Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yesþ Noo.

      Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer.smaller reporting company. See definitionthe definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “large accelerated filer”“smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filerþ               Accelerated filero                         Non-accelerated filero                         Smaller reporting companyo

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Yeso. Noþ

     As of October 31, 2007,April 15, 2008, there were 110,445,000111,165,000 shares of Common Stock issued and outstanding.

     This quarterly report on Form 10-Q, including “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Item 2, contains “forward-looking statements” – that is, statements related to future events. In this context, forward-looking statements may address our expected future business and financial performance, and often contain words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “will” and other words of similar meaning. Forward-looking statements by their nature address matters that are, to different degrees, uncertain. For USEC, particular risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual future results to differ materially from those expressed in our forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: the success of the demonstration and deployment of our American Centrifuge technology including our ability to meet our performance targets target cost estimate and schedule for the American Centrifuge Plant; the cost of the American Centrifuge Plant and our ability to secure required external financial support; the cost of electric power used at our gaseous diffusion plant; our dependence on deliveries under the Russian Contract and on a single production facility; our inability under most existing long-term contracts to pass on to customers increases in SWU prices under the Russian Contract resulting from significant increases in market prices; changes in existing restrictions on imports of Russian enriched uranium, including the imposition of duties on imports of enriched uranium under the Russian Contract; the elimination of duties charged on imports of foreign-produced low enriched uranium; pricing trends in the uranium and enrichment markets and their impact on our profitability; changes to, or termination of, our contracts with the U.S. government and changes in U.S. government priorities and the availability of government funding, including loan guarantees; the impact of government regulation; the outcome of legal proceedings and other contingencies (including lawsuits, government investigations or audits and government/regulatory and environmental remediation efforts); the competitive environment for our products and services; changes in the nuclear energy industry; and other risks and uncertainties discussed in this and our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K. We do not undertake to update our forward-looking statements except as required by law.

     The unaudited consolidated condensed financial statements as of and for the three and nine months ended September 30,March 31, 2008 and 2007 and 2006 have been prepared pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The unaudited consolidated condensed financial statements reflect all adjustments which are, in the opinion of management, necessary for a fair statement of the financial results for the interim period. Certain information and notes normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States have been omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations.

     Operating results for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007March 31, 2008 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2007.2008. The unaudited consolidated condensed financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related notes and management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations included in the annual report on Form 10-K10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2006.2007.

     New Accounting Standards Not Yet ImplementedStandard

     In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (“SFAS”) No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements.” This statement clarifies the definition of fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value when required or permitted under other accounting pronouncements, and expands the disclosures on fair value measurements. The implementation of SFAS No. 157 for financial assets and liabilities, effective January 1, 2008, did not have an impact on USEC’s financial position and results of operations.

SFAS No. 157 is effective beginning with USEC’s first quarter of 2009 for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. We are evaluatingnon-financial assets and liabilities. USEC has not yet determined whether adoption of the statement and have not determined whether it will have a material effect on ourits financial position or results of operations.operations for the first quarter of 2009.

USEC cannot provide any assurances that it will reach an agreement or that DOE will not assert its rights under the agreement. Under the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement, if, for reasons within USEC’s control, USEC fails to meet one or more milestones and it is determined that the resulting delay would substantially impact USEC’s ability to begin commercial operations on schedule, DOE could take a number of actions that could have a material adverse impact on USEC’s business. These actions include terminating the 2002 DOE-USEC Agreement, recommending that USEC be removed as the sole Executive Agent under the Megatons-to-Megawatts program, which could reduce or terminate USEC’s access to Russian LEU,low enriched uranium (“LEU”), or revoking USEC’s access to DOE’s U.S. centrifuge technology that USEC requires for the American Centrifuge project and requiring USEC to transfer its rights in U.S. centrifuge technology and facilities to DOE royalty free. However, onceUnless DOE were to challenge that USEC has demonstrated to DOE financing commitments formet any of the construction of a 1 million SWU per year centrifuge plant,first 12 milestones, DOE’s remedies are now limited under the agreement to circumstances in which a failure results from gross negligence or project abandonment by USEC.

     DOE Contract Services Matter

     The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) asserted in a letter to USEC dated July 10, 2006 that DOE may have sustained damages in an amount that exceeds $6.9 million under USEC’s contract with DOE for the supply of cold standby services at the Portsmouth plant.GDP. DOJ indicated that it was assessing possible violations of the Civil False Claims Act (“FCA”), which allows for treble damages and civil penalties, and related claims in connection with invoices submitted under that contract. USEC responded to DOJ’s letter in September 2006, indicatingstating that the government does not have anya legitimate basesbasis for asserting any FCA or related claims under the cold standby contract, and has been cooperating with DOJ and the DOE Office of Investigations with respect to their inquiries into this matter. As part of USEC’s continuing discussions with DOJ, USEC and DOJ agreed in August 2007 to extend the statute of limitations for this matter. In a supplemental presentation by DOJ and DOE on October 18, 2007, DOJ identified revised assertions of alleged overcharges of at least $14.6 million on the cold standby and two other cost-type contracts, again potentially in violation of the FCA, which allows for treble damages and civil penalties.FCA. DOJ invited a response by USEC, which USEC intendsprovided in early December 2007 and again in January 2008. On February 20, 2008, USEC presented its response to supply inDOJ and DOE. On February 25, 2008, USEC received a letter from DOJ formally requesting additional data and analysis. USEC provided its response to the near future.latest DOJ request on April 28, 2008. USEC believes that the DOJ and DOE analyses are significantly flawed, and no loss has been accrued. USEC intends to defend vigorously any such claim that might be asserted against it. As part of USEC’s continuing discussions with DOJ, USEC and DOJ agreed in August 2007 to extend the statute of limitations for this matter. That agreement was further extended three times, most recently in March 2008 to June 15, 2008.

     Environmental Matter

     USEC accrued a current liability of $3.2 million in the second quarter of 2007 relating to its potential share of $7.6 million of costs incurred by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to remediate retention ponds at a site in Barnwell, South Carolina, previously operated by Starmet CMI, one of USEC’s former contractors. USEC and certain federal agencies werehad previously been identified as potentially responsible parties under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, for a site in Barnwell, South Carolina, previously operated by Starmet CMI (“Starmet”), one of USEC’s former contractors. In February 2004, USEC entered into an agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to clean up certain areas at Starmet’s Barnwell site. Under the agreement, USEC was responsible for removing certain material from the site that was attributable to quantities of depleted uranium USEC had sent to the site. In December 2005, the EPA confirmed that USEC completed its clean up obligations under the agreement.

     Other Legal Matters

     USEC is subject to various other 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, USEC does not believe that the outcome of any of these legal matters will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations or financial condition.

     Options to purchase shares of common stock having an exercise price greater than the average share market price are excluded from the calculation of diluted earnings per share.

     The following discussion should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the consolidated condensed financial statements and related notes set forth in Part I, Item 1 of this report as well as the risks and uncertainties included in Part II, Item 1A of this report.the annual report onForm 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007.

     USEC, a global energy company, is a leading supplier of low enriched uranium or LEU,(“LEU”), for commercial nuclear power plants. LEU is a critical component in the production of nuclear fuel for reactors to produce electricity. We, either directly or through our subsidiaries United States Enrichment Corporation and NAC International Inc. (“NAC”):

     Low Enriched Uranium

     LEU consists of two components: separative work units (“SWU”) and uranium. SWU is a standard unit of measurement that represents the effort required to transform a given amount of natural uranium into two components: enriched uranium having a higher percentage of U²³⁵ and depleted uraniumhaving a lower percentage of U²³⁵. The SWU contained in LEU is calculated using an industry standard formula based on the physics of enrichment. The amount of enrichment deemed to be contained in LEU under this formula is commonly referred to as the SWU component and the quantity of natural uranium used in the production of LEU under this formula is referred to as its uranium component.

     We produce or acquire LEU from two principal sources. We produce LEU at the gaseous diffusion plantPaducah GDP in Paducah, Kentucky (“Paducah GDP”), andKentucky. Under the Megatons to Megawatts program, we acquire LEU from Russia under a contract, which we refer to as the Russian Contract, to purchase the SWU component of LEU recovered from dismantled nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union for use as fuel in commercial nuclear power plants.

     Our View of the Business Today

     WeThe outlook for the nuclear industry is strengthening as government policy, public acceptance and environmental concerns about climate change have encouraged utilities to begin the process of building new nuclear reactors in the United States for the first time in four decades. Although no new reactors are focused onyet under construction in the United States, several U.S. utilities have filed applications for construction and operating licenses for new reactors with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) and license applications for more than a pair of strategic objectives. First, wedozen more reactors are addressing significant pressure on our gross profit margins and cash flow from operations caused by higher power costs incurred since June 2006. Second, we are deploying ourexpected over the next generation commercial uranium enrichment plant in Piketon, Ohio, known as the American Centrifuge Plant, which will eventually replace our more power-intensive gaseous diffusion plant in Paducah, Kentucky. These efforts have both shown signs of success:

     These factors have combined to provide a strong business environment for the successful deployment ofnuclear fuel industry, which we believe provides a strong foundation for our substantial investment in the American Centrifuge Plant.

     We are entering a critical period as we transition our sources of enrichment market that can support investmentproduction. Over the next several years we will seek to effectively manage the ramp up in new uranium enrichment facilities. However, recent court rulings regardingACP capacity, determine the Russian Suspension Agreement could potentially openend date for commercial production from the U.S. market to unlimited direct Russian sales beforePaducah GDP and conclude the Megatons to Megawatts program concludesin 2013. Our business and financial profile will reflect the combined characteristics of our sources of enrichment, particularly the gaseous diffusion and centrifuge operating environments. During this transition period, we will also be looking at the potential expansion of ACP beyond the initial 3.8 million SWU plant, which could be done incrementally once the initial ACP construction phase is complete.

     The transition period has several challenges and opportunities. For example, the natural uranium inventory we acquired in conjunction with the privatization of USEC in 1998 had been largely sold at the end of 2013. If Russia2007, potentially resulting in lower revenue, gross profit and cash flow from operations going forward. However, our ability to underfeed the enrichment process at Paducah allows us to obtain additional uranium supplies as we optimize our use of electric power as a substitute for uranium feed stock. We can sell the uranium obtained in this manner at today’s market prices to supplement LEU sales and cash flow. Because we expect to make future uranium sales opportunistically and the revenue from these sales will not be recognized until uranium is permitted to begin selling substantial quantitiesdelivered as the uranium component of LEU, before we have secured an adequate backlog of sales to cover our production from the American Centrifuge Plant, the impact of this additional supplyrevenue and net income will be more volatile and less predictable than in the enrichment market could be significant, and long-term SWU prices could drop to a level where we could not justify further investment in the American Centrifuge Plant. Given the high priority that the Bush Administration has placed on ensuring a secure domestic nuclear fuel supply, we believe that the U.S. government will seek reasonable limits on Russian imports.recent years.

     We have recently moved intoalso face potential uncertainty and instability in the next phaseenrichment market during this transition period as a result of integrated testingcertain appellate court rulings that imports of LEU under certain enrichment transactions are not subject to U.S. trade law intended to prevent dumping of unfairly priced LEU in the U.S. market. We disagree with this conclusion, and in February 2008, we filed a request in the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to review those decisions. The Solicitor General of the American Centrifuge technology involving multiple machinesUnited States, joined by the general counsels of the Commerce, Defense, Energy and State Departments, also filed a request seeking review of the decisions. On April 21, 2008, the Supreme Court granted those requests. The case will now be briefed and argued before the Supreme Court, with a decision expected in late 2008 or early 2009. Although there can be no assurance with respect to the outcome of the appeal, we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will overturn the appellate court decisions and ensure that all imports of LEU, regardless of the form of transaction involved, are covered by the U.S. antidumping law. Such a cascade configuration. We refer to this phase asdecision will restore certainty in the Lead Cascade test program. In a centrifuge enrichment facility, a cascade is a groupmarket that dumping of centrifuge machines connected in a series and parallel arrangement to achieve an intended isotope separation capability. A uranium enrichment facilityLEU that uses gas centrifuge technology is made up of hundreds of cascades. The number and arrangement of centrifuge machines in a cascadematerially injures the U.S. industry can vary. The cascades tested during the initial phase of our Lead Cascade test program consist of fewer than 20 prototype machines, including spare machines, and are located within an existing building that will ultimately house the full-scale commercial plant.be restricted.

     InitiatingWe strongly support legislation or other federal action that would ensure that LEU imported under SWU transactions remains subject to U.S. antidumping law. Without a judicial reversal, a legislative clarification, or other action to ensure that all LEU remains subject to that law, the Lead Cascade test program marks another important stepU.S. nuclear fuel market could be subjected to dumped imports which would make it very difficult to finance new investment in thedomestic nuclear fuel production, including deployment of the American Centrifuge Plant. We intendbelieve that preserving the U.S. government’s ability to achieveprevent dumping of imported LEU irrespective of the form of sale is essential to providing the market stability needed to deploy a numbernew generation of key objectives throughenrichment capacity in the United States.

     We have been operating the Lead Cascade integrated testing program since August 2007. The American Centrifuge technology continues to show reliable and consistent operations, demonstrating an output of LEU at a product assay consistent with commercial reactor fuel. Since the beginning of 2008, the centrifuge machines involved in the Lead Cascade integrated testing program have operated for more than 30,000 machine hours, providing data on equipment reliability and identifying opportunities to further optimize the machine and cascade design. The ongoing Lead Cascade testing has demonstrated an output of LEU at a product assay used in commercial reactor fuel, which is consistent with results observed in 2007. The Lead Cascade test program including:

     The initial design for the AC100 machines was finalized on March 31, 2008, and 75 percent of the drawings have been released to our strategic suppliers to begin manufacturing components. Additional component validation testing will be completed and we expect the Lead Cascade test programremaining drawings will be released to help usthe strategic suppliers by June 30, 2008. The AC100 machine is designed to identify improvements in design, assembly and operationsproduce 350 SWU per year.

     The strategic suppliers will now begin manufacturing parts for the 40 to 50 AC100 machines that will be integrated into the AC100 machine, helping us and our suppliers to ensure reliability and achieve lower costs through high-volume manufacturing for full-scale commercial deployment. We expect to deploy several dozen AC100 machinesinstalled in the Lead Cascadenext operating cascade in late 2008 and begin test operations in early 2009.

     We recently concluded the purchase of a facility that was built by the Boeing Co. in the 1980s specifically for centrifuge manufacturing. When Boeing decided last year to end its Oak Ridge operations, we contracted with Babcock & Wilcox Co. (“B&W”) for centrifuge machine manufacturing, balancing and testing work in the facility, which has been renamed the American Centrifuge Technology and Manufacturing Center. The 74-acre site includes 440,000 square feet of specialty facilities and was purchased for $5 million. We are making substantial capital improvements to the site as we install new production machining equipment, robotics, and computer controls and testing systems to support the ramp-up to manufacturing centrifuge components. B&W will manufacture upper suspension assemblies, lower suspension assemblies, cap assemblies and column parts. The carbon-fiber rotors will be produced by Alliant Techsystems Inc., or ATK, at a facility being prepared for production at the Allegany Ballistics Laboratory in Rocket Center, West Virginia. These rotors will be shipped to the technology and manufacturing center for initial assembly with the finely machined parts produced by B&W before final assembly and installation in the American Centrifuge Plant.

     We are building out the ACP balance of plant, preparing the production building floor for machine mounts, and pouring foundations for a new boiler building. Other work includes refurbishing the feed and withdrawal facility where uranium hexafluoride will be heated to a gaseous state before introduction into the centrifuge cascades and the subsequent withdrawal of the LEU product. We also expect to begin installation of service modules that provide the piping and electrical infrastructure for the centrifuge machines later this year.

     We are now in the midst of a thorough, bottom-up review of the cost to build the plant based on the current state of design. We expect to complete and announce a budget for the project in the second quarter of 2008. Based on where we are in the bottom-up review of the plant cost, we continue to periodicallyexpect that the project budget that we will establish in the second quarter will be approximately $3.5 billion, including expenditures to date, but not including costs for financing or financial assurance. As part of our review we are also looking at the ACP deployment schedule. We are evaluating whether the project risk and update our target cost estimate throughoutcan be improved by modifying the durationtiming of certain steps in the plant build-out. Therefore, a decision could be made to adjust the pace of one or more steps in order to manage the overall risk and cost of the project. We have stated that we expect to spend between $650 and $700 million in 2008, with most of the spending in 2008 being capitalized. However, our pace of spending in the first quarter has been below these expected levels and our expectation for aggregate spending in 2008 could change based on our review of the project cost and schedule and the outlook regarding timing of additional financing.

     In additionWe must still raise the remainder of the capital needed to providingbuild the initial 3.8 million SWU centrifuge plant. The availability of public market financing for a reserve for general contingencies, our overall financing needs forlarge capital project such as the American Centrifuge project will also include additional costs not covered by our target cost estimate, such as financing costs, financial assurance requirements and operating costs relatedis extremely limited in the current market environment. Because DOE is in the best position to commercial plant initial operations. See note 7 toevaluate the consolidated condensed financial statements for a discussion of our financial assurance requirements, currently estimated to be approximately $345.3 million in 2006 dollars, and associated asset retirement obligations. See “Risk Factors — Our estimates of the costs of theclassified American Centrifuge project are subject to significant uncertainties that could adversely affect our ability to finance and deploytechnology, we currently view the American Centrifuge Plant”.

     We are focused on meeting these substantial challenges, andSince the timing of additional financing is uncertain at this point, we are encouraged about the prospectsalso looking at alternative spending profiles for the project without substantially delaying the ultimate build-out of the ACP. We believe our successful efforts to improve the economics of the Paducah plant provide a meaningful financial backstop during the deployment period and give us greater flexibility to extend its operations as part of any alternative planning we may evaluate as the most prudent path for deploying the ACP.

     As we evaluate the project budget and schedule, we are engaging in discussions with our customers to buy the output of the ACP. By waiting until now to sell this production, we believe we are in a better position to structure proposals for long-term sales to customers in ways that are more likely to earn an appropriate return on our capital. We believe our customers understand that sales contracts for this initial output represent a strategic commitment to ensure a reliable, U.S.-based source of nuclear power industry and the important rolefuel that we will play in fueling that future.be available for decades to come.

     Our revenueRevenue from our LEU segment is derived primarily from:

     The majority of our customers are domestic and international utilities that operate nuclear power plants, with international sales constituting approximately 40%35% of revenue from our LEU segment in 2006.2007. Our agreements with electric utilities are primarily long-term, fixed-commitment contracts under which our customers are obligated to purchase a specified quantity of SWU or uranium from us or long-term requirements contracts under which our customers are obligated to purchase a percentage of their SWU or uranium requirements from us. Under requirements contracts, customers only make purchases if the reactor has requirements. The timing of requirements is associated with reactor refueling outages.

     Our revenues and operating results can fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter, and in some cases, year to year. Customer demand is affected by, among other things, reactor operations, maintenance and the timing of refueling outages. Utilities typically schedule the shutdown of their reactors for refueling to coincide with the low electricity demand periods of spring and fall. Thus, some reactors are scheduled for annual or two-year refuelings in the spring or fall, or for 18-month cycles alternating between both seasons. Customer payments for the SWU component of LEU typically average approximately $15 million per order. As a result, a relatively small change in the timing of customer orders for LEU due to a change in a customer’s refueling schedule may cause operating results to be substantially above or below expectations. Customer requirements and orders are more predictable over the longer term, and we believe our performance is best measured on an annual, or even longer, business cycle. Our revenue could be adversely affected by actions of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”)NRC or nuclear regulators in foreign countries issuing orders to delay, suspend or shut down nuclear reactor operations within their jurisdictions.

     Our financial performance over time can be significantly affected by changes in prices for SWU. The SWU price indicator for new long-term contracts, as published by TradeTech in Nuclear Market Review, is an indication of base-year prices under new long-term enrichment contracts in our primary markets. Since our backlog includes contracts awarded to us in previous years, the average SWU price billed to customers typically lags behind the current price indicators. Following are the long-term SWU price indicator, the long-term price for uranium hexafluoride, as calculated using indicators published in Nuclear Market Review, and the spot price indicator for uranium hexafluoride:

     Cost of Sales

     Cost of sales for SWU and uranium is based on the amount of SWU and uranium sold and delivered during the period and is determined by a combination of inventory levels and costs, production costs, and purchase costs. Production costs consist principally of electric power, labor and benefits, long-term depleted uranium disposition cost estimates, materials, depreciation and amortization, and maintenance and repairs. Under the monthly moving average inventory cost method that we use, coupled with our inventories of SWU and uranium, an increase or decrease in production or purchase costs will have an effect on inventory costs and cost of sales over current and future periods.

     We have agreed to purchase approximately 5.5 million SWU each calendar year for the remaining term of the Russian Contract through 2013. Purchases under the Russian Contract are approximately 50% of our supply mix. Prices are determined using a discount from an index of international and U.S. price points, including both long-term and spot prices. A multi-year retrospective view of the index is used to minimize the disruptive effect of short-term market price swings. Increases in these price points in recent years have resulted, and likely will continue to result, in increases to the index used to determine prices under the Russian Contract. Officials of the Russian government have announced that Russia will not extend the Russian Contract or the government-to-government agreement it implements, beyond 2013. Accordingly, we do not anticipate that we will purchase significant quantities of Russian SWU after 2013.

     We provide for the remainder of our supply mix from the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant.GDP. The gaseous diffusion process uses significant amounts of electric power to enrich uranium. Costs for electric power are approximately 70% of production costs at the Paducah GDP. In 2006,2007, the power load at the Paducah plantGDP averaged 1,3701,510 megawatts and we expect the average power load at the Paducah plantGDP to increase to approximately 1,675 megawatts in 2007.2008. We purchase electric power for the Paducah plantGDP under a power purchase agreement signed with TVA in 2000. On June 1, 2006, fixed, below market pricesTVA. Pricing under the 2000 TVA power contract expired and a one-year pricing agreement went into effect. Costs for electric power increased from approximately 60% of production costs at the Paducah plant under the pre-2006 agreement to approximately 70%. Pricing for the one-year term ending May 2007 was about 50% higher than the pre-2006 pricing, and was also subject to a fuel cost adjustment to reflect changes in TVA’s fuel costs, purchased power costs, and related costs. Upon the expiration of this one-year pricing agreement, effective June 1, 2007, we amended the TVA power contract to provide for the quantity and pricing of power purchases for the five-year period June 1, 2007 through May 31, 2012, extending the overall term of the power contract by two additional years to May 31, 2012.

     Capitalized costs relating to the American Centrifuge technology include NRC licensing of the American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio, engineering activities, construction of centrifuge machines and equipment, leasehold improvements and other costs directly associated with the American Centrifuge Plant.commercial plant. Capitalized centrifuge costs are recorded in property, plant and equipment as part of construction work in progress. The continued capitalization of such costs is subject to ongoing review and successful project completion, including NRC licensing, financing, and installation and operation of centrifuge machines and equipment.

     The following tables show for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006, certain items from the accompanying consolidated condensed statements of income detailed by reportable segments and in total.

     We have two reportable segments measured and presented through the gross profit line of our income statement: the low enriched uranium (“LEU”) segment with two components, separative work units (“SWU”) and uranium, and the U.S. government contracts segment. The LEU segment is our primary business focus and includes sales of the SWU component of LEU, sales of both SWU and uranium components of LEU, and sales of uranium. The U.S. government contracts segment includes work performed for DOE and DOE contractors at the Portsmouth and Paducah gaseous diffusion plants (“GDPs”) as well as nuclear energy services and technologies provided by NAC. Intersegment sales between the reportable segments were less than $0.1 million in each period presented below and have been eliminated in consolidation. Segment information follows (in millions):