9. Commitments and Contingencies

Hazardous Waste

In connection with our waste management services, the Company processes hazardous, non-hazardous, low-level radioactive and mixed (containing both hazardous and low-level radioactive) waste, which we transport to our own, or other, facilities for destruction or disposal. As a result of disposing of hazardous substances, in the event any cleanup is required at the disposal site, the Company could be a potentially responsible party for the costs of the cleanup notwithstanding any absence of fault on our part.

Legal Matters

In the normal course of conducting our business, the Company may be involved in various litigation. The Company is not a party to any litigation or governmental proceeding which our management believes could result in any judgments or fines against us that would have a material adverse effect on our financial position, liquidity or results of future operations.

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (“Tetra Tech”)

During July 2020, Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (“Tetra Tech”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Court”) against CH2M Hill, Inc. (“CH2M”) and four subcontractors of CH2M, including the Company (“Defendants”). The complaint alleges various claims, including a claim for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, equitable indemnification and related business claims against all Defendants related to alleged damages suffered by Tetra Tech in respect of certain draft reports prepared by Defendants at the request of the U.S. Navy as part of an investigation and review of certain whistleblower complaints about Tetra Tech’s environmental restoration at the Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco.

CH2M was hired by the Navy in 2016 to review Tetra Tech’s work. CH2M subcontracted with environmental consulting and cleanup firms Battelle Memorial Institute, Cabrera Services, Inc., SC&A, Inc. and the Company to assist with the review, according to the complaint.

The Company’s insurance carrier provided a defense on our behalf in connection with this lawsuit, subject to a $100,000 self-insured retention and the terms and limitations contained in the insurance policy.

The majority of Tetra Tech’s claims were previously dismissed by the Court. The remaining claims of intentional interference with contractual relations and inducing a breach of contract were dismissed by the Court pursuant to Defendants’ request for summary judgment. Tetra Tech appealed the dismissal of the remaining two claims and subsequently agreed to withdraw its appeal, which the Court dismissed at Tetra Tech’s request. As of March 31, 2025, the litigation has been resolved, and Tetra Tech has formally released and forever discharged the Company from any and all claims arising out of or in any way related to the complaint.

Michael O’Neill

On November 25, 2024, purported shareholder Michael O’Neill filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and all current directors of the Company, asserting individual and class action claims for alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The case is styled Michael O’Neill v. Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2024-1211-PAF.

The complaint purports to be brought by the named plaintiff individually and on behalf of all “similarly situated Perma-Fix stockholders.” According to the complaint, defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements in its proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2023 regarding the effect of broker non-votes. In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants incorrectly stated in the proxy statement that broker non-votes would have no effect on the vote solicited to approve an amendment to the Company’s 2017 Stock Option Plan to increase by 600,000 shares the number of shares of Common Stock issuable under the plan, resulting in an alleged defective approval of the plan amendment. As of the date of this Form 10-Q, the Company has not issued any options under the plan relating to the additional shares included in the plan amendment.

The Company believes that the complaint is without merit. The Company and the individual defendants are vigorously defending against the complaint.

The Company’s insurance carrier is providing a defense in connection with this lawsuit, subject to a $1,000,000 self-insured retention and the terms and limitations contained in the insurance policy.

Shareholder Demand Letter

The Company’s Board received a demand letter, dated February 4, 2025 (the “Letter”), from a putative shareholder of the Company, claiming that a provision in the Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws (“Bylaws”), requiring shareholders, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify the Company for attorneys’ fees in certain corporate proceedings in which the shareholder is not the prevailing party, must be removed. This provision of the Company’s Bylaws was adopted in 2012 when the Company adopted its Amended and Restated Bylaws. The statute prohibiting certain reimbursements of attorneys’ fees was adopted in 2015. The Letter demands that the Board amend its Bylaws to remove the particular provision in question.

After reviewing the Letter, the Board established a Demand Review Committee (the “Committee”) to review, analyze and evaluate the shareholder demand received above, and to make recommendations to the Board with respect to such demand. The Committee was ad hoc, in that the composition of the Committee will necessarily change in response to the specific shareholder demand. Initial members of the Committee are comprised of Board members who are disinterested and independent with respect to the matters set forth in the Letter discussed above. The Committee was authorized to engage, at the Company’s expense, experts and advisors that the Committee deems appropriate to assist in its review and determination. Based on the Committee’s review and analysis of the demand and the current case law, in connection with the above Letter, the Committee determined to recommend to the Board to reject such demand as being baseless. Based on the Committee’s recommendation to the Board, the Board determined that the demand is meritless and rejected such demand.

Insurance

The Company has a 25-year finite risk insurance policy entered into in June 2003 (“2003 Closure Policy”) with AIG Specialty Insurance Company (“AIG”), which provides financial assurance to the applicable states for our permitted facilities in the event of unforeseen closure. The 2003 Closure Policy, as amended, provides for a maximum allowable coverage of $28,177,000 which includes available capacity to allow for annual inflation and other performance and surety bond requirements. Total coverage under the 2003 Closure Policy, as amended, was $23,949,000 as of March 31, 2025. As of March 31, 2025, and December 31, 2024, finite risk sinking funds contributed by the Company related to the 2003 Closure Policy which is included in other long term assets on the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets totaled $12,824,000 and $12,680,000, respectively, which included interest earned of $3,353,000 and $3,209,000 on the finite risk sinking funds as of March 31, 2025, and December 31, 2024, respectively. Interest income for the three months ended March 31, 2025, and 2024, was approximately $144,000 and $148,000, respectively. If the Company so elects, AIG is obligated to pay the Company an amount equal to 100% of the finite risk sinking fund account balance in return for complete release of liability from both the Company and any applicable regulatory agency using this policy as an instrument to comply with financial assurance requirements.

Letter of Credits and Bonding Requirements

From time to time, the Company is required to post standby letters of credit and various bonds to support contractual obligations to customers and other obligations, including facility closures. As of March 31, 2025, the total amount of standby letters of credit outstanding was approximately $3,200,000, and the total amount of bonds outstanding was approximately $21,481,000.