XML 18 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2020
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 TENEX, Joint-Stock Company (“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, 2019. 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. In such a case, the Company would pay for the SWU but have 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 reduced the unit costs of SWU under this contract in 2019 and for the duration of the contract. Orano On April 27, 2018, the Company entered into an agreement (the “Orano Supply Agreement”) with Orano Cycle (“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 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. The 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement requires Centrus to develop, demonstrate and deploy advanced enrichment technology in accordance with milestones, including the deployment of a commercial American Centrifuge Plant, and provides for remedies in the event of a failure to meet a milestone under certain circumstances, including terminating the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement, revoking Centrus’ access to DOE’s centrifuge technology that is required for the success of the Company’s ongoing work with the American Centrifuge technology, 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 technology. 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 the American Centrifuge Plant milestone under the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement, 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 assumption of the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement provided for in the plan of reorganization in the Company’s 2014 Chapter 11 bankruptcy (now completed) 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 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 From time to time, the Company is involved in various pending legal proceedings, including the pending legal proceedings described below. 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 employees at the former Portsmouth, Ohio, Gaseous Diffusion Plant (the “Portsmouth GDP”) to DOE’s decontamination and decommissioning 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. While proceeding with litigation, the Company is still pursuing settlement. On May 26, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp., and five other DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP site (including, in the case of the Company, the American Centrifuge Plant site located on the premises) 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 “McGlone 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 McGlone Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of (i) all current or former residents within a seven-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 believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s regulations. Further, the Company believes that any such liability should be covered by indemnification under the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (“Price-Anderson Act”). The Company and Enrichment Corp. have 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 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 “Pritchard 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 Pritchard Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of all current or former residents within a seven-mile radius of the Portsmouth GDP site. The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s regulations. Further, the Company believes that any such liability should be covered by indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act. The Company and Enrichment Corp. have provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions. On November 27, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp. and six other DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP site were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by James Matthews, Jennifer Brownfield Clark, Joanne Ross, the Estate of A.R., and others similarly situated (the “Matthews Plaintiffs”), in the Common Pleas Court of Pike County, Ohio. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory damages, and any other relief allowed by law for alleged off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site. The Matthews Plaintiffs expressly contend that the ongoing and continuous releases that injured the Plaintiffs and Class Members are not “nuclear incidents” as that term is defined in the Price-Anderson Act, but rather “freestanding state law claims concerning traditional-style state regulation.” The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s regulations. Further, the Company believes that any such liability should be covered by indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act. The Company and Enrichment Corp. have provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions. On October 11, 2018, the Company’s subsidiaries, Enrichment Corp. and American Centrifuge Enrichment, LLC (“ACE”, together with Enrichment Corp., the “Company Subsidiaries”) filed proofs of claim in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the “Bankruptcy Court”) against each of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (“FENOC”), FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation, LLC (“FENG,” and together with FENOC, the “FirstEnergy Contract Parties”), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. (“FES”) and FirstEnergy Generation, LLC (“FG”). The claims relate to damages arising from the rejection and breach of a long-term contract between the Company Subsidiaries and the FirstEnergy Contract Parties that was approved by the Bankruptcy Court and made effective as of July 26, 2018. The proofs of claim filed by the Company Subsidiaries include claims against the FirstEnergy Contract Parties based on their liability as parties to the contract that was rejected and breached. The proofs of claim filed by the Company Subsidiaries also included claims against FES and FG based on their liability under guaranties they issued that may obligate FES and FG to satisfy the rejection and breach of contract damages claims. On November 15, 2019, FENOC, FENG, FES and FG filed objections to the Company Subsidiaries’ claims in the Bankruptcy Court. No decision on the claims against FENOC and FENG has yet been reached by the Bankruptcy Court. The Company Subsidiaries and FES and FG submitted cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the guaranties of FES and FG apply. On March 13, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court ruled in favor of FES and FG on their motion, finding that the guaranties did not apply to the Company Subsidiaries’ claims. The Company Subsidiaries have filed a notice of appeal of this decision. The ruling does not apply to the Company Subsidiaries’ claims against the FirstEnergy Contract Parties. 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.

X
- References No definition available. + 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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration