Greetings, and welcome to the USEC Incorporated fourth quarter and 2012 year-end conference call. [Operator instructions.] It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Steven Wingfield, Director of Investor Relations for USEC Inc. Thank you Mr. Wingfield. You may now begin. Good morning and thank you for joining us for the USEC conference call regarding the fourth quarter and year-end review of 2012. With me today are John Welch, President and Chief Executive Officer; John Barpoulis, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Bob Van Namen, Senior Vice President; Philip Sewell, Senior Vice President; and 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 afternoon. That news release is available on many financial websites and our corporate website, usec.com. All of our news releases and SEC filings, including our annual report on form 10-K, which was filed yesterday, are also available on our website. A replay of this call also will be available later today on the USEC website. I’d like to remind everyone that certain of the information that we may discuss on this call today may be considered forward-looking information that involves risks 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 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, March 19, 2013. This call is the property of USEC. Any redistribution, retransmission or rebroadcast of this call in any form without the expressed written consent of USEC is strictly prohibited. Thank you for your participation. Now I’d like to turn the call over to John Welch.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us today to discuss our fourth quarter and full year 2012 results. I’d like to begin by discussing the current status of USEC’s business and the American Centrifuge, as well as the important initiatives we have underway. I’ll then hand the call over to John Barpoulis for a more complete report on our financial reports. Let me start by addressing the writeoff we have announced for the American Centrifuge costs that were capitalized through late 2011. First and foremost, this is a noncash charge that does not reflect any problems for the plant equipment or the AC100 centrifuges or the manufacturing infrastructure we’ve developed for these precision machines. Equally important, no taxpayer funds are at risk, and we have sufficient liquidity and cash to meet our current obligations. Today, the centrifuge machines and plant systems assets we’ve built continue to operate. This was an accounting determination only, and we remain confident about the technology. The ongoing research, development, and demonstration, or RD&D program, continues to demonstrate that the technology is robust. With that said, let me take a minute to walk you through the process we followed to evaluate our American Centrifuge investment. Each year, we conduct the year-end review of the carrying value of our long-lived capital assets as part of the preparation of our financial statements. As part of this review, we look at the significant capital that would be required to complete the project. We also looked at the anticipated sources for that capital, including a potential DOE loan guarantee and Japanese export credit agency financing in our ability to provide the remaining capital needed. Based on the cash flow from operations that we anticipate having available for investment in the project during that timeframe, we expect additional third-party investment…

Thanks, John, and good morning everyone. In order to get to your questions this morning, we want to keep our prepared remarks brief. I will shorten my usual analysis of revenue and cost of sales trends and stay at a high level. We reported revenue of nearly $2 billion, an increase of nearly a quarter billion over 2011. SWU prices in 2012 were 5% higher compared with the year before, and SWU sales volumes increased by 31%. SWU sales accounted for 95% of our 2012 revenue, as uranium available for sale continues to decline and we have significantly ramped down our contract services work for the government. Since sales by NAC made up most of our contract services revenue, the recent sale of the NAC subsidiary means contract service segment revenue is expected to decline significantly going forward. Switching to the cost side of the ledger, our two largest cost components are electric power and the price we pay Russia to purchase SWU. The cost of power is about 70% of our cost of production. During 2012, the average cost per megawatt hour of electricity declined 3% compared to the prior year, reflecting lower costs under our revised contract with the Tennessee Valley Authority. SWU production increased by 1% year over year, and the unit production cost declined 4%, reflecting the economics of the depleted uranium enrichment program that began in June 2012. Purchase costs for the SWU component of LEU purchased from Russia under the Megatons to Megawatts program increased $13 million in 2012, compared to the year before, due to a 2% year over year increase in the price we pay under the market based pricing formula. Gross profit for the year was $138 million, an increase of about $54 million, or 64%, compared to 2011. Our gross…

[Operator instructions.]

While we’re waiting for questions to get into queue, I’d like to ask Bob Van Namen to address a question we’ve heard from investors. Bob, what’s the status of nuclear reactors in Japan and how does this temporary oversupply in the marketplace for nuclear fuel effect the commercial prospects for output of the American Centrifuge plant?

Thank you, John. As of now, only two of Japan’s 54 reactors are currently operating. Japan does have in place its new regulatory authority, the nuclear regulatory authority, that is going to be putting forward new rules and regulations regarding the restart of these reactors. We do expect that process to be wrapped up over the summer, leading to further restarts as we go through the rest of the year. We do see, in the long run, a large number of these reactors restarting, but that will take time. Just like many other countries, you do see Japan being reliant and needing nuclear power and the clean energy that it provides to help fuel its economy. We do see Japan restarting these reactors. It’s just going to take time to do so. We’ve recently had a management transition where Phil Sewell has picked up responsibility for marketing and sales, and so Phil, if you could comment on the market impacts of that?

Sure. Having recently returned from a trip to Asia, and in particular China, it’s interesting to note the positive reaction that the market is having to the emergence of American Centrifuge plants in meeting future nuclear power needs. China has, obviously, a very large growth program, looking to increase their nuclear capacity to 200 gigawatts by the year 2030. Presently, with 28 reactors under construction, they’re interested in the enrichment market, and in particular, the suppliers that will be available to meet their needs. Their reaction to the American Centrifuge plant is similar to many others, in that they see that it plays an important role in terms of provide supply diversity and ensuring a market with price competitiveness. Stability, reliability, assurance that fuel will be there is key, and having met with the China National Nuclear Corporation and the China Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation, both of which are responsible for enrichment and nuclear power plants in China, they have expressed an interest in engaging with USEC to look at how ACP can play a role in meeting their future nuclear fuel needs. So that is symbolic of many of the conversations that we’re having in the market, and we find that it’s interesting that American Centrifuge is emerging with planned production at about the time when people will be looking very, very carefully at how they can secure their nuclear fuel needs. Now, operator, I think we’re ready for questions. Thank you very much.

You’re welcome. Our first question is from the line of Laurence Alexander of Jefferies & Company. Please proceed with your question. Laurence Alexander - Jefferies & Company : First question is, has there been a formal process to evaluate either sale of the company or an auction of the ACP technology?

I would say that that would be a bit of speculation, down a different path of discussions, but I think the answer to that is no. Laurence Alexander - Jefferies & Company : And secondly, is there any impact from a balance sheet restructuring on your DOE licenses, either your ongoing operation licenses or your viability for the DOE loan guarantee program?

I think the answer to that is also no, but I would also add that everything that we are looking to accomplish this year in 2013 in our core business and with respect to our various creditors and lenders is all about positioning USEC as a stronger sponsor of ACP as we go back for the loan guarantee and financing for the commercial deployment. Laurence Alexander - Jefferies & Company : And can you put some bounds around the financial criteria that the government has given you as part of the DOE loan guarantee progress, so people can model out what you’re trying to get to as an end state?

I think the aspects of the DOE loan guarantee remain similar, or at least out understanding is similar, to the work that we did earlier in the loan guarantee process. We continue to pursue a $2 billion loan guarantee from DOE and up to $1 billion of Japanese export credit agency funding. The additional quantitative parameter that we put out is that we, in addition to those two elements of the financing, we are looking for likely at least $1 billion dollars of additional equity capital to complete the commercial deployment. And so with respect to the loan guarantee program, again, we’re looking to update our loan guarantee later this year and reengage with the process. Laurence Alexander - Jefferies & Company : Can you also game out how your other business activities… At one point you discussed exploring being a sourcing agent or selling SWU in the U.S. Can you just discuss what other revenue opportunities you might be developing at this point, apart from the ACP?

We previously revealed that there’s a transitional supply agreement that we entered into with Russia. I think March of 2011. And that has started, it ramps up to a level that’s about half of what we do today under the Megatons to Megawatts program. And it certainly has options where we could increase it in future years, up to the full level of the Megatons to Megawatts program. 2013 represents the first year that we’re selling output from that transitional supply. That’s obviously a very valuable piece of business as we transition from Paducah operations to American Centrifuge, and basically exiting the Paducah operations sooner than we would have liked to when we looked at our whole business strategy going from one source to another several years ago. That transitional supply agreement is a very valuable piece of business. Laurence Alexander - Jefferies & Company : And for modeling purposes, once Paducah is transitioned, what would be the margin or cash flow profile of the Russian agreement on a standalone basis?

I don’t think that we are at a point to provide specific gross profit margin guidance on the TSA. What I would add to John’s comments is we have provided the guidance in 2013 volumes of sales. Again, while healthy, we expect to be about one-third lower than compared to last year. And we do have a significant amount of inventory on hand. Again, we are looking to meet all of our customers obligations and we expect that to be used to satisfy our customers’ needs over the next several years. So we will see a blend of all of our sources of supply over the next few years. And again, we’re looking to, I’d say [unintelligible], to the TSA supply over time. Laurence Alexander - Jefferies & Company : If you look at the agreements you have in hand, not specific to the Russian agreement, but all of your agreements that you have, to the term of those agreements, do you have any sense of what the total embedded cash flow or free cash flow could be from those agreements? Would you have a range over the next several years, the cumulative free cash flow opportunity that you can generate from your existing agreement?

I think as you’d expect, we certainly have many internal scenarios that will very much be affected by market conditions over the time period. Slightly but more importantly, our Paducah transition. So at this point, not looking to provide specific cumulative guidance around cash flow.

Laurence, if I could add one more comment on the TSA, we do have market related provisions in the TSA that will adapt over time to the changes in the market that we’re seeing that we discussed earlier on the call. So we do have the ability to sell that material into our backlog, both domestically and internationally, and we have the ability to kind of go through the ups and downs in the markets with the gross profit embedded in that TSA.

[Operator instructions.] Gentlemen, we have the next question coming from the line of Jason Adler with GMP Securities. Please proceed with your question.

I know we’ve talked about this in the past, but if you don’t mind, can you just review the production capacity for ACP through the five-year ramp up that you talked about?

We do expect to see production from the ACP reaching $3.8 million SWUs. It will be starting in 2016/2017, and then ramping up from there to a full capacity about two years later. So a reasonably linear buildup of capacity from zero to 3.8 million SWUs. One thing about the ACP is that once you begin bringing these cascades online, you will be able to get usable product and you will be able to create revenue through the startup process. So you do not have to wait until the end of the buildout to be able to start getting the revenues from the plant.

And from a gross margin perspective, is that linear, or does gross margin get wider as the capacity ramps up?

I think very much a function of our startup cost and profile. Again, we don’t provide specific guidance around gross profit expectations for ACP. We point people to public comparisons that we certainly look to achieve, and the one public marker that’s out there certainly are Urenco’s public figures that provide for what a centrifuge-based business could achieve.

The other question I have, in terms of the expenditure of the $350 million for the RD&D, are there certain components of the project that DOE pays for and you pay for? Or do you spend all DOE’s money first and then yours? How does that work? And I guess what I’m getting at ultimately is how much of the $70 million of your component is left to spend?

We will go forward with spending on the project that is in parity with us spending DOE’s money as well as our money on the same pace. So there is no breakdown with specific scopes that are provided by government money.

Total allowable costs under the program, they are looked at in total, and again, we are looking at an 80-20 breakdown of funding between the government and USEC, and that funding is done on a pro rata basis over time.

There are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the floor back to management for closing comments.

We greatly appreciate the questions and comments from all of you this morning. You should know that we understand your concerns about the business, especially with regard to the accounting action for 2012 and what it means for the future of the American Centrifuge. Please know that we are as committed as ever to moving forward with commercialization of the American Centrifuge and continue to believe that it is the path to USEC’s long term competitiveness in the uranium enrichment business and the best way to maximize value for all stakeholders. Thank you again, and good day.