into the period 2023 and beyond, in return for the purchase of additional SWU in those years. The Company has exercised this right to reschedule in each year through December 31, 2018. If the Company exercises this right to reschedule in full during the remaining years of the contract’s original term, the Company will have a rescheduled post-2022 purchase commitment through 2028. The Russian Supply Agreement provides that the Company must pay for all SWU in its minimum purchase obligation each year, even if it fails to submit orders for such SWU. The Company would then have the right to take the unordered SWU in the following year. Pricing terms for SWU under the Russian Supply Agreement are based on a combination of market-related price points and other factors. This formula was subject to an adjustment at the end of 2018 that will reduce the unit costs of SWU under this contract for the duration of the contract. Orano On April 27, 2018, the Company entered into an agreement (the “Orano Supply Agreement”) with Orano Cycle (formerly, AREVA NC) (“Orano”) for the long-term supply to the Company of SWU contained in LEU, nominally commencing in 2023. Under the Orano Supply Agreement, the Company purchases SWU contained in LEU received from Orano, and the Company delivers natural uranium to Orano for the natural uranium feed material component of LEU. The Company may elect to begin to accept deliveries as early as 2021 or to defer the commencement of purchases until 2024 and has the option to extend the six-year purchase period for an additional two years. The Orano Supply Agreement provides significant flexibility to adjust purchase volumes, subject to annual minimums and maximums in fixed amounts that vary year by year. The pricing for the SWU purchased by the Company is determined by a formula that uses a combination of market-related price points and other factors, and is subject to certain floors and ceilings. Prices are payable in a combination of U.S. dollars and euros. Milestones Under the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement The Company and DOE signed an agreement dated June 17, 2002, as amended (the “2002 DOE-USEC Agreement”), pursuant to which the parties made long-term commitments directed at resolving issues related to the stability and security of the domestic uranium enrichment industry. DOE consented to the assumption by Centrus of the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement and other agreements between the Company and DOE subject to an express reservation of all rights, remedies and defenses by DOE and the Company under those agreements as part of the Company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy process. The 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement requires Centrus to 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. DOE has specific remedies under the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement if Centrus fails to meet a milestone that would adversely impact its ability to begin commercial operations of the American Centrifuge Plant on schedule, and such delay was within Centrus’ control or was due to its fault or negligence or if Centrus abandons or constructively abandons the commercial deployment of an advanced enrichment technology. These remedies include terminating the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement, revoking Centrus’ access to DOE’s centrifuge technology that is required for the success of the American Centrifuge project, requiring Centrus to transfer certain rights in the American Centrifuge technology and facilities to DOE, and requiring Centrus to reimburse DOE for certain costs associated with the American Centrifuge project. The 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement provides that if a delaying event beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of Centrus occurs that could affect Centrus’ ability to meet an American Centrifuge Plant milestone, DOE and the Company will jointly meet to discuss in good faith possible adjustments to the milestones as appropriate to accommodate the delaying event. The Company notified DOE that it had not met the June 2014 milestone within the time period 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 affect 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 the Company 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 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement continue to be preserved, and that the time limits for each party to respond to any missed milestones continue to be tolled. Legal Matters On August 30, 2013, the Company submitted a claim to DOE under the Contract Disputes Act for payment of $42.8 million, representing DOE’s share of pension and postretirement benefits costs related to the transition of Portsmouth site employees to DOE’s D&D contractor. On August 27, 2014, the DOE contracting officer denied the Company’s claim. As a result, the Company filed an appeal of the decision in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in January 2015. Centrus believes that DOE is responsible for a significant portion of any pension and postretirement benefit costs associated with the transition of employees at Portsmouth. The receivable for DOE’s share of pension and postretirement benefits costs has a full valuation allowance due to the lack of a resolution with DOE and uncertainty regarding the amounts owed and the timing of collection. The parties filed cross motions for partial summary judgment to seek a judicial determination of two issues related to the calculation of the pension liability and the entitlement of Centrus to reimbursement for postretirement benefit costs. The Court ruled on the pension calculation methodology and ruled Centrus was entitled to recover costs associated with postretirement benefits for employees afforded protection under the USEC Privatization Act. At the Government’s request, the Court has issued a revised scheduling order providing for fact discovery to close on August 30, 2019, expert opinions to be disclosed by October 25, 2019 and expert discovery to close on November 22, 2019. A status report is due by December 2, 2019. The Company is still pursuing settlement. On May 26, 2019, the Company, its subsidiary United States Enrichment Corp. (“Enrichment Corp.”), and five other DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (“GDP”) site were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone, Julia Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by and through their parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site. The Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of (i) all current or former residents within a 7-mile radius of the Portsmouth GDP site and (ii) all students and their parents at the Zahn’s Corner Middle School from 1993-present. The Company and Enrichment Corp. have not been served with the complaint. The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site and American Centrifuge Plant site were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s regulations. Further the Company believes that any such liability should be covered by our indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act. The Company and Enrichment Corp. has provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions. On June 28, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp., and four other Department of Energy (“DOE”) contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP site were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by Ray Pritchard and Sharon Melick (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site. The Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of all current or former residents within a 7-mile radius of the Portsmouth GDP site. The Company and Enrichment Corp. have not been served with the complaint. The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site and American Centrifuge Plant site were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s regulations. Further the Company believes that any such liability should be covered by our indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act. The Company and Enrichment Corp. has provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions. Centrus is subject to various legal proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, which arise in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of these claims cannot be predicted with certainty, other than the above, Centrus does not believe that the outcome of any of these legal matters, individually and in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on its cash flows, results of operations or consolidated financial condition.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments under SWU Purchase Agreements

TENEX

A major supplier of SWU to the Company is the Russian government entity Joint Stock Company “TENEX” (“TENEX”). Under a 2011 agreement with TENEX, as amended, (the “Russian Supply Agreement”), the Company purchases SWU contained in LEU received from TENEX, and the Company delivers natural uranium to TENEX for the LEU’s uranium component. The LEU that the Company obtains from TENEX under the agreement is subject to quotas and other restrictions applicable to commercial Russian LEU.

The Russian Supply Agreement was originally signed with commitments through 2022 but was modified in 2015 to give the Company the right to reschedule certain quantities of SWU of the original commitments into the period 2023 and beyond, in return for the purchase of additional SWU in those years. The Company has exercised this right to reschedule in each year through December 31, 2018. If the Company exercises this right to reschedule in full during the remaining years of the contract’s original term, the Company will have a rescheduled post-2022 purchase commitment through 2028.

The Russian Supply Agreement provides that the Company must pay for all SWU in its minimum purchase obligation each year, even if it fails to submit orders for such SWU. The Company would then have the right to take the unordered SWU in the following year.

Pricing terms for SWU under the Russian Supply Agreement are based on a combination of market-related price points and other factors. This formula was subject to an adjustment at the end of 2018 that will reduce the unit costs of SWU under this contract for the duration of the contract.

Orano

On April 27, 2018, the Company entered into an agreement (the “Orano Supply Agreement”) with Orano Cycle (formerly, AREVA NC) (“Orano”) for the long-term supply to the Company of SWU contained in LEU, nominally commencing in 2023. Under the Orano Supply Agreement, the Company purchases SWU contained in LEU received from Orano, and the Company delivers natural uranium to Orano for the natural uranium feed material component of LEU. The Company may elect to begin to accept deliveries as early as 2021 or to defer the commencement of purchases until 2024 and has the option to extend the six-year purchase period for an additional two years. The Orano Supply Agreement provides significant flexibility to adjust purchase volumes, subject to annual minimums and maximums in fixed amounts that vary year by year. The pricing for the SWU purchased by the Company is determined by a formula that uses a combination of market-related price points and other factors, and is subject to certain floors and ceilings. Prices are payable in a combination of U.S. dollars and euros.

Milestones Under the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement

The Company and DOE signed an agreement dated June 17, 2002, as amended (the “2002 DOE-USEC Agreement”), pursuant to which the parties made long-term commitments directed at resolving issues related to the stability and security of the domestic uranium enrichment industry. DOE consented to the assumption by Centrus of the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement and other agreements between the Company and DOE subject to an express reservation of all rights, remedies and defenses by DOE and the Company under those agreements as part of the Company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy process. The 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement requires Centrus to 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.

DOE has specific remedies under the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement if Centrus fails to meet a milestone that would adversely impact its ability to begin commercial operations of the American Centrifuge Plant on schedule, and such delay was within Centrus’ control or was due to its fault or negligence or if Centrus abandons or constructively abandons the commercial deployment of an advanced enrichment technology. These remedies include terminating the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement, revoking Centrus’ access to DOE’s centrifuge technology that is required for the success of the American Centrifuge project, requiring Centrus to transfer certain rights in the American Centrifuge technology and facilities to DOE, and requiring Centrus to reimburse DOE for certain costs associated with the American Centrifuge project.

The 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement provides that if a delaying event beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of Centrus occurs that could affect Centrus’ ability to meet an American Centrifuge Plant milestone, DOE and the Company will jointly meet to discuss in good faith possible adjustments to the milestones as appropriate to accommodate the delaying event. The Company notified DOE that it had not met the June 2014 milestone within the time period 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 affect 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 the Company 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 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement continue to be preserved, and that the time limits for each party to respond to any missed milestones continue to be tolled.

Legal Matters

On August 30, 2013, the Company submitted a claim to DOE under the Contract Disputes Act for payment of $42.8 million, representing DOE’s share of pension and postretirement benefits costs related to the transition of Portsmouth site employees to DOE’s D&D contractor. On August 27, 2014, the DOE contracting officer denied the Company’s claim. As a result, the Company filed an appeal of the decision in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in January 2015. Centrus believes that DOE is responsible for a significant portion of any pension and postretirement benefit costs associated with the transition of employees at Portsmouth. The receivable for DOE’s share of pension and postretirement benefits costs has a full valuation allowance due to the lack of a resolution with DOE and uncertainty regarding the amounts owed and the timing of collection. The parties filed cross motions for partial summary judgment to seek a judicial determination of two issues related to the calculation of the pension liability and the entitlement of Centrus to reimbursement for postretirement benefit costs. The Court ruled on the pension calculation methodology and ruled Centrus was entitled to recover costs associated with postretirement benefits for employees afforded protection under the USEC Privatization Act. At the Government’s request, the Court has issued a revised scheduling order providing for fact discovery to close on August 30, 2019, expert opinions to be disclosed by October 25, 2019 and expert discovery to close on November 22, 2019. A status report is due by December 2, 2019. The Company is still pursuing settlement.

On May 26, 2019, the Company, its subsidiary United States Enrichment Corp. (“Enrichment Corp.”), and five other DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (“GDP”) site were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone, Julia Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by and through their parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site. The Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of (i) all current or former residents within a 7-mile radius of the Portsmouth GDP site and (ii) all students and their parents at the Zahn’s Corner Middle School from 1993-present. The Company and Enrichment Corp. have not been served with the complaint. The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site and American Centrifuge Plant site were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s regulations. Further the Company believes that any such liability should be covered by our indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act. The Company and Enrichment Corp. has provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions.

On June 28, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp., and four other Department of Energy (“DOE”) contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP site were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by Ray Pritchard and Sharon Melick (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site. The Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of all current or former residents within a 7-mile radius of the Portsmouth GDP site. The Company and Enrichment Corp. have not been served with the complaint. The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site and American Centrifuge Plant site were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s regulations. Further the Company believes that any such liability should be covered by our indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act. The Company and Enrichment Corp. has provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions.

Centrus is subject to various legal proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, which arise in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of these claims cannot be predicted with certainty, other than the above, Centrus does not believe that the outcome of any of these legal matters, individually and in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on its cash flows, results of operations or consolidated financial condition.