管理層發言
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Perma-Fix Fiscal First Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. And please note, this conference is being recorded. I will now turn the conference over to your host, Mr. David Waldman, Investor Relations. Sir, the floor is yours.
Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to Perma-Fix Environmental Services First Quarter 2026 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 first quarter 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 statements 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 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. Now I'd like to turn the call over to Mark Duff. Please go ahead, Mark.
All right. Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us today. As you saw in this morning's press release, the first quarter was a transitional period for Perma-Fix. While our financial results were weak, this was not unexpected. Many of the factors that impacted the quarter were consistent with what we discussed on our year-end call in March, including seasonal softness, lower waste receipts, the timing of achieving revenue milestones, and the deliberate steps we're taking to prepare our facilities, workforce, and infrastructure for higher activity levels beginning in the second quarter. Importantly, the first quarter should not be viewed in isolation. We used the quarter to position the company for the next phase of activity. This included the deliberate processing and reduction of existing waste inventories, particularly at our Perma-Fix Northwest facility, so we can maximize capacity ahead of anticipated Hanford-related waste receipts.
In addition, we completed treatment of several lower-margin waste streams during the quarter, which further positions our facilities to improve mix and support higher-value activity as new receipts begin to ramp up. We also continued investing in personnel, training, facility improvements, and operational readiness to support additional shifts and higher production expectations beginning in Q2. These activities impacted near-term financial performance, but we believe they were necessary to prepare Perma-Fix for what may be one of the most important growth opportunities in the company's history. The centerpiece of that opportunity remains Hanford. As we've discussed for some time, the DOE Hanford cleanup mission represents one of the largest and most complex environmental remediation programs in the United States. Perma-Fix Northwest is located just outside the Hanford site, and we believe it's uniquely positioned to support multiple Hanford-related waste streams over the coming years.
A key milestone in our preparation for this opportunity was the December 2025 renewal of the permit for our Perma-Fix Northwest facility, which significantly expands our permitted liquid mixed waste processing capacity to approximately 1.2 million gallons annually and authorizes treatment of up to 175,000 tons of waste through macro encapsulation. Combined with our investments in automation, facility upgrades, and workforce expansion, this enhanced permit materially strengthens our ability to support increased volumes from Hanford and other DOE mission objectives as activities ramp up. We are now beginning to see the opportunity move from preparation towards execution. Our Perma-Fix Northwest facility began receiving ETF waste from Hanford in mid-April, which we believe can support sustainable revenues of more than $4 million per quarter as the waste stream continues. We're also working closely with DOE contractors on the anticipated start of the additional DFLAW-related dry waste and EMF effluent waste streams, which were delayed due to regulatory document extensions.
Based on current activity, we believe Q2 represents an inflection point for the company with Perma-Fix Northwest on track to deliver stronger revenue contributions as Hanford-related waste receipts and other customer activities increase. While the exact timing and pace of these receipts remain dependent on DOE and contractor schedules, we remain highly encouraged by the direction of the activity and the role Perma-Fix can play in supporting the Hanford cleanup mission. In addition, DOE leadership continues to focus on advancing Hanford tank waste retrieval through grouting as a supplemental path to DFLAW using available commercial treatment capacity. We believe this is highly significant for Perma-Fix because Perma-Fix Northwest provides additional local capacity near the Hanford site and is positioned to support DOE's tank waste treatment objectives over the next several years. Beyond the near-term ETF and DFLAW-related activities, we remain extremely focused on the broader grouting opportunities at Hanford.
We believe Perma-Fix Northwest is exceptionally well-positioned for this opportunity given its proximity to the Hanford site, our expanded permitting profile, existing waste treatment capabilities, and investments we've made over the past several years to expand grouting capabilities to reach production levels of over 4 million gallons of tank waste received per year. This is why we're so bullish on Hanford. It's not simply one waste stream or one contract opportunity. It's a long-duration remediation mission with multiple potential waste streams, multiple program phases and the potential to support recurring treatment demand over an extended period. While timing will always be subject to government program execution, appropriations and regulatory requirements, along with customer schedules, we believe the scale and duration of the opportunities are significant. We also recently completed several large proposal initiatives, including opportunities related to the Hanford tank grouting, large project services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and DOE at Y-12 and a proposal revision to support the USS Enterprise aircraft carrier decommissioning project for the Navy.
While these opportunities remain subject to award timing and customer decisions, they reflect the breadth of our pipeline and the alignment of our capabilities with large complex government remediation, decommissioning, and other waste missions. In addition to Hanford, we're also seeing renewed momentum in our Services Segment. During the quarter, we were awarded a two-year master task agreement valued at approximately $24 million by the Lawrence Livermore National Security site for demolition and disposal of a building at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. This project mobilized and began supporting work in early April. It draws directly on our expertise in complex radiological and hazardous waste handling and facility decontamination, along with demolition and nuclear waste management. We view this award as an important validation of our nuclear services capabilities and our long-standing relationship with Livermore Lab.
More broadly, we've mobilized on several additional smaller projects that have the potential to grow through the summer, and we continue to see a meaningful pipeline of project opportunities across nuclear services for demolition, remediation, decontamination, and other government-related field work. This is important because renewed Services Segment activities strengthen our broader Perma-Fix platform by leveraging our integrated capabilities across project execution, waste management, transportation, treatment, and disposal. We also continue to make progress with our PFAS destruction platform. As we announced in March, we successfully completed a PFAS treatment project for Four Rivers Nuclear Partnership, the DOE contractor responsible for environmental cleanup activities at the Paducah site. We received approximately 1,500 gallons of PFAS-contaminated liquids and successfully treated the material using our patent-pending Perma-FAS destruction technology.
This is an important precedent application for our technology supporting DOE cleanup activities and meeting the strict quality control programs as required by the department. PFAS contamination continues to represent one of the most significant environmental challenges facing both the government and commercial clients. Our approach is designed to permanently destroy PFAS compounds rather than simply transferring them to another medium. We believe this distinction is important as customers increasingly look for solutions that can reduce long-term environmental liabilities. During the quarter, PFAS receipts slowed, but activity resumed in May, supported by several new wins at regional airports and continued work through partnerships with generators and industry leaders focused on the destruction of PFAS liquids. We're also continuing the installation of our Gen 2.0 unit at our EWOC facility in Oak Ridge, which is designed to add approximately 2,000 gallons per shift of additional treatment capacity to support our existing operations.
While construction experienced some supply chain and fabrication delays, assembly activities are moving forward and we expect the system to meaningfully expand our capacity once it's operational. Taken together, we believe PFAS represents a compelling long-term growth opportunity that complements our core nuclear and mixed waste treatment capabilities. We are still early in the commercialization curve, but the market need is real. Regulatory and customer attention continues to increase, and we believe our destruction technology gives Perma-Fix a differentiated position. Stepping back, the broader message is straightforward. Q1 was difficult, but it was also preparatory for us. We're now beginning to see the transition we've been preparing for begin to materialize across the business. At Hanford, ETF waste receipts began in April and additional DFLAW-related streams are expected to follow.
In Nuclear Services, the Livermore project has mobilized and our project pipeline is improving. In PFAS, we've demonstrated our technology in the field, secured additional opportunities, and continue to expand capacity. And at Perma-Fix Northwest, our expanded permit and the facility investments position us to support long-term waste receipts and longer-term grouting opportunities. We believe Perma-Fix is at a clear inflection point. The investments we've made over the past several years in permits, people, infrastructure, automation, treatment capacity, and technology were all designed to prepare the company for the type of opportunity set developing in front of us. Although quarterly results may continue to vary based on the timing of customer shipments, government programs, and project mobilizations, we believe the company is increasingly well-positioned to deliver improved performance beginning in the second quarter through the balance of 2026 and over the long term as these opportunities continue to scale up. With that, I'll turn it over to Ben to review the financial results in more detail. Ben?
Thanks, Mark, and good morning. For the first quarter, we reported revenue of $11.1 million, that's down from $13.9 million in the prior year, a decrease of $2.8 million year-over-year. The decline was primarily driven by lower volumes and timing of processing activity as we focused on working through existing waste inventory and encountered delays in reaching certain key revenue milestones. Looking at the segments: In the Treatment Segment, revenue was down about $1.3 million compared to last year. This was mainly due to lower volumes and a less favorable waste mix, which more than offset some modest pricing improvements. In the Service Segment, revenue decreased about $1.5 million year-over-year, and this was largely due to fewer large projects contributing to revenue compared to prior year, partially offset by contributions from new smaller projects. From a profitability standpoint, gross profit declined $3.5 million compared to prior year.
This reflects the impact of the lower revenue and the higher variable costs in the Treatment Segment and higher fixed plant costs as we prepare for higher volume expected in the upcoming months. Project mix and lower revenue in the Service Segment also negatively impacted our gross profit. Our SG&A expenses were $4.3 million, up about $284,000 year-over-year, primarily due to higher labor expense, outside services, and marketing-related costs. Turning to earnings: EBITDA from continuing operations was a loss of $7.0 million compared to a loss of $3.3 million last year. Our net loss was $7.5 million versus a $3.6 million loss in prior year, a loss per share of $0.40 compared to $0.19 last year. On the balance sheet, cash ended the quarter at $6.7 million and working capital was $5.9 million, both down from prior year levels, reflecting operating cash usage and capital spending during the quarter.
Our treatment backlog ended the quarter at $12.2 million, up slightly from $11.9 million at year-end and up from the $10.2 million we saw in the first quarter of 2025. From a cash flow perspective, cash used from operations was $3.6 million. Investing activities used approximately $964,000, primarily for capital spending and permitting-related intangible assets. And our financing activities used approximately $227,000, mainly related to scheduled debt and lease payments. With that, operator, I will now turn the call over for questions.
分析師問答
Our first question today is coming from Aaron Spychalla with Craig-Hallum.
Yes. Maybe first for me, on Hanford, can you just give an update on the incremental waste streams that you're seeing? You talked about ETF and maybe $4 million a quarter. It sounds like last call there was some talk of $1 million or $2 million a month. I just want to make sure we have those incremental opportunities straight as we look for DFLAW to start up.
Sure, Aaron. There are four primary waste streams that we're receiving at Hanford right now. There are a lot of other smaller ones beginning to show up this quarter as well. The ETF is the big one. It began being received by the middle of April. We're getting regular shipments as scheduled. It is between $1 million to $1.5 million a month in revenue as expected, and it's going very well so far. We expect it to continue at least through Q3 and into Q4 at a minimum, when they usually have an outage if it gets too cold. The EMF waste, as you remember from the press releases, is the blowdown waste from DFLAW. That was scheduled to complete its supplemental analysis process, which is a regulatory process, on April 24. They extended that comment period for 30 days to May 24. We met with DOE last week at senior management levels. They said they expect to receive the first shipment in late June.
That will run at about $300,000 a month during high commissioning. Once we get to operational phases, that will increase by four times and is anticipated to be received at those higher levels at a minimum through the operational period, which we're anticipating to be in the fall in regards to DFLAW. We also have the dry waste that we're beginning to communicate with them on. They've been storing it for a bit. We are working with them on receipts. We're still not sure what kind of revenue that's going to generate. I would estimate it's about $100,000 a month, maybe a little more. We don't know the total volumes they're generating because they stockpile. We don't know how linear it is to say they're generating so much dry waste based on production levels versus just in hot commissioning. That should start in mid-May. Then we have the TRU waste that we've been getting from the on-site contractor for many years.
We are increasing capacity there in an effort to get to double throughput. We have our top management team out there as we speak, working with them, adding additional shifts and capacity. We began training additional personnel in March and April to be able to expand that. So we see that increasing again since mid-April. So all four of those, actually five when you consider smaller streams, are underway and rolling. We do expect these numbers to increase once DFLAW gets to operational phases, which we hope will be in the next quarter or two.
Okay. Understood. Stepping back broadly, you've talked over the years that DFLAW could potentially be $70 million-plus of revenue, and lately it's been $3 million to $6 million a quarter of that ramp. It sounds like the fall is a timeline. Is that still how you're thinking about it?
It is. That's DOE's estimate and they haven't moved off that. Several managers we've talked to said they're generating more filters than expected. The EMF waste I mentioned was significantly more than anticipated. There are many other waste streams to be addressed, which we don't have clarity on yet. We just met with DOE last week. DFLAW has been going up and shutting down as they test each melter out. They're still tweaking the feed system and emission systems to get them to design performance levels, but they're working through it. The important point is DOE is very dedicated to the success of the project, and they're increasingly optimistic about its ability to perform. They are working through the kinks and optimistic it will be up and running soon at higher levels than it has been so far. There's a lot of upside. DOE places Hanford among its highest priorities for this administration, which is evident from DOE headquarters' attention to the site. They were out there last week; we met with them. Local officials are action-oriented, focused on increasing tank closures during this administration. They're getting creative to show retrievable tanks as quickly as possible within compliance and safety standards. We're encouraged and optimistic that, while there may be delays here and there, these are sustainable waste streams and our facility is very well-positioned.
And on grouting, you've talked in the past about that maybe being like a $40 million-plus opportunity. I see commentary about supplemental volumes from DFLAW and treating waste in-state rather than shipping out. Is that size still reasonable? Any update?
Yes. There are really two grouting programs. One is the West side grouting program, which is part of the tri-party agreement where DOE and the regulators agreed to grout 22 tanks by 2040. That has moved forward with design and infrastructure on the West side. The procurement we responded to was a roughly $4 billion contract to grout about 50 million gallons over that period. The RFP required bidders to be ready to start receiving waste on the West side in January 2028, about 18 months from now. We're ready to go on that now. In our proposal, we said we would pursue a permit modification and install additional equipment to provide over 4 million gallons per year of capacity. We should see an award announcement, hopefully, before our next earnings call in July. Based on our discussions with DOE, we remain extremely optimistic that we offer a low-risk, best-value approach. We emphasize local union representation at our plant and the ability to grout locally and ship by rail for out-of-state disposal, which we believe is a lower-risk transportation alternative for DOE.
The other component, the East side, feeds DFLAW. DOE is working to consider grouting on the East side as a supplement to DFLAW. I won't speak for DOE, but they are looking at options. There's a storage tank with about 800,000 to 1,000,000 gallons of pre-treated waste that could potentially be grouted. We're hopeful that in the next six to twelve months, DOE and the regulators will work a way to begin grouting that as a supplement so they can close more tanks under this administration. Both components are making progress. We hope to see something this year, but the regulatory framework is complex and takes time.
Great. Appreciate it. On services, you mentioned Enterprise might be back in play. Can you remind folks of the timing and potential size? And you highlighted more services opportunities benefiting the rest of the business—can you elaborate?
Sure. We're excited about Enterprise. For background: it was awarded last May to a company where we were not a subcontractor. There was a protest, which was upheld in March, and the Navy issued a Final Proposal Revision. Proposals were resubmitted April 24, and the Navy is anticipating an award sometime in June. There were three bidders. We're a subcontractor to one of the primes with significant scope directly in our core competency for decontamination and decommissioning of a ship. We provide our hazard and waste management expertise. Hopefully we'll hear an announcement before the end of this quarter.
Great. One last one: on margins with these incremental volumes later this year and into next, how do you think about incremental margins, especially at the Richland plant?
Our Richland facility is operated and priced to maintain our margin targets we've discussed with investors. I can't provide specific numbers on the call, but margins are within our regular targets and we expect them to continue. The services side generally has lower incremental margins. We've been competitive where risk allows. We avoid taking undue risk on fixed-price projects but can be more aggressive on cost-plus work. Overall, the technologies we're deploying for PFAS and Hanford and our other sites are within or very close to our target margins for our waste treatment program.
Our next question is coming from Howard Brous with Wellington Shields.
In terms of the time frame for grouting and the volumes, can you be a little more specific on both?
Sure, Howard. For the East side, if we had to estimate, securing 300,000 gallons in the next 12 months would be a great outcome for us. DOE hasn't given us a number, but that's the target we hope to see. It depends on DFLAW. If DFLAW ramps quickly, they'll drain storage tanks faster. Right now the storage tank is idle and they want to start feeding it again with pre-treated waste, so there is an opportunity to grout some existing storage. For the West side, we can't be certain of DOE's ramp-up relative to the January 2028 readiness requirement. The design capacity for the West side extraction system is around 3 million gallons a year and may be expandable. DOE leadership has publicly said their goal is to exceed 3 million a year and approach 6 million, which could be possible with multiple approaches. Right now, 3 million is their target for annual grouting sometime after January 2028. Our goal has been to secure at least half of that and provide DOE a best-cost, low-risk approach. We want to be a long-term, sustainable partner for DOE.
Just one more on Enterprise: can you give details as to how meaningful this will be when it starts and how long it will take to generate revenue?
I can't discuss procurement specifics, Howard, but I can say the government estimate for the project was between $500 million and $800 million. The work has a multi-year timeline—my recollection is four years—and the Navy will be closely involved. It will be done on a commercial site, which is unusual for a nuclear ship. The ship will be decontaminated and then cut up for scrap. There are eight reactors on the ship, so there is a substantial decontamination scope that aligns with our capabilities. We were the primary small business on the team and there's a significant small business participation requirement in the RFP. We expect to play a meaningful role, but we can't quantify the initial revenue impact until an award is made. The RFP had small business goals around 20% to 30% of the overall estimate, and we would be part of that small business portion.
Our next question is coming from Bernard, a private investor.
I actually asked you a specific question at the Gabelli meeting and I'll ask it here in a more general sense. Perma-Fix seems to be uniquely permitted to process radiological material that will be generated by rare earth refining. Am I off base, or is that something the company has explored or is thinking about?
Yes. I mentioned in a prior quarter that we were participating on a procurement for mining, including rare earths and uranium. We secured that contract. It's our first contract of that nature where we're using our soil-sorting technology for product rather than defined waste. The project is going into the field next month in June with our soil sorter technology. We're excited about it. It's a confidential client in the mining industry, so I can't name them, but this is an important precedent and we hope to apply it more broadly across the mining industry.
I appreciate that. I'd encourage you to shine some light on that as you go forward. I think it would do a lot of good.
Our next question is coming from Steve Fein with So Fein LLC.
My first question is, how have you been impacted by the global energy situation?
That's an interesting question. DOE has been successful in its reindustrialization mission at several properties, including Paducah, Portsmouth, and Oak Ridge, which has reignited aspects of the nuclear market—from fuel fabrication to SMRs and other energy initiatives. We've worked to get involved in those efforts. DOE loans of about $900 million have supported a few companies, and in fuel fabrication and related components we've provided support in property due diligence and waste management. We're particularly excited about Portsmouth, where there was a big initiative with SoftBank to implement a large natural gas capability to support a major data center. We have a contract there and we're working to accelerate cleanup activities; that work started a few weeks ago and is growing well for us. So we've seen good growth and acceleration at those sites as they prepare properties for transition to commercial activity, and we're seeing opportunities in accelerated waste management needs and closure work.
My understanding is the vitrification plant or DFLAW uses diesel. Is that still the case? Given energy issues on the West Coast, doesn't that impact the process efficacy?
I can't speak to all operational fuel choices at DFLAW, but the plant has been in design and construction for over 27 years and was built the way it was designed. I wouldn't expect major changes to its primary energy sources. They are expanding capacity to approach two million gallons per year production, but I don't have specifics on alternative energy sources for the melters.
When you say they're moving to get up to two million gallons, what type of efficiency would that be? For example, would that increase efficiency from historical vitrification efficiencies in the 30% to 40% range?
Steve, I don't know enough about DFLAW's operational efficiencies to answer that question.
What does EMF mean?
Effluent Management Facility.
The EMF receives blowdown water from DFLAW; basically, it's scrubber water that is managed and concentrated, and we receive waste from them.
So anything you've got from DFLAW would come from EMF or is that just one type?
That's one waste stream, correct.
If they're still in transition at Hanford, why wouldn't they just give you the tanks that are sitting there since they can make more tanks and it would at least be progress?
Government projects are planned far in advance, with regulatory processes and public hearings. Changes take time. For example, the supplemental analysis for EMF considered shipping waste for grouting rather than vitrifying it to increase overall plant throughput, and that required public comment. Right now DOE is focused on getting systems up and operational; other changes will occur as they see efficiency opportunities. It takes time to implement those changes within the regulatory framework.
On the West side, is there no piping? If you win the contract, what is the time between award and starting processing? Do they need to set up infrastructure to pull out of the tanks?
They are building infrastructure now. If we receive an award in July, we've already started working with the state on our permit modification. We have had meetings with regulators and completed most of the design for our new grouting equipment. We've committed to DOE to have 4.2 million gallons of capacity within 18 months, which targets October 2027, assuming we receive an award in July.
That 4.2 million—does that cover everything or just the West side?
That would be our total capacity and could apply to whatever DOE wants to send us—liquid waste. We may expand beyond that as needed.
Has April shown improvement versus Q1?
Yes. We've seen improvement in April, particularly with ETF waste being received and work on other waste streams. We see a significant increase in our forecast for the next two months that puts us in a position to see significant improvement over Q1.
What's going on with the European work?
The large contract in Europe is proceeding. Remediation of drums began in April and is moving a bit slower than they expected as they pull drums out of the ground, which has adjusted the schedule slightly. Our scope is to take drums removed from the ground, characterize them, and ship them to Northwest for treatment. It still looks like the first shipment is on track for Q1 2027, and once shipments begin, we expect a sustainable waste stream in the range of $6 million to $7 million a year.
On mining, what exactly are you pulling out? Are you cleaning waste or extracting something of value?
Our process focuses on segregation of radioactive components. We can load soil into our sorter—a conveyor system that moves rapidly—and our detection technologies separate radiological components from soil or debris quickly and accurately. That lets us concentrate radioactive material or, in remediation, remove and preserve good soil to reduce waste volumes. In mining, we're concentrating source materials that make refining more efficient for the customer.
So your success makes refining easier in that sense?
Yes. It concentrates the material and improves downstream refining efficiency.
Turning to PFAS: what's happening with the arrangement you made with that non-PFAS fire company in Atlanta that provides non-PFAS foam?
We're working with them on several change-outs along with other companies. We're seeing larger revenue streams come in from airports, where we're proposing on several programs. We recently won one in Arizona. We're working with multiple companies to replace PFAS firefighting foam with non-PFAS alternatives at airports, which contributes to our backlog.
So they have huge tanks and are replacing large volumes of foam—correct?
Correct.
How does EPA policy impact you? If federal action on PFAS has slowed, what about state action?
Federal action hasn't provided the clarity some hoped for, which hasn't helped us. However, many states are promulgating their own rules and policies—about a dozen have taken steps. It would be optimal if the federal government designated PFAS as a hazardous waste under something like CERCLA, which would change the market overnight. We believe that will happen eventually, and we'll be ready since that would create immediate, enforceable responsibilities. For now, states, best management practices, and liability concerns are driving activity, and customers are taking action to remove PFAS from facilities.
Ladies and gentlemen, as we have reached the end of our Q&A session, I would like to turn the call back over to management for any closing remarks.
All right. Thank you, operator, and thank you to everyone who joined us today on the call. I want to close by reinforcing the main message from this morning's call. While the first quarter was challenging, we view it as a transitional period that helped position Perma-Fix for stronger activity beginning in the second quarter. We took deliberate steps to reduce existing waste inventories, prepare our facilities for higher waste receipts, complete lower-margin work, and invest in the personnel, training and infrastructure needed to support the opportunities that are now developing across the business. More importantly, we believe the Hanford opportunity is beginning to move from preparation towards execution. ETF waste receipts have started. We continue to work with DOE contractors on additional DFLAW-related waste streams, and our Perma-Fix Northwest facility is well-positioned to support multiple Hanford-related programs over time.
At the same time, we're seeing renewed momentum in nuclear services, including the mobilization of our $24 million Livermore contract and continued progress with PFAS destruction, including our new wins and installation of our Gen 2.0 system. Taken together, we believe Perma-Fix is entering a strong phase. The investments we've made over the past several years in permitting, technology, people, facilities, and customer relationships were designed to prepare us for this opportunity set. While timing may vary quarter-to-quarter, we believe the direction of the business has improved materially, and we're increasingly confident in our ability to improve performance beginning in Q2 through the balance of 2026 and over the longer term as these opportunities begin to scale. We appreciate the continued support of our shareholders, our employees, customers, and partners, and we look forward to updating you on our progress in the coming quarters. Thank you.
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today's call, and you may disconnect your lines at this time, and we thank you for your participation.