Back to GetFilings.com

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
Form 10-K

[X]  ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
       EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
       For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000

            Delaware                                                                                      58-1954497
(State or other jurisdiction                                                                                (IRS Employer Identification Number)
of incorporation or organization)

1940 N.W. 67th Place, Gainesville, FL                                                    32653
(Address of principal executive offices)                                                                                (Zip Code)

(352) 373-4200
(Registrant's telephone number)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
              Title of each class                                                      Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $.001 Par Value                                                         Boston Stock Exchange
Redeemable Warrants                                                                          Boston Stock Exchange

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

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

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained to the best of the Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [ ]

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by nonaffiliates of the Registrant as of March 22, 2001, based on the closing sale price of such stock as reported by NASDAQ on such day, was $37,168,356. For the purposes of this calculation, we have excluded shares held by Officers and Directors. The Company's Common Stock is listed on the NASDAQ SmallCap Market and the Boston Stock Exchange.

As of March 22, 2001, there were 22,565,762 shares of the registrant's Common Stock, $.001 par value, outstanding, excluding 988,000 shares held as treasury stock.

Documents incorporated by reference: The information required by Part III is incorporated by reference from the Registrant's definitive Proxy Statement to be filed with the Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this report.

PERMA-FIX ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.

PART I

Company Overview and Principal Products and Services
Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc. (the Company, which may be referred to as we, us, or our) is a Delaware corporation, engaged through its subsidiaries, in:

We have grown through both acquisitions and internal development. Our present objective is to focus on the operations, maximize the profitability and to continue the research and development of innovative technologies for the treatment of nuclear, mixed waste and industrial waste.

We service research institutions, commercial companies and governmental agencies nationwide. The distribution channels for services are through direct sales to customers or via intermediaries.

We were incorporated in December of 1990. Our executive offices are located at 1940 N.W. 67th Place, Gainesville, Florida 32653.

Our home page on the Internet is at www.perma-fix.com. You can learn more about us by visiting that site.

Segment Information and Foreign and Domestic Operations and Export Sales
During 2000, we were engaged in twelve operating segments. Pursuant to FAS 131, we define an operating segment as:

    *     A business activity from which we may earn revenue and incur expenses;
    *     Whose operating results are regularly reviewed by our chief operating decision maker to make
            decisions about resources to be allocated to the segment and assess its performance; and
    *     For which discrete financial information is available.

We therefore define our segments as each separate facility or location that we operate. We clearly view each business as a separate segment and make decisions based on the activity and profitability of that particular location. These segments, however, exclude the Corporate headquarters which does not generate revenue and Perma-Fix of Memphis, Inc. ("PFM") which is reported elsewhere as a discontinued operation. See Note 3 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements regarding discontinued operations.

-1-

Pursuant to FAS 131 we have aggregated our operating segments into three reportable segments to ease in the presentation and understanding of our business. We used the following criteria to aggregate our segments:

    *     The nature of our products and services;
    *     The nature of the products processes;
    *     The type or class of customer for our products and services;
    *     The methods used to distribute our products or provide our services; and
    *     The nature of the regulatory environment.

During 2000, in conjunction with the expansion of the PFF's nuclear, mixed waste facility, the acquisition of DSSI and expanded Oak Ridge, Tennessee, mixed waste activities, the Company has established a Nuclear Waste Management Services segment, in addition to the two previously reported segments.

Most of our activities were conducted in the Southeast, Southwest and Midwest portions of the United States. We had no foreign operations or export sales during 2000.

Operating Segments
We have twelve operating segments which represent each separate facility or location that we operate. Eight of these segments provide Industrial Waste Management Services, three of these segments provide Nuclear Waste Management Services and one segment provides Consulting Engineering Services as described below:

INDUSTRIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, which includes, off-site waste storage, treatment, processing and disposal services of hazardous and non-hazardous waste (solids and liquids) through six of our treatment, storage and disposal ("TSD") facilities and numerous related operations provided by our two other locations, as discussed below.

Perma-Fix Treatment Services, Inc. ("PFTS") is a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 ("RCRA") permitted TSD facility located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. PFTS stores and treats hazardous and non-hazardous waste liquids, provides waste transportation and disposal of non-hazardous liquid waste via its on-site Class I Injection Well located at the facility. The injection well is permitted for the disposal of non-hazardous liquids and characteristic hazardous wastes that have been treated to remove the hazardous characteristic. PFTS operates a non-hazardous wastewater treatment system for oil and solids removal, a corrosive treatment system for neutralization and metals precipitation, and a container stabilization system. The injection well is controlled by a state-of-the-art computer system to assist in achieving compliance with all applicable state and federal regulations.

Perma-Fix of Dayton, Inc. ("PFD") is a RCRA permitted TSD facility located in Dayton, Ohio. PFD has four main disposal production areas. The four production areas are a RCRA permitted TSD, a centralized wastewater treatment area, used oil fuel recycling area, and non-hazardous solids solidification area. Hazardous waste accepted under the RCRA permit is typically drum waste for fuel bulking, incineration or stabilization. Wastewaters accepted at the facility include hazardous and non-hazardous wastewaters, which are treated by ultra filtration, metals precipitation and bio-degradation to meet the requirements of PFD's Clean Water Act pretreatment permit. Waste industrial oils and used motor oils are processed through high-speed centrifuges to produce a high quality fuel that is burned by industrial burners. PFD also designs and constructs on-site wastewater pretreatment systems.

Perma-Fix of Ft. Lauderdale, Inc. ("PFL") is a permitted facility located in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. PFL collects and treats wastewaters, oily wastewaters, used oil and other off-specification petroleum-based products, some of which may potentially be recycled into usable products. Key activities at PFL include process cleaning and material recovery, production and sales of on-specification fuel oil, custom tailored

-2-

waste management programs and hazardous material disposal and recycling materials from generators such as the cruise line and marine industries.

Perma-Fix of Orlando, Inc. ("PFO"), F/K/A Chemical Conservation Corporation ("CCC"), is a RCRA permitted TSD facility located in Orlando, Florida, which was acquired effective June 1, 1999. PFO collects, stores and treats hazardous and non-hazardous wastes out of two processing buildings, under one of our most inclusive permits. PFO is also a transporter of hazardous waste and operates a transfer facility at the site.

Perma-Fix of South Georgia, Inc. ("PFSG"), F/K/A Chemical Conservation of Georgia, Inc. ("CCG"), is a RCRA permitted TSD facility located in Valdosta, Georgia, which was acquired effective June 1, 1999. PFSG provides storage, treatment and disposal services to hazardous and non-hazardous waste generators throughout the United States, in conjunction with the utilization of the PFO facility and transportation services. PFSG operates a hazardous waste storage facility that primarily blends and processes hazardous and non-hazardous waste liquids, solids and sludges into substitute fuel or as a raw material substitute in cement kilns that have been specially permitted for the processing of hazardous and non-hazardous waste.

Perma-Fix of Michigan, Inc. ("PFMI"), F/K/A Chem-Met Services, Inc. ("CM"), is a permitted TSD facility located in Detroit, Michigan, which was acquired effective June 1, 1999. PFMI is a waste treatment and storage facility, situated on 60 acres, that treats hazardous, non-hazardous and inorganic wastes with solidification/chemical fixation and bulks, repackages and remanifests wastes that are determined to be unsuitable for treating. This large bulk processing facility utilizes a chemical fixation and stabilization process to produce a solid non-hazardous matrix that can safely be disposed of in a solid waste landfill.

Perma-Fix Government Services ("PFGS") F/K/A Chem-Met Government Services ("CMGS") specializes in the on-site (at the government's site) environmental and hazardous waste management, with emphasis on the management of large long-term federal and industrial on-site field service contracts. PFGS operates out of six (6) field service offices, located throughout the United States and Hawaii. PFGS currently manages seven (7) hazardous waste management service contracts with the Defense Reutilization & Marketing Service ("DRMS"), working closely with the above noted permitted facilities for certain transportation and waste management services.

Perma-Fix of New Mexico, Inc. ("PFNM"), located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, provides on-site (at the generator's site) waste treatment services to convert certain types of characteristic hazardous wastes into non-hazardous waste by removing those characteristics which categorize such waste as "hazardous" and treats non-hazardous waste as an alternative to off-site waste treatment and disposal methods. The activities at this service center operation have been reduced during 2000, as the Company focus' its efforts on the fixed base TSD operating facilities, which provide better margin and market opportunity.

For 2000, the Company's Industrial Waste Management Services segment accounted for approximately $44,191,000 (or 74.7%) of the Company's total revenue, as compared to approximately $34,756,000 (or 74.8%) for 1999, which excludes discontinued operations. See under the caption "Financial Statements and Supplementary Data" for further details.

NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, which includes nuclear, mixed and low-level radioactive waste treatment, processing and disposal services through two of our TSD facilities and numerous related operations by a third location. The presence of nuclear and low-level radioactive constituents within the waste streams processed by this segment create different and unique operational, processing and permitting/licensing requirements, from those contained within the Industrial Waste Management Services segment, as discussed below.

-3-

Perma-Fix of Florida, Inc. ("PFF"), located in Gainesville, Florida, is a uniquely permitted and licensed TSD. PFF specializes in the processing and treatment of certain types of wastes containing both low-level radioactive and hazardous and non-hazardous wastes, which are known in the industry as mixed waste. PFF is one of only a few facilities nationally to operate under both a hazardous waste permit and a nuclear materials license, from which it has built its reputation based on its ability to treat difficult waste streams using its unique processing technologies and its ability to provide related research and development services. Its mixed waste services include the treatment and processing of waste Liquid Scintillation Vials (LSVs), the processing and handling of other mixed and radioactive wastes, site remediation, storage of customer wastes and research and development. PFF will, on a limited basis, perform certain typical services of hazardous and non-hazardous waste management. However, with the amended permits and licenses received during 2000 and the expansion of its mixed waste processing equipment and capabilities, PFF has transitioned into a full mixed waste and low level radioactive processing facility. The LSVs are generated primarily by institutional research agencies and biotechnical companies. These wastes contain mixed (low-level) radioactive materials and hazardous waste (flammable) constituents. Management believes that PFF currently processes approximately 80% of the available LSV waste in the country. The business has expanded into receiving and handling other types of mixed wastes primarily from the nuclear utilities, the Department of Energy ("DOE") and other government facilities as well as select mixed waste field remediation projects.

Diversified Scientific Services, Inc. ("DSSI"), located in Kingston, Tennessee, is also a uniquely permitted and licensed TSD, which was acquired effective August 31, 2000. DSSI specializes in the processing and destruction of certain types of wastes containing both low-level radioactive and hazardous waste (mixed waste). DSSI, like PFF is one of only a few facilities nationally to operate under both a hazardous waste permit and a nuclear materials license. Additionally, DSSI is the only commercial facility of its kind in the U.S. that is currently operating and licensed to destroy liquid organic mixed waste, through its treatment unit. DSSI provides mixed waste disposal services for industry, including prominent international pharmaceutical companies, as well as agencies of the U.S. government, including the DOE and the Department of Defense ("DOD").

Perma-Fix, Inc. ("PFI"), which is based out of Kingston, Tennessee, provides on-site (at the generator's site) waste treatment services for certain low level radioactive and mixed wastes, for industrial firms, the DOE and other governmental facilities under licenses granted to the generator. PFI, in partnership with PFF, continues to expand its processing capabilities in the nuclear waste field, utilizing its technologies and project experience, including the successful processing of legacy waste at the DOE Fernald Ohio facility. In addition, PFI has recently opened an Oak Ridge, Tennessee office to facilitate future DOE contracts, and is under contract to construct a mixed waste processing facility at the DOE K-25 complex in Oak Ridge for East Tennessee Materials and Energy Corporation ("M&EC"). We have entered into a stock purchase agreement to acquire M&EC, subject to certain conditions being met. See "BUSINESS--Recent Developments."

For 2000, the Company's nuclear waste management services business accounted for $11,737,000 (or 19.9%) of total revenue for 2000, as compared to $6,997,000 (or 15.1%) of total revenue for 1999, which excludes discontinued operations. See under the caption "Financial Statements and Supplementary Data" for further details.

CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES, which provides environmental engineering and regulatory compliance consulting services through one subsidiary, as discussed below.

Schreiber, Yonley & Associates ("SYA") is located in St. Louis, Missouri. SYA specializes in environmental management programs, permitting, compliance and auditing, in addition to landfill design, field investigation, testing and monitoring. SYA clients are primarily industrial, including many within the cement manufacturing industry. SYA also provides the necessary support, compliance and training as required by our operating facilities.

-4-

During 2000 environmental engineering and regulatory compliance consulting services accounted for approximately $3,211,000 or 5.4% of our total revenue, as compared to approximately $4,711,000 or 10.1% in 1999, which excludes discontinued operations. See under the caption "Financial Statements and Supplementary Data" for further details.

Importance of Patents and Trademarks, or Concessions Held
We do not believe that we are dependent on any particular trademark in order to operate our business or any significant segment thereof. We have received registration through the year 2006 for the service mark "Perma-Fix" by the U.S. Patent and Trademark office.

The Company is active in the research and development of technologies that allow it to address its customers' needs. To date, the Company's R&D efforts have resulted in the granting of two patents and the filing of an additional eleven pending patent applications. The Company's flagship technology, the Perma-Fix Process, is a proprietary, cost effective, treatment technology that converts hazardous waste into non-hazardous material. Subsequently, the Company has developed Perma-Fix II, a patent pending, multi-step treatment process that converts hazardous organic components into non-hazardous material. Perma-Fix II is particularly important to the Company's mixed waste strategy. Management believes that at least one third of DOE mixed wastes contain organic components.

A new Perma-Fix II process ("New Process") designed to remove certain types of organic hazardous constituents from soils or other solids and sludges ("Solids") has been developed by us. This New Process is designed to remove the organic hazardous constituents from the Solids through a water-based system. We have filed a patent application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office covering the New Process. As of the date of this report, we have not received a patent for the New Process, and there are no assurances that such a patent will be issued. Until development of this New Process, we were not aware of a relatively simple and inexpensive process that would remove the organic hazardous constituents from Solids without elaborate and expensive equipment or expensive treating agents. Due to the organic hazardous constituents involved, the disposal options for such materials are limited, resulting in high disposal cost when there is a disposal option available. By reducing the organic hazardous waste constituents from the Solids to a level where the Solids may be returned to the ground, the generator's disposal options for such waste are substantially increased, allowing the generator to dispose of such waste at substantially less cost. We began commercial use of the New Process in 2000. Patent applications have also been filed for processes to treat radon, selenium and other speciality materials utilizing variations of this new process. However, changes to current environmental laws and regulations could limit the use of the New Process or the disposal options available to the generator. See "BUSINESS--Permits and Licenses" and "BUSINESS--Research and Development."

Permits and Licenses
Waste management companies are subject to extensive, evolving and increasingly stringent federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations. Such federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations govern our activities regarding the treatment, storage, processing, disposal and transportation of hazardous, non-hazardous and radioactive wastes, and require us to obtain and maintain permits, licenses and/or approvals in order to conduct certain of our waste activities. Failure to obtain and maintain our permits or approvals would have a material adverse effect on us, our operations and financial condition. Moreover, as we expand our operations we may be required to obtain additional approvals, licenses or permits, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to do so.

PFTS is a permitted solid and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility. The RCRA Part B Permit to treat and store certain types of hazardous waste was issued by the Waste Management Section of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality ("ODEQ"). Additionally PFTS maintains an Injection 

-5-

Facility Operations Permit issued by the ODEQ Underground Injection Control Section for our two waste disposal injection wells, and a pre-treatment permit in order to discharge industrial wastewaters to the local Publically Owned Treatment Works. PFTS is also registered with the ODEQ and the Department of Transportation as a hazardous waste transporter.

PFF operates its hazardous and low-level radioactive waste activities under a RCRA Part B permit and a radioactive materials license issued by the State of Florida.

PFL operates under a general permit and used oil processors license issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("FDEP"), a transporter license issued by the FDEP and a transfer facility license issued by Broward County, Florida. Broward County also issued PFL a discharge Pre-Treatment permit that allows discharge of treated water to the Broward County Publically Owned Treatment Works.

PFD operates a hazardous and non-hazardous waste treatment and storage facility under various permits, including a RCRA Part B permit. PFD provides wastewater pretreatment under a discharge permit with the local Publically Owned Treatment Works and is a specification and off-specification used oil processor under the guidelines of the Ohio EPA.

PFMI operates under an operating license issued in 1982 as an existing facility for the treatment and storage of certain hazardous wastes. The operating license continues in effect in conjunction with the terms of a consent judgement as agreed to in 1991.

PFO operates a hazardous and non-hazardous treatment and storage facility under various permits, including a RCRA Part B permit, issued by the State of Florida.

PFSG operates a hazardous treatment and storage facility under a RCRA Part B permit, issued by the State of Georgia.

DSSI operates hazardous and low-level radioactive waste activities under a RCRA Part B permit and a radioactive materials license issued by the State of Tennessee.

We believe that our TSD facilities presently have obtained all approvals, licenses and permits necessary to enable them to conduct their business as they are presently conducted. The failure of our TSD facilities to renew any of their present approvals, licenses and permits, or the termination of any such approvals, licenses or permits, could have a material adverse effect on us, our operations and financial condition.

Seasonality
We experience a seasonal slowdown in operations and revenues during the winter months extending from late November through early March. The seasonality factor is a combination of poor weather conditions in the central plains and Midwestern geographical markets we serve for on-site and off-site waste management services along with the inability to generate consistent billable hours in the consulting engineering segment, resulting in a decrease in revenues and earnings during such period.

Dependence Upon a Single or Few Customers
The majority of our revenues for fiscal 2000 have been derived from hazardous, non-hazardous and mixed waste management services provided to a variety of industrial and commercial customers. Our customers are principally engaged in research, biotechnical development, transportation, chemicals, metal processing, electronic, automotive, petrochemical, refining and other similar industries, in addition to government agencies that include the DOE, DOD, and other federal, state and local agencies. We are not dependent upon a single customer, or a few customers, the loss of any one or more would not have a material adverse effect on us. However, PFGS currently manages seven (7) hazardous waste management service contracts with the DRMS. The DRMS is a subagency of the Defense Logistics Agency and the DOD, which is considered to

-6-

be a single customer. The consolidated revenues for the DRMS contracts for 2000 total $7,606,000 (or 12.9%) of total revenue, as compared to $5,277,000 (or 11.4%) for the year ended December 31, 1999, which results in an increase of $2,329,000 for 2000. Delays in the government's payment of amounts owing to the Company have resulted, from time to time, in a material decrease in the Company's liquidity.

We have and continue to enter into contracts with (directly or indirectly as a subcontractor) the federal government. The contracts that we are a party to with the federal government or with others as a subcontractor to the federal government, generally provide that the government may terminate or renegotiate the contracts, at the government's election. Our inability to continue under existing contracts that we have with the federal government (directly or indirectly as a subcontractor) could have a material adverse effect on our operations and financial condition.

Oak Ridge System Contract Award
The Company and M&EC entered into an agreement pursuant to which the Company and M&EC agreed to act as a team in the performance of certain contracts that either the Company or M&EC may obtain from customers of the DOE regarding treatment and disposal of certain types of radioactive, hazardous or mixed waste (waste containing both hazardous and low level radioactive waste) at DOE facilities. In connection with proposals relating to the treatment and disposal of mixed waste at DOE's Oak Ridge, Tennessee system ("Oak Ridge"), M&EC and the Company made a joint proposal to DOE, with M&EC to act as the team leader. In June 1998 M&EC, as the team leader, was awarded three contracts ("Oak Ridge Contracts") by Bechtel Jacobs Company, LLC, the government-appointed manager of the environmental program for Oak Ridge, to perform certain treatment and disposal services relating to Oak Ridge. The Oak Ridge Contracts were issued by Bechtel Jacobs Company, as a contract to the DOE, based on proposals by M&EC and the Company.

The Oak Ridge Contracts are similar in nature to a blanket purchase order whereby the DOE specifies the approved waste treatment process and team to be used for certain disposal, but the DOE does not specify a schedule as to dates for disposal or quantities of disposal material to be processed. The initial term of the contract will represent a demonstration period for the team's successful treatment of the waste and the resulting ability of such processed waste to meet acceptance criteria for its ultimate disposal location.

As with most such blanket processing agreements, the Oak Ridge Contracts contain no minimum or maximum processing guarantees, and may be terminated by either party pursuant to standard DOE procurement regulation terms. Each specific waste stream processed under the Oak Ridge Contracts will require a separate work order from DOE and will be priced separately with an intent of recognizing an acceptable profit margin.

The Company anticipates that work, if any, under the Oak Ridge Contracts will begin during the second quarter of 2001. The Company also anticipates that a substantial portion of any work performed under the Oak Ridge Contracts will be performed at M&EC's facility at Oak Ridge currently under development as of the date of this report. As of February 2001, the Company has entered into a definitive agreement along with M&EC, to acquire all of the outstanding voting stock of M&EC. See "BUSINESS--Recent Developments," "Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements," "Management Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations -- Liquidity and Capital Resources of the Company," and "Note 4 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements."

Competitive Conditions
Competition is intense within certain product lines within the Industrial Waste Management Services segment of our businesses, we compete with numerous companies both large and small, that are able to provide one or more of the environmental services offered by us and many of which may have greater financial, human and other resources than we have. However, we believe that the range of waste management and

-7-

environmental consulting, treatment, processing and remediation services we provide affords us a competitive advantage with respect to certain of our more specialized competitors. We believe that the treatment processes we utilize offer a cost savings alternative to more traditional remediation and disposal methods offered by our competitors. The intense competition for performing the services provided by us within the Industrial Waste Management Services segment has resulted in reduced gross margin levels for certain of those services.

The Nuclear Waste Management Services segment, however has only a few competitors and does not currently experience such competitive pressures. In addition, at present we believe there is only one other facility in the United States that provides low-level radioactive and hazardous waste processing of scintillation vials, which requires both a radioactive materials license and a hazardous waste permit.

Competition in the waste management industry is likely to increase as the industry continues to mature, as more companies enter the market and expand the range of services which they offer and as we move into new geographic markets. We believe that there are no formidable barriers to entry into certain of the on-site treatment businesses. However, the permitting and licensing requirements, and the cost to obtain such permits, are barriers to the entry of hazardous waste TSD facilities and radioactive and mixed waste activities as presently operated by our subsidiaries. Certain of the non-hazardous waste operations, however, do not require such permits and, as a result, entry into these non-hazardous waste businesses would be easier. If the permit requirements for both hazardous waste storage, treatment and disposal activities and/or the licensing requirements for the handling of low level radioactive matters are eliminated or if such licenses or permits were made easier to obtain, such would allow more companies to enter into these markets and provide greater competition.

We believe that we are a significant participant in the delivery of off-site waste treatment services in the Southeast, Midwest and Southwest portions of the United States. We compete with TSD facilities operated by national, regional and independent environmental services firms located within a several hundred-mile radius of our facilities. Our subsidiaries, PFF and DSSI, with permitted radiological activities solicit business on a nationwide basis, including the U.S. Territories and Antarctica.

Our competitors for remediation services include national and regional environmental services firms that may have larger environmental remediation staffs and greater resources. We recognize our lack of financial resources necessary to compete for larger remediation contracts and therefore, presently concentrate on remediation services projects within our existing customer base or projects in our service area which are too small for companies without a presence in the market to perform competitively.

Environmental engineering and consulting services provided by us through SYA involve competition with larger engineering and consulting firms. We believe that we are able to compete with these firms based on our established reputation in these market areas and our expertise in several specific elements of environmental engineering and consulting such as environmental applications in the cement industry.

Capital Spending, Certain Environmental Expenditures and Potential Environmental Liabilities
During 2000, we spent approximately $3,812,000 in capital expenditures, which was principally for the expansion and improvements to our continuing operations. Included in this total is a major expansion to the Gainesville, Florida, mixed waste facility, totaling approximately $1,032,000 and a new waste water treatment system within the Dayton, Ohio, industrial facility, totaling approximately $864,000. This 2000 capital spending total includes $642,000 of which was financed. For 2001, we have budgeted approximately $4,000,000 for capital expenditures to improve our operations, reduce the cost of waste processing and handling, expand the range of wastes that can be accepted for treatment and processing and to maintain permit compliance requirements, and approximately $1,230,000 to comply with federal, state and local regulations in connection with remediation activities at four locations. See Note 3 and Note 8 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. However, there is no assurance that we will have the funds available for

-8-

such budgeted expenditures. See "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Liquidity and Capital Resources of the Company." We do not anticipate the ongoing environmental expenditures to be significant, with the exception of remedial activities at the four locations discussed below.

In June 1994, we acquired from Quadrex Corporation and/or a subsidiary of Quadrex Corporation (collectively, "Quadrex") three TSD companies, including PFD. The former owners of PFD had merged Environmental Processing Services, Inc. ("EPS") with PFD, which was subsequently sold to Quadrex. Through our acquisition of PFD in 1994 from Quadrex, we were indemnified by Quadrex for costs associated with remediating certain property leased by EPS from an affiliate of EPS on which EPS operated a RCRA storage and processing facility ("Leased Property"). Such remediation involves soil and/or groundwater restoration. The Leased Property used by EPS to operate its facility is separate and apart from the property on which PFD's facility is located. During 1995, in conjunction with the bankruptcy filing by Quadrex, we were required to advance $250,000 into a trust fund to support remedial activities at the Leased Property used by EPS, which was subsequently increased to $424,000. As discussed in Note 8 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, we have accrued approximately $176,000 for the estimated, remaining costs of remediating the Leased Property used by EPS, which will extend for a period of two (2) to three (3) years.

Due to the acquisition of PFM, we assumed and recorded certain liabilities to remediate gasoline contaminated groundwater and investigate, under the hazardous and solid waste amendments, potential areas of soil contamination on PFM's property. Prior to our ownership of PFM, the owners installed monitoring and treatment equipment to restore the groundwater to acceptable standards in accordance with federal, state and local authorities. We have accrued approximately $630,000 for the estimated, remaining cost of remediating the groundwater contamination. See "BUSINESS--Certain Environmental Expenditures."

The PFM facility is situated in the vicinity of the Memphis Military Defense Depot (the "Defense Facility"), which Defense Facility is listed as a Superfund Site and is adjacent to the Allen Well Field utilized by Memphis Light, Gas & Water, a public water supply utilized in Memphis, Tennessee. Chlorinated compounds have previously been detected in the groundwater beneath the Defense Facility, as well as in very limited amounts in certain production wells in the adjacent Allen Well Field. Very low concentrations of certain chlorinated compounds have also been detected in the groundwater beneath the PFM facility. Based upon a study performed by our environmental engineering group, we do not believe the PFM facility is the source of the chlorinated compounds in the noted production wells in the Allen Well Field and, as a result, do not believe that the presence of the low concentrations of chlorinated compounds at the PFM facility will have a material adverse effect upon the Company.

In conjunction with the acquisition of PFMI and PFSG during 1999, we recognized long-term environmental accruals of $4,319,000. This amount represented the Company's estimate of the long-term costs to remove contaminated soil and to undergo groundwater remediation activities at the PFMI acquired facility in Detroit, Michigan, and at the PFSG acquired facility in Valdosta, Georgia. Both facilities have pursued remedial activities over the past six years with additional studies forthcoming and potential groundwater restoration activities could extend for a period of ten years. The accrued balance at December 31, 2000, for the PFMI remediation is $1,482,000, of which we anticipate spending $361,000 during 2001, with the remaining $1,121,000 reflected in a long-term environmental accrual. The accrued balance at December 31, 2000, for the PFSG remediation is $2,081,000, of which we anticipate spending $473,000 during 2001, with the remaining $1,608,000 reflected in a long-term environmental accrual. No insurance or third party recovery was taken into account in determining our cost estimates or reserves, nor do our cost estimates or reserves reflect any discount for present value purposes. We also recognized certain other long-term potential liabilities related to the 1999 acquisition of PFMI, PFO and PFSG, the largest of which is the reserve of

-9-

possible PRP liabilities, related to disposal activities prior to the acquisition, for which we have reserved approximately $403,000. See Note 4 and Note 8 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

The nature of our business exposes us to significant risk of liability for damages. Such potential liability could involve, for example, claims for cleanup costs, personal injury or damage to the environment in cases where we are held responsible for the release of hazardous materials; claims of employees, customers or third parties for personal injury or property damage occurring in the course of our operations; and claims alleging negligence or professional errors or omissions in the planning or performance of our services or in the providing of our products. In addition, we could be deemed a responsible party for the costs of required cleanup of any property which may be contaminated by hazardous substances generated or transported by us to a site we selected, including properties owned or leased by us. We could also be subject to fines and civil penalties in connection with violations of regulatory requirements.

Research and Development
Innovation by our operations is very important to the success of our business. Our goal is to discover, develop and bring to market innovative ways to process waste that address unmet environmental needs. We are planning for future growth of our research operations. We conduct research internally, and also through collaborations with universities. We feel that our investments in research have been rewarded by the discovery of the Perma-Fix Process and the New Process. Our competitors also devote resources to research and development and many such competitors have greater resources at their disposal than we do. We have estimated that during 1998, 1999 and 2000, we spent approximately $364,000, $467,000, and $359,000, respectively in Company-sponsored research and development activities.

Number of Employees
In our service-driven business, our employees are vital to our success. We believe we have good relationships with our employees. As of December 31, 2000, we employed approximately 433 persons, of which approximately 14 were assigned to our corporate office, approximately 25 were assigned to our Consulting Engineering Services segment, approximately 297 to the Industrial Waste Management Services segment of which 20 employees at one facility are represented by a collective bargaining unit, under a contract expiring on March 30, 2001, and approximately 97 to the Nuclear Waste Management Services segment, including approximately 52 employees at the DSSI facility acquired in August 2000. We are currently in negotiations regarding the union contract, expiring March 30, 2001.

Governmental Regulation
Environmental companies and their customers are subject to extensive and evolving environmental laws and regulations by a number of national, state and local environmental, safety and health agencies, the principal of which being the EPA. These laws and regulations largely contribute to the demand for our services. Although our customers remain responsible by law for their environmental problems, we must also comply with the requirements of those laws applicable to our services. Because the field of environmental protection is both relatively new and rapidly developing, we cannot predict the extent to which our operations may be affected by future enforcement policies as applied to existing laws or by the enactment of new environmental laws and regulations. Moreover, any predictions regarding possible liability are further complicated by the fact that under current environmental laws we could be jointly and severally liable for certain activities of third parties over whom we have little or no control. Although we believe that we are currently in substantial compliance with applicable laws and regulations, we could be subject to fines, penalties or other liabilities or could be adversely affected by existing or subsequently enacted laws or regulations. The principal environmental laws affecting us and our customers are briefly discussed below.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended ("RCRA")
RCRA and its associated regulations establish a strict and comprehensive regulatory program applicable to hazardous waste. The EPA has promulgated regulations under RCRA for new and existing treatment,

-10-

storage and disposal facilities including incinerators, storage and treatment tanks, storage containers, storage and treatment surface impoundments, waste piles and landfills. Every facility that treats, stores or disposes of hazardous waste must obtain a RCRA permit or must obtain interim status from the EPA, or a state agency which has been authorized by the EPA to administer its program, and must comply with certain operating, financial responsibility and closure requirements. RCRA provides for the granting of interim status to facilities that allows a facility to continue to operate by complying with certain minimum standards pending issuance or denial of a final RCRA permit.

Boiler and Industrial Furnace Regulations under RCRA ("BIF Regulations")
BIF Regulations require boilers and industrial furnaces, such as cement kilns, to obtain permits or to qualify for interim status under RCRA before they may use hazardous waste as fuel. If a boiler or industrial furnace does not qualify for interim status under RCRA, it may not burn hazardous waste as fuel or use such as raw materials without first having obtained a final RCRA permit. In addition, the BIF Regulations require 99.99% destruction of the hazardous organic compounds used as fuels in a boiler or industrial furnace and impose stringent restrictions on particulate, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, toxic metals and hydrogen chloride emissions.

The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (the "SDW Act")
SDW regulates, among other items, the underground injection of liquid wastes in order to protect usable groundwater from contamination. The SDW Act established the Underground Injection Control Program ("UIC Program") that provides for the classification of injection wells into five classes. Class I wells are those which inject industrial, municipal, nuclear and hazardous wastes below all underground sources of drinking water in an area. Class I wells are divided into nonhazardous and hazardous categories with more stringent regulations imposed on Class I wells which inject hazardous wastes. PFTS' permit to operate its underground injection disposal wells is limited to nonhazardous wastewaters.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA," also referred to as the "Superfund Act")
CERCLA governs the cleanup of sites at which hazardous substances are located or at which hazardous substances have been released or are threatened to be released into the environment. CERCLA authorizes the EPA to compel responsible parties to clean up sites and provides for punitive damages for noncompliance. CERCLA imposes joint and several liability for the costs of clean up and damages to natural resources.

Health and Safety Regulations
The operation of the Company's environmental activities is subject to the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act ("OSHA") and comparable state laws. Regulations promulgated under OSHA by the Department of Labor require employers of persons in the transportation and environmental industries, including independent contractors, to implement hazard communications, work practices and personnel protection programs in order to protect employees from equipment safety hazards and exposure to hazardous chemicals.

Atomic Energy Act
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 governs the safe handling and use of Source, Special Nuclear and Byproduct materials in the U.S. and its territories. This act authorized the Atomic Energy Commission (now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) to enter into "Agreements with States to carry out those regulatory functions in those respective states except for Nuclear Power Plants and federal facilities like the VA hospitals and the DOE operations." The State of Florida (with the USNRC oversight), Office of Radiation Control, regulates the radiological program of the PFF facility, and the State of Tennessee (with the USNRC oversight), Tennessee Department of Radiological Health, regulates the radiological program of the DSSI facility.

-11-

Other Laws
Our activities are subject to other federal environmental protection and similar laws, including, without limitation, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Many states have also adopted laws for the protection of the environment which may affect us, including laws governing the generation, handling, transportation and disposition of hazardous substances and laws governing the investigation and cleanup of, and liability for, contaminated sites. Some of these state provisions are broader and more stringent than existing federal law and regulations. Our failure to conform our services to the requirements of any of these other applicable federal or state laws could subject us to substantial liabilities which could have a material adverse affect on us, our operations and financial condition. In addition to various federal, state and local environmental regulations, our hazardous waste transportation activities are regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Interstate Commerce Commission and transportation regulatory bodies in the states in which we operate. We cannot predict the extent to which we may be affected by any law or rule that may be enacted or enforced in the future, or any new or different interpretations of existing laws or rules.

Insurance
We believe we maintain insurance coverage adequate for our needs and which is similar to, or greater than, the coverage maintained by other companies of our size in the industry. There can be no assurances, however, that liabilities which may be incurred by us will be covered by our insurance or that the dollar amount of such liabilities which are covered will not exceed our policy limits. Under our insurance contracts, we usually accept self-insured retentions which we believe appropriate for our specific business risks. We are required by EPA regulations to carry environmental impairment liability insurance providing coverage for damages on a claims-made basis in amounts of at least $1 million per occurrence and $2 million per year in the aggregate. To meet the requirements of customers, we have exceeded these coverage amounts.

Recent Developments
We have entered into a stock purchase agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") with East Tennessee Materials and Energy Corporation, a Tennessee corporation ("M&EC"), and all of the shareholders of M&EC, dated as of January 18, 2001. However, the Purchase Agreement was not executed by all of the parties thereto until February 22, 2001. Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement we will own 100% of the then issued and outstanding shares of M&EC Common Stock.

If the acquisition of M&EC is completed, the purchase price to be paid by us for the M&EC common stock is approximately $2.4 million, which is payable by the Registrant issuing approximately 1.6 million shares of the PESI Common Stock to the shareholders of M&EC. In addition, M&EC will issue shares of its newly created non-convertible and non-voting Series B Preferred Stock to certain shareholders of M&EC having a stated value of approximately $1.5 million.

We have previously loaned to, or advanced funds on behalf of, M&EC of approximately $7.1 million as of March 20, 2001, for M&EC's working capital purposes and to construct M&EC's facility under our agreement with M&EC. M&EC has issued to us promissory notes evidencing a large portion of the loans and advances and pledged all of M&EC's assets as security for the repayment of the promissory notes. If the M&EC acquisition is not completed, M&EC may not have the funds, and the collateral may not be sufficient, to repay us the full amount of the loans and advances, resulting in a material adverse effect to us and our financial conditions.

As a condition to the M&EC acquisition, all of the participants in M&EC's employee benefit plans must release M&EC and the Registrant from certain liabilities relating to such plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"). In addition, M&EC and the applicable governmental authorities must have entered into resolution agreements satisfactory to the Registrant regarding the resolution of any M&EC liabilities arising under ERISA in connection with such plans. The consummation

-12-

of the M&EC Acquisition is further conditioned, among other things, upon M&EC and the applicable governmental authorities having entered a settlement satisfactory to the Registrant of all matters between the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") and M&EC relating to the payment or failure to pay taxes. See "Management Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation - Liquidity and Capital Resources of the Company."

Our principal executive offices are in Gainesville, Florida. Our industrial waste management operations are located in Orlando and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; Dayton, Ohio; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Valdosta, Georgia; Detroit, Michigan; and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Our nuclear waste management operations are located in Gainesville, Florida and Kingston, Tennessee. Our consulting engineering services are located in St. Louis, Missouri. We also maintain a sales office in Kansas City, Missouri and Government Services offices in Jacksonville, Florida; Anniston, Alabama; San Diego, California; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Portsmouth, Virginia; and Honolulu, Hawaii.

We own nine facilities and are in negotiations to purchase a currently leased property, all of which are in the United States. Five of our facilities are subject to mortgages as placed by the Company's senior lender. In addition, we lease thirteen properties for office space, one of which also contains a warehouse and one additional property that is utilized strictly as warehouse space, all of which are located in the United States as described above.

We believe that the above facilities currently provide adequate capacity for our operations and that additional facilities are readily available in the regions in which we operate.

PFMI, which was purchased by the Company effective June 1, 1999, has been advised that it is considered a potentially responsible party ("PRP") in three Superfund sites, two of which had no relationship with PFMI according to PFMI records. The relationship of PFMI to the third site, if any, is currently being investigated by the Company. PFO, which was also purchased by the Company effective June 1, 1999, has been advised that it is a PRP in two Superfund sites. The Company is currently investigating the relationship of PFO to the two sites.

PFL has been advised by the EPA that a release or threatened release of hazardous substances has been documented by the EPA at the former facility of Florida Petroleum Reprocessors (the "Site"), which is located approximately 3,000 feet northwest of the PFL facility in Davie, Florida. However, studies conducted by, or under the direction of, the EPA, together with data previously provided to PFL by the EPA, do not indicate that the PFL facility in Davie, Florida has contributed to the deep groundwater contamination associated with the Site. As a result, we are unable to determine with any degree of certainty what exposure, if any, PFL may have as a result of the documented release from the Site.

PFD is required to remediate a parcel of leased property ("Leased Property"), which was formerly used as a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 storage facility that was operated as a storage and solvent recycling facility by a company that was merged with PFD prior to the Company's acquisition of PFD. The Leased Property contains certain contaminated waste in the soils and groundwater. The Company was indemnified by the seller of PFD for costs associated with remediating the Leased Property, which entails remediation of soil and/or groundwater restoration. However, during 1995, the seller filed for bankruptcy. Prior to the acquisition of PFD by the Company, the seller had established a trust fund ("Remediation Trust Fund"), which it funded with the seller's stock to support the remedial activity on the Leased Property pursuant to the agreement with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ("Ohio EPA").

-13-

After the Company purchased PFD, it was required to advance $250,000 into the Remediation Trust Fund due to the reduction in the value of the seller's stock that comprised the Remediation Trust Fund, which stock had been sold by the trustee prior to the seller's filing bankruptcy. PFD has given notice to the owners of the Leased Property and former operators of the Leased Property that it will bring action against them to remediate the Leased Property and/or to recover any cost incurred by PFD in connection therewith.

In addition to the above matters and in the normal course of conducting our business, we are involved in various other litigation. We are 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 affect on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

The Company's annual meeting of stockholders ("Annual Meeting") was held on December 13, 2000. At the Annual Meeting, the following matters were voted on and approved by the shareholders:

At the Annual Meeting the four (4) nominated directors were elected to serve until the next annual meeting of stockholders. The directors elected at this annual meeting of stockholders and the votes cast for and withhold authority for each director are as follows:

Also, at the Annual Meeting the shareholders approved the appointment of BDO Seidman, LLP as the independent auditors of the Company for fiscal 2000.

The votes for, against and abstentions and broker non-votes are as follows:

The following table sets forth, as of the date hereof, information concerning the Executive Officers of the Company:

-14-

DR. LOUIS F. CENTOFANTI
Dr. Centofanti has served as Chairman of the Board since he joined the Company in February 1991. Dr. Centofanti also served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company from February 1991 until September 1995 and again in March 1996 was elected to serve as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and continues as Chairman of the Board. From 1985 until joining the Company, Dr. Centofanti served as Senior Vice President of USPCI, Inc., a large hazardous waste management company, where he was responsible for managing the treatment, reclamation and technical groups within USPCI. In 1981 he founded PPM, Inc., a hazardous waste management company specializing in the treatment of PCB contaminated oils which was subsequently sold to USPCI. From 1978 to 1981, Dr. Centofanti served as Regional Administrator of the U.S. Department of Energy for the southeastern region of the United States. Dr. Centofanti has a Ph.D. and a M.S. in Chemistry from the University of Michigan, and a B.S. in Chemistry from Youngstown State University.

MR. RICHARD T. KELECY
Mr. Kelecy was elected Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer in September 1995. He previously served as Chief Accounting Officer and Treasurer of the Company since July 1994. From 1992 until June 1994, Mr. Kelecy was Corporate Controller and Treasurer for Quadrex Corporation. From 1990 to 1992 Mr. Kelecy was Chief Financial Officer for Superior Rent-a-Car, and from 1983 to 1990 held various positions at Anchor Glass Container Corporation including Assistant Treasurer. Mr. Kelecy holds a B.A. in Accounting and Business Administration from Westminster College.

MR. ROGER RANDALL
Mr. Randall was elected President of the Industrial Services Division in October 2000. He previously served as Vice President of Industrial Services from December 1997 to October 2000 and as Vice President/General Manager of PFD since its acquisition by the Company in June 1994 and was elected to the position of Vice President Industrial Services of the Company in December 1997. From June 1992 to June 1994, Mr. Randall served as General Manager of the Dayton facility under the ownership of Quadrex Corporation. From 1982 to June 1992, Mr. Randall served a variety of management roles at the Dayton facility, ranging from Operations Manager to Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer under the ownership of Clark Processing, Inc. Previous to his involvement with the waste management industry, Mr. Randall spent 17 years in public education serving a variety of administrative roles. He has a B.S. from Wittenberg University and an M.A. from Wright State University.

MR. LARRY MCNAMARA
Mr. McNamara has served as President of the Nuclear Services Division since October 2000. From December 1998 to October 2000, he served as Vice President of Federal Programs for the Company's nuclear activities. Between 1997 and 1998, he served as Mixed Waste Program Manager for Waste Control Specialists (WCS) developing plans for the WCS mixed waste processing facilities, identifying markets and directing proposal activities. Between 1996 and 1995, Mr. McNamara was the single point of contact for the DOD to all state and federal regulators for issues related to disposal of LLRW and served on various National Committees and advisory groups. Mr. McNamara served, from 1992 to 1995, as Chief of the Department of Defense Low Level Radioactive waste office. Between 1986 and 1992 he served as the

-15-

Chief of Planning for the Department of Army overseeing project management and program policy for the Army program. Mr. McNamara has a B.S. from the University of Iowa.

MR. BERNHARDT WARREN
Mr Warren has served as Vice President of PFF since 1996 and was elected to the position of Vice President Nuclear Services of the Company in December 1997. From 1992 to 1996, Mr. Warren provided contractual consulting services for PFF and other companies through Applied Environmental Consulting, Inc., of which Mr. Warren was Owner and President. From 1982 to 1992, Mr. Warren served a variety of management roles at the Florida facility under the ownership of Quadrex Corporation. He was involved in radioactive materials and radioactive waste management from 1973 to 1982, when he was Manager of Radioactive Materials Licensing Program for the State of Florida. He has a B.S. degree in biology from Florida Southern College, a Master of Public Administration from Florida State University and graduated from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission sponsored Oak Ridge Associated University program. Mr. Warren has authored more than a dozen technical papers and has achieved Master Level as a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager.

MR. TIMOTHY KIMBALL
Mr. Kimball has served as Vice President of PFI and PFNM since January 1991 and was elected to the position of Vice President Technical Services of the Company in December 1997. He previously served as the Hazardous Waste Coordinator and Technical Representative for Rinchem Company, Inc. from 1985 to 1991. He also served a variety of management roles ranging from Planning Director, Partner and President, as well as Technical and Research Assistant for the University of New Mexico. He has a B.A. in Political Science and Public Administration from the University of Louisville, and an M.A. in Anthropology from the University of New Mexico.

-16-

PART II

Our Common Stock, with a par value of $.001 per share, is traded on the NASDAQ SmallCap Market ("NASDAQ") and the Boston Stock Exchange ("BSE") under the symbol "PESI" on NASDAQ and "PES" on the BSE. Effective December 1996, our Common Stock also began trading on the Berlin Stock Exchange under the symbol "PES.BE." The following table sets forth the high and low bid prices quoted for the Common Stock during the periods shown. The source of such quotations and information is the NASDAQ Stock market statistical summary reports:

2000

1999

		Low		High		Low		High
Common Stock:	1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter	1 1/8 1 1/4 1 3/8 1 5/16		1 15/16 1 3/4 1 23/32 2 7/16		1 7/8 1 1/8 1 3/32		1 3/4 1 15/16 1 45/64 1 9/16

 

Such over-the-counter market quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail markups or commissions and may not represent actual transactions.

As of March 28, 2001, there were approximately 238 shareholders of record of our Common Stock, including brokerage firms and/or clearing houses holding shares of our Common Stock for their clientele (with each brokerage house and/or clearing house being considered as one holder). However, the total number of beneficial shareholders as of December 31, 2000, was approximately 2,390.

Since our inception, we have not paid any cash dividends on our Common Stock and have no dividend policy. Our loan agreement prohibits paying any cash dividends on our Common Stock without prior approval.

In addition to the securities sold by us during 2000, as reported in our Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2000, June 30, 2000 and September 30, 2000, which were not registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, we sold or issued during the fourth quarter of 2000 the following securities which were also not registered under the Act:

1.     On or about December 29, 2000, pursuant to the terms of a certain Consulting Agreement ("Consulting Agreement") entered into effective as of January 1, 1998, the Company issued 13,952 shares of Common Stock in payment of accrued fees of $15,000 to Alfred C. Warrington IV, an outside, independent consultant to the Company, as consideration for certain consulting services rendered to the Company by Warrington from July 1999 through September 2000. The issuance of Common Stock pursuant to the Consulting Agreement was a private placement under Section 4(2) of the Act and/or Rule 506 of Regulation D as promulgated under the Act. The Consulting Agreement provides that Warrington will be paid $1,000 per month of service to the Company, payable, at the option of Warrington (i) all in cash, (ii) sixty-five percent in shares of Common Stock and thirty-five percent in cash, or (iii) all in Common Stock. If Warrington elects to receive part or all of his compensation in Common Stock, such will be valued at seventy-five percent of its "Fair Market Value" (as defined in the Consulting Agreement). Warrington elected to receive all of his accrued compensation from July 1999 through the end of September 2000 in Common Stock. Warrington represented and warranted in the Consulting Agreement, inter alia, as follows: (i) the Common Stock is being acquired for Warrington's own account, and not on behalf of any other persons; (ii)

-17-

Warrington is acquiring the Common Stock to hold for investment, and not with a view to the resale or distribution of all or any part of the Common Stock; (iii) Warrington will not sell or otherwise transfer the Common Stock in the absence of an effective registration statement under the Act, or an opinion of counsel satisfactory to the Company, that the transfer can be made without violating the registration provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder; (iv) Warrington is an "accredited investor" as defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D as promulgated under the Act; (v) Warrington has such knowledge, sophistication and experience in financial and business matters that he is capable of evaluating the merits and risks of the acquisition of the Common Stock; (vi) Warrington fully understands the nature, scope and duration of the limitations on transfer of the Common Stock as contained in the Consulting Agreement, (vii) Warrington understands that a restrictive legend as to transferability will be placed upon the certificates for any of the shares of Common Stock received by Warrington under the Consulting Agreement and that stop transfer instructions will be given to the Company's transfer agent regarding such certificates.

2.    On or about December 29, 2000, the Company issued to the Ann L. Sullivan Living Trust dated September 6, 1978 (the "ALS Trust") 55,904 shares ("Additional Shares") of Common Stock pursuant to a stock purchase agreement ("Chem-Con Stock Purchase Agreement") entered into on May 25, 1999. The ALS Trust was previously issued 1,500,000 ("Initial ALS Shares") at the closing of the Chem-Con Stock Purchase Agreement which was June 1, 1999 ("Closing Date") with the Additional Shares being issued pursuant to a guarantee (the "Guarantee") contained within the Chem-Con Stock Purchase Agreement. Under the Guarantee, if the ALS Trust owns any of the Initial ALS Shares at the end of eighteen months from the Closing Date, and the Common Stock is priced at an average closing price for the five consecutive days prior to the end of the eighteen months, of less than $2.00 per share, PESI shall pay the difference, of any, between the market value of the number of Initial ALS Shares held by the ALS Trust on December 1, 2000, and the value of such shares valued at $2.00 per share. The average price for the five days (11/24, 11/27, 11/28, 11/29, and 11/30) was $1.93. The Sullivan's and the Sullivan Trusts represented and warranted in the Stock Purchase Agreements, inter alia, as follows: (i) the Common Stock is being acquired by the ALS Trust for its own account, to hold for investment, and not on behalf of any other persons or for resale or distribution to others; (ii) the Sullivan's and the Sullivan Trusts have been advised that the shares are not being registered under the Securities Act ("Act") on the grounds that this transaction is exempt from registration under Section 4(2) of the Act, and the Sullivan's and the Sullivan Trusts will not sell or otherwise transfer the Common Stock in the absence of an effective registration statement under the Act, or an opinion of counsel satisfactory to the Company, that the transfer can be made without violating the registration provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder; (iii) each of the Sullivan Trusts is an "accredited investor" as defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D as promulgated under the Act; (iv) the Sullivan's and Sullivan Trusts understand the nature, scope and duration of the limitations in the Stock Purchase Agreements, and (v) the Sullivan's and Sullivan Trusts understand that a restrictive legend as to transferability will be placed upon the certificates for any of the shares of Common Stock received by the Sullivan's or Sullivan Trusts under the Stock Purchase Agreements and that stop transfer instructions will be given to the Company's transfer agent regarding such certificates.

3.     On or about December 18, 2000, the Company issued to Louis F. Centofanti, our Chairman and President, 64,000 shares ("Centofanti Shares") of Common Stock purchased at a purchase price of $1.5625 per share, the closing price of the Company's Common Stock on such date as quoted on the NASDAQ. The issuance of the Centofanti Shares was a private placement under Section4(2) of the Act and/or Rule 506 of Regulation D as promulgated under the Act. Dr. Centofanti represented that the shares being purchased are for his own account, for investment and not for distribution or resale to others, and he will not transfer or sell the securities being purchased unless they are registered under the Act or unless an exemption from registration is available.

-18-

The financial data included in this table has been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements. Financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997 and 1996 have been audited by BDO Seidman, LLP.

Statement of Operations Data:

-19-

(1)     As of December 31, 1997, the Company applied SFAS 128, the new standard of computing and presenting earnings per share. The adoption of SFAS 128 did not have a material effect on the Company's EPS presentation for prior years, since the effects of potential common shares are antidilutive.

(2)     Includes financial data of PFO, PFSG and PFMI as acquired during 1999 and accounted for using the purchase method of accounting from the date of acquisition, June 1, 1999.

(3)     Excludes revenues of Perma-Fix of Memphis, Inc., shown elsewhere as a discontinued operation.

(4)     Includes financial data of DSSI as acquired during 2000 and accounted for using the purchase method of accounting from the date of acquisition, August 31, 2000.

Certain statements contained within this "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" may be deemed "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (collectively, the "Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995"). See "Special Note regarding Forward-Looking Statements" contained in this report.

Management's discussion and analysis is based, among other things, upon our audited consolidated financial statements and includes the accounts of the Company and our wholly-owned subsidiaries, after elimination of all significant inter-company balances and transactions.

Results of Operations
The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included in Item 8 of this report.

The reporting of financial results and pertinent discussions are tailored to three reportable segments: Industrial Waste Management Services, Nuclear Waste Management Services and Consulting Engineering Services.

Below are the results of operations for our years ended December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998 (amounts in thousands, except for share amounts):

-20-

Summary - Years Ended December 31, 2000 and 1999
Consolidated revenues increased $12,675,000 or 27.3% for continuing operations for the year ended December 31, 2000, compared to the year ended December 31, 1999. This increase is principally attributable to a full year of additional revenues resulting from the acquisition of PFO, PFSG and PFMI, effective June 1, 1999, which in the aggregate contributed approximately $9,641,000 of the increase and the additional revenues resulting from the acquisition of DSSI, effective August 31, 2000, which contributed approximately $3,046,000 of the increase. The remaining decrease in revenues reflects the reduction in engineering due to the consolidation of the Mintech and SYA operations during 2000 and the reduction of services out of our New Mexico service center, partially offset by the M&EC mixed waste subcontract work performed by PFI in Oak Ridge during the last six months of 2000.

Cost of goods sold increased $9,639,000, or 30.8% for the year ended December 31, 2000, compared to the year ended December 31, 1999. This increase in cost of goods sold reflects principally the increased operating disposal and transportation costs corresponding to the increased revenues from the June 1, 1999, acquisition of PFO, PFSG and PFMI, and the August 31, 2000 acquisition of DSSI. The acquired facilities contributed additional cost of goods sold totaling approximately $7,590,000 and $1,224,000, respectively. The remaining increases in cost of goods sold reflect internal growth within the waste management segments, included therein is an increase of $1,889,000 for PFI in relation to the increased revenues due to work PFI performed for M&EC. These increases are partially offset by decreases in cost of goods sold for SYA due to the engineering consolidation and for PFNM due to the reduction in services of that facility, as discussed above.

Gross profit for the year ended December 31, 2000, increased to $18,229,000, which as a percentage of revenue is 30.8%, reflecting a slight decrease over the 1999 percent of revenue of 32.7%. This decrease in the gross profit percentage principally reflects increased transportation and disposal costs at certain facilities, and the negative impact from increased costs within the Nuclear Waste Management Services segment resulting from this transitional year impacted by the new permit, license, construction and expanded operations.

Selling, general and administrative expenses increased $2,466,000 or 23.9% for the year ended December 31, 2000, as compared to the corresponding period for 1999. As a percentage of revenue, selling, general and administrative expenses decreased to 21.6% for the year ended December 31, 2000,

-21-

compared to 22.2% for the same period of 1999. The increase in selling, general and administrative expense is principally due to the acquisition of PFO, PFSG and PFMI, which reflects additional expense of $2,381,000 for these facilities, as compared to the year ended December 31, 1999. The remaining increases to selling, general and administrative expenses were related to the acquisition of DSSI and increases from existing operations which were principally offset by decreases in selling, general and administrative expenses in our engineering services at SYA due to consolidation and the reduction in services at our New Mexico facility.

Depreciation and amortization expense, including amortization of intangibles, for the year ended December 31, 2000, reflects an increase of approximately $873,000 or 31.4%, as compared to the year ended December 31, 1999. This increase is principally a result of additional depreciation and amortization of $556,000 from the 1999 acquisition of PFO, PFSG and PFMI, and of $245,000 from the acquisition of DSSI in August 2000. The remaining increase is in direct relation to additional capital expenditures from existing operations. Depreciation expense for the year ended December 31, 2000, was $2,702,000 which included $826,000 and $155,000 for the acquisitions in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Amortization expense for the year ended December 31, 2000, was $948,000 which included $396,000 and $90,000 for the acquisitions in 1999 and 2000, respectively.

Interest expense increased approximately $1,482,000 for the year ended December 31, 2000, as compared to the corresponding period of 1999. This increase is principally due to additional borrowing levels maintained pursuant to facility expansions and acquisition efforts which totaled $1,055,000. Interim financing obtained pursuant to acquisition efforts contributed $59,000 to the increase. Additional interest expense in conjunction with the DSSI acquisition financing for the period from August 31, 2000 through December 31, 2000, totaled $270,000. Additionally, a portion of the increase reflects the twelve-month impact on 2000, compared to the seven-month impact on 1999, of the PFO, PFSG and PFMI debt assumption and acquisition financing, which totals approximately $98,000.

Interest expense-Warrants for the year ended December 31, 2000, was $344,000. This expense reflects the Black-Scholes pricing valuation for certain Warrants issued to RBB Bank pursuant to the $3,000,000 Unsecured Promissory Note and the $750,000 Unsecured Promissory Note. The notes require that certain Warrants be issued upon the initial execution of the note and at monthly intervals if the debt obligations to RBB have not been repaid in full. As of December 31, 2000, the Company has issued 705,000 Warrants to RBB resulting in the above noted expense. See Note 6 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements regarding the debt.

Interest expense-financing fees increased approximately $114,000 for the year ended December 31, 2000, as compared to the corresponding period of 1999. This increase is principally due to the write-off of unamortized financing fees from the Congress Revolver and Term Loan of approximately $83,000, and an early termination fee of $40,000 paid to Congress for the early termination of the Congress Revolver and Term loan, partially offset by $9,000 reduction in other financing fees. See Note 6 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements regarding the debt.

See Note 9 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a reconciliation between the expected tax benefit and the provision for income taxes as reported.

Preferred Stock dividends decreased approximately $102,000, for the year ended December 31, 2000, as compared to the year ended December 31, 1999. This decrease is principally due to the conversion of $350,000 (350 preferred shares) of the Preferred Stock into Common Stock in February and March of 2000. See Note 5 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements regarding the issuance of Preferred Stock.

-22-

Summary -- Years Ended December 31, 1999 and 1998
Consolidated net revenues increased $15,913,000, or 52.1% for continuing operations for the year ended December 31, 1999, compared to the year ended December 31, 1998. This increase is principally attributable to the additional revenues resulting from the acquisition of PFO, PFSG and PFMI, effective June 1, 1999, which in the aggregate contributed approximately $15,605,000 of this increase. The remaining revenue increase reflects internal growth within both the waste management and engineering segments.

Cost of goods sold increased $10,207,000, or 48.5% for the year ended December 31, 1999, compared to the year ended December 31, 1998. This increase in cost of goods sold reflects principally the increased operating, disposal, and transportation costs corresponding to the increased revenues from the acquisition of PFO, PFSG and PFMI as discussed above. The acquired facilities contributed cost of goods sold totaling approximately $10,471,000, which was partially offset by a cost of goods sold reduction of $264,000 from existing operations, even though such existing operations had achieved increased revenues of $308,000.

Gross profit for the year ended December 31, 1999, increased to $15,193,000, which as a percentage of revenue is 32.7%, reflecting an improvement over the 1998 percentage of revenue of 31.1%. This continued improvement in gross profit as a percentage of revenue is a result of our ongoing cost reduction efforts and the initial benefits and efficiencies gained from the acquisitions in 1999.

Selling, general and administrative expenses increased $3,452,000 or 50.4% for the year ended December 31, 1999, as compared to 1998. As a percentage of revenue, selling, general and administrative expenses however decreased to 22.2% for the year ended December 31, 1999, compared to 22.4% for the same period of 1998. This increase in selling, general and administrative expense is principally due to the acquisition of PFO, PFSG and PFMI, which reflects expense of $2,531,000 directly related to and charged against these facilities. We continue to focus our efforts on the research and development of new markets, products and technologies which are expensed as incurred. However, we did demonstrate in 1999 the benefit of spreading the fixed overhead over a larger company, as reflected in the improvement in expense as a percentage of revenue.

Depreciation and amortization expense for the year ended December 31, 1999, reflects an increase of approximately $669,000 or 31.7% as compared to the year ended December 31, 1998. This increase is principally a result of the acquisition of PFO, PFSG and PFMI in 1999, which resulted in an increase in depreciation and amortization of $666,000 from the date of acquisition, June 1, 1999. Depreciation expense for the year ended December 31, 1999, was $2,102,000 which included $435,000 for the above discussed acquired facilities and amortization expense for the year ended December 31, 1999, was $676,000, which included $231,000 for the above discussed acquired facilities.

Interest expense increased approximately $356,000 for the year ended December 31, 1999, as compared to the corresponding period of 1998. This increase principally reflects the impact of the acquisition of PFO, PFSG and PFMI effective June 1, 1999. The existing debt as assumed in conjunction with the acquisition resulted in $43,000 of additional interest. The additional interest resulting from the three promissory notes which comprised $4,700,000 of the purchase prices totaled approximately $125,000. The remaining increase in interest expense is a direct result of the increased borrowing levels on the Congress Financial Corporation revolving and term loan incurred at the point of acquisition to (i) fund the cash portion of the purchase price ($1,000,000), (ii) fund certain settlement payments ($1,616,000), (iii) fund certain debt repayments required at closing ($2,011,000) and (iv) fund certain other closing and acquisition related costs.

See Note 9 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a reconciliation between the expected tax benefit and the provision for income taxes as reported.

-23-

The Preferred Stock dividends include the dividends recognized upon the issuance of new series' of Preferred Stock due to the beneficial conversion feature and dividends paid on a semiannual basis on outstanding Preferred Stock, which on a combined basis decreased approximately $852,000, for the year ended December 31, 1999, as compared to the year ended December 31, 1998. Pursuant to EITF 98-5 and D-42, we recorded a dividend of approximately $750,000 related to the fiscal 1998 sales of certain series of Convertible Preferred Stock. However, Preferred Stock dividends paid during 1998 were approximately $410,000 as compared to approximately $308,000 during 1999. This decrease of approximately $102,000 is due to the conversion of $4,563,000 (4,563 preferred shares) of the Preferred Stock into Common Stock on April 20, 1999, and the redemption of $750,000 (750 preferred shares) of the Preferred Stock on July 15, 1999. See Note 6 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements regarding the issuance of Preferred Stock.

As noted above, pursuant to the terms of the Series 12 Preferred Stock and Series 13 Preferred Stock, we redeemed 300 shares or $300,000 and 450 shares or $450,000 respectively, of the Preferred Stock on July 15, 1999. The redemption was done at the Preferred Stock's original face value and resulted in a gain on Preferred Stock redemption of $188,000. See Note 6 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements regarding the Preferred Stock.

Liquidity and Capital Resources of the Company
At December 31, 2000, we had cash and cash equivalents of $498,000. This cash and cash equivalents total reflects a decrease of $318,000 from December 31, 1999, as a result of net cash provided by continuing operations of $152,000, offset by cash used by discontinued operation of $379,000, cash used in investing activities of $5,148,000 (principally purchases of equipment, net totaling $3,170,000, cash used for acquisition consideration and settlements totaling $2,500,000 partially offset by the proceeds from the sale of property and equipment of $227,000 and the change or decrease in restricted cash of $295,000) and cash provided by financing activities of $5,057,000.

Accounts Receivable, net of allowances for continuing operations, totaled $16,193,000, an increase of $3,166,000 over the December 31, 1999, balance of $13,027,000. This increase reflects the impact of the acquisition of DSSI effective August 31, 2000, which had a year end accounts receivable balance of $1,410,000. The accounts receivable balance for PFI increased to $2,671,000, which was a $2,657,000 increase over prior year. This increase was due to subcontract activities being performed for East Tennessee Materials and Energy Corporation ("M&EC"). This project is for the design and construction of processing equipment for M&EC as related to the Broad Spectrum contracts held by M&EC. After taking these factors into consideration, the remaining accounts receivable balance reflected a decrease of $901,000 which was mainly due to the consolidation and reduction of the Consulting Engineering Services segment, the reduction in services of the PFNM field office, and the reduction for PFF due to reduced revenue levels associated with reconstruction of this facility.

On December 22, 2000, we entered into a Revolving Credit, Term Loan and Security Agreement ("Agreement") with PNC Bank, National Association, a national banking association ("PNC") acting as agent ("Agent") for lenders, and as issuing bank. The Agreement provides for a term loan in the amount of $7,000,000, which requires principal repayments based upon a seven-year amortization, payable over five years, with monthly principal installments of $83,000 and the remaining unpaid principal balance due on December 22, 2005. Payments commenced on February 1, 2001. The Agreement also provided for a revolving line of credit ("Revolving Credit") with a maximum principal amount outstanding at any one time of $15,000,000. The revolving credit advances are subject to limitations of an amount up to the sum of a) up to 85% of Commercial Receivables aged 90 days or less from invoice date, b) up to 85% of Commercial Broker Receivables aged up to 120 days from invoice date, c) up to 85% of acceptable Government Agency Receivables aged up to 150 days from invoice date, and d) up to 50% of acceptable unbilled amounts aged up to 60 days, less e) reserves Agent reasonably deems proper and necessary. The Revolving Credit advances shall be due and payable in full on December 22, 2005. The Company incurred

-24-

approximately $1,779,000 in financing fees relative to the solicitation and closing of this Agreement which are being amortized over the term of the Agreement. Included in such financing fees are (i) PNC Bank commitment fee of $220,000, (ii) investment banking fees of $429,000, (iii) investment banking Warrants valued at $654,000 (non-cash), (iv) legal fees of approximately $221,000 and (v) appraisals, valuations and other closing related expenses of approximately $255,000. The Agreement also contains certain management and credit limit fees payable throughout the term. Our revolving and term loans are secured by our accounts receivable, inventory and certain other assets.

Pursuant to the Agreement, the term loan and revolving credit both bear interest at a floating rate equal to the prime rate plus 1 1/2% and 1%, respectively. The loans also contain certain closing, management and unused line fees payable throughout the term. The loans are subject to a 1.5% prepayment fee in the first year, 1.00% in the second and .75% in the third year of the Agreement dated December 22, 2000. As of December 31, 2000, our availability under our revolving credit facility was $2,330,000 based on our eligible receivables.

The proceeds of the Agreement were utilized to repay in full on December 22, 2000 the outstanding balance of the Congress revolver and term loan, and to repay in full the guaranteed promissory note to Waste Management Holding, dated August 31, 2000 in the principal amount of $2,500,000, issued as part of the purchase price of DSSI. The balance of the Congress revolving loan on December 22, 2000, as repaid pursuant to the PNC Agreement was $5,491,000. Subsequent to closing additional funds were deposited in the Congress revolver and forwarded to PNC in January 2001. The balance of the Congress term loan on December 22, 2000 as paid pursuant to the PNC Agreement was $2,266,000.

Pursuant to the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreements in connection with the acquisition of PFO, PFSG and PFMI in 1999, a portion of the consideration was paid in the form of the Promissory Notes, in the aggregate amount of $4,700,000 payable to the former owners of PFO, PFSG and PFMI. The Promissory Notes are paid in equal monthly installments of principal and interest of approximately $90,000 over five years with the first installment due on July 1, 1999, and having an interest rate of 5.5% for the first three years and 7% for the remaining two years. The aggregate outstanding balance of the Promissory Notes total $3,413,000 at December 31, 2000, of which $919,000 is in the current portion. Payment of such Promissory Notes are guaranteed by PFMI under a non-recourse guaranty, which non-recourse guaranty is secured by certain real estate owned by PFMI. See Note 6 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of the above referenced acquisition.

On July 14, 2000, the Company entered into a letter agreement ("$750,000 RBB Loan Agreement") with RBB Bank Aktiengesellschaft ("RBB Bank"), pursuant to which RBB Bank, acting as agent for certain investors who provided the funds, loaned (the "$750,000 RBB Loan") to us, on an unsecured basis, the aggregate principal amount of $750,000, as evidenced by an unsecured promissory note (the "$750,000 RBB Promissory Note") in the face amount of $750,000, bearing an annual interest rate of 10.0% per annum. The purpose of the $750,000 RBB Loan is to provide interim financing to facilitate the acquisition of DSSI and M&EC (see Note 4 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements) and to fund certain capital expansions at the Company's existing facilities. The principal amount of this $750,000 RBB Promissory Note and accrued interest thereon is payable in full on July 1, 2001.

On August 29, 2000, the Company entered into a short term bridge loan agreement with RBB Bank in connection with the Company's acquisition of DSSI. Under the loan agreement (the "$3,000,000 RBB Loan Agreement") RBB Bank, acting as agent for certain investors who provided the funds, loaned (the "$3,000,000 RBB Loan") to us the aggregate principal amount of $3,000,000, having a maturity date of July 1, 2001, and bearing an annual interest rate of 12%.

In connection with our new credit facilities with our senior lender, we agreed not to pay any principal or interest on the $3,750,000 in loans made by RBB until July 1, 2001, and RBB Bank agreed that prior to

-25-

July 1, 2003, it will not take any action or initiate any proceedings to enforce its rights or remedies with respect to any of the $3,750,000 in loans made by RBB Bank to us.

On January 31, 2001, the Company entered into a definitive loan agreement (the "Loan Agreement"), with BHC Interim Funding, L.P. ("BHC"). Pursuant to the terms of the Loan Agreement, BHC agreed to loan to the Company the principal amount of $6 million (the "BHC Loan"), with $3.5 million of the BHC Loan being funded at the closing of the BHC Loan on February 2, 2001, and an additional $2.5 million funded in March 2001. The outstanding principal amount of the BHC Loan is payable on March 31, 2002, with interest payable monthly on the outstanding principal balance of the BHC Loan at the annual rate of $13.75%. The proceeds from the BHC Loan will be used for the Company's working capital purposes and to pay certain obligations relating to the Company's contract agreement with M&EC to construct M&EC's facility. The BHC Loan is a subordinated loan and is secured by our accounts receivable, inventory, general intangibles, equipment, intellectual property, and other certain other assets subject to liens granted to our senior lender. See Note 15 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

As of December 31, 2000, total consolidated accounts payable for continuing operations was $7,763,000, an increase of $176,000 from December 31, 1999, balance of $7,587,000. This increase is due to the acquisition of DSSI which had a December 31, 2000, account payable balance of $414,000 and an increase in the accounts payable of PFI of $1,452,000 due to the costs associated with contract activities with M&EC for the design and construction of a processing area and processing equipment. These increases are partially offset by decreases in the accounts payable of $1,690,000 throughout the remaining operations, which resulted from increased borrowing capacity in conjunction with the new PNC Loan Agreement.

Our net purchases of new capital equipment for continuing operations for the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2000, totaled approximately $3,812,000. These expenditures were for expansion and improvements to the operations principally within the waste management industry segment. These capital expenditures were principally funded by the cash provided by continuing operations and $642,000 through various other lease financing sources. We have budgeted capital expenditures of approximately $4,000,000 for 2001, which includes completion of certain current projects, as well as other identified capital and permit compliance purchases. We anticipate funding these capital expenditures by a combination of lease financing with lenders other than the equipment financing arrangement discussed above, internally generated funds, and/or the proceeds received from a private placement of equity securities as discussed below, if this private placement is completed and the funds raised exceed the amount necessary to complete the M&EC acquisition and repayment of certain short-term indebtedness.

The Company has outstanding 4,187 shares of Preferred Stock, with each share having a liquidation preference of $1,000 ("Liquidation Value"). Annual dividends on the Preferred Stock ranges from 4% to 6% of the Liquidation Value, depending upon the Series. Dividends on the Preferred Stock are cumulative, and are payable, if and when declared by the Company's Board of Directors, on a semiannual basis. Dividends on the outstanding Preferred Stock may be paid at the option of the Company, if declared by the Board of Directors, in cash or in the shares of the Company's Common Stock as described under Note 5 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Under the terms of the Company's loan agreement, the Company may not pay these dividends in cash without the lender's prior consent.

The Company is currently negotiating with the holder of the outstanding Preferred Stock, which may include, among other things, the conversion of a certain number of the outstanding Preferred Stock and the exchange of the remaining Preferred Stock for a new series of Preferred Stock. The terms and conditions of the new series of Preferred Stock are not yet determined and are subject to negotiations with the holder. However there are no assurances that we will be able to finalize the negotiations.

-26-

The working capital deficit position at December 31, 2000, was $2,829,000, as compared to a working capital deficit of $1,400,000 at December 31, 1999. The increase in this deficit position of $1,429,000 is principally a result of two short term promissory notes entered into during July and August of 2000. Pursuant to the closing of the DSSI acquisition and for certain working capital purposes, the Company entered into a short term Unsecured Promissory Note in the amount of $750,000 with RBB Bank due on July 1, 2001, and short term Unsecured Promissory Note in the amount of $3,000,000 with RBB Bank due on July 1, 2001. The proceeds from these debt obligations were utilized to fund a portion of the purchase price of the DSSI acquisition and for certain capital expenditures, with the intent of such short term debt being replaced during 2001 with permanent financing. As a result, both debt obligations were classified as a current obligation and negatively impacted our working capital position. The Company also experienced an increase in other long term debt and accrued expenses associated with the expansion of the PFF mixed waste processing facility, certain other capital projects and the increased accounts payable and accrued expenses which in part are associated with our contract agreement with M&EC, for the design and construction of the Oak Ridge mixed waste facility. These increased current liabilities were partially offset by increases in both accounts receivable and notes receivable, a portion of which is also associated with the M&EC construction project.

On August 31, 2000, the Company purchased all of the outstanding capital stock of Diversified Scientific Services, Inc. ("DSSI") and paid $8,500,000, as follows: (i) $2,500,000 in cash at closing, (ii) a guaranteed promissory note (the "Guaranteed Note"), guaranteed by DSSI, with the DSSI guarantee secured by certain assets of DSSI (except for accounts receivable, general intangibles, contract rights, cash, real property and proceeds thereof), executed by the Company in favor of Waste Management Holdings in the aggregate principal amount of $2,500,000 and bearing interest at a rate equal to the prime rate charged on August 30, 2000, as published in the Wall Street Journal plus 1.75% per annum and having a term of the lesser of 120 days from August 31, 2000, or the business day that the Company acquires any entity or substantially all of the assets of an entity (the "Guaranteed Note Maturity Date"), with interest and principal due in a lump sum at the end of the Guaranteed Note Maturity Date, and (iii) an unsecured promissory note (the "Unsecured Promissory Note"), executed by the Company in favor of Waste Management Holdings in the aggregate principal amount of $3,500,000, and bearing interest at a rate of 7% per annum and having a five-year term with interest to be paid annually and principal due at the end of the term of the Unsecured Promissory Note. The $2.5 million guaranteed promissory note was paid in December 2000, using proceeds received under our new senior credit facility

The cash portion of the purchase price for DSSI was obtained pursuant to the terms of a short term bridge loan agreement (the "$3,000,000 RBB Loan Agreement") with RBB Bank Aktiengesellschaft, a bank organized under the laws of Austria ("RBB Bank"), whereby RBB Bank loaned (the "$3,000,000 RBB Loan") the Company the aggregate principal amount of $3,000,000, as evidenced by a Promissory Note (the "$3,000,000 RBB Promissory Note") in the face amount of $3,000,000, having a maturity date of July 1, 2001, and bearing an annual interest rate of 12%.

On June 1, 1999, the Company purchased all of the outstanding stock of PFO, PFSG and PFMI and paid $8.7 million, as follows: (i) $1 million in cash, (ii) five (5) year promissory notes totaling the original principal amount of $4.7 million, bearing an annual rate of interest of 5.5% for the first three years and 7% for the last two years, with principal and accrued interest payable in monthly installments of approximately $90,000 each, and (iii) $3 million payable in the form of 1.5 million shares of the Company's Common Stock based on each share having an agreed value of $2.00. If the average of the closing price of the Company's Common Stock as quoted on the NASDAQ for the five (5) trading days immediately preceding the date eighteen (18) months after June 1, 1999 ("Valuation Date") is less than $2.00 per share, the Company is to pay in cash or Common Stock or a combination thereof, at the Company's option, the difference between $3 million and the value of the 1.5 million shares of Common Stock based on the five (5) trading day average as quoted on the NASDAQ immediately preceding the Valuation Date. Under the Company's loan agreement, the Company may pay such amount, if any, only in Common Stock unless the lender agrees that the

-27-

Company may satisfy such in whole or in part in cash. However, the Company is not to issue in connection with the acquisition of PFO, PFSG and PFMI more than 18% of the outstanding shares of Common Stock at the closing of the acquisition of PFO, PFSG and PFMI. In December 2000, 55,904 shares of Common Stock were issued pursuant to the guarantee with the average price for the five days proceeding the end of the valuation date (11/24, 11/27, 11/28, 11/29 and 11/30) being $1.93.

During 2000, accrued dividends for the period July 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999, in the amount of approximately $110,000 were paid in February 2000, in the form of 95,581 shares of Common Stock. Dividends for the period January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2000, of approximately $101,000 were paid in the form of 70,984 shares of Common Stock. The accrued dividends for the period July 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000, in the amount of approximately $102,000 were paid in March 2001, in the form of 74,038 shares of Common Stock. Under the Company's loan agreement, the Company is required to pay any dividends declared by the Company's Board of Directors on its outstanding shares of Preferred Stock in Common Stock of the Company.

During the first quarter of 2001, we entered into a stock purchase agreement to acquire M&EC, subject to certain conditions being met. Under the terms of the stock purchase agreement, we will own 100% of the then issued and outstanding shares of M&EC common stock upon completion of the acquisition. If the acquisition is completed, the purchase price to be paid by us will be approximately $2.4 million, payable by the issuance of approximately 1.6 million shares of our Common Stock, and M&EC will issue a new series of unconvertible and non-voting Series B Preferred Stock with a stated value of approximately $1.5 million.

Under the terms of the stock purchase agreement, at the closing of the M&EC acquisition, M&EC liabilities are not to exceed $8,365,000 (excluding amounts owed by M&EC to us), of which approximately $500,000 may be extinguished in the form of Common Stock. In addition, at the closing, we will be paying up to approximately $1.8 million due to the 401(k)'s of M&EC and its affiliate, Performance Development Corporation ("PDC"). We are not acquiring PDC. In addition, the IRS will have entered into a settlement agreement with M&EC as to approximately $1.1 million in withholding taxes due to the IRS, with this amount paid in installments over a 9-year period, with such unpaid balance bearing interest at the statutory rate. The stock purchase agreement also provides, as a condition to closing that PDC shall have entered into a settlement agreement with the IRS to pay approximately $4,400,000 in withholding taxes due to the IRS, which amount had been loaned to M&EC in lieu of being paid to the IRS. PDC shall have 9 years to repay this amount, and, at the closing of the M&EC acquisition, M&EC will issue to PDC a promissory note for approximately $4,400,000, with terms corresponding to PDC's settlement agreement with the IRS.

If this acquisition is completed, we anticipate that M&EC will be able to pay its payables and liabilities incurred prior to the closing from operations, its cash flow and a revolving credit facility that we will arrange for M&EC as of the closing of the M&EC acquisition.

We further anticipate that we will fund the liabilities of M&EC which we will be required to pay at the closing of the M&EC acquisition from our existing revolving credit facility and proceeds received in the proposed equity private placement discussed below.

Closing of the M&EC acquisition is subject to numerous conditions being met, including, among other things:

-28-

As of March 20, 2001, we have loaned to M&EC or have advanced funds to construct M&EC's facility in a total amount of approximately $7.1 million. We have received notes in the amount of the loans and advances and have been granted a security interest in the assets of M&EC to secure payment of the loans and advances. However, if the acquisition of M&EC is not completed, M&EC may not have the funds, and the collateral may not be sufficient, to repay us the amount of the loans and advances, resulting in a material adverse effect to us and our financial condition.

We have retained intermediaries to assist us in the private placement of a certain number of shares of our Common Stock at a price per share not less than the market value of the stock prior to commencement of the offering. If this private placement is completed and depending on the number of shares sold in the private placement, we anticipate using the funds to complete the M&EC acquisition and to pay certain of M&EC liabilities which will be required to be paid at closing and the balance, if any, for our working capital and capital improvements. We do not know if we will be successful in completing this private placement. If we are not successful, we will not be able to close the M&EC acquisition.

In summary, we have continued to take steps to improve our operations and liquidity as discussed above. However, with the DSSI acquisition in 2000, we incurred and assumed certain debt obligations and long-term liabilities, which had a short term impact on liquidity. We anticipate continued improvement in the financial performance of the Company. If we are unable to continue to improve our operations, to become profitable and to successfully complete the private placement described above in the foreseeable future, such would have a material adverse effect on our liquidity position.

Discontinued Operations
On January 27, 1997, an explosion and resulting tank fire occurred at the PFM facility, a hazardous waste storage, processing and blending facility, which resulted in damage to certain hazardous waste storage tanks located on the facility and caused certain limited contamination at the facility. Such occurrence was caused by welding activity performed by employees of an independent contractor at or near the facility's hazardous waste tank farm contrary to instructions by PFM. The facility was non-operational from the date of this event until May 1997, at which time it began limited operations. During the remainder of 1997, PFM continued to accept waste for processing and disposal, but arranged for other facilities owned by us or our subsidiaries or others not affiliated with us to process such waste. The utilization of other facilities to process such waste resulted in higher costs to PFM than if PFM were able to store and process such waste at its Memphis, Tennessee, TSD facility, along with the additional handling and transportation costs associated with these activities. As a result of the significant disruption and the cost to rebuild and operate this segment, we made a strategic decision, in February 1998, to discontinue the fuel blending operations at PFM. The fuel blending operations represented the principal line of business for PFM prior to this event, which included a separate class of customers, and its discontinuance has required PFM to attempt to develop new markets and customers, through the utilization of the facility as a storage facility under its RCRA permit and as a transfer facility. Accordingly, during the fourth quarter of 1997, the Company recorded a loss on disposal of discontinued operations of $3,053,000, which included $1,272,000 for impairment of certain assets and $1,781,000 for the establishment of certain closure liabilities.

The operating expenses incurred during 2000 and 1999, totaling $173,000 and $677,000, respectively, relate to the closure and remedial activities performed, and have been recorded against the accrued environmental reserve. Also recorded to the closure cost reserve is interest expense of $306,000 during 1999 specifically identified to the PFM discontinued operations as a result of such operations incurring debt under the Company's revolving and term loan credit facility. During March of 1998, the Company received a settlement in the amount of $1,475,000 from its insurance carrier for the business interruption claim which is recorded as an insurance claim receivable at December 31, 1997. This settlement was recognized as a gain in 1997 and thereby reduced the net loss recorded for the discontinued PFM operations in 1997. Earlier in

-29-

 1997, PFM received approximately $522,000 (less its deductible of $25,000) in connection with its claim for loss of contents as a result of the fire and explosion which was utilized to replace certain assets and reimburse the Company for certain fire related expense.

The accrued environmental and closure costs related to PFM totals $788,000 as of December 31, 2000, a decrease of $386,000 from the December 31, 1999, accrual balance. This reduction was principally a result of the specific costs related to the decommissioning and closure of the fuel blending tank farm and related processing equipment ($71,000), final payment of PRP liability settlement ($76,000), general closure and remedial activities, including groundwater remediation, and agency and investigative activities, ($66,000), and the general operating losses, including indirect labor, materials and supplies, incurred in conjunction with the above actions ($173,000). The remaining liability represents the best estimate of the cost to complete the groundwater remediation at the site of approximately $630,000 (see Note 9 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements) and future operating losses to be incurred by PFM as it completes such closure and remedial activities over the next three (3) year period ($158,000). See Note 4 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion on PFM.

Environmental Contingencies
We are engaged in the waste management services segment of the pollution control industry. As a participant in the on-site treatment, storage and disposal market and the off-site treatment and services market, we are subject to rigorous federal, state and local regulations. These regulations mandate strict compliance and therefore are a cost and concern to us. Because of their integral role in providing quality environmental services, we make every reasonable attempt to maintain complete compliance with these regulations; however, even with a diligent commitment, we, along with many of our competitors, may be required to pay fines for violations or investigate and potentially remediate our waste management facilities.

We routinely use third party disposal companies, who ultimately destroy or secure landfill residual materials generated at our facilities or at a client's site. We, compared to certain of our competitors, dispose of significantly less hazardous or industrial by-products from our operations due to rendering material nonhazardous, discharging treated wastewaters to publicly-owned treatment works and/or processing wastes into saleable products. In the past, numerous third party disposal sites have improperly managed wastes and consequently require remedial action; consequently, any party utilizing these sites may be liable for some or all of the remedial costs. Despite our aggressive compliance and auditing procedures for disposal of wastes, we could, in the future, be notified that we are a PRP at a remedial action site, which could have a material adverse effect.

In addition to budgeted capital expenditures of $4,000,000 for 2001 at the TSD facilities, which are necessary to maintain permit compliance and improve operations, as discussed above under "BUSINESS -- Capital Spending, Certain Environmental Expenditures" and "Liquidity and Capital Resources of the Company" of this Management's Discussion and Analysis, we have also budgeted for 2001 an additional $1,230,000 in environmental expenditures to comply with federal, state and local regulations in connection with remediation of certain contaminates at four locations. As previously discussed under "Business -- Capital Spending, Certain Environmental Expenditures and Potential Environmental Liabilities," the four locations where these expenditures will be made are the Leased Property in Dayton, Ohio (EPS), a former RCRA storage facility as operated by the former owners of PFD, PFM's facility in Memphis, Tennessee, PFSG's facility in Valdosta, Georgia and PFMI's facility in Detroit, Michigan. We have estimated the expenditures for 2001 to be approximately $159,000 at the EPS site, $236,000 at the PFM location, $474,000 at the PFSG site and $361,000 at the PFMI site. Additional funds will be required for the next five to ten years to properly investigate and remediate these sites. We expect to fund these expenses to remediate these four sites from funds generated internally, however, no assurances can be made that we will be able to do so.

-30-

Interest Rate Swap
The Company entered into an interest rate swap agreement effective December 22, 2000, to modify the interest characteristics of its outstanding debt from a floating basis to a fixed rate, thus reducing the impact of interest rate changes on future income. This agreement involves the receipt of floating rate amounts in exchange for fixed rate interest payments over the life of the agreement without an exchange of the underlying principal amount. The differential to be paid or received will be accrued as interest rates change and recognized as an adjustment to interest expense related to the debt. The related amount payable to or receivable from counter parties will be included in other assets or liabilities.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In June 1998, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued SFAS 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities" ("SFAS 133"), as amended by SFAS 138, which is effective for all fiscal quarters of fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2000. SFAS 133 requires companies to recognize all derivative contracts as either assets or liabilities in the balance sheet and to measure them at fair value. If certain conditions are met, a derivative may specifically be designated as a hedge, the objective of which is to match the timing of gain or loss recognition of: i) the changes in the fair value of the hedged asset or liability that are attributable to the hedged risk; or ii) the earnings effect of the hedged transaction. For a derivative not designated as a hedging instrument, the gain or loss is recognized as income in the period of change. In December 2000, the Company entered into an interest rate swap agreement (see Note 6 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements). If the Company had adopted SFAS 133 as of December 31, 2000, a liability of approximately $48,000 would have been recorded representing the market value of the interest rate swap in an unfavorable value position.

In March 2000, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Interpretation No. 44 ("Fin 44"), Accounting for Certain Transactions Involving Stock Compensation, an interpretation of APB Opinion No. 25. FIN 44 clarifies the application of Opinion No. 25 for (a) the definition of employee for purposes of applying Opinion No. 25, (b) the criteria for determining whether a plan qualifies as a non-compensatory plan, (c) the accounting consequences of various modifications to the previously fixed stock option or award, and (d) the accounting for an exchange of stock compensation awards in a business combination. FIN 44 is effective July 2, 2000, but certain conclusions cover specific events that occur after either December 15, 1998, or January 12, 2000. The impact of FIN 44 did not have a material effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations.

In December 1999, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 101 ("SAB 101"), "Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements," SAB 101 summarizes certain of the SEC's views in applying generally accepted accounting principals to revenue recognition in financial statements. In October 2000, the SEC issued additional written guidelines to further supplement SAB 101. The adoption of this bulletin in the fourth quarter 2000 did not significantly impact the Company's financial statements.

-31-

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
Certain statements contained within this report may be deemed "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (collectively, the "Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995"). All statements in this report 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. The words "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "intend," "will," and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements contained herein relate to, among other things,