Good day and welcome everyone to the USEC Inc.’s third quarter 2008 earnings results conference call. This call is being recorded. With us today from the company is Mr. John Welch, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. Steven Wingfield, the Director of Investor Relations. Management will make opening remarks which will be followed by a question-and-answer period. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Steve Wingfield. Please go ahead, sir.

Good morning. Thank you for joining us for USEC’s conference call regarding the third quarter, which ended September 30. With me today are John Welch, President and Chief Executive Officer; John Barpoulis, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Phil Sewell, Senior Vice President, Van Namen, Senior Vice President; and Tracy Mey, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer. Before turning the call over to John Welch, I want to welcome all of our callers, as well as those listening to our webcast via the Internet. This conference call follows our earnings news release and separate update on the American Centrifuge project issued yesterday after the markets closed. Those news releases are available on many financial websites, as well as our corporate website usec.com. I want to inform all of our listeners that our news releases and SEC filings, including our 10-K, 10-Qs, 8-Ks are available on our website. We expect to file our third quarter 10-Q later today. A replay of this call also will be available later this morning on the USEC website. I would like to remind everyone that certain of the information that we may discuss on this call today maybe considered forward-looking information that involves risk and uncertainty, including assumptions about the future performance of USEC. Our actual results may differ materially from those in our forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning factors that could cause actual results to materially differ from those in our forward-looking statements is contained in our filings with the SEC, including our annual report on 10-K and subsequent quarterly 10-Qs. Finally, the forward-looking information provided today is time-sensitive and is accurate only as of today, November 3, 2008. This call is the property of USEC. Any redistribution, retransmission or re-broadcast of this call in any form without the expressed written consent of USEC is strictly prohibited. Thanks for your participation, and now I would like to turn the call over to John Welch.

Good morning to you all and thank you for joining us to discuss our third quarter 2008 results. We have had a busy productive quarter on several fronts regarding our American Centrifuge project. We are also prevailing against significant headwinds during this period as we transition to the more energy efficient centrifuge technology. As this is our practice in these quarterly calls. John Barpoulis will provide a detail review of our financial results in just a moment. I will start with the brief review of earnings for the quarter and then provide a status report on the American Centrifuge project. Taking a look at the bottom line we earned $8.4 million in the third quarter compared to a net income of $45.6 million in the same quarter last year. For the nine months we earned $23.6 million compared to $71.5 million from the same period last year. These results track to our expectations for the year. As we noted in our 2008 financial outlook issued in February repeated in April, August and again today, our sales volume will be substantially lower in 2008 than in 2007. We set a record for revenue and volume SWU delivered to customers in 2007, but the flip side of that point we are seeing fewer refueling at the reactors we serve in 2008. Majority of reactors serve by USEC are refueled on an 18 to 24 month cycle and that means we should see SWU volume in 2009 similar to what we saw in 2007. We also updated our earnings and cash flow guidance. Customers are locking in delivery dates and quantities for the rest of the year, so we have a pretty good handle on the revenue. We tighten the range our net income to a range of $25 million to $40 million…

Thank you, John and good morning everyone. As John said, our financial results for the quarter and for the nine months track the guidance we provided during the year. Since we expect to issue our detailed 10-Q report later today, I will keep my report to the highlights, so we can get your questions. Starting at the top-line for the quarter, revenue was $590 million, a decrease of 7% or $44 million over the same quarter last year. As we would expect, SWU sales made up the majority of revenue at $490 million. SWU sales in the third quarter reflected a 2% decline in sales volume, but a 3% increase in the average billed to customers. So, netting of those factors, SWU revenue was $7 million higher quarter-over-quarter. Uranium revenue was $49 million, which was about half the revenue from uranium recorded in the same quarter last year. Both volume and average price billed to customers decreased significantly. Uranium revenue is a good example of the variability we can see from quarter-to-quarter. In the second quarter, uranium revenue more than doubled year-over-year and in the third quarter it was 50% lower. Nonetheless, we have seen uranium prices drop in the last few months along with other energy commodities due to selling by financial players and recessionary concerns. Although we believe there is solid demand for uranium over the medium-to-long-term, we are seeing price weakness in the near-term that will impact our uranium revenue line. Turning back to the quarter, the U.S. government contracts segment, contributed $51 million, 4% more than the same quarter of last year. Looking briefly of revenue from the nine month period, total revenue was down 10%. The timing of reactor refueling can clearly be seen in this period and SWU volume was down 17% in the…

(Operator instructions) And our first question comes from Laurence Alexander of Jefferies. Lucy Watson – Jefferies: Hi, this is Lucy Watson sitting in for Laurence.

Good morning, Lucy. Lucy Watson – Jefferies: Good morning. Given the risk that the achievement of $3.8 million through a possibly pushback beyond 2012 due to financing issues. How you that can showing an appropriate return on capital on going today or I guess in other words, the contracts you negotiating now including an exclusive adjustment for the change in fixed cost absorption?

Lucy, I’ll answer that in two ways. One is we has confirmed in our discussion this morning and you will see in our 10-Q, we are not adjusting our overall schedule for the project. So, we continue to anticipate the $3.8 million will being online at the end of 2012 and second, with our general approach to contracting for ACP has been to wait until we have a very good sense for our costs and our schedule and so, that has been one advantage to waiting to contract for that, but until really over the last six months and so, we’re taking into account the cost that we see and the expected structure of our operating cost profile as we contract for that output. Bob anything to add.

Just two other comments, one would be the as the ACP is starting up, we do have our building inventory and we have some flexibility in the way we sell that inventory as we are going through the start up process and then again we do see substantial opportunities for continued operations from Paducah whether it would be for low and rich uranium productions shifting of higher assay tails or other mission. So, we do have several moving parts, but we are very conscious of making sure that the prices were looking for under those future deliveries will be aligned with our cost structure. Lucy Watson – Jefferies: Okay, in the past you have suggested cash flow from operations in 2009 would be an improvement on 2008. I am just wondering what’s your level of confidence is the cash flow from of the next will be process?

We are not yet giving our guidance for 2009, but as hopefully we communicated in our comments this morning and you will see in our 10-Q. we are, again reinforcing significantly higher sales volumes in 2009 similar to that in 2007 in which that will be improved – significantly improved cash flow from operations. And but at this point I can’t give specific numbers or guidance, but we will clearly being expecting to do so in conjunction with our 10-K and comments in February. Lucy Watson – Jefferies: Okay, and given the decreased wage in project management spending on the ACP in 2008, have you made any adjustments to the labor and project management cost forecast for the ACP going forward?

No, we are certainly taking into account and looking at the experience that we are seeing to-date and the extent that there are material changes we will adjust our forecast, but at this point we are not making any changes to the forecast. Lucy Watson – Jefferies: Thank you.

Thank you.

We will take our next question from Gabriel Abis [ph] of Goldman Sachs. Gabriel Abis – Goldman Sachs: So just (inaudible) almost the last question given the recent drop in commodity cost, does that provide additional headroom under the $3.5 billion cost to have or have these cost kind of being locked in already?

Certain costs have been locked in. we have during the quarter made some additional procurements raw materials. We will continue to make procurements throughout the builds and deployment of the project and again similar to the comment on labor, I don’t think we are at a point, where we are updating any forecast, although candidly, I think we are certainly thankful with that. This is one way that the declining potential recessionary economy can benefit the overall pressure that we have seen over the past year or two years on build costs for plants and other infrastructure. Gabriel Abis – Goldman Sachs: Okay and can you walk through the importance of setting up the ACP subsidiary? And was this done impart to potentially how facilitated third-party investment?

The DOE loan guarantee is following a very traditional product finance approach and so we have established the subsidiaries really to affect the DOE loan guarantee and so that is our very clear objective in establishing the entities. At the same time that may provide us with additional flexibility with respect to investors of that level and we have certainly seen AREVA do that with their George Besse II plants and so that is something that we will be contemplating and potentially looking at over the coming months. Gabriel Abis – Goldman Sachs: And any sort of looking to who this kind of candidate might be? Would it be like a government or private equity for this third-party investment that you mentioned?

To the extent we see anything on that front we will certainly let you know, but at this point I don’t want to forecast or speculate on that kind of entity that might be interested in that kind of investment. Gabriel Abis – Goldman Sachs: Okay, and finally, the gross profit in the backlog is $74 million with revenues of $140 million, this implied gross margin was kind of a higher than your previous corporate average. How should we be looking at this?

Gaby can you just restate those numbers and reiterate the question? Sorry, Gabriel Abis – Goldman Sachs: Sure. The gross profit for the backlog that you guys have, the deferred revenue was $74 million, while the revenues that were locked in where $140 million? So inside gross margin was a well above your corporate average and I wanted to know how we should be looking at this going forward?

I think, if you are looking at deferred revenue cost. Those items are very much linked to uranium and the timing for the recognition of that uranium is very much depended again on when LEU leaves the sight and so, I wouldn’t look fore say specifically at the gross margin on the deferred revenues and costs, but again we are reinforcing our guidance for overall gross profit margin this year for 13% to 14% and again when we get into 2009, we will be providing additional guidance for gross profit margin on the whole. Gabriel Abis – Goldman Sachs: Thank you very much.

Sure.

Okay, your next question from Tom Lewis of Century Management. Tom Lewis – Century Management: Yes, good morning.

Good morning, Tom. Tom Lewis – Century Management: Yes, first off in you are kinds of focusing on your comments about the customers requesting higher tail assays we have watched the price – the market price, which doesn’t seem to figure much into your realized revenues of uranium come down. We have seen SWU moving up to that at a nice pace and at least one concern that perhaps already dipping point that could effect your ability to realize value from uranium and all of that, but I’m wondering is there anything about the supply and demand for uranium besides the unwinding of speculative positions that could be putting downward pressure on uranium that we should be thinking about?

Bob Van Namen here. There is no doubt uranium has been through an incredible year volatility, and as you know for a number of years uranium supply has been only above 50% of demand. Inventories have been liquidated, new mines are needed to meet the long term demand and that fundamental has not changed. The recent turmoil in the financial markets as far as many investors who had taken positions in uranium actually liquidate those position to raise cash and they were making those sales at what we considered to be lower prices than the overall fundamentals in the market would dictate. We do see that most of that selling is complete and we have observed a recent firming in the market. It’s also worth noting that the long term market has been much less volatile than the spot prices. USEC definitely has an advantage when uranium prices are higher as uranium provides – it provides us uranium that we can sell at attractive margins, but right now with prices that are lower than they have been in just the last year and its counter prices are increasing. We are taking a careful look in our operations and the way we balanced out uranium in SWU supply. We continue to see long term strong fundamentals in the uranium market and we really see few opportunities for now in and making any opportunistic sales, but we are looking forward and seeing some pretty good opportunities still. Tom Lewis – Century Management: So, if you take that the while we see at across all asset categories, you take that force liquidation out of the equation Bob would you bet up or down on the price of uranium?

Not being a speculative guy, again we I do think that that speculation has been driving the price decline. We have seen an upturn over the last several weeks and I would see that continuing in the near term. Tom Lewis – Century Management: Okay, great and its sounds like none of this should really affect the tone of the conversations that you are having on long-term commitments for the output the ACP, is that a fair assessment or is it giving some of your – the guys across the table pauses to what they want to log into?

No, I think that the as that you really do see as uranium prices have dropped, SWU prices have continue to increase that you are looking at, two fundamentally separate markets and we see the continued need for the new production in the enrichment market, continued interest from our customers and signing long-term contract to bring that new production online. So, they are playing out in very different market environment. Tom Lewis – Century Management: Okay. Now, the question, I am looking at your 125,000 machine hours on ACP and talking about, providing data to the DOE for the loan decision. It kind of I am sitting here wondering, is there is something – is there are work to do? Is there are debt of something you need to get done on the technical nature to get this thing approved after all that work?

No, I don’t think so from a technical achievement standpoint, Tom but as you can appreciate that any loan or loan commitment is subject to due diligence and although this is technology that is based on the DOEs technology. There are certain boxes that we expect to have to check including independent advisor review as well. Tom Lewis – Century Management: So this is not a matter of technical proof, it is a matter of like big project that has to work through the process there in Washington?

It would certainly be our viewpoint. Tom Lewis – Century Management: Okay. Last question, I know you don’t want to – maybe you don’t want to speak, you have given 2009 guidance when you get there, but I am just trying to think about what the price realizations on your contracts might be and again I know that the spot market and contract market are two different worlds, but if you got nine months into it with your – can you talk to why your realized prices are only up 1% this year in a much stronger market and that? And what the implications might be for next year?

As John said, we were seeing substantially lower demand from our existing customers and much of that was based on older prices, the older contracts with lower prices. So, we do see continued upturn in prices going forward, outpacing where we were, a number of order movements going into 2009 from 2008 contribute to that price. The price movements from year-to-year, but we do see continued firming and tracking with market prices, which are now up about 11% this year up to roughly – $150 to SWU. Tom Lewis – Century Management: Alright, thanks a lot.

Okay. Thank you Tom

And gentlemen there are no other questions.

Well, thank you for your questions this morning. In summary, we have made great progress on many fronts on the American Centrifuge project during the quarter and we are actively engaged with DOE regarding the loan guarantee program and you can be assured we’re keeping the short focus on our current operations. We have a vision for delivering a long-term shareholder value and we are focused on executing that plan. Thank you for your interest and investment in USEC. Have a good day.