Greetings. And welcome to the USEC Inc. First Quarter Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the prepared remarks. (Operator Instructions) As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Steven Wingfield, Director of Investor Relations for USEC Inc. Thank you, Mr. Wingfield. You may begin.

Good morning. Thank you for joining us for USEC’s conference call regarding the first quarter of 2011, which ended March 31st. With me today are John Welch, President and Chief Executive Officer; John Barpoulis, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Philip Sewell, Senior Vice President; Bob Van Namen, Senior Vice President; Tracy Mey, Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer. Before turning the call over to John Welch, I’d like to welcome all of our callers, as well as those listening to our webcast. This conference call follows our earnings news release issued yesterday after the markets closed. That news release is 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 and 8-Ks are available on our website. We expect to file our quarterly report on Form 10-Q later today. A replay of this call also will be available later this morning on the USEC website. I’d like to remind everyone that certain of the information that we may discuss on this call today maybe considered forward-looking information that involves risks and uncertainties, 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 Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. Finally, the forward-looking information provided today is time sensitive and is accurate only as of today, May 4, 2011. This call is the property of USEC. Any redistribution, retransmission or rebroadcast of this call in any form without express written consent of USEC is strictly prohibited. Thank you for your participation and now, I’d like to turn the call over to John Welch.

Good morning. And thank you for joining us to discuss our first quarter results. Given our annual earnings guidance, I’m sure it didn’t come as a surprise that we report a loss for the quarter. However, we have been successful to date in our efforts to mitigate costs related to the transition of our contract services business and we will continue to be focused on mitigating these transition costs as we move forward. John Barpoulis will go through our earnings in detail in a few minutes, as well as our reiterated guidance for 2011. During this call, we’ll provide an update on our American Centrifuge project and the approval process for a loan guarantee. We’ll cover the supply agreement that we signed in March with Russia that will provide us with continued access to this important source of low enriched uranium through 2022 and we will also discuss the transition of the contract services work we performed in recent years at the former Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plant. I will start off with a brief summary of our financial results. Our first quarter revenue came in at $381 million, which was an increase of about $36 million from the revenue reported the first quarter of 2010. But our costs were higher particularly related to contract services as we transitioned away from the cold shutdown work we’ve done for DOE over the past several years. The gross profit margin for the quarter was 3.7%, which was below the range we have forecasted for the full year. Bottom line, we lost $16.6 million, compared to a loss of $9.7 million in the first quarter of last year. And that bottom line captures fairly (inaudible) the reason why we are so sharply focused on moving the American Centrifuge project ahead. Electric power constitutes about…

Thanks, John, and good morning, everyone. Starting with revenue for the quarter, total revenue was $381 million, an increase of 10% from the same quarter last year. SWU sales made up the majority of revenue and totaled $309 million that was $42 million higher than the same period last year. In the first quarter, SWU volume was 9% higher than the same quarter of 2010, but for the year, we have reiterated our guidance that SWU volume will be about 10% lower in 2011, compared to last year. In recent years we have signed SWU purchase contracts at higher prices and with price adjustors, as these improved contracts make up a larger portion of our backlog we are seeing increase in average prices built to customers. In the first quarter, average prices built to customers rose 6% year-over-year. Uranium revenue was $14 million in the first quarter, which was a decrease of just under $2 million, compared to the same quarter in 2010. Uranium prices improved significantly during 2010 and that trend was reflected in our first quarter sales. The average pricing uranium revenue was 44% higher than a year ago but volume was down 38%. Uranium spot prices have been volatile and lower since the events in Japan but the long-term uranium price has remained close to $70 per pound. Long-term SWU prices have remained steady at $158 per SWU according to published price indicators. As background, we under feed the enrichment process when it makes economic sense. We can obtain uranium for resale by using more electric power and less natural uranium feed stock. The economics of underfeeding enrichment process are affected by uranium prices and the cost of electric power. At present, the economics favor continued underfeeding of the enrichment process. Turning back to revenue, the first…

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) Our first question comes from Paul Clegg with Mizuho. Please state your question. Paul Clegg – Mizuho: Hi guys. Thanks for taking my question.

Good morning, Paul.

Good morning, Paul. Paul Clegg – Mizuho: Have you had any discussions with BMW and Toshiba about their intent that the DOE actually takes longer than June 30 to get conditional commitment? You know, presumably they could choose to renegotiate or provide some sort of waiver or extension. But have you had any discussions there?

First, Paul, let me state that BMW and Toshiba remain extremely supportive of the project each step of the way and so as you would expect with BMW, the discussions are little more detailed than they are with Toshiba just given the sensitive nature of the technology that we are dealing with. But they are both very supportive of the project each step of the way. We certainly are all fully aware of the limitations and the agreement that we have and the end of June is a target to deal with any sort of issues for further timing. We have not had any of those discussions about an extension to date but again we still feel they are fully supportive of the project and we would expect to enter in to those kinds of discussions if we saw a delay. Clearly, we are making it very succinct and to the point with the Department of Energy and with others within the government that it is time to make a decision on this and move on. And so I’m hoping that we should be able to close this thing by the end of this quarter and that’s the guidance that we provided. Paul Clegg – Mizuho: Okay. Thanks and then you also mentioned that -- I think, this is what I heard you say the credit subsidy fee should include your royalty payment. Can you expand on that a little bit and how receptive has the DOE been to that suggestion?

There have actually been some very good exchanges that we’ve had directly with the Department of Energy and actually some exchanges that have occurred in the hill and questioning during different committees’ hearings that there is a good recognition that there is a national security element to the deployment of the American Centrifuge plant. We have provided some recommendations for how that could be looked at through the whole credit subsidy calculation but the national security aspects of the project are pretty clear both on the ability to meet future defense needs as well as playing in to the whole element of non-proliferation policies of the country. And you also mentioned the royalty payment, the technology was initially developed by the Department of Energy. We have advanced it to a very large degree but there are a stream of royalty payments that are part of the ultimate technology agreement that we worked out with the Department of Energy and that will certainly make it a revenue provider over the life of the ACP project to the United States government. Paul Clegg – Mizuho: But they are receptive to the idea that those revenue payments for the royalty could be used to cover the credit subsidy fee?

They acknowledged that those payments are something that should be considered in that calculation. Paul Clegg – Mizuho: Interesting. Okay. And then I wanted to ask you about any -- so you mentioned that during the prepared comments but it seems like there is potentially an interesting market opportunity developing there around dry cast storage and Fukushima incident. Can you give us a lit bit more disclosure on how that business is performing now and discuss the potential size of the market opportunity there.

Think I will have Bob Van Namen address that since he has direct responsibility for that.

Sure, Paul. A good question, we are looking at several areas of potential opportunities for NAC. One is dealing directly with the Fukushima accident and the site and clean up and clearly they are a technology leader that has a lot of capability when it comes to dealing with both spent fuel storage, damaged fuel and packaging and transportation. So we do see that as a very robust opportunity. We are coordinating very closely with Toshiba as we look at opportunities there and we do see this as an excellent market. Second piece that John mentioned in his prepared remarks was on the spent fuel pool situation and that is around the world going to be an excellent opportunity with U.S., European and the Asian markets. We do see definitely a move to take spent fuel out of pools and put into dry cast storage and -- see us in a very good position with the MAGNASTOR technology as well as several other products that they have available. Paul Clegg – Mizuho: Is there any way to sort of gauge the market size, though, like could you say on a per reactor basis that the dry cast storage needs would be x amount and the revenue opportunity is therefore this much?

It’s really difficult to quantify because it depends on the changes in the regulatory structure and how much they would like to remove from the spent fuel pool. So its’ hard to judge the actual size without knowing what the regulatory changes look like. Paul Clegg – Mizuho: Okay. I will jump back in the queue. Thanks, guys.

Our next question comes from Laurence Alexander with Jefferies. Please state your question. Laurence Alexander – Jefferies: Good morning.

Good morning, Laurence. Laurence Alexander – Jefferies: I guess, first question is can you give us an update on the status of the ongoing negotiations with TVA and in particular, are they willing to give you sort of flexibility depending on, or are you basically waiting for the DOE before the TVA is willing to settle?

I will turn to Bob again on that.

Sure. Couple of comments, we continue to have discussions with TVA and other suppliers about near-term power supply and about the potential for Paducah operations beyond May 2012. We are making progress in those discussions, TVA is showing signs of some flexibility there and we do see some good opportunities as we look at it and we’ve talked about this before. It really is two issues, we are carefully monitoring on the power situation and on Paducah extension. One of them is the power prices and the other is the high assay tails program with the Department of Energy. I think those are both very important elements. So we see near-term power really being influenced by fuel cost adjustors and those are taking some positive movements given the hydro capacity in the Tennessee valley and then the high assay tails program again is something we will carefully evaluate for post May 2012 operations. Laurence Alexander – Jefferies: And is there movement on the part of the government in terms of more urgency to do the high assay tails program?

We do see a very strong recognition of the government that Paducah is a valuable asset. We do see them carefully considering the concept and trying to evaluate how best to proceed and not have an adverse impact on the uranium markets. So we do see that absolutely playing out. Laurence Alexander – Jefferies: And then with the DOE, if you get the decision, by June, you know, what happens next, that is how long does it take for them to actually start issuing enough checks to give you a Line of Credits that you can change your activities?

There is probably several aspects of that. One is the next tranche of money that we get from Toshiba and BMW is conditioned on the – the condition on commitment. So that clearly provides additional $50 million to proceed forward. Then there is a timeframe going from conditional commitment to closing. That is involved and that is certainly -- we expect that there are conditions that would have to be in place too close both financial and potentially some project related milestones that would have to be achieved. We would think that we could close, if received by June that we could close on the loan guarantee by the end of the year and that’s the guidance that we have provided. Now the amount of remobilization that would occur, there maybe additional work that we could look at doing in that timeframe between conditional commitment and closing, but that’s something we would look at and discuss very closely with our strategic partners and that [wouldn’t] be focused on risk reduction activities, activities that would help us greatly in getting the project to lowest cost and schedule it we could do. But certainly the majority of the remobilization would occur after closing when the real money would be flowing. Laurence Alexander – Jefferies: And then lastly, just for a revisit topic from prior calls, the improved quality of the contracts that you have for Paducah, that you have been putting in place over the past few years, should those start to translate into better margins and all else being equal, there is no further fluctuation in energy prices in 2012, 2013 or is there any color you can give us on what to expect there?

And just to clarify, we do not necessarily do Paducah specific contracts. We will contract on the basis of our entire portfolio of supply. We do see continued improvements in those contracts as we roll off some of the older ones that had lower prices or less, what I call risk mitigation factors, such as power adjustors. So we do see our portfolio continuing to improve but I can’t quantify that. Laurence Alexander – Jefferies: Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from George Caffrey with Miller Tabak Roberts Securities. Please state your question. George Caffrey – Miller Tabak Roberts Securities: Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning, George. George Caffrey – Miller Tabak Roberts Securities: Couple of questions. First of all, could you refresh as terms of the range of need which you were expecting to be provided by the Japanese EXIM bank’s potentially at least. And then along those lines, would their participation, in any way, be part of contingent approval from the DOE?

George, it’s John Barpoulis. First, with respect to the amount of capital we are seeking from the Japanese Export Credit agencies. We have outlined that we are seeking a $ 1billion of capital through that process. And second, with respect to the interaction between DOE and the Japanese Export Credit agencies, I think that the Japanese export credit agencies are certainly looking to DOE to lead this process as they would be providing the greater amount of debt with respect to the $2 billion versus a billion. And we would be looking for a simultaneous closing on the DOE loan guarantee and any funding from the Japanese Export Credit Agencies. George Caffrey – Miller Tabak Roberts Securities: Understood. I guess that the flip of that, though, is the DOE is expecting that or would it be a condition of the commitment that you receive the some sort of commitment from the Japanese EXIM bank? Is that likelihood?

We do expect that a condition to close on the loan guarantee will be sufficient capital to complete the project including the capital from the Japanese export credit agencies. George Caffrey – Miller Tabak Roberts Securities: Okay. All right. As far as the royalty fee and the subsidy cost is concerned, subsidy cost, that needs to be paid upfront, is that correct?

That’s correct. George Caffrey – Miller Tabak Roberts Securities: Okay. And so, therefore, the view would be that this would be applied overtime to the royalty fee?

Sorry, George. As John outlined in his response, we are aware that as the Department of Energy determines the credit subsidy cost, that there are several factors that it takes into account, one of which, we believe, will be that stream of royalty payments that the U.S. government will receive. George Caffrey – Miller Tabak Roberts Securities: I guess what I’m getting at is when the money would be required to be paid, in other words, would it be expected that the royalty could offset the credit subsidy and be paid overtime or would the credit subsidy need to be paid upfront and then being applied against the royalty fee?

Again, the credit subsidy cost is paid upfront and the amount of that credit subsidy cost may take into account the -- anticipated may take into account this stream of benefits to the government. George Caffrey – Miller Tabak Roberts Securities: I understand now. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) Our next question comes from Ben Elias with Sterne, Agee. Please state your question. Ben Elias – Sterne, Agee: Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning, Ben.

Good morning, Ben. Ben Elias – Sterne, Agee: I’m kind of surprised at the timeframe you have between the conditional and closing on the loan guarantee. I know it’s not a very -- it’s different factors that play but Areva who received their conditional guarantee last year and -- it’s taken them a while. What gives you the confidence or what do you have to do that they didn’t have to do? What speeds this up for you?

Actually I will put just the opposite. What is it that we don’t have to do that they have to do? We have a license. We have had a license since 2007 and we have been working on the plan based on that license from that time forward. All the rumors are that Areva will be getting license shortly, but they do not have a license. So our ability to close from a license standpoint is much quicker. Ben Elias – Sterne, Agee: So it’s just, the license is the biggest, sort of, impediment from conditional to actually receiving the money or are there couple of other factors?

No. Again, we have a license, so it is no impediment to closing. Our issue was strictly pulling together the various aspects of both financially and if there are any project related issues that would be there. The fact that you’ve got outside agencies providing credit as well as the Department of Energy, it’s just going to take some time. But, again, we think that if done by the second quarter or conditional commitment, you could close by the end of the year. Ben Elias – Sterne, Agee: Okay. Thank you.

Thanks, Ben.

Our next question comes from Paul Clegg with Mizuho. Please state your question. Paul Clegg – Mizuho: Hey, guys. Thanks for the follow-up. You’ve laid out the process pretty clearly for the DOE credit approval and the steps that you have to go through, can you do the same thing for the Japanese side? What steps are needed to get to approval and how long could that take?

We -- with respect to the steps with the Japanese export credit agencies, I think that, that is a much clearer and historically laid out process and again, Paul, we do expect to be working through with the Japanese export credit agencies on a timing that coincides with the closing on the loan guarantee. And as that process, as we get further down that process I think we will provide more disclosure around that. Paul Clegg – Mizuho: Okay. And then just one last one -- the I think you have kind of touched on this in your guidance but I just want to make sure that I understand. On the BMW-USEC co-venture for manufacturing centrifuge machines what level of spending is authorized under that venture before you get the, the conditional loan commitment -- loan guarantee commitment?

Well there are limitations on spending on the total project and they are a subset of the total project spending limits. Paul Clegg – Mizuho: And so, maybe it’s more, maybe it’s more question on what’s actually in the credit agreement than in terms of limitations?

There is no specific limitation, Paul, to that level of detail as John outlined. We are looking at total spending on the project and the machine manufacturing is a very important piece of that. Paul Clegg – Mizuho: Okay. All right. Thanks, guys.

Okay. Thank you.

I think that’s it for the questions. Thank you all for participating in the call this morning. We are pleased to report on the significant progress we’ve made in recent months and believe me we are working hard to continue that progress towards a conditional commitment from DOE this quarter. We appreciate your support, your interest and your continued investment in USEC. Thank you very much.

Thank you. This concludes today’s conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.