Greetings. Welcome to the Perma-Fix Q4 and Fiscal 2024 Business Update Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. A question and answer session will follow the former presentation. If anyone should require operator assistance during the conference, please press star zero on your telephone keypad. Please note this conference is being recorded. I will now turn the conference over to your host, David Waldman, Investor Relations at Perma-Fix. David, you may begin. Thank you and good morning, everyone and welcome to Perma-Fix Environmental Services Q4 and Year End 2024 Conference Call. On the call with us this morning are Mark Duff, President and CEO, Dr. Louis Centofanti, Executive Vice President of Strategic Initiatives, and Ben Naccarato, Chief Financial Officer. The company issued a press release this morning containing Q4 2024 f inancial 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, today's discussion will include references 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, Marc. All right. Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. As we close out 2024, we acknowledge that it was a challenging year, primarily due to ongoing yet temporary delays in project starts, procurement cycles, and waste receipts, largely driven by the continuing resolution for the federal budget. These headwinds persisted into the Q4, leading to revenue shortfalls. However, it's important to emphasize that these challenges do not reflect our long-term outlook. Towards this end, I'm pleased to report that we're already seeing improvement in Q1. Our waste treatment backlog has strengthened, and we expect a meaningful increase from Q4 levels. Waste volumes are improving, and we have added plant operating shifts at key facilities to meet rising demands. This progress, combined with improving project visibility, positions us for a return to growth and profitability in 2025, with particularly strong second half as key programs ramp up. One of the most significant contributors to our expected growth is the Direct Feed Low-Activity Waste program, also known as DFLAW at Hanford, which remains on track to begin initial tank waste treatment operations this summer. DOE has reaffirmed its legally binding milestone of August 1, when waste treatment activities are expected to commence, which would mark a major milestone for the industry. Our Perma-Fix Northwest facility is well positioned to support effluent treatment from Hanford's vitrification process. We've already initiated design and planning activities to ensure we can meet DOE's requirements as waste volumes scale up. The long-term opportunity associated with this program projects to support up to 8,000 cubic meters annually, with ramp-ups expected in phases over the next 2 or 3 years. Additionally, we continue to pursue subcontracting opportunities under the Integrated Tank Disposition Contract at Hanford, also known as the ITDC, a multi-billion dollar project with significant small business participation requirements. As DOE finalizes its broader tank waste remediation strategy, we believe Perma-Fix is well positioned to play a key role in supporting these efforts. We're also beginning to see the results of our expansion in the industrial waste market under the leadership of our Perma-Fix Florida facility. This focus has included broadening our client base to larger government contracts for industrial hazardous materials and waste streams within the Southeast region that could benefit from our experience in treatment and disposition. On the government contracting side, while federal budget delays impacted procurement cycles in Q4, we remain well positioned for upcoming DOE and DOD opportunities. One of our most significant recent wins is our role in DOE's West Valley Demonstration Project, a 10-year multi-billion dollar contract which began its transition in Q1. This project aligns with our expertise in radiological protection and waste management. We expect revenue contributions from this project to scale through 2025 as the project is further defined and work transitions into execution, which is expected to be completed and be operational in early Q3. In addition, our USS Enterprise decommissioning procurement bid submitted in January remains a highly competitive opportunity, and we anticipate a decision by mid-year. We're also pursuing pipeline opportunities anticipated to be awarded in 2025 at DOE's Y-12 facility, at Lawrence Livermore and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab facilities, and other DOD sites, which would contribute to a robust multi-year growth pipeline. While procurement cycles remain impacted by federal budget uncertainties, we remain optimistic about our positioning for these projects as funding stabilizes. To navigate ongoing federal budget uncertainties, we've proactively implemented cost reduction measures within our nuclear services segment. These actions are designed to align our expenses with our revenue backlog while ensuring flexibility as procurement cycles stabilize. While uncertainty remains in regards to the budget adjustment that may impact some of our larger DOE and DOD clients, we remain confident that these impacts will have limited effect on the DFLAW effluent waste receipts due to the commitment for DOE to maintain the Tri-Party Agreement scheduled for this summer to begin operations. In addition, with the likely adoption of a continuing resolution through the rest of this year by Congress, existing budgets are anticipated to remain steady at least through Q4 and limit the impact on waste receipts overall in 2025. As part of our long-term strategy to diversify revenue, we continue expanding our presence in the international market with particular progress in Canada, Mexico, and Europe. The JRC project, which is the one in Italy, remains on track with final permit and program documents submitted in December to support treatment operations beginning in late 26. I'd like now to turn to our PFAS destruction technology, which represents one of the most promising areas of growth for Perma-Fix. Over the past 4 months, our Perma-FAS system has operated at commercial scale, successfully meeting performance expectations as we continue to optimize operations and refine the engineering parameters for the design of a larger system. We are now beginning to focus on the development of the second-generation Perma-FAS unit, which we expect will triple processing capacity and incorporate chemical recycling capabilities to improve overall efficiency. Currently scheduled for deployment in late Q3, this unit will have the capacity to process nearly 2,000 gallons of high-concentration PFAS liquids daily. Unlike many existing solutions that only concentrate PFAS waste, our Perma-FAS system permanently destroys these compounds in an economical and environmentally friendly manner, creating a clear differential from other approaches. In parallel, we're expanding our R&D efforts to develop PFAS treatment solutions for contaminated soil and filter media, with pilot scale demonstrations planned for Q2. While we're highly optimistic about the long-term potential of this technology, it's important to point out that our PFAS initiatives have required substantial investment, impacting our financial results. However, we believe these efforts are critical to positioning Perma-FAS, Perma-Fix as a leader in PFAS destruction. On one final note, I'm pleased to announce that Perma-Fix has strengthened its executive leadership team with the recent appointment of Troy Eshelman as our Chief Operating Officer, effective January 23, 2025. Troy brings extensive experience in nuclear and environmental services, and his leadership will be instrumental in optimizing our operations and executing our growth strategy. Looking ahead, we expect a return to growth and profitability in 2025, driven by a solid backlog, improving project execution, and key initiatives gaining momentum. Again, these several factors that support this outlook include strengthening backlog and improved waste treatment volumes, the ramp-up of the DFLAW program at Hanford, expansion of our PFAS treatment capabilities with the Gen2 Perma-FAS deployment in late Q3, key contract wins including West Valley and multiple DOE/DOD opportunities, and ongoing cost discipline to reduce our cost of goods sold, ensuring flexibility and navigating federal procurement cycles as well. To wrap up, we're entering 2025 with strong fundamentals and improving revenue trajectory and major opportunities ahead with our improving backlog, expanding market presence, and innovative technology solutions. We're confident in our ability to drive profitable growth and long-term value for our shareholders. With that, I'll turn the call over to Ben Naccarato to discuss our financial results in more detail. Ben? Thanks, Marc. Starting with revenue, our total revenue from continuing ops from the Q4 was $14.7 million compared to last year's Q4 of $22.7 million. That's a decrease of $8 million or 35.2%. Treatment segment was down $1.4 million, while the services segment was down $6.6 million. In the treatment segment, the shortfall was attributed to lower volume as well as lower average pricing of our waste. The reasons for this impact varied from hurricanes in Florida, lower margin waste mix throughout the plants, our investment in R&D efforts on our PFAS technology, as well as certain waste receipts and shipments that were rescheduled into 2025. The services segment revenue drop was consistent with the rest of the year, which was lack of large projects to replace the larger ones that came to an end in 23. For the year ended 2024, our revenue was $59.1 million compared to $89.7 million in 23, that drop of $30.6 million or 34.1%. The drop in revenue at treatment was $8.5 million, and services revenue was down $22.1 million. Again, as with the quarter, both our reporting segments had substantial revenue decreases, with the treatment segment revenue being impacted by poor weather, prolonged effects of the continuing resolution, equipment maintenance issues, and the R&D and our PFAS technology. The services segment, again, continued to feel the effects of continuing resolution as many procurement awards expected to happen in the year were delayed or postponed. Turning to our gross profit, for Q4, our gross profit was $594,000 compared to $4.3 million in 2023. Our gross profit in the treatment segment decreased by $1.9 million due to the lower revenue and higher labor and regulatory expenses at the plants. Our services segment gross profit was below prior year by $1.8 million, mostly due to the lower revenue and also lower margin projects offset by lower fixed costs related to labor reductions. For the year ended 2024, our gross profit was down $16.4 million. Both reporting segments' gross profit were impacted by lower revenue as well as lower margin waste and projects. Our fixed costs were up at the plants, primarily from labor costs, but partially offset by lower costs in the service labor costs in the service segment. Our G&A costs for the quarter were $3.9 million compared to $4 million in the Q4 last year, while our G&A for the full year was $14.5 million compared to $15 million in 2023. G&A expenses for the quarter were down slightly from lower trade shows, sales commissions, incentives, bank charges, and travel. These overall lower costs were slightly offset by higher marketing salaries and other general expenses. Similar to the quarter, our G&A costs were down for the year from lower sales-related expenses, incentive expenses, legal fees, and offset by higher wages and general expenses. Our net loss for the quarter was $3.5 million compared to last year's net income of $81,000. For the year ended December 31, 2024, our net loss was $20 million compared to net income of $485,000 in the prior year. Note that our 2024 net loss included approximately $8.2 million of income tax expense related to our full valuation allowance established against our U.S. deferred tax assets, which, of course, is non-cash. Our basic and diluted net loss per share for the quarter was $0.22 compared to income per share last year of $0.01. Our loss per share for the year ended 12/31/24 was $1.33 per share compared to income per share of $0.04 in 2023. Our EBITDA for the continuing operations in the quarter, as we defined in this morning's press release, was a loss of $3 million compared to income of $434,000 last year. For the year ended 2024, EBITDA loss was $13.8 million compared to income of $3.3 million in 23. Turning to some balance sheet items compared to last year's, our cash on the balance sheet sits at $29 million compared to $7.5 million year-end 2023. This increase, of course, is primarily from our net proceeds received from the equity raises in May and December of 24. Our receivables and unbilled receivables collectively were down $1.6 million due to lower revenues in the service segment compared to last year, offset by higher accounts receivable that have been or are expected to be collected in 2025. Our net property and equipment was up $2.1 million from cap spending, which included the construction of our PFAS reactor. Intangibles and other assets were down $3 million, primarily due to the full valuation allowance established against the company's deferred tax asset. Our current liabilities were down $4 million from timing of payments and decreased operating costs. As of December 2024, our treatment backlog was $7.9 million, which is down from $10.7 million at the end of 23. Our total debt for the quarter is $2.5 million, excluding debt issuance costs, and that's mostly owed to our PNC Bank. Our working capital sits at $28.2 million compared to $4.5 million last year. Finally, I'll summarize cash flow activity. Our cash used by continuing operations was $14.1 million. Our cash used by discontinued operations was $597,000. Our cash used for investing of continuing operations was $4.1 million, primarily for cap spending and permits. Cash used for investing in discontinued operations was $51,000. Cash provided by financing was $41 million. This represents proceeds from the 2 equity raises of $41.9 million, receipts from options and warrant exercises of $292,000, less payments to our term and capital loans of $832,000, and payments to our finance leases and other debt of $364,000. With that, I'll now turn the call over to the operator for questions. Thank you. At this time, we'll be conducting a question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press Star 1 on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press Star 2 if you would like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the Star keys. One moment, please, while we pull for questions. The first question today is coming from Aaron Spychalla from Craig-Hallum. Aaron, your line is live. Yeah. Hi, Marc and Ben. Thanks for taking the questions. Maybe first for me, just on with the federal impact, you kind of touched on it in the near term, but with the budget delays and potential this weekend, some progress there. Can you just kind of talk about how you see that impacting the near term if we see another CR and then just some of these larger opportunities? Sounds like West Valley on the services side can still move forward and also optimistic on Hanford. Just if you could elaborate on the federal picture, that'd be great. Sure. Aaron, appreciate your question. This is a very complex answer, but let me start with the potential of a shutdown, government shutdown. Right now, just to kind of make sure everyone's aware, our position is if there's a shutdown, it'll be very limited impact to Perma-Fix if it's less than 2 weeks, which it usually is. That's because we have a good enough backlog. We have very little revenue associated on government sites. We do have some cleanup projects that could have a limited duration of impact, but for the most part, it's minor. If it's more than 2 weeks, we still have a very strong backlog for a quarter on the waste treatment side, and we might see some more impacts on procurements and those types of things if it's over a couple of weeks. We generally feel like a shutdown would not have a dramatic impact on us if it's as long as they usually are. As far as the CR goes, CRs are not good for us. A lot of times, the government puts things on hold and those types of things. One thing good about a CR in this situation is there's no budget cuts in the CR or not likely to be. There's a couple of plus-ups here and there that we're expecting at several different sites depending on which bill gets considered in the final in regards to the different funding of different sites and projects. Most of the projects we're chasing on the services side are funded. We just had our annual waste management conference this past week in Arizona. I met with many of our clients, and 3 out of the 5 projects that we expected to see this summer are still moving forward irrespective of the budget or the CR. We expect a limited impact. There was always some from CRs, but we do not expect a lot. We do have some uncertainty associated with what 26 looks like. We are confident, as I mentioned in the notes, that the DFLAW program and the Hanford Closure Program as a whole would see very little impact to our scope of work. There will likely be some reductions in force across the board, as it will everywhere. As far as the commitments the DOE has made in the Tri-party Agreement, which is that agreement that DOE signs with the state and EPA, it is a legally binding agreement and was mentioned at the Secretary of Energy Chris Wright's Senate hearings. He gave a commitment to maintain those milestones and strategy. I do expect that to have very limited impact to the budget for 2026. Again, that's speculation based on our discussions with DOE and the contractors in Hanford, but it certainly lines up with the overall priorities of the DOE program. Overall, we don't have any idea, again, what those reductions might look like as far as they trickle down to projects. One thing we do know from the meetings last week is that the DOE said in several different conferences and meetings publicly that this administration, particularly in the environmental management side of the house and NNSA side of the house, which is the weapons program, has very much a bias towards execution and doing things cheaper. Commercialization, which is what we offer, is a big part of that. We're excited about where it's going. Again, as you've seen on TV many times, there may be some disruption along the way, but right now, we are excited to see a bias towards execution, which typically means waste generation. Did I get all your answer? Right. No, it does. It does. Thanks for the color there, Marc. Maybe second for me, just on DFLAW, good to hear and see kind of progress towards that legally obligated startup by August. Can you just kind of talk about how you kind of see the potential startup there in phases and just how you're preparing the business there at the Richland plant and what you're doing kind of operationally to get ready? Sure. Right now, the DFLAW facility is going through what they call an Operational Readiness Review, which is a very stringent review by engineering experts, independent experts in most cases, where they come through and they just check absolutely everything. They've already done similar reviews already, so this is not the first time they're going through that, but this is the final one. The Operational Readiness Review will generate a list of findings. Once all those findings are addressed sufficiently for the team, they'll move towards a startup. We expect that, again, to be on track. DOE has made, in several cases, statements that it is on track, so there's no reason to believe that it's not. We haven't heard any feedback about the ORR and what the findings might be looking like as they come up. Most likely it'll be towards the end of when it's completed, which will be in the next several months. It seems to be on track. DOE had mentioned again in this conference this past week that it's among their highest priorities to keep Hanford moving forward with the investments they've made there over the long term. As far as how it's phased in, there's no official document that says we're going to be getting a certain amount of waste on a certain date. From talking to engineers informally, they're expecting it to start to begin at like 40% of its design capacity. It may be a little bit more, maybe less. I would expect it to be a little less than that, but it'll start off a little bit slow. They have 3 years legally to ramp up to full capacity. Their intention is to ramp up much faster than that. They have about a million gallons of backlog, which is one full year of full operations if they're running at full capacity the whole time. They have the backlog in a tank ready to go, and we would expect it to go faster than that overall. We're not sure how much of each waste stream we will be receiving in regards to quantity and value and those kinds of things, but we do expect to start receiving waste in mid-Q3 time, certainly sometime in August, September. It seems to be on track and moving forward overall. Again, what's happening between now and the end of the year is still a lot of waiting to see how it works out, but it seems to be on track. Understood. Maybe just an update on investments at the plant from an operations and kind of equipment standpoint. Yeah. We are upgrading the plant in several different ways with new equipment on the radiation protection side of the house. We're putting in some, we're currently in the final design phases for the upgrades we need to make to address some of the different waste streams, particularly with liquids. We've hired a number of people to assist with that to make sure we've got the personnel in place to be able to handle it as well and finish those upgrades. We have not spent a lot of capital at this point, but we will be here through the next 12 months. As we see what types of waste streams we're going to be getting and how much of each, we do have the capacity to handle a good bit of what we expect to receive, at least when it starts up. We don't see an impact for the summer as far as what our capacity is now. We can go to multiple shifts if we need to address it, and we don't see that as being an issue for the waste streams we initially anticipate receiving. We are making progress and have had some, again, brought the resources all we need to start implementing. All right. Thanks for that. Maybe last for me on PFAS, can you just kind of talk about what the costs have been kind of thus far, how you see those trending in 2025, and just kind of how that growth shapes up for this year and into 2026 as you develop that second-generation unit? I know you've talked a little bit about potential partnerships, so if you can maybe just elaborate there, please. Yeah. I'll let Ben address our costs and where we're heading in the next couple of quarters. I can talk about where we are with the partnerships in a little more detail on that. Ben, you want to address the costs? Yeah. In 24, we probably used about $3 million, which translates from $2 million of cash for CapEx for the reactor and about $1 million and change for R&D. Projections are much higher for 25 with Gen2. We forecast around $5 million, which would include both the R&D and CapEx spending. That is kind of the financial impact of where it is going, and I'll push back to Marc on production. Okay. Yeah. As far as production goes, we do continue to operate. It's important to understand that while it's commercially viable and it is generating revenue, we are operating slowly. As Lou Centofanti continues to remind me, it is continuing to be an R&D program where every batch we're taking extensive analytical sample analysis on. We understand the performance. We're also having to define the parameters for the wide variations of PFAS itself, different concentrations, but more importantly, all different types of other constituents in the waste that we're receiving, the liquid waste we're receiving. We continue to upgrade our facility. We have a world-renowned partner on now helping us with improving our design in the back end of our Gen 1 system that's operating, what we call the distillation unit. That same company is helping us with the final design of our Gen 2 as well. We are receiving lots and lots of samples from different companies, partners, potential partners, and working through those. A couple we're particularly excited about are large volume generators that would have sustainable waste streams. We're working through their samples now with Gen 1, with all kind of focus on Gen 2, again, as I mentioned, being running in Q3 to be able to handle a large quantity of waste and keep up with significant backlog. We do continue moving forward every day on it. Again, as I mentioned, we are generating revenue. It's not dramatic at this point because it's so methodical and there's so much data associated with the analytical side of the house and reports and reporting on how we're performing. We are making significant progress and gaining new clients all the time. We expect to be getting waste here in the near term from DOE, as well as we've gotten samples from DOD as well, and about a dozen different, maybe 15 large companies on the commercial side, along with some smaller ones. We continue moving forward with the program with the objective of getting to a more operational state in the next quarter. All right. Thanks for the color. I'll turn it over. Okay. Thanks, Aaron. Thank you. The next question will be from Ross Taylor from ARS Investment. Ross, your line is live. Thank you. I'd like to follow up on some of what Aaron was asking you guys about. First, you talked about the idea of needing about $5 million additional to build out the Gen 2 Perma-FAS. What do you see the economics being on Gen 2 Perma-FAS? You were talking about number of gallons you'd be able to deal with and like, but kind of on a dollar, if I'm going to model this, what kind of money should I expect? What do you see getting a gallon? What kind of operating margin do you expect to get on a per-gallon basis? Yeah. Thanks for the question, Ross. Yeah. Our goal in our design of Gen 2 has been to ensure that we can easily define our revenue at about $5 million a quarter. Again, we're still going through different scenarios, whether we have one reactor or two reactors, and how fast it can go, and can it go multiple shifts, those types of things. Our goal, to answer your question, is to get to $5 million in revenue a quarter as a baseline. Like the rest of our waste treatment programs, our goal is to be able to maintain the similar type of 70% margin incrementally above fixed as we do with some of our other waste streams. That's generally where we are. The money that Ben talked about will be for fabrication of that new system as well as installation. Installation is quite expensive as well with the power requirements and the permitting and facility upgrades we need to do to install it. That is all expected to be completed, as we said, by end of Q3. Okay. That is all in that $5 million cash burn or cash investment you expect in the PFAS project for this calendar year? That's correct. At the same time, we are spending money on other things as well. For example, Gen 1, the upgrades, we actually call it Gen 1.5. Gen 1, we are working with this design company to make it better. It will be operating as well. It's not like it's just an R&D unit. Once we make the upgrades to that this summer, it'll continue operating at about 650 gallons a day. Lou and his team, which is a substantial team of PhD chemists, continue to work on the soils and GAC filtration media to continue moving the ball forward with those applications and design for a unit that we can fabricate sometime in 26. Are you going to, as you move forward with Gen 2 for a market use, are you going to use Gen 1 as basically your laboratory? As much as it takes to get to a Gen 2 that's operational to meet the demands we need, I've sat on these calls and investor meetings that Gen 1 is up and operating. It's running 100 miles an hour. It's going great. One thing that's been determined is the technology works very well. There are so many engineering parameters that go into this in regards to the chemistry and the heating processes and the pressure, how long do we cook versus how low do you want to get in concentrations? All the analytical requirements go along with this. It's a lot of variables. Yes, to answer your question, our goal is to learn from this Gen 1, but we are getting nearer to the end of the R&D portion of that where we should be able to get to more sustainable throughput here in the next few months once we can document and verify the performance based on the analytical. To answer your question, I always kind of see this being a test unit that we'll try new things on, but we are improving it all the time as well. We do see it being a contributed revenue in a bigger way beginning the second half of the year. Okay. With regard to Hanford, you talked about the idea that you got kind of a million gallon a year kind of full-rate run rate out of DFLAW, and you think you start about 40% of that, which would be around 33,000, 34,000 gallons a month. If you get a chance, if you're running at the rate you expect on DFLAW at year-end, is that enough on its own to get the company to cash flow break even, pre-cash flow break even? Yeah. Let me make sure you understand. It's a common misunderstanding is the waste you're going to be getting from DFLAW is not all liquid. In fact, it's probably less than 25%. There's a lot of solids, a lot of other things besides the liquid program, which we typically refer to as brine. To answer your question as far as getting cash positive, we do expect to be very close to cash positive once it starts rolling. We haven't budgeted for 40%. In other words, we budgeted much less than that, and we've assumed much less than that to get started. If we can get 40% of the 8,000 cubic meters a year as far as an annualized throughput, we'll be doing great. We've assumed internally that it's going to be a little bit lower than that, and we should be fine with that. We're also starting to get other waste streams in larger volumes from Hanford right now. There's starting to increase from other programs at Hanford. As I mentioned, a new contractor that took over the ITDC contract is working very closely with us to increase our role there. Between that and DFLAW, we're very confident we should be cash positive by the end of Q3. Okay. When we are looking at that, do you need any CapEx, anything else out of Hanford to get Hanford to where it needs to be as they push this program into operation? Ross, this is Ben. I think the answer to that is at this time, after the raise we did in, that includes upgrade at Hanford in that number. At this time, that would be a no. Okay. Can I ask a philosophical question? It's generally when companies have a core business and you have, I kind of look at Pepsi as a core business and a bunch of call options hanging on it. You got DFLAW and Vit. You got grouting. You mentioned today the enterprise is potentially back alive. We've got Europe. We've got PFAS. You got a lot of these kinds of call options around it. Generally, you'd like to see a company operate its core business at break-even or better. So it basically covers the cost of being a public company. You guys have struggled with that. What needs to be done to get that core business to where it doesn't pull capital out of the company, but instead basically can keep the company at a capital level, a constant capital level? Quite honestly, is there a thought at some point that you monetize that and just keep these other call option aspects? Because quite honestly, I think what people are thought for. Yeah, Ross, this has driven the management team crazy is that we had all these wonderful initiatives, and it was all based on somewhat a break-even base business, and that's what you're talking about. As I've mentioned before, that base business really for us is $80 million a year, $20 million of quarterly revenue. It's been a shock to us that we haven't been able to maintain that. I don't think it's an industry trend. Certainly from the conference we had last week, no one else does either. It's just procurements have been delayed. Waste receipts were delayed for a period of time. They're starting to pick back up. It somewhat has to do with leadership in Washington changing and just the slowness from people working from home, frankly. That's Mark Duff's opinion. The bottom line is that return to work has been very refreshing. All of our federal clients are all back in the office for the first time in 4 years. We have a lot more optimism. The bottom line is that we have struggled. Again, we're running around $60 million in revenue. $80 million is where we got to be. We know that we're doing everything we can to cut our costs while doing everything we can to grow and t hat was just obviously a difficult challenge but w e're seeing improvements, particularly on the waste receipt side of the services side. There was optimism, but it's low. As I mentioned, we've cut a significant amount of G&A out of our services group until we can get that revenue backlog built back up so it doesn't drain us. We're hopeful that we can get back to that $20 million a quarter in revenue beginning the second half of the year. We're very focused on your exact concept that you just brought up. We put a lot of emphasis and time in the management team to get that revenue back up to $20 million. If we can't, to get our costs low enough where we can at least be breaking even until these things start taking off that we've discussed and started to. Yeah. That would obviously be a huge step because it would remove the need to end the thread of we had pretty diluted financing last year. I think that's been an area of great frustration. No. It sounds like summarizing the year, you're seeing some positive trend or summarizing your outlook into this year, you're seeing some positive trends in your core business that you think should help drive up that revenue line. Whether it gets to the 20th quarter you need or not is an open question, but it should be getting better as we push forward. At the same time, you see moving by the end of the year, Q4, we should be seeing perhaps Gen 2 Perma-FAS in the marketplace operating at the levels you kind of talked about. At the same time, also Hanford, the DFLAW operating at introductory levels, initial levels, and the like in ramping. What you're seeing is that all that comes together by the end of this year, you expect to be not just producing earnings, but producing free cash flow as well t hen 26 should be a year that sees some huge wins in it. That's right. That's right. Along the way, we did have our base model. In 23, we did pretty good. We did $4 million or $5 million. It was around $4 million in EBITDA. We know what it feels like. We did not expect this to happen, but it is certainly what we saw for 24. As you know, Ross, we predicted 24 to be kind of a rebuilding year, but we do expect at least a break even through the year with these growth initiatives. Okay. You got a lot on your plate. Let's hope that the Japanese thing goes to get 80% full. All right. Thanks, Ross. Take care. Thank you. Once again, it is Star One if you wish to ask a question on today's call. The next question will be from Bob Goodwin from Larkspur Capital. Bob, your line is live. Hi. It's Bob Goodwin. We at Larkspur invited you guys, I guess, 20 years ago. So we know Lou quite well. The question I have as it relates to PFAS and when the EPA put the 8 chemicals on their list, we did a little bit more work and worked with the engineers reviewing various technologies to eliminate these forever chemicals. Basic comment was they loved the throughput turnaround time, and they loved the low temperature. We're heavily involved with geothermal, so we're talking to all the service providers to that end. I think your biggest market is frac, followed by fertilizers that are created by waste treatment plants. There's articles recently about forever chemicals causing problems. The other thing is, can you create a mobile unit? Yeah. We have looked at that, Bob, as far as the mobile unit goes. We believe that right now, it's not that big of a unit. It's a little bigger than a skid mount could support, but not that much. We could do a mobile unit. We need to work out a couple of issues with our distillation portion of it when it comes out as effluent. It's certainly something that's not far-fetched. If we look at our competitors, particularly supercritical water oxidation, it's a monstrosity of a unit. It takes enormous amounts of power and energy. Ours doesn't, as you mentioned. We can be supported by a mobile generator, but that's certainly in the plans. Lou, do you have anything you want to add to that? Yes. Hey, Bob. Good hearing from you. Hey, how are you doing? Good. Good. Yeah. No, when we get to some of the media, especially like soils, it will be a mobile system. On the liquid side, it can easily be put into a mobile operation as we now envision it. That will all depend on the market and how much clients have and what it makes sense. The soils one definitely will be a mobile unit. Yeah. We'll be able to do it at our facility. We'll be able to do it at our facility. In the long run, the better approach is go to the site, treat the soil, and leave it there. That's exactly right. The geothermal data centers need gobs amount of power. The best thing to do is put a data center next to the geothermal site. In your case, you've got frac water. After the announcement, a lot of the frac water has been put into 55-gallon drums on site because of the forever chemicals contained therein. The fracking operation doesn't last that long. That's why I thought a mobile unit, the extent you have it, could recycle that water. Yeah. Our thoughts when we look at that is when we've got clients that have stuff in drums, is it better to go to their site or is it better to take it to a fixed facility? It will all depend on volumes. Very large volumes, it'd probably be better to move a unit there. Our system can easily be put on a mobile unit when it's really getting to the second generation. As we sit today, we're seeing a lot of smaller volumes coming from a lot of different clients. That's growing fairly dramatically as we sit here. We've had great experience with clients looking at our system and saying, "Wow, that's the way to go. Have you talked to the water treatment plants that create the fertilizer? Yes. We're involved on biosolids. We've looked at it. We can treat biosolids. That's a little more complicated. I think the soil systems at this stage are really what we see as the simplest approach to adapt our technology to. The biosolids, the advantage we have is our reagents are all environmentally benign. Whatever you're treating, you put it back on the ground, it should not be a problem with our reagents. They're not environmentally hazardous. Yeah. One of the comments I got from, just to reiterate, I got from one of the big service providers is if you use incineration, you can create other problems. They did not like it. The throughput was the other thing. I think frac and the wastewater treatment that creates fertilizer, I think those are two huge opportunities for you. No, we agree. We're doing a lot of work on not only using a mobile unit, but also the thoughts of trying to do in-situ treatment. That, again, is much further down the road in terms of. Yeah. That's a logistical financial analysis in terms of where is it better to do it. I applaud your work on this because it's. Of all the technologies we've ever developed, I've never seen one that has such broad potential applications in so many markets. We're drowning in opportunity. I think the fracking, given what Trump wants to do, is going to only increase. You guys are in a really good position. If you have any stuff you could send out so you could periodically keep me in the loop, I might be able to help you with some of my contacts. No, I sure will. Thanks, Bob. Great. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. The next question is coming from Ron Richards. Ron is a Private Investor. Ron, your line is live. Hi. I saw an article that came out yesterday says that DOE is planning large-scale grouting at Hanford. DOE managers at the Hanford site in Washington State are talking with commercial providers on whether grouting should be done locally. They would make a decision by the end of the year. I was wondering if you had any comment on that article. Ron, yes. I just saw that this morning. DOE had an industry day in February in Richland, right near the Hanford facility, followed by a tour of the facility. There were 4 or 5 participants in industry day. Each participant had an opportunity to address a number of questions in a private session presentation, as well as present your position. We presented ours as the only existing facility that could support this. We were able to address the fact that we could reach a 3 million gallon a year grouting capability within 24 months of notice received. In other words, right now, we can do 400,000 gallons a year with current capacity and current permits. We'd have to modify our permit and add some additional capacity for storage and that type of thing, which would take about 24 months. DOE is moving forward with the grouting program. As we've mentioned in prior calls, they are committed to doing 22 tanks to treat those tanks and then grout them commercially and dispose of them off-site and have all those 22 tanks done by 2040. 2040 seems like a long ways away, but 15 years, when you look at 3 million gallons a year, it's a lot of capacity. We still feel like we're the strongest candidate. The alternatives are to build a facility on-site, which DOE has estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars and take quite a long time to get through the permitting, as well as the construction by the federal government. The other alternative is to ship the untreated liquid waste out of state to Texas and Utah. Again, we still feel very strongly that based on this administration's common-sense approach to execution of projects, that our existing facility right outside the gate of Hanford will be the optimal one to move forward with. Okay. All right. Thanks for the call on that. Thank you, bet. Thank you, Ron. Thank you. The next question is coming from Steven Fine from SoFine LLC. Steven, your line is live. Hi, guys. How are you? Good morning, Steve. Hi. One point is on the other tanks where they would put it into containers. What's the expectation of when that would happen? I'm talking in Hanford. Yeah. That's a difficult question, Steve. Right now, it's looking like a couple of years to get through some regulatory documents, some NEPA documents, those kinds of things. DOE, again, under this new contract, is looking to accelerate that. Right now, they haven't published an updated schedule in regard to grouting. The last time it was published was the Hanford System Plan 10 document, which had a January 26 date in it. There's no way they're going to meet that. In the next couple of years, there's an opportunity to begin this. If it started out slowly, it could happen quickly, and it could get rolling quickly. There's some regulatory requirements that DOE has to get through and some discussions with some negotiations with the regulators as well in regards to permitting. Right now, I would estimate that they'll be loading these totes from the TSCR, the new TSCR, what they call the WARM, W-A-R-M. That's just a larger scale system to remove the magnesium and strontium, excuse me, cesium, so that they can transport it safely. That will take a couple of years as well. We wouldn't expect them to be transporting much along this line before 27. With the dilution of the tanks at Hanford, I mean, we're talking what, 100 million-200 million gallons that has to be processed versus the 56 million gallons that are there? That's a real difficult calculation, Steve. Every tank is going to be different. Generally, yes. It's going to take two or three gallons of liquid to get every gallon out of the tanks. Generally, that's right. If you look at it that way, again, just off the cuff, 150 million gallons of actual waste would have to be treated between the DFLAW program and the grouting program and the high-level waste program. It takes a couple of gallons to get every gallon out. Where I'm going with that is that presuming, let's say, it took them 8-10 years to build a grouting plant out there, they'd still need you because there's so much. My last question is on PFAS, which is very, very exciting. Now, PFAS, let me make the analogy. I mean, obviously, I've been sitting here since 16 watching the paradigm of vitrification versus grouting, if you will. The PFAS does not have that, it's an additive thing. In other words, it adds to the present situation. It's not in opposition to the existing way they do it now. It's totally new and i s it being accepted that way by your competitors? I'm not sure your question, Steve, as far as. My question is, are your competitors accepting the PFAS as totally novel, totally additive, and something that would enhance their operations as opposed to it being a threat? We're seeing a very our competitors are not our normal competitors. If you look at some of the companies that are starting up with technologies, they're either adopting supercritical water oxidation, which has been around a long time, or they have something new that they're developing, and they're companies you've never heard of. We're not seeing the typical competitors we have with Energy Solutions or WCS in the radioactive waste management business spending a lot of money on this. You do see Clean Harbors with their incinerator and a few similar to that. We're not seeing people looking at a really large swath of economical, high-volume ability to treat high-concentration waste. Now, what you will see we are seeing is several firms building systems that can concentrate PFAS in liquids, which is important. That's something we don't do. In other words, a leachate that comes out of a landfill that might generate 100,000 gallons a day of water coming off the leachate that's PFAS contaminated, what they have capabilities of doing is concentrating those 100,000 gallons- 1,000 gallons in a matter of a day. It doesn't destroy it. Those are the clients that we're chasing right now, the companies that are doing the concentration, who treat large quantities of water, but they're generating theoretically 1,000 gallons a day of high-concentrate PFAS liquids that we could sustainably treat for them on a regular basis. It's really. After you treat it? I'm sorry. Yeah. After we treat it. After you treat it, where does it go? It's viewed as an industrial wastewater. It is not a hazardous waste, and it can be disposed of or deep well injected or sent to a landfill. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. There are no other questions in queue at this time. I would now like to hand the call back to the Perma-Fix management team for closing remarks. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. As we move forward in 2025, we remain focused on executing our strategic initiatives, driving our operational efficiencies, and expanding our market presence. The improvement in our backlog, the continued ramp-up of critical projects, and the advancements of our PFAS technology position us well for the long-term success that we have planned. Despite broader budget uncertainties, we are confident that our core business remains resilient and well-aligned with DOE and DOD priorities. We appreciate the support of our shareholders and look forward to providing further updates on our progress throughout the year. Thank you for joining us today. Thank you. This does conclude today's conference, y ou may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.