Good day, and welcome to the Perma-Fix third quarter 2023 earnings conference call. At this time, all participants have been placed on a listen-only mode, and the floor will be open for questions and comments after the presentation. It is now my pleasure to turn the floor over to your host from Investor Relations, David Waldman. The floor is yours. Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to Perma-Fix Environmental Services third quarter 2023 conference call. On the call with us this morning are Mark Duff, President and CEO, Dr. Lou Centofanti, Executive Vice President of Strategic Initiatives, and Ben Naccarato, Chief Financial Officer. The company issued a press release this morning containing third quarter 2023 financial results, which is also posted on the company's website. If you have any questions after the call or would like any additional information about the company, please contact Crescendo Communications at 212-671-1020. I'd also like to remind everyone that certain statements contained within this conference call may be deemed forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and include certain non-GAAP financial measures All statements on this conference call, other than a statement of historical fact, are forward-looking statements that are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which could cause actual results and performance of the company to differ materially from such statements. These risks and uncertainties are detailed in the company's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as this morning's press release. The company makes no commitment to disclose any revisions to forward-looking statements or any facts, events, or circumstances after the date hereof that bear upon forward-looking statements. In addition to today's discussion, we'll include reference to non-GAAP measures. Perma-Fix believes that such information provides an additional measurement and consistent historical comparison of its performance. A reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures is available in today's news release on our website. I'd now like to turn the call over to Mark Duff. Please go ahead, Mark. All right, thanks, David, and good morning. We achieved another solid quarter, as evidenced by an 18.4% increase in revenue to $21.9 million versus $18.5 million for the same period last year. In addition to our revenue growth, gross profit increased by 48.2% and gross margin increased from 16.6% to 20.8%. Importantly, we achieved net income of $341,000 and an EBITDA of approximately $1.2 million for the third quarter of 2023. The growth in revenue reflects the commencement of several new projects granted earlier this year that support the backlog in both segments and provide growth opportunities into 2024. We also improved productivity on certain projects that had previously been delayed from the lingering effects of COVID-19. Our services project continued to meet or exceed expected performance goals and margins due to strong leadership and good client relations. While we've achieved solid year-over-year growth, we would have generated even stronger results had it not been for temporary customer delays in our treatment and services segments. Unfortunately, this is not unusual in our business and contributed to a slight decline in our sequential revenue versus the second quarter of 2023. However, these projects have since commenced, and we believe will contribute to improved results for the fourth quarter of 2023 and heading into 2024. These and other awards are expected to generate significant revenue that would offset projects which will wind down in the fourth quarter. Within the services segment, we realized several new awards, including a $40 million five-year contract with our joint venture, Enviro-Fix Solutions, LLC, by the Buffalo District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for environmental remediation at the Niagara Falls Storage Site. The awards leverage our core competencies, including characterization, remediation, and disposition of hazardous material and waste management. Looking ahead, we're benefiting from increased bidding opportunities within our services segment overall, including both the government and the commercial sectors. These opportunities include teaming on large DOE projects and procurements, in addition to several U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cleanup initiatives, U.S. Navy decommissioning projects, and several international projects with sustainable revenue potential. These bids will further strengthen our backlog with awards anticipated throughout 2024. Within our treatment segment, we've experienced a steady improvement in waste receipts during the third quarter, supporting our visibility and backlog for the next year. This included increased waste shipments from within the commercial sector, along with steady sales from our industrial waste programs. We expect to see ongoing improvement in waste receipts and an increase in project work from existing contracts, new contracts, and bids submitted in both segments that are still waiting for award. We have continued to implement our growth strategy throughout the third quarter in 2023, including several new opportunities on our target list that have the potential to significantly enhance our revenues and our long-term backlog for the next year within both segments. In addition, we continue to await some very large potential strategic awards by the DOE. Some of these projects are quite considerable in size, and if selected by DOE, would represent significant increases in sustainable revenue to align with our core competencies. We're hopeful that one or more of these projects will be awarded this quarter. If we are successful, we'll participate as a team member on these large DOE procurements, which completely align with our strengths and innovations in radiological protection and waste management. Despite delays in award announcements, these growth initiatives remain on track, including the $3 billion operations and site mission support contract, referred to as OSMS, as well as the Joint Research Centre, or JRC, project in Italy. We anticipate both of these projects will be announced any day. In addition, we've several other smaller projects anticipated to be announced in the fourth quarter of 2023. The JRC project will support our expansion program in Europe, including existing IDIQ contracts held by Perma-Fix in the U.K., and the application of our treatment technologies in Germany, Croatia, and other markets in Europe. These opportunities will generate sustained receipts beginning in the next several quarters, providing a combined annual revenues estimated in the $10 million-$20 million range, which we expect will begin to be realized, in late 2024. At the same time, the Test Bed Initiative, or TBI, also known as the Low Level Waste Off-Site Disposition Project, continues to progress in support of the Hanford Tank Mission, although at a slower pace than anticipated over the last few months. The TBI initiative, which is based on grouting technology, will continue to be a focus of Perma-Fix as a means of saving tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars, as well as eliminating several carbon emission and reducing schedules for Hanford cleanup actions. Grouting has been recognized as a preferred supplement to the current DOE strategy for vitrification through the direct feed low-activity waste treatment plant, what we refer to as the DFLAW, for the 59 million gallons of tank waste currently stored at Hanford. The TBI program continues to move forward following the submittal of the RD&D permit from the DOE to the State of Washington regulators, which was done in the second quarter. We're currently awaiting the approval of the RD&D permit from the Washington Department of Ecology, which is the regulator, which will allow DOE to begin to extract 2,000 gallons of waste from the tanks for the phase two grouting demonstration. Given the ongoing delay by the state in review of the permit application, we expect an official reset of the schedule, which will include public comment on the permit, followed by approval, extraction of the waste, and treatment of 2,000 gallons, which is expected to be in the second half of 2024 now. Perma-Fix or maintains these grouting capabilities today at our Perma-Fix facility in Northwest or in Richland, Washington, which is permitted and outfitted to safely and compliantly grout up to 30,000 gallons a month, with the ability to expand to well over 1 million gallons annually, while dramatically reducing cost, risk, and schedule compared to vitrification alone. It's important to note that our Perma-Fix Northwest facility offers the only local or regional option for grouting tank waste versus other options to ship untreated waste out of state for grouting disposal, which is defined as a higher risk in the NEPA environmental assessment, as well as the recent WIR documents. Another critical component of the Perma-Fix growth strategy hinges on the startup of the DFLAW facility I mentioned in Hanford, which will provide vitrification services for about 40% of the tank waste volume on site. In January of 2023, DOE signed a record of decision to treat the effluent waste streams from the DFLAW facility at our local Perma-Fix Northwest facility for at least the first 10 years of the DFLAW operations. We remain optimistic about reports coming from DFLAW in regards to the startup of the melters and supporting systems, which continues to progress. While several steps remain before startup, DOE has not announced further delays in commissioning, which is currently scheduled for the late 2024 timeframe. The waste that would be produced at this facility is estimated by DOE to be about 9,000 cubic meters annually. We expect that would begin to be received at the Perma-Fix facility upon hot startup of the vitrification plant itself. As I've mentioned in the past, the volume of this waste is more than double the production of all our plants combined on an annual basis. In regards to our treatment facilities, our Florida and Washington plants have begun to realize the budgeted performance goals we haven't seen since pre-COVID times, as labor and pricing impacts are beginning to be in the rearview mirror at this point in time. At our DSSI facility in Eastern Tennessee, we have implemented several expansion and upgrade activities that have been underway for the past few months, which we expect will result in a broader offering of our treatment capabilities beginning in the second half of 2024. Importantly, we continue to invest in our capabilities and our facilities. We've built a solid foundation of growth and highly scalable infrastructure. As we continue to increase revenues, we expect to benefit from the predictable cash flows of our services segment, with high incremental margins within our treatment segment. So to wrap up, we remain optimistic that the remainder of 2023 and 2024 will realize continued growth in both segments as we expand our market base and develop strategic teams to optimize win probabilities for ongoing procurements. We're heavily focused on increasing productivity, and reducing costs to maximize our margins along the way. Overall, we remain confident in our ability to maintain the growth and stability we experienced prior to the pandemic, and we're highly encouraged by the near-term market outlook for the business based on our growing backlog, our sales pipeline, and number of important contracts expected to be awarded over the next few quarters. On that note, I'll turn the call over to Ben, who will discuss the financial results in more detail. Ben? Thank you, Mark. Our total revenue from continuing operations for the third quarter was $21.9 million, compared to last year's third quarter of $18.5 million. That's an increase of $3.4 million, or 18.4%. The improvement came in revenue from both our segments, as our treatment segment revenue improved by $1.9 million, primarily on higher waste volume, though at a lower average price. Our service segment increased by $1.5 million based on improved productivity at one of our current large projects and additional revenue from new projects that started in the quarter. Year-to-date through September thirtieth, our revenue is higher than prior year by $13.2 million or 24.5%. Again, this improvement has come from both segments. The treatment segment revenue increased by $8.5 million, primarily on increased volume, while our services segment revenue was up $4.7 million on increased project work. Our gross profit for the quarter was up $4.5 million, compared to $3.1 million in 2022. The improvement in gross profit of approximately $1.4 million came from the services segment, where gross profit was up $2 million from both increased revenue as well as improved profitability on our projects. Offsetting this increase was a reduction in the treatment segment gross profit of $473,000, due in part to revenue mix as well as increased fixed costs at our facilities. For the nine months ended September thirtieth, our gross profit was $12.1 million, compared to $7.6 million in prior year. Again, our gross profit improved in both segments, as the service segment increased by $3.4 million on higher revenue and improved productivity in its projects, while the treatment segment increased by $1 million, primarily on higher volume. Our G&A costs for the quarter were $3.9 million, which is consistent with third quarter last year. Increased costs for labor and legal fees were offset by savings in audit and other third-party service providers. For the nine months ended September thirtieth, SG&A expenses were $11 million, again in line with $11 million in the prior year. And as with the quarter, our lower audit and outside service costs were offset by higher payroll expense. Our net income for the quarter was $341,000, compared to last year's net income of $664,000. However, I want to remind you that last year's net income included an employee retention credit, $2.1 million, which improved those earnings. For the nine months ended September 30, our net income was $404,000, compared to a loss of $2.1 million in prior years. Our income per share, basic income per share, was $0.03, compared to income per share of $0.05 last year. Year to date, basic income per share is at $0.03, compared to a loss per share of $0.16 last year. Adjusted EBITDA from continuing operations, as we defined in this morning's press release, is at $1.2 million, compared to a loss of $374,000 last year. Adjusted EBITDA year to date was $2.9 million, compared to a loss of $2.2 million in 2022. Turning to the balance sheet, our cash on the balance sheet sits at about $2 million, consistent with last year-end of $1.9 million. Our accounts receivable and unbilled receivables were up $9.3 million due to increased revenue, certain prepaid contracts, and the general timing of our cash receipts. Accounts payable, accrued expenses, and accrued disposal collectively were up approximately $2.1 million, reflecting increased costs associated with increased revenue and the timing of vendor payments. Our unearned revenue was up approximately $3 million compared to prior year, due mostly to this certain prepaid contract. As of September 30, our waste backlog and unearned revenue was $12.1 million, significantly improved from the $9.2 million at year-end, and $7.1 million in September 2022. Our total debt at the quarter end was $3.2 million, excluding debt issuance costs, which is owed primarily to PNC Bank. Finally, on cash flow activity for 2023, our cash provided by continuing ops was $452,000. Our cash used in discontinued ops is $478,000. Cash used for investing of continuing operations was $1.4 million for cap spending. Cash provided from financing was $1.9 million, and that represents the net of our monthly payments to the term and capital loans of $450,000, payments related to finance, lease, and other debt of $310. Proceeds received in the reload of our term loan in July of $2.5 million, and receipts from other options and expenses of $150,000. With that, operator, I'll turn the call over for questions. Certainly. The floor is now open for questions. If you have any questions or comments, please press star one on your phone at this time. We ask that while posing your question, you please pick up your handset if listening on a speakerphone to provide optimum sound quality. Please hold just a few moments while we pull for questions. Your first question is coming from Howard Brous with Wellington Shields. Please pose your question. Your line is live. Thank you. Mark, Ben, Lou, I hope you're all well, and your family as well, first of all, and most important. ... Thanks, Howard. Appreciate that. Yep, they are good. Good to hear it. So what I'd like to get a sense of, or a better sense of, when you look at a contract, you talked about OSMS, Croatia, Italy. What, what does it all mean to Perma-Fix initially and over time? And include what I believe is another contract coming from the EPA on uranium. So let's begin with that, please. Yeah, Howard, you know what? The way we look at it is, is the company, is really in a position to maintain a pretty sustainable, foundation of revenue in the $90 million a year-$100 million a year range. From generally from winning projects, you know, repeatedly, we may have some down quarters and some up quarters, but just, just generally, that's kind of our base load, that we should be able to do, with, the waste that's gener- generated out there each year, along with winning a number of projects within our, our statistical, average. Then we have, procurements and opportunities that, that will pull us above that. And those opportunities you mentioned, a couple of them, OSMS, which, you know, is in a procurement situation that we can't really talk too much about the numbers associated with it. And JRC, same situation, and ITDC. All those would provide a plus up or a bump up in revenue in a significant way. JRC is a little smaller, you know, it's in the $40 million-$50 million range. But it opens up a couple markets for us in a bigger way in Europe. And so as far as the dollar per share, it's very difficult to address that because we can't get into the financial components of it. But they have-- they'll have significant impacts on our overall revenue stability. And equally as important, put us in a position where we can bid on other larger contracts with a qualification that is very valuable. So we have a number of those we're waiting to hear on, as you know. Those three are the primary ones. We have several other smaller ones that we're waiting to hear on, including bids at the Corps of Engineers. Abandoned uranium mines have all been extended. Our projects-- the project that we have in Arizona was supposed to run out in August. It got extended through end of this month and early into November, but in the middle of November. It will shut down for the winter because of the altitude the mine is at, and it'll start back up in the spring. The EPA has informed us that there'll be additional mines procured over the winter to start in the spring as well. So they are finally starting to get some traction on new procurements. But we add to that a long list of bids that we're working on through the winter that will be likely awarded in the spring and summer of next year that are very large. We've mentioned some of these on here before. Those opportunities include, you know, the Enterprise, which we expect out, the aircraft carrier that we expect out here in Q4, in late Q4, early Q1. A large project at Y-12, West Valley, DOE project, which is a $3 billion project, which we're getting on teams for. Several IDIQ task orders through the DOE contracts, and several large waste contracts that we're expecting to be able to bid on, to see the impacts, again, Q2 time frame. So, lots of... We're very optimistic that our growth opportunities continue to come in. You know, we're not going to win everything, but we should win a statistical quantity that's good. So the more they come in, the better. We have revamped our business development group and brought in some new people. They're very high energy, very well respected in the industry, and are turning over a lot more rocks for us in regards to opportunities in the radiological world, including expansion into the commercial sector in a bigger way. So overall, we do remain very optimistic about our future. While this quarter was not what we wanted it to be overall, we did take a step back, but we still have the same momentum, and we expect to get back on that trajectory in the near term. So hope that answers your question. So the TSCR, and I'm not sure how many gallons are in TSCR right now. My understanding is about 700,000 gallons. My understanding is from the DOE, that that volume is non-compliant with the vitrification plant. Is that a correct statement? That is a correct statement. Howard, there's been a couple of press releases about that just in the past two weeks. Apparently, the TSCR worked exactly as planned. They pumped the waste out of the tank and pumped it into another tank. And what appears to be the case is that the other tank contaminated the liquid after they pumped it in. So, as in sampling the tank, they've got the roughly 700,000 gallons stored in it will not meet the waste acceptance criteria for DFLAW. So, DOE has said that they're evaluating alternatives. One of those alternatives that they mentioned in their press release was that they would run it through TSCR again. We are trying to, which obviously would just tie the TSCR up for a while and cost money to redo it. We're proposing that they grout that waste and dispose of it. DOE has not made a decision on that yet, and we're hopeful they'll see the value in that, in disposing of that waste while they're able to pump other tank waste out. But at any rate, the situation does not impact the DFLAW, as I understand it. There's plenty of time for them to pump another 700,000 gallons before DFLAW needs it. So there is an opportunity here, hopefully, for DOE to consider an alternative other than to rerun it at this point. You mentioned the ROD that basically is roughly a 10-year contract. Where else can the Department of Energy go if it's not just 10 years, but is this not a generationally long contract? You've got collectively 56 million gallons, high-level, low-level waste to be treated. And even if you did a treatment with TBI, you're still talking 1 million gallons for the Vit Plant a year, which means 2 million to 2.5 million gallons that you treat. Are they gonna build another facility to mimic Perma-Fix? Or is this basically, my belief is this and TBI are generationally long contracts. They are generationally long contracts. It's the bottom line is, DOE has not developed or does not plan on developing the treatment capabilities they need to handle the effluent that comes out of DF-LAW. So their position, their plan has been for in the last 10 or 15 years to commercially treat the effluent that comes out of DF-LAW as opposed to building on-site treatment capabilities. Fortunately, there is very limited, in fact, there's really no other alternatives in the Richland area, the area around Hanford other than what Perma-Fix has capabilities to provide. So that's why it was mentioned in the ROD that DOE would use Perma-Fix Northwest to support that backlog, as I mentioned, which is about 8,000 cubic meters a year. So a pretty sizable amount of waste. It's all different types. It's not just grouting, it's all different types of processing, different materials that would come out of that plant. And we remain optimistic that they're on track for late 2024. You may have seen a press release, I think it was just yesterday, that they did turn on their melters in their latest campaign. Yeah, the melter got two different tranches of liquid glass, so up to 2,100 degrees, and everything seems to be working as designed, so they are continuing to make progress. They haven't announced any slips in schedule. So again, we're still anticipating, hopefully, that they'll have radioactive waste going through there in the late 2024 timeframe. Let me come back to DFLAW in a moment. Transuranic waste is basically another step in terms of a, what I call a generationally long contract. Without specific numbers, because I don't think you have them, but what could the total transuranic waste be coming out of Hanford? Because basically, the other main, whether it's Savannah River or others, they're already treating transuranic waste. So is there a sense, a global sense over one time frame and potential dollar amount, or is that not achieved yet? Yeah. I mean, Hanford, in my understanding, the transuranic waste program, programmatically, Hanford is pretty close to the tail end of the transuranic shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico right now. Right. Idaho and Savannah River and Los Alamos are all shipping a lot. Hanford is scheduled to begin later this decade. Right now, Perma-Fix provides the primary means of packaging transuranic waste and processing it for WIPP. So what we're doing right now, and it's one of our largest waste streams, is supporting the plateau contractor. They ship us different types of transuranic waste. We have a very advanced system to repackage that waste, put it into standard waste boxes to minimize the volume. We segregate the low-level waste out, so that only transuranic waste goes. It goes back to DOE at the Hanford, and they store it until it's their turn to ship to WIPP. That represents roughly about $1 million a month in revenue, and maybe a little bit more than that, some months. That number is increasing. So it's a good sustainable backlog for us, but there is additional quantity of TRU waste at Hanford. That's a higher level of radioactivity. In other words, there are higher gram quantities. That's all to be done, and there's a Tri-Party Agreement milestone for that. I don't know the total value of that. It's somewhere between, I don't know, maybe $50 million range to a $100 million range, that requires removal in a certain time period that is slipping a little bit here and there due to priorities in funding. That all will eventually come to us, most likely. We don't have a contract for it yet, but we certainly had many meetings about it. We'd anticipate getting that. But the overall transuranic program nationwide is very strategic for Perma-Fix. There's transuranic waste at SPRU up in Schenectady that we recently won a contract. We haven't talked a lot about it. DOE announced an intent award, but we're going through different technical approaches. And that's about a $10 million contract to start with, so it's not dramatic, but it's important. But the other big one that's TRU is West Valley. That's the one that's coming out right now. So our strengths and capabilities at Northwest will help our positioning to be on a good team and provide some value to that team for West Valley. TRU program is a big deal for us in the future. We haven't talked a lot about it in the past. Mark, you broke up. Hello? Hello. Hello? Yeah. I don't know what happened. You broke up. No, you there? Yep, we're here. Okay. Last but not least, when I'm looking at DF-LAW, vitrification plan, TBI, I consider those, although we just talked about DF-LAW. Basically, the 56 million gallons, is it a fair statement that these are generationally long contracts? After 10 years, they have no other place to go. They're not going to build a plant, and if DOE builds a plant, it costs $1 billion. It's government, we understand that. But as we get closer and closer, day by day, is it a fair comment that notwithstanding any further delays, but we're still talking about fourth quarter 2025 for DF-LAW vitrification plant, and possibly at the same time, grouting TBI. The maximum ability for DFLAW to process is basically 1 million gallons of waste a year, which connotes to be 2 million - 2.5 million of waste to you. Is that a fair comment? We believe it, that that's a fair comment, Howard. I think, you know, the investments we've made locally in the Hanford area, the capabilities we've built up, and the recent agreements with the local labor unions have all positioned us to be a very high value alternative to, for DOE to provide exactly what you just described, which is processing the DFLAW waste, the grouting, and other ways on site. And put Perma-Fix Northwest in a position where it's the best value alternative for the overall Hanford mission. So last comment. Ben, there are a couple of people who have asked various questions about 2025. If DF-LAW, the vit plan, is operational for the full year, people have talked about basic earnings just from that project of roughly $3 a share, whether it's $2.50 or $3.25. But you still feel comfortable, assuming that DF-LAW does start full stream in 2025 or sometime a little bit before. Is that still a fair comment? Yeah, Howard, and this has come up on a couple of calls, and I guess our best way to handle it is to kind of give you an overview of what we are considering, because this is so substantial to our regular business and game changing when it occurs. What I can give you is that, you know, from the metrics we've seen in the ROD, we'd be looking at $60 million- $70 million of additional revenue a year. We'd be looking—we believe our incremental range, which we openly advertise at about 25% variable costs or 75% margin, is consistent for this waste stream. The big wild card is the capital and fixed expenses that would go into growing the company to support this kind of number. And we've talked about 100 FTEs. We've talked about capital in the $5 million-$10 million range. We've talked about other expenses which we typically- Mm-hmm. - consider fixed in nature, utilities, insurance, maintenance, et cetera. That's probably another $10 million - $15 million of costs. So a lot of that, if you, if you shovel all that together, you get some pretty significant dollars, income probably in the $18 million-$25 million range, EBITDA in the $22 million-$30 million range. ROI is 200%, payback real quick, couple million - couple years at my, at best. So all that, I'll say that it's reasonable to think, with all other things that could happen in, in between, that, you know, $2-$3 range is certainly very achievable. That's all I have. Yeah. Mark, Ben, thank you. Thank you, Lou. Your next question is coming from Brian Russo with Sidoti. Please pose your question. Your line is live. Yeah, hi, good morning. Good morning, Brian. Hey, just real quickly on the quarter. You mentioned temporary customer project delays in the third quarter, which aren't uncommon, that likely get pushed in the fourth quarter. Is there any way to quantify, you know, what revenue is being pushed, what amount of revenue is being pushed to the right? It's difficult to define the quantity of those. Basically, what happened was we had a couple projects that were paused, and, you know, REAs were negotiated. And, we've been able to make up for some of that, and, we'll see some of that in the fourth quarter, but I can't-- I guess I can't give you a total amount of revenue that we'll see pushed into it. I do expect to see, you know, a pretty similar quarter in Q4 that we've seen here, which, you know, typically takes a step backwards from Q3. But, we do have a couple-- all the new projects that are starting up in Q4 as well, that will assist in getting-- doing a little better. But, we look at it pretty, pretty flat, overall, moving forward through Q4. Ben, is there anything else you want to add to that? No, I think, I think that's fair. Q4 is always impacted by holidays and those things, so there's again a lot of moving parts. But we do expect a lot of the what we missed in the third to move into fourth and beyond. Okay, got it. Great. And then just on the segment margins, it seems fairly low, you know, relative to what normalized margins are. Is it just a function of the lower revenue and the higher fixed cost kind of dynamic? Uh, well- Mm-hmm. You know, it's higher on the service side because of the improved productivity. It was lower on the treatment side, and that was a revenue or a waste mix issue. A little higher this time around than usual because we had a good size number of what we call direct ship waste streams that we don't even touch at the plants, and they go and we just broker them, so to speak, and that brought the margin down, but we expect it to normalize going forward. Okay, great. And then just on the RD&D permit delays from the DoD permit delays from the Washington State Department of Ecology, any insight there? Is it just more procedural, or are there any read-throughs? Are they, you know, taking an extended period of time to review? Which, you know, I thought might have been more of a formality. Just wanted to get any insight there. Yeah, we have no idea, Brian. The bottom line is that this is not a big permit. They asked some questions several months ago of DOE. DOE answered them, from what I heard, and they weren't big questions. So it's really difficult to understand why this would take so long. But it certainly has taken a lot longer than everyone anticipated for the state to turn this thing around for 2,000 gallons. It certainly would not appear to be that big of an effort, but you know, we have no insight whatsoever as to why. Okay. And then just any update on the ITDC- Sure ... contract and the options that the DOE, you know, has either, you know, rebidding the procurement again, or, or any other scenarios? Yeah, that's extremely complicated procurement, unprecedented in nature in regards to what has happened. It... There's not a lot more information than what's publicly available in regards to the status of it, other than to say that the DOE did come out with a final proposal revision request. Each of the teams provided a response. The Atkins team did file a protest in regards to that final proposal revision request. That's at the, I believe it's a GAO now. And GAO is believed that they're gonna make a decision by before February. What those options would be are very difficult to speculate on, other than to say that that one could still assume that the options are to award to the Atkins team or to go out for rebid. And I'm sure that with the submittal of that proposal now, or this revision, there's probably an alternative to award again to BWXT. So in other words, anybody could win. So no one's lost anything yet, and no one's won any and it really wraps around the axle in protest space. So I wish I could give you some speculation, Brian, but we've got no idea on this one. And there's a lot that the public, including us, does not know about the legal situation, and what the data is or what the evidence is, you know. So it's just you sit back and wait. There's really not much else we can do at this point, right? Yeah. No, that's, that's helpful. And then just to, just to clarify, on, on the DFLAW, hot start and, and ramp up. If, hypothetically, if there's a hot start up in late 2024, you won't be at full production, or DFLAW won't be at full production for all of 2025. There, there's, it's more like full year, 12 months of production would be more like 2026, correct? ... That's probably a good thing. You know, I don't know when both melters will be operating, but one could assume your statement is correct, that, you know, any plant that starts up like that is not gonna be 100% productive, initially. So one would assume your statement is correct, that it'll start off with one melter, at least one melter at a time, and it'll be a while before, you know, all three shifts are hitting on all cylinders and, that they're maximizing their design basis for 1 million gallons a year. So I would assume it would be 2026 before you start to see that effluent come out at that rate. Okay, great. And one last question, if you don't mind. Just, I, I'm sorry if I missed this, but what was the services backlog as of September? It's in the $22 million range. Okay, great. Thank you very much. All right. Thanks, Brian. Your next question is coming from Ross Taylor with ARS Investment Partners. Please pose your question. Your line is live. Yeah. Gentlemen, I kinda wanna dig into what I think is the real important issues here, which is, you know, we've spent a lot of time in minutiae about contracts, but let's talk about revenues and where we're going. Just a bit ago, you indicated that you should be able to do $90 million-$100 million as kind of a base load. You did $21 million or so this last quarter. You're talking about this next quarter being roughly the same. My math tells me that you're operating, you know, not 80-90% of base load on those two numbers. Why don't we, or what's it gonna take to get to, you know, like, can fourth quarter get to that $23 million-$25 million you need to have to kinda keep your base load where you want it to be? Yeah, you know, I was really speaking more annually, Ross, on that. So, you know, we had a rough Q1 that pulled us down a good bit. But, you know, our goal is to try to hover at a minimum around the 23-25 range every quarter. And that's where our sweet spot is on profitability. Anything below that gets very difficult based on our fixed costs. So, that's typically where we need to be to maximize our EBITDA is the $23 million-$25 million at minimum each quarter. Okay, so... And do you, can you get there? Do you see... You know, you talked about stuff being pushed to the right and the like, do you, can you get there in this current quarter we're in, or is that something we're, we're gonna have to wait? No, I think we're looking at our forecast that the next quarter, as I said, well, should be equally as good as this quarter, if not a little better. We do have several projects starting up, and it's difficult to predict what the revenues and margins will look like as you roll through the quarter on new projects. But right now, it looks pretty promising to see a quarter at least as good as this quarter, and particularly in regards to revenue. So we're optimistic that we will continue to see that come back to the trajectory we had, you know, last couple of quarters as well, and finish out, you know, in the $90 million or close to $90 million range for the year. When I mentioned that goal of $90 million, it's really annualized on a quarterly basis. Mm-hmm. So getting into above 22 or 23 is what we got to be to really be healthy. And as you know, we dipped a little bit below that this quarter because of those, those delays, Yeah. Yeah. Now, in looking at it, it's been a while since we've seen you guys announce a win. You know, you, you had started the year early on talking about what we could be getting out of Hanford and the bid, and that obviously caused a lot of excitement in the name. And since then, we've kind of been stuck waiting for, you know, the Italy operation, for some other Hanford stuff, for things happening. You've talked about the ability to get - you think you can get some new wins or get, you know, some of these decided in this current quarter. How comfortable are you that, you know, your ability to kind of push next year to, with the extra business, to be able to produce $20 million-$30 million or more kind of out of, you know, this non-core load that we just were talking about? Yeah, Ross, what you're really asking about is our growth strategy. And, as I was mentioning, the list of opportunities that we're bidding on, these next two quarters, this quarter and next quarter, are a significant chunk that we haven't seen this many big opportunities that we're really well positioned for with high win probabilities that could literally be awarded by next summer. So with that in mind, I feel very good about where we're heading, and we're very optimistic about it. The way we've retooled our ability to bid these things gives us additional confidence. You know, the JRC, we're very confident on. We're very confident that we'll know in the next week or two. I've been saying that since last December, very aware of that. But it is, it's got to move forward because it's got the remediation contractor has been selected and is ready to mobilize, and they're just waiting for us to be awarded so we can get going. I was over there last week. I was actually there Monday, Tuesday this week, and everything is on track to make an announcement here in the next few weeks. So, we're waiting for that to occur there. Once that happens, as I mentioned before, it opens up a lot of opportunity in Europe... and it begins the implementation of our overall European strategy. As far as OSMS, that's the one that has very significant revenue implications for us, because we have such a big piece of scope defined from the overall contract. Again, there's several bidders. That's, you know, it's got to be considered there. The competition is a lot bigger, and I just can't speculate on when that's gonna be awarded, other than to say, the DOE asked for an 18-day extension into November from the end of October. So when they ask for an extension, it's basically asking you to maintain your costing without change for another 18 days. So I got to believe that that's gonna come out in the next week or so. So we see these things coming. It's been very frustrating for us, not understanding how to plan for them. But in the meantime, you know, the point is, that we're pursuing very, very aggressively other bids and opportunities of the same magnitude, and the same impact, and we're getting on good teams, and providing innovation into the proposals that are needed to win. So I do feel like we're gonna be getting a couple of these nailed down in the next six months, and we'll see those revenues go the direction that we're talking to our investors about. Thanks. Does that answer your question, Ross? Honestly, kind of. I ask because I'm really trying to wrestle with the idea of, you know, we've been kind of—you've been stuck in, and I understand you can't control this, so I'm trying to get an understanding—like, if we get Italy, what does that open up? Because that opens up Europe, that probably opens up Croatia and some other opportunities you've talked about in the past. If Italy comes to pass before the end of the year, could we see $20 million out of Europe next year? It's not necessarily contingent on the JRC. The JRC piece, it has a big impact in that it, we have some agreements for building a plant in England with Westinghouse. And because so much time has gone by, we'll need to revisit that. Right now, again, I met with them last week. That's all still in place. And what it does is provides the backlog for that plant and the ability to move forward with it, which would be able to service all of Europe. Now, to answer your question, that's gonna take several years to build that plant. However, we have worked several additional deals with clients in Europe to begin shipping to us, irrespective of that plant being there, in anticipation of it coming eventually. But, the waste backlog in Germany, in Croatia, in the UK, are all such that they have to start moving those wastes in the near term and are not in a position to wait for that plant. So we anticipate seeing our backlog of international waste grow from where it is right now in the $2 million-$3 million a year range closer to an annualized receipt in the $7 million-$10 million range by the end of 2024. So again, Croatia is a big piece, or excuse me, JRC is a big piece of that, but it's not all contingent on that. In talking to the German clients we have, there's tens of thousands of drums in storage over there that have to be moved, as facilities have reached their capacity, and regulatory drivers force them to move those wastes. And we have been the only successful organization that's been able to take those wastes, treat them in the U.S., and return the residues back successfully. So we remain optimistic on that and really feel that, by the end of 2024, we annualize, we should be close to $10 million a year in revenues from Europe. From Europe. Okay, and then, and then as we obviously, we just are kind of waiting for Godot on these other issues. With that, kind of, what do you think as a baseload, that kind of, you've talked about profitability. Does Europe come in at company average profitability? Correct. Yes, it does. So our, our treatment, our costs that we provide for, or our pricing we provide for the European market is pretty close to what we provide here. And, then you tack on the transportation costs, but, that's pretty much the only options available for most of those folks over there. Okay. Okay, well, I'll let someone come in and ask. Obviously, the soon, you know, it's outside of your control, but obviously, I think you can, you can tell from today's action, investors are getting, you know, are getting frustrated, and we'd love to see some, some tangible signs of, of victory between here and the end of the year to, you know, remind us. Because it strikes me as this is, from what you're saying, this is a calendar play. 2025 should be a pretty powerful year, earnings-wise, as you ramp up everything that's, that's going, and you have a chance to have it be hugely powerful if you pick up an enterprise win and, and some other factors. So thank you very much. You bet, Ross, and we're very sensitive to what you're saying, too. You know, it's very frustrating to us. The department and most of our government agencies typically make announcements on Thursdays. Every Thursday that goes by, we all look at each other and say, "Oh, my gosh, another week's gone by." You know, these bids continue to be out there waiting for an announcement. But all we can do is keep our heads down and keep fighting for new opportunities, and I'm very proud of what we've come up with and the direction we're heading in with those new opportunities that keep those irons in the fire. So I appreciate your support. ... Yeah. Thank you, sir. You take care. Keep working at it. Sure. Thanks. Thanks, Ross. Your next question is coming from William Miller. Please pose your question. Your line is live. Yeah. My question really is, I think all, all of us stockholders understand that we'd be billionaires if writing RFPs and returning to them generated a bottom line, but they don't. So what I'd like to know is, at the end of last quarter, how many RFPs or bids did you have out? Of those who were out, how many were awarded? And of those awarded, how many did you win? You constantly talk about our statistical win percentage, but we, the stockholders, just hear about stuff. So how many bids you got outstanding? How many did you win last quarter? How many did you lose? Let us determine whether you got a future or not. Well, William, I don't have those numbers in front of me, but I can tell you that we have about $700 million in potential revenue, total contract value outstanding. And last quarter, Q3, we actually had a good quarter. We had wins for Niagara Falls, Santa Susana, a couple commercial clients, Vanadium mines, and ion beam at Los Alamos, and the SPRU job. I would estimate that that would be in the 30%-40% range of the number of bids we submitted. So there's two ways to provide an answer to you. One is, what is the percentage of revenue potential that you won, and what is the percentage of number of bids that you've bid? And our goal is typically to get to a 40% win rate on the number of bids that we submit because sometimes you submit a bunch of small ones, and sometimes there's a couple big ones. When you do it the other way, it's not necessarily a value, a statistic versus how many bids you submitted versus how many you win. So we view a 40% win rate as it's kind of industry standard in this business. And we typically are close to that, between 20% and 40%. Sometimes it depends on you know, so which ones the government or whoever the client is have announced and which ones they haven't. So it's difficult to show to answer your question without a lot of caveats and data. So, but we do track that, and we can try to provide a little bit more information on the next call in regards to your question. Your next question is coming from Steven Fine. Please pose your question. Your line is live. Hi, guys. How is everybody? Thanks, Steven. Can you hear me? Because I'm on a speaker. Can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. We can hear you. Okay. How y'all doing? I got a question for, on, on the... I have a lot of questions, but on the depreciation and amortization, why was that so dramatically up? I mean, I'm looking at here that for 2023, depreciation and amortization was $2,124 versus $1,433. Why is that so significantly up? Yeah, Steve, that was a unique situation with our new facility in Oak Ridge. The depreciation we're talking about isn't your typical capital depreciation, it's the closure, closure related. Yeah. There's some closure costs, and the way closure costs work, it's called ARO in accounting lingo, and- Right - goes in as an asset against the liability, and we just needed to ramp up, accelerate the closure number on the balance sheet. You, you would see- Okay. an offsetting asset number. Yeah. So that's just it, it's abhorrent. It's just a one-time deal? Correct. Yeah. It'll slow down now. All right. I do have a bunch of questions. I have not heard about this contaminated waste that's come out of the, that's in the TSCA. So, my question there is, Mark, the fact that it's contaminated, does that change the classification of it? No, it does not change the classification. That, that- It just has a little bit more contamination of a specific kind that is not within the design basis of the DFLAW. Well, can I ask what the contamination was? Is it something that's hard for DOE to handle, or something that they could put again through the TSCA? They can put it again through the TSCA, and try to reduce it. I believe it's a radioisotope. It's high. I thought it was cesium, but I'd have to check the press release. But- I never- It's a contaminant, it's a contaminant from within the tank that they put it in after they ran it through the TSCA. But if they would redo it, would they not have tank problems? ... They'd have to put it in a different tank, so it wouldn't contaminate again. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right, fine. All right, when Howard was initially asking about how long, and I'm, this is, how long, let's say, Hanford would be if they, you know, if they did the vitrification and Perma-Fix got the secondary waste, is it not true that they have to liquefy the waste? So the actual waste is not 59 million gallons, it's probably closer to hundreds of millions of gallons because of the liquefaction, and that's why it would take so long. That's absolutely correct. It's believed to be about 1-3, 1-2.5-3. So for every gallon that you have in the tank, you're having to add a couple gallons of water to get it out. Because most of the tank waste itself is either dry or too in the consistency that's gonna require a slurry to get it out. So you have to add some to remove it. Correct. All right, going... I'm gonna move over to Europe. So you succeed in Europe. Would the people be provided by Westinghouse if you created a plant? Yes. It'd be our technology, Westinghouse's facility, and license. So we have, it would be a joint venture with Westinghouse. It's a joint venture with Westinghouse. Is that 50/50? It's 55-45. Okay. All right. So that, you know, but to me, the real main thing here is, you know, you're joining with somebody who's a big player, and that's fabulous. That's right. All right. With regard to, with regard to, the comments, you know, when we talk about, okay, the vitrification plant goes on, and then there's the secondary waste, and then the secondary waste comes to you per the ROD in, you know, per the ROD in January, you mentioned, and then additionally, you're really the only player. In that ROD, it states that the waste, after you treat it, would go back to Hanford. So my question is, has there been work done that that waste, that secondary waste could go back and be buried in Hanford? For the DFLAW, that's the value that Perma-Fix, one of the value areas that Perma-Fix brings to DOE is, that waste, it will be disposed of at the Hanford landfill as opposed to anywhere else. Which makes non-regional treatment capabilities a lot less attractive, because they'd have to ship out of, you know, out of state, have it treated, and ship it back into state for disposal. That adds the value of it being local, is that DOE has a disposal cell there for this waste. So yeah, it would have to- Excuse me. My real question was, can it be disposed in Hanford if you get the secondary waste? The secondary waste has to be disposed of in Hanford, as long as it meets the WAC for the landfill. Okay. All right. All right, I just wanted to... Okay, I think all my questions were answered. But, I've been, you know, assiduously listening to you guys since, somewhere, I think, in 2016. And I remember when you came on, Mark, there was a period somewhere in 2018 or 2019 where you kept saying, "We're getting there. We're going to move towards $100 million," and then, you achieved it. And I remember the stock moved, and so when I look at history, when I look back at history, and having been a, you know, like I always say, I was a hazardous chemical manufacturer, so I do understand what you encounter, but I, I do take your statements so positively that, you know, 'cause I've learned to listen to you when you're, you've always been very transparent, that when you say that there'll be, that you do see the possibility that there will be this base of $90 million-$100 million. And that is so critical because that then covers your overhead and so forth and gives you breathing room. And then all these other things I look at as, you know, hey, the potential is just so great and, you know, my strategy when I was in business was to have a base business to pay for my business and just keep pushing, and then what happens is, something happens that you know just changes the status quo. That's the reality. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, I look at this very positively. You know, you're clearly diversifying, you're clearly, you know, bidding more, and at the same time, you're saying that you do see a vision that you could get to a, you know, a solid base, which is the key, that you're paying your bills. And then when someone of these other circumstances occur, then, you know, here we go. So, you know, again, I commend you guys, and, you know, I think it's hard. It's hard. The world's hard, but, you know, you're taking big leaps, and that's all. So anyway, thank you. All right. Thank you, Steven. Appreciate it. Unfortunately, that's all the questions we have time for today. I would now like to turn the floor over to Mark Duff for any closing remarks. Okay, thank you. I'd like to thank everyone for participating in our third quarter conference call. We remain extremely confident in the outlook of our business, and we appreciate the continued support of our shareholders and look forward to providing further updates, as developments unfold. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. This does conclude today's conference call. You may disconnect your phone lines at this time, and have a wonderful day. Thank you for your participation.