XML 38 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.21.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 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 “TENEX Supply Contract”), 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 TENEX Supply Contract 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 TENEX Supply Contract 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 TENEX Supply Contract 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 the French company Orano Cycle (“Orano”) for the long-term supply to the Company of SWU contained in LEU. Under the Orano Supply Agreement, as amended, the supply of SWU commences in 2020 and extends to 2028. The Company has the option to extend the supply 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. 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 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. Milestones Under the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement The Company’s predecessor USEC Inc. 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. In connection with the plan of reorganization in USEC Inc.’s 2014 Chapter 11 bankruptcy (now completed) and its emergence as the Company, 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 in 2014 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. On January 13, 2021, the Company and DOE reached a tentative agreement to settle the litigation, which is subject to the approval by DOE, the DOJ, the Company’s Board of Directors, and the Court. If the settlement is ultimately approved by all parties, DOE is expected to pay the Company $43.5 million (inclusive of any interest due). Any amounts received by the Company in connection with the settlement will be applied to pension and postretirement benefits obligations. The Company can give no assurance whether or when the tentative settlement will receive the required approvals or whether the Company will ultimately recover some, all or none of the proposed settlement amount. On May 26, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp., and six 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 complaint was amended on December 10, 2019 and on January 10, 2020, to add additional plaintiffs and new claims. On July 31, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. The court dismissed ten of the fifteen claims and allowed the remaining claims to proceed to the next stage of the litigation process. On August 18, 2020, the McGlone Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint and notice of dismissal of three of the individual plaintiffs. On September 29, 2020, the defendants filed their response in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. On October 26, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their reply brief. As of this filing, the court has not made a ruling. On March 18, 2021, the McGlone Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add new plaintiffs and allegations. Th e 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 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 (“Matthews 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. On January 3, 2020, the complaint was removed to the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio for adjudication. The complaint sought 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 contended that the ongoing and continuous releases that injured the Plaintiffs and Class Members were not “nuclear incidents” as that term is defined in the Price-Anderson Act, but rather “freestanding state law claims concerning traditional-style state regulation.” On July 27, 2020, the court granted the Company, Enrichment Corp. and the other defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint because the Matthews Plaintiffs had opted not to proceed under the Price-Anderson Act which preempts state law. On August 18, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On November 17, 2020, the Matthews Plaintiffs filed their appellant brief and on February 1, 2021, the Matthews Defendants filed their brief. On February 22, 2021, the Matthews Plaintiffs filed their reply brief. 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. had provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions. On June 30, 2020, the Company, Enrichment Corp., six other DOE Contractors, DOE and other government agencies were given notice of Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone and Julia Dunham’s intent to file a citizen’s suit under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act against the Company, Enrichment Corp. and six other DOE Contractors. The complainants will purportedly seek civil penalties and injunctive relief for alleged off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site. As of this filing, neither the Company nor Enrichment Corp. have been served with this complaint. On September 3, 2020, the Company, Enrichment Corp., nine other DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP site and eleven individuals in their personal capacity some of whom are current and former DOE employees were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by Jeffrey Walburn, Charles O. Lawson Jr., Kimberly M. Lawson, James A. Brogdon, Stephen Patrick Spriggs, Donald Slone, Vicki P. Slone, Victoria Slone Moore, Toni West, Carl R. Hartley, Heather R. Hartley, Vina Colley, Antony Preston, David B. Rose, Michael E. Groves, George W. Clark, Estate of Kathy Sue Brogdon (deceased), Estate of Jay Paul Brogdon (deceased), and Jon Doe(s), and Jane Doe(s), on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals (“Walburn Plaintiffs”) in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint alleges that the named defendants conspired and concealed nuclear incidents in violation of the Price-Anderson Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and other state claims. The complainants seek damages and equitable and injunctive relief arising from economic losses, property losses, and non-economic damages resulting from toxic and radioactive releases from the Portsmouth GDP. On November 20, 2020, Walburn Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add two individuals to the complaint as defendants in their individual capacity. One of those individuals is Daniel Poneman, Centrus’ Chief Executive Officer. In the 78 page complaint, Mr. Poneman is referenced twice without any cited allegations against him; once in the caption and once referencing his position at the Company. The Company has notified its insurance carrier regarding the claim. On February 11, 2021, the Walburn Plaintiffs amended their complaint for a second time to replace two corporate defendants with two others (one of whom is a former contractor to Enrichment Corp. and also to its predecessor prior to its privatization in 1998 and the other a former DOE contractor) and removed four named individual defendants from the complaint. On March 2, 2021, Walburn Defendants filed their motion to dismiss. 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. In June 2020, the Company’s subsidiaries, Enrichment Corp. and American Centrifuge Enrichment, LLC (collectively, the “Company Subsidiaries”) collected approximately $32.4 million as a recovery on claims filed in October 2018 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the “Bankruptcy Court”) against each of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company and FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation, LLC (collectively, the “FirstEnergy Contract Parties”). An additional $0.2 million recovery on the claims was collected in December 2020. The claims related to damages arising from the rejection and breach of a long-term contract between the Company Subsidiaries and the FirstEnergy Contract Parties in connection with bankruptcy petitions filed by the FirstEnergy Contract Parties. The recovery resulted from a May 2020 stipulation, subsequently approved by the Bankruptcy Court, whereby the FirstEnergy Contract Parties and the Company Subsidiaries agreed that the claims of the Company Subsidiaries against the FirstEnergy Contract Parties will be allowed for all purposes as an allowed unsecured claim in the amount of $70 million. Pursuant to the approved stipulation, the Company Subsidiaries dismissed their appeal concerning the disallowance by the Bankruptcy Court of claims by the Company Subsidiaries under guaranties issued by affiliates of the FirstEnergy Contract Parties, and the successors to the FirstEnergy Contract Parties entered into a contract to purchase separative work units in the future from Enrichment Corp. 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